NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:54 pm**

"If it makes it to vote, we will support. It's kind of tiring to have to use legal loopholes to execute people when necessary." - Tom Stefan, Rep from Auze

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:02 am**

We are now Proposal-A-Go-Go, in lieu of any substantiative comments about the text of this draft.

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:11 am**

Auze wrote:"If it makes it to vote, we will support. It's kind of tiring to have to use legal loopholes to execute people when necessary." - Tom Stefan, Rep from Auze

“Would you mind explaining what loopholes? The previous legislation is going to be repealed, anyway.”

Posted: **Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:38 pm**

Tinhampton wrote:We are now Proposal-A-Go-Go, in lieu of any substantiative comments about the text of this draft.

"There was a man, once. And once upon a time, he said,

Some dude wrote:...This could be the recipe for an Orange Julius and as far as I am concerned I will support it...

"Mind you, I believe you'll have quite a bit more difficulty with the voters than that repeal did. But, y'know... sometimes you eat the b'ar and sometimes... well, sometimes he eats you."

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:34 am**

My apologies about not bringing this sooner—I was judging debate tournament this weekend and my knowledge of the proposal originally was a short skim of it with the note that repeal is unnecessary to achieve any of the goals that Tinhampton is actually calling for—but having read the proposal in depth to write an IFV, it seems to me that the claim about how executions must be performed is an honest mistake. The target does not require that something definitely does not cause pain; it requires that it beyond a reasonable doubt does not cause pain. Definitely and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' are very different standards of truth.

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:59 am**

This will be at vote between minor update today (i.e. about thirty seconds from now) and minor update on the 7th of February. In the event that this is discarded on the grounds that I was Honestly Mistaken - see above - I plan to submit an amended version of CoAUP within days.

AS OF 1659 GMT ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 72 out of 70 needed (Kaystein, Magnum Exitium, Bietzopolis, Sedgistan, Losconia, Marrabuk, Byrdonia, Mikeswill, Bran Astor, Zhopgrad, Solariia, Trillmore, Roylaii, Portals, Southern-Nordic States, Hinlyia, Cantanasia, Smiley Bob, Saint Arsenio, The dark sky sector, SFR Philippines, Superbunny, Vulkiya, Peacockastan, Jew Man, The United Peoples of Caedis, Skyrim And Nordic Peoples, OGANESUIM, Aqun-Athlok, Pavonesia, Koxor, Sachsen-Osterreich, FireFox15, Sylh Alanor, Karstia, South Krimelski, The Mauland, Spartakoi, The Liberal Fascist Union of Fronk, Purimgell Hawkwiteri, Bulindania, Ambaroplemokinolklaatopia, Soracana Islands, Gandoor, McMasterdonia, Hoshido and Nohr, New Confederation division 2, Pinicada, The Greater Low Countries, People of Phoenix, 1234ABCD1234, Tavaluda, Qudrath, Zombiedolphins, Zicona, Kvasheim, Chug Chug, Holleynaga, Shauntopia, Barra370804s communist country, Kawaii Invader Ichi, United Island States of Southeast Asia, Amblibahdesh, Lacmhacarh, Levitatia, Arrstotzka, GoodKingWenceslas, Foreignaid, Irish socialist soviet republics, Pig land, Democratic Peoples Republic of Guille, San Lumen)

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:06 am**

OOC: If a ban is officially a full ban, even if it is not a full ban in special circumstances, then beyond reasonable doubt means that barring special circumstances, which are ignored, it definitely does what it says it does. Because anything else would be unreasonable and is thus ignored out of existence.

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:12 am**

...Concerned at the mandate in Article 6 that, upon review, an execution can only be carried out with tools that definitely do not "cause pain or suffering," when in fact no apparatus on its own can painlessly end a sapient being's life...

"Euthanasia. Lethal injection. Bullet directly to brain. All of those, I believe, would fall under painless."

"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:18 am**

Superbunny wrote:"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."

