NationStates

Civil Rights - Mild

The General Assembly,

Believing that all people deserve a chance of life, regardless of aggravating circumstances,

Noting the will of some World Assembly nations to take away this chance of life from people for either sport or punishment,

Further realizing that no restrictions have been placed on recreational murder in World Assembly nations,

Hereby bans the intentional killing of any individual or deportation to a nation where they have a credible or substantive risk of being killed, unless one or more of the following circumstances are true:

1. the express and well-informed consent of the individual who is being killed has been granted;
2. it is a casualty during wartimes or similar;
3. it is euthanasia or similar;
4. it is in self defense;
5. the person is an imminent threat to public safety;
6. other World Assembly Legislation explicitly allows or requires the killing of specific individuals.

"Ambassador, if you're going to ban murder for "any other purposes," spare yourself the ink and leave out the list of specific examples of possible motives - and similarly in clause 2, you should change "for the purposes listed under this resolution" for "under the circumstances listed in clause 1 of this resolution;" otherwise it's unclear that the provisions about intention and a lack of consent also apply. I'd also advise affixing to the end of clause 1 "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly resolutions " We do not need this to become an abortion debate.

"This section I've circled here

except when the express and well-informed consent of the individual who is being killed;

needs some grammatical reworking for it to ... actually make sense."

OOC:
This prevents militaries from killing people, for the record. That doesn't quite seem intentional.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
This prevents militaries from killing people, for the record. That doesn't quite seem intentional.

Maowi wrote:"Ambassador, if you're going to ban murder for "any other purposes," spare yourself the ink and leave out the list of specific examples of possible motives - and similarly in clause 2, you should change "for the purposes listed under this resolution" for "under the circumstances listed in clause 1 of this resolution;" otherwise it's unclear that the provisions about intention and a lack of consent also apply. I'd also advise affixing to the end of clause 1 "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly resolutions " We do not need this to become an abortion debate.

"This section I've circled here

except when the express and well-informed consent of the individual who is being killed;

needs some grammatical reworking for it to ... actually make sense."

OOC: I've completely removed "any other purposes", which should solve both the issue of the military and abortion issues. I'm hesitant of allowing clause one to be "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly resolutions" as that could technically provide issues with Preventing the Execution of Innocents. I completely overlooked both of those issues, and when I flip-flopped between including "any other purposes", they didn't even come to mind.

I also made some of the grammar actually make sense, lol.

Thanks for the feedback.

Morover wrote:I've completely removed "any other purposes", which should solve both the issue of the military and abortion issues. I'm hesitant of allowing clause one to be "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly resolutions" as that could technically provide issues with Preventing the Execution of Innocents.

How so?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Morover wrote:I've completely removed "any other purposes", which should solve both the issue of the military and abortion issues. I'm hesitant of allowing clause one to be "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly resolutions" as that could technically provide issues with Preventing the Execution of Innocents.

How so?

OOC: It's entirely possible that my confusion comes from my lack of knowledge over how legislation would actually be processed, but clause 1 (the most relevant clause) of P Innocents states that "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions," and I fear that if I were to add "subject to World Assembly legislation" or similar to the beginning of clause one here, there would be no way to tell which one holds precedent over the other.

I don't fear that it would cause an illegality, but rather there would be no good way of telling whether or not capital punishment is permitted.

Morover wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How so?

OOC: It's entirely possible that my confusion comes from my lack of knowledge over how legislation would actually be processed, but clause 1 (the most relevant clause) of P Innocents states that "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions," and I fear that if I were to add "subject to World Assembly legislation" or similar to the beginning of clause one here, there would be no way to tell which one holds precedent over the other.

I don't fear that it would cause an illegality, but rather there would be no good way of telling whether or not capital punishment is permitted.

Then include a section on conflict of laws relevant to your proposal, declaring in cases of ambiguity of laws some tie-breaker.

“In clause 3, ‘past and prior’ is redundant.”

