[PERMA-ABANDONED - SEE GA#535/545 etc.] CoAUP

[Tinhampton]

TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
soon(TM)

---

Character count: 1,497
Word count: 233

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: So... yes. This is now a thing, I have been reliably informed. I have now received Mayoral blessing to go ahead with the following Convention, on her insistence that this is only submitted after the repeal of Resolution 443, which we are currently attempting to attempt. Yes, Article b is deliberate.

OOC bigprint: To be submitted between my proposed repeals of GA#500 and GA#443.
OOC smolprint: Articles a(iv-v) previously prohibited members from "repatriating a person that could be subjected to capital punishment - unless they are suspected of a war crime, crime against humanity, or crime against peace - back to a state that permits it, and repatriating any person back to a state that is known to carry out capital punishment using methods that impose more suffering than is needed on those sentenced to death." Since this is now intended to be submitted before repealing GA#443, it has been replaced with a new Article a(iv) that simply forbids "repatriating a person that could be subjected to capital punishment back to a state that permits it."

CoAUP
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Convention on Abolishing All Forms of Unfair Punishment

Resolved to uphold its unwavering opposition to the death penalty and other torturous punishment, the World Assembly hereby:

1. prohibits itself, all of its institutions, all member states (including political subdivisions thereof), and all those acting on their behalf from:
   
   1. killing any person as punishment, henceforth "capital punishment," or sentencing any person to death,
   2. invoking "karmic retribution" (or similar) as an excuse to avoid enforcing the provisions of this resolution,
   3. sentencing a person below the age of majority to life imprisonment without parole as punishment for any crime, and
   4. repatriating a person that could be subjected to capital punishment back to a state that permits it, and
2. requires member states to:
   
   1. legislate to prohibit the use of "reasonable punishment" as an excuse by any person to defend the delivery of physical harm to any other person, including those acting in loco parentis in an educational setting,
   2. promote positive, non-violent means of raising up those below the age of majority, and
   3. ensure that any physical attack (or threats thereof) by one of their nationals on a person working for the World Assembly that is in their member state at that moment are treated and - if necessary - prosecuted as if that national carried out such an attack on another person under their jurisdiction in such circumstances.

CHANGELOG:

Draft 1:

1. 21-Jan-2020, original resolution.
   
2. 22-Jan-2020, replaced wording "as punishment for a crime, henceforth "capital punishment"" with "as punishment, henceforth "capital punishment," or sentencing any person to death" in Article a. Added the text "and all those acting on their behalf" to the prefatory list of those prohibited from carrying out that which is banned in this proposal.
Draft 2:

1. 24-Jan-2020, added Article 5b (so that Articles 5b/5c previously are now Articles 5c/5d). Split Articles 5d(i) and 5d(ii) into Article 5d and 2e Replaced semi-colons with commas. Added Article 1, which clarified the definition of a member state to avoid repetition. Cheekily snuck in Articles 2-4, which criminalise harassment. Also added Article 6, which prohibits corporal punishment; requires members to promote positive, non-violent child-rearing; and requires punishment for physical assault on WA workers to be at least as severe as normal (deliberately loopholey in case GA#2 is repealed and WA Peacekeepers are introduced in future).
Draft 3:

1. 25-Jan-2020, removed Articles 1-4 (with Articles 2-4 being largely cut off into their own proposal, Against Harassment). Turned clauses back into a,b,c,d... style.
2. 29-Jan-2020, slightly reworded Article a(v). Replaced Article b(i)'s "legislate to criminalise the delivery of any sort of punishment to a person below the age of majority, which causes physical harm to that person, by any other person..." with "legislate to prohibit the use of "reasonable punishment" as an excuse by any person to defend the delivery of physical harm to any other person...".
3. 22-Jul-2020: See OOC smolprint above.

[Morover]

"What about the killing of a person as a punishment, which is not for a crime? This seems to be a loophole."

"Additionally, would the provision of 'including political subdivisions thereof' include privately-owned prisons? This could also be an oversight."

[Tinhampton]

"What about the killing of a person as a punishment, which is not for a crime? This seems to be a loophole."

"Additionally, would the provision of 'including political subdivisions thereof' include privately-owned prisons? This could also be an oversight."