"Unfortunately the title of any 'Repeal' proposal here is fixed by the title of the Resolution that it is trying to repeal..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:20 am**

Superbunny wrote:
...Concerned at the mandate in Article 6 that, upon review, an execution can only be carried out with tools that definitely do not "cause pain or suffering," when in fact no apparatus on its own can painlessly end a sapient being's life...

"Euthanasia. Lethal injection. Bullet directly to brain. All of those, I believe, would fall under painless."

"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."

Hell just kill use hypoxia from low pressure. It's so completely painless pilots have to be trained the recognize the symptoms.

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:25 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Superbunny wrote:"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."

"Unfortunately the title of any 'Repeal' proposal here is fixed by the title of the Resolution that it is trying to repeal..."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

"Thank you, Hwa. I am aware, which is even more unfortunate for this proposal."

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:14 pm**

Reasonable repeal but as has been mentioned the unfortunate nomenclature of the original resolution will make it impossible to pass as a cursory glance will make this repeal attempt seem a troll job. I've voted For because exporting capital punishment decisions to the WA is not something I agree with and makes an already unwieldy body even more so.

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:53 pm**

Voted FOR because I agree with the main thrust of the repeal argument: that GA#443 is a back-door ban on capital punishment in the guise of a "compromise."

Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."

Article 6 also requires that the manner of execution be "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering," which is an impossible standard. Since pain is "[a]n unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage" (source) it is difficult to fathom how you could kill someone without causing some pain, much less prove that doing so is possible "beyond any reasonable doubt."

And then there's the certification provision in Article 4:

[In capital cases, Member Nations must] submit for review, to the Division, all facts of the case and conclusions reached at trial, at which time the Division shall decide whether to certify that all burdens of proof are met, there has been due process, and all conclusions on evidence are justifiable. If certification is withheld, the Division may dismiss or remand the case

Whether it got there by accident or design, the terms of this provision are deeply concerning. The Division gets to "decide whether to certify" the case. There is no requirement that the Division certify a case if the overwhelming evidence shows that the burden of proof, due process, etc. have been met. Presumably, the Division could "decide" not to certify for political reasons, or for no reason at all. And, having withheld certification, the Division is empowered to outright dismiss a case; meaning that a WA agency could conceivably set a murderer free for little or no reason, without recourse by the aggrieved state. It's an appalling affront to even reasonable degrees of national sovereignty.

I do not believe in capital punishment, but GA#443 is a sneaky way to outlaw it without really gathering consensus on the issue. Some may applaud such tactics but not me, and not on an issue like this.

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:24 pm**

"*Sigh*, looks like we'll never get this law off the books."

Posted: **Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:22 pm**

I've been arguing in my region for this resolution, but I wasn't able to change any minds. If CoAUP can be submitted without first needing this to be repealed, I think that's a good thing, since the ultimate goal is to ban capital punishment.

Posted: **Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:11 am**

The Great Leader of Spartazka supports repealing this resolution but does not support a replacement resolution banning capital punishment. All citizens of the world should be subject to the potential of execution, innocent or guilty. This prevents any sort of rebellion or dissent from the governments ideals, legally or illegally. This is important to national sovereignty, and the World Assembly pushes the boundaries of its power much too far already.

Spartazka hereby supports repealing without replacement.

Posted: **Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:21 am**

The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."

"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."

Posted: **Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:14 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."

"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."

Really?

So every crime involving a perpetrator and a victim falls under this? That can't be right as it would render this language of the resolution completely pointless, because immediately preceding it the law already said you can't use capital punishment "as punishment for any non-violent crime" and by definition a violent crime requires a perpetrator and a victim.

Subject to just a bit of critical analysis, this interpretation is unreasonable and unpersuasive.

Posted: **Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:16 am**

The Yellow Monkey wrote:
Araraukar wrote:"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."

Really?

So every crime involving a perpetrator and a victim falls under this? That can't be right as it would render this language of the resolution completely pointless, because immediately preceding it the law already said you can't use capital punishment "as punishment for any non-violent crime" and by definition a violent crime requires a perpetrator and a victim.

Subject to just a bit of critical analysis, this interpretation is unreasonable and unpersuasive.

“That is what we call ‘creative compliance’, or ‘malicious compliance’ from a more partisan standpoint. Though unreasonable and occasionally very silly, it is a vital tool for governments to put their spin on GA legislation.”

