[DROPPED] On Capital Punishment

[Stellonia]

[DROPPED]

[Kenmoria]

“Preventing the Execution of Innocents already implements what is almost a complete ban on capital punishment. I personally can’t imagine that the General Assembly will be in favour of further restrictions. This is because there is a large faction of this Assembly that feels the need to continue using such barbaric penalties.”

[Stellonia]

“Preventing the Execution of Innocents already implements what is almost a complete ban on capital punishment. I personally can’t imagine that the General Assembly will be in favour of further restrictions. This is because there is a large faction of this Assembly that feels the need to continue using such barbaric penalties.”

"How large is this faction?"

[Kenmoria]

“Preventing the Execution of Innocents already implements what is almost a complete ban on capital punishment. I personally can’t imagine that the General Assembly will be in favour of further restrictions. This is because there is a large faction of this Assembly that feels the need to continue using such barbaric penalties.”

"How large is this faction?"

“The aforementioned resolution only passed by a margin of 2.4%. However, it wasn’t even a complete ban, and managed to very effectively disguise how much it restricted capital punishment thanks to some very clever wording. Though I can’t state with any precision exactly how much of the WA supports the death penalty, it is a sufficiently large amount that any proposal to ban capital punishment would be very hard to pass.

Of course, I am very open to being proved wrong, since capital punishment is an injustice that I wish the General Assembly could properly address. I think you should go for it, but be aware of how substantial the opposition will be.”

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Don't bother; you'd have as much chance of repealing NAPA as passing something like this.

[Stellonia]

OOC:
Don't bother; you'd have as much chance of repealing NAPA as passing something like this.

I will probably write an entirely new proposal then. I want the death penalty to be minimized as much as realistically possible.

[The Sladerstan]

"You should focus the barrel, so to speak, not on the Death Penalty, but on making sure no innocents are executed."

[WayNeacTia]

OOC:
Don't bother; you'd have as much chance of repealing NAPA as passing something like this.

I will probably write an entirely new proposal then. I want the death penalty to be minimized as much as realistically possible.

It has been. Read Preventing the Execution of Innocents, then maybe get back to us with something fresh?

[Stellonia]

I will probably write an entirely new proposal then. I want the death penalty to be minimized as much as realistically possible.

It has been. Read Preventing the Execution of Innocents, then maybe get back to us with something fresh?

I know. I am writing this proposal in response to an attempt to repeal that resolution.

[Wallenburg]

This duplicates Preventing the Execution of Innocents.

[WayNeacTia]

It has been. Read Preventing the Execution of Innocents, then maybe get back to us with something fresh?

I know. I am writing this proposal in response to an attempt to repeal that resolution.

Which it won't be.

[Ignis Cinere]

"Frankly, strongly opposed. Some crimes committed are clearly deserving of capital punishment, as perpetrators that have ruined the lives of one or more people in an irreversible way must be suitably punished."

[Jakit]

UNDERSTANDING that some crimes are so egregious as to deserve capital punishment, but nevertheless

RECOGNIZING that capital punishment is irrevocable once it is applied,

FEARING that this could result in the execution of innocent individual, and

ADHERING to the principle that it is worse to execute one innocent individual than it is to permit a hundred guilty individuals to live,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY

1. PROHIBITS member states from inflicting capital punishment,

2. PROHIBITS member states from inflicting forms of punishment that are likely to endanger the lives of individuals who are thus punished,

3. REQUIRES member states to revoke any current death sentences,

4. PERMITS member states to implement lesser punishments in the stead of these death sentences, and

5. ENCOURAGES member states to establish commissions to investigate previous cases in which capital punishment was applied, in order to establish whether or not the executed individual was indeed guilty of the crimes for which they were executed.

I agree that killing innocent people is not good but we need to give criminals the punishment they deserve so to avoid killing innocent people we need to strengthen and improve our police force. Its the better option.

[Separatist Peoples]

UNDERSTANDING that some crimes are so egregious as to deserve capital punishment, but nevertheless

RECOGNIZING that capital punishment is irrevocable once it is applied,

FEARING that this could result in the execution of innocent individual, and

ADHERING to the principle that it is worse to execute one innocent individual than it is to permit a hundred guilty individuals to live,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY

1. PROHIBITS member states from inflicting capital punishment,

2. PROHIBITS member states from inflicting forms of punishment that are likely to endanger the lives of individuals who