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Morover wrote:OOC: It's entirely possible that my confusion comes from my lack of knowledge over how legislation would actually be processed, but clause 1 (the most relevant clause) of P Innocents states that "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions," and I fear that if I were to add "subject to World Assembly legislation" or similar to the beginning of clause one here, there would be no way to tell which one holds precedent over the other.

I don't fear that it would cause an illegality, but rather there would be no good way of telling whether or not capital punishment is permitted.

Then include a section on conflict of laws relevant to your proposal, declaring in cases of ambiguity of laws some tie-breaker.

OOC: Frankly, I don't know if I'm a skilled enough author to make a section that does this without negating the point of having a phrase of "subject to World Assembly legislation" or similar. I'm sure it's possible, I just don't know how.

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 3, ‘past and prior’ is redundant.”

"So it is. I don't know why that was included in the first place."

OOC:

I attempted to add a subjectivity portion into clause one, but it's far from perfect. Thoughts are appreciated.

"Full and complete support."

Morover wrote:OOC: I attempted to add a subjectivity portion into clause one, but it's far from perfect. Thoughts are appreciated.

Want to cooperate on that?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Morover wrote:OOC: I attempted to add a subjectivity portion into clause one, but it's far from perfect. Thoughts are appreciated.

Want to cooperate on that?

OOC:

If you'd be willing, I would definitely be up for that.

OOC: I edited clause one a bit to better clarify subjectivity - but I'm bumping this. I'm going to try and submit soon - maybe on the twelfth? Depends on further criticism I receive here.

"Would this ban capital punishment?"

Astrobolt wrote:"Would this ban capital punishment?"

OOC:
That is more or less exactly the intent.

Astrobolt wrote:"Would this ban capital punishment?"

OOC: Depends on if you do creative compliance or not.

Araraukar wrote:

Astrobolt wrote:"Would this ban capital punishment?"

OOC: Depends on if you do creative compliance or not.

I would have to change my means of capital punishment to a "private investor" hiring a hitman to kill prisoners and there will be no investigation on the murder.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Depends on if you do creative compliance or not.

I would have to change my means of capital punishment to a "private investor" hiring a hitman to kill prisoners and there will be no investigation on the murder.

OOC: That's not so much creative compliance as creative non-compliance. Tell you what, if this passes the vote and becomes a resolution, I'll let you know about the creative compliance way.

OOC: Changed clause one a bit to more explicitly say that both self-defense, defense of others, and war is not banned by this resolution.

I also may change the title to "Murder Ban".

This will be submitted next minor - so approximately 16 hours from now.

OOC: Given accidental deaths while doing recreational activities are a thing that happens, are they now "banned"? Not sure how you can ban accidents.

Also, strength. You are not actually banning murder at all, only lawful executions (and maybe killing someone for LOLs, which is not a normal reason for murder) so I don't think the strength is right, especially given that lawful executions have already been made difficult to achieve by the WA.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Given accidental deaths while doing recreational activities are a thing that happens, are they now "banned"? Not sure how you can ban accidents.

Also, strength. You are not actually banning murder at all, only lawful executions (and maybe killing someone for LOLs, which is not a normal reason for murder) so I don't think the strength is right, especially given that lawful executions have already been made difficult to achieve by the WA.

Changed strength to mild.

Also changed the title to "Right to Life" for irony.

OOC: You use "sapient individuals", "sapients", "person", and "people", all within the space of a few lines. Horrible. Given you use the perfectly sensible "person" in Article 1, why can't you use that consistently throughout? 'Sapient rights' resolutions will take care of the rest, you don't need litter your proposal with inconsistent language to accommodate them.

Graintfjall wrote:OOC: You use "sapient individuals", "sapients", "person", and "people", all within the space of a few lines. Horrible. Given you use the perfectly sensible "person" in Article 1, why can't you use that consistently throughout? 'Sapient rights' resolutions will take care of the rest, you don't need litter your proposal with inconsistent language to accommodate them.

Oops - I changed the operative text to say “person” or “people” but failed to do so in the preamble. Fixing that momentarily.

Against in full