Posted: **Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:18 am**

Kenmoria wrote:“That is what we call ‘creative compliance’, or ‘malicious compliance’ from a more partisan standpoint. Though unreasonable and occasionally very silly, it is a vital tool for governments to put their spin on GA legislation.”

Sounds like bull shit to me.

Edit: I take it, then, that Ara is merely pointing out that nations will go to absurd lengths to avoid some of the less-reasonable provisions in GA #443.

Posted: **Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:20 pm**

“Innocents.” The Most Serene Republic considers the definition of such a subjective consideration to be nebulous. We therefore vote Aye from the repeal.

Posted: **Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:27 am**

Araraukar wrote:
The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."

"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."

I would argue that the victims family, friends, employers, employees, and community would all be victimized by a murder. Even if the Vic was a “Doe” the state would incur fiscal burdens of criminal investigation and burial in a pauper’s grave, which is charged to the citizens via taxation.

Posted: **Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:08 pm**

We have waited for over a year for this crucial vote to repeal P. Innocents, and we have opted to remain in the World Assembly until then. If this repeal falls through, which appears very likely to be the case, or the repeal passes but replacement legislation barring capital punishment is subsequently enacted, New Bremerton will commence preparations toward a Clean-Break New Brexit from the World Assembly. We will take back control after more than a year of submitting ourselves to the dictates of a bloated, supranational entity and its small coterie of out-of-touch, elite bureaucrats more concerned about their chateaus in the Swiss Alps than the livelihoods of ordinary people. Once we are out, we will be free to reclaim our hallowed right to determine our destiny and reassert our greatness as an independent, sovereign nation and the world's foremost superpower once again. New Bremerton will reinstate the death penalty on paper and in practice, and nothing shall stand in our way. We will get New Brexit done, come what may, do or die.

Regards,

Prime Minister John Wilson Bremer
The Holy Republic of New Bremerton

OOC: I've always wanted to say that. This was obviously inspired by Brexit and the first three letters of the second word of my nation's name. I'm going to miss endorsing and being endorsed by nations in TNP. Maybe I'll stick around just a little longer so I can commend Riakou for Thanos-snapping half the CCD out of existence. Brexit didn't happen overnight you know.

Posted: **Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:45 pm**

The Yellow Monkey wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“That is what we call ‘creative compliance’, or ‘malicious compliance’ from a more partisan standpoint. Though unreasonable and occasionally very silly, it is a vital tool for governments to put their spin on GA legislation.”

Sounds like bull shit to me.

Edit: I take it, then, that Ara is merely pointing out that nations will go to absurd lengths to avoid some of the less-reasonable provisions in GA #443.

OOC: From my characters' point of view, anything that's unreasonable (from their POV), will get creatively complied with, if there's a way to do it. Araraukar is in IC an insular and xenophobic police state of a dictatorship ruled in practice by massive amounts of bureaucracy. To any law-abiding citizen it's basically a utopia, though, and its laws are perfectly reasonable (even in my RL POV), so they don't want some supranational organization telling them to do things in X way, when they have a perfectly functional way Y that works just fine.

Proper creative compliance is doing what the letter of law says, not whatever was intended in spirit. That's why the saying "the resolution does what the resolution says it does" exists. In this case, it's not my fault that the wording is what it is, but of course I'm going to take advantage of it - or my IC peeps are, anyway. It's not bullshit when it's literally there in the resolution text, plain for everyone to see.

Liberimery wrote:
Araraukar wrote:"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."

I would argue that the victims family, friends, employers, employees, and community would all be victimized by a murder. Even if the Vic was a “Doe” the state would incur fiscal burdens of criminal investigation and burial in a pauper’s grave, which is charged to the citizens via taxation.

IC: "Nothing is stopping you from adding other people to the list who are always affected, but given that the target resolution only concerns people who have been caught and found guilty of murder, they are by necessity also affected by it, in addition to the victim."

Posted: **Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:06 am**

"Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" was annihilated 12,719 votes to 2,808.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#443 "P. Innocents"