D-A Smith: Your first change has been noted and applied. Your second should be satisfactorily dealt with, since it may be assumed that incarcerational faculties and other third parties could be treated as acting on behalf of a member state; it is assumed that they will not engage in vigilante justice so soon after real justice has been done.

[Araraukar]

IC: "No support. The use of death penalty should remain the decision of the judge residing on the case, not that of the WA. Death penalty is not inherently any more evil than lifetime imprisonment."

OOC: Also amused that it still enables the "Buddhist escape clause"...

[Kenmoria]

“Full support. This is functionally the same as the prior legislation, only with less ambiguity.”

OOC: Also amused that it still enables the "Buddhist escape clause"...

(OOC: What is this Buddhist escape clause?)

[Morover]

"Given the name of the proposal, would it be appropriate to also prohibit corporal punishment? As far as I remember, there is no resolution on the subject, save perhaps Convention of Torture, which arguably doesn't cover it to an extent of satisfactory effect."

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Done, done, and something else that none of you asked for done - including three something elses you never asked for. Draft two is done and dusted on our end. The ban on harassment can be forked off into a separate proposal if the debaters feel it to be inappropriate here.

[Kenmoria]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Done, done, and something else that none of you asked for done - including three something elses you never asked for. Draft two is done and dusted on our end. The ban on harassment can be forked off into a separate proposal if the debaters feel it to be inappropriate here.

“I think that harassment is to different a topic from everything else in the proposal to be put in the same piece of legislation. Banning harassment as a punishment for a crime would fit, but would also be rather niche.”

[Morover]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Done, done, and something else that none of you asked for done - including three something elses you never asked for. Draft two is done and dusted on our end. The ban on harassment can be forked off into a separate proposal if the debaters feel it to be inappropriate here.

“I think that harassment is to different a topic from everything else in the proposal to be put in the same piece of legislation. Banning harassment as a punishment for a crime would fit, but would also be rather niche.”

"I'd agree with the assessment that harassment is an odd piece to put in this legislation."

[Tinhampton]

D-A Smith: My Assistant, Bianca [Venkman], has spun off the harassment sections into their own piece of legislation if you wish to complain about them further. For future reference, we intend in that proposal to criminalise harassment in each member state, not simply to bar it as a punishment as Ambassador Lewitt - I think - says. Such is the only great excising we have made for Draft Three.

Resolved to uphold its unwavering opposition to the death penalty and other torturous punishment, the World Assembly hereby:

1. clarifies that any mention of a "member state" in this resolution shall also include political subdivisions thereof,
2. defines "harassment" as a wilful act - including threats, attempts, and aiding and abetting thereof - by a person, which harms (or could harm) another person physically and non-fatally, mentally, or financially; which is a violation of sapient rights, equality, and dignity,
3. requires all member states to criminalise harassment within their jurisdiction (subject to standing WA law), to prosecute it as a crime of appropriate gravity, and to prohibit the use of alternative means of mandatory dispute resolution in cases of harassment,
4. clarifies that harassment may be treated more seriously by member states if: it is carried out by a repeat offender thereof, it is carried out by a member of the victim's family, if the victim has been significantly harmed, or if a child was the victim or an observer,
5. (capital punishment ban)
6. (corporal punishment ban)

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: This is now being redrafted with a view to submitting it between the passage of our repeal of "International Criminal Protocol" and the submission of our repeal for the Innocents thing - a replacement of sorts. Obviously.

[Picairn]

"Against. We won't let tyrants, terrorists, slave traders, serial killers, etc. live for any more years while their victims' families are left to suffer the consequences of their horrific actions."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This is getting ridiculous.

[Barfleur]

"Against. We won't let tyrants, terrorists, slave traders, serial killers, etc. live for any more years while their victims' families are left to suffer the consequences of their horrific actions."

"I share the same sentiments."

[WayNeacTia]

OOC:
This is getting ridiculous.

I wouldn't worry too much. The repeal won't pass in the first place.

[Flying Eagles]

a iii has the loophole where one could sentence someone for a ridiculously long time, such as a 1000 years, which would effectively be life imprisonment but not technically life imprisonment. Also, we're pretty sure you're only allowed to legislate on the actions of member states, and not their political subdivisions or persons acting on their behalf. Ensuring the compliance of political subdivisions and persons acting on their behalf with this resolution is the responsibility of national governments.

[Kenmoria]

a iii has the loophole where one could sentence someone for a ridiculously long time, such as a 1000 years, which would effectively be life imprisonment but not technically life imprisonment. Also, we're pretty sure you're only allowed to legislate on the actions of member states, and not their political subdivisions or persons acting on their behalf. Ensuring the compliance of political subdivisions and persons acting on their behalf with this resolution is the responsibility of national governments.

(OOC: It is allowable to legislate on anything under the jurisdiction of member states, including any political subdivisions or persons.)

[The Palentine]

Would Clause B. III. prohibit actions against the WA Compoiance Gnomes? We in the Antarctic Oasis have a strict "Shoot On Sight" Order against any Compliance Gnomes found in the region. We also use native Gnomish Warbands riding Shetland Ponies to activly hunt down Compliance Gnomes in the Antarctic Wastelands of the region.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Araraukar]

"Is it intentional that this now acts as an euthanasia ban, should the administering nurse have opinions not generally supported by the state? If yes, no support."

[Ardiveds]

"What and how much of it have you been smoking Ambassador?"

[Araraukar]

"What and how much of it have you been smoking Ambassador?"

OOC: These create the problem:

prohibits itself, all of its institutions, all member states (including political subdivisions thereof), and all those acting on their behalf from ... killing any person as punishment, henceforth "capital punishment," or sentencing any person to death, invoking "karmic retribution" (or similar) as an excuse to avoid enforcing the provisions of this resolution,

A nurse ("acting on behalf of member state") administering euthanasia to someone responsible for the deaths of thousands (but not criminally responsible, so they weren't legally punished for it) says they think it's karmic retribution the person ended up with incurable eventually lethal painful condition and needs euthanasia, and that she is just doing the job that the executioner should have done all those years ago.

This not being the state's official position on the matter does not matter, because the nurse is (by administering the euthanasia drugs) acting on behalf of the state, invokes a karmic retribution and says (and likely believes) she is killing the person as punishment (for what they did earlier).

Come to thnk of it, that would also apply (with the "sentencing" bit) to anyone making the decision to allow the euthanasia in the first place.

requires member states to ... ensure that any physical attack (or threats thereof) by one of their nationals on a person working for the World Assembly that is in their member state at that moment are treated and - if necessary - prosecuted as if that national carried out such an attack on another person under their jurisdiction in such circumstances.

What does this mean, actually? I mean, I get you're trying to keep Kenny from one-shotting the gnomes, but beyond that bit of RP fluff, what does this mean? That the police can't stay "stop or I'll shoot" if a WA official is found walking away from a violent crime scene with something suspiciously looking like a lethal weapon?

[Tinhampton]

snip

Euthanasia is, in this case, killing somebody (with their consent) because of a terminal medical condition, and not "as punishment." I envisage that the bar on "sentencing any person to death" self-limits to sentences from courts and not individual decisions.

I believe(d) that the karmic-retribution clause was the "Buddhist escape clause" you were talking about earlier.

[Ardiveds]

"What and how much of it have you been smoking Ambassador?"

OOC: These create the problem:
...

OOC: That was not directed towards you but Tinhampton, sorry for the confusion

[Flying Eagles]

a iii has the loophole where one could sentence someone for a ridiculously long time, such as a 1000 years, which would effectively be life imprisonment but not technically life imprisonment. Also, we're pretty sure you're only allowed to legislate on the actions of member states, and not their political subdivisions or persons acting on their behalf. Ensuring the compliance of political subdivisions and persons acting on their behalf with this resolution is the responsibility of national governments.

(OOC: It is allowable to legislate on anything under the jurisdiction of member states, including any political subdivisions or persons.)

OOC: Author still needs to fix the loophole I believe

[Araraukar]

Euthanasia is, in this case, killing somebody with their consent because of a terminal medical condition, and not "as punishment."

OOC: Of course that's what euthanasia is, but that doesn't prevent an opinionated person who is doing the actual deed from believing they are doing so as a punishment. I mean, look at RL how difficult it is to find places that allow euthanasia, exactly because it is likened to murder or death penalty.

I envisage that the bar on "sentencing any person to death" self-limits to sentences from courts and not individual decisions.

Then it should actually say that, instead of having anyone acting on behalf of the state being included.

I believe(d) that the karmic-retribution clause was the "Buddhist escape clause" you were talking about earlier.

It's not, and I find it kind of funny that you thought I would think it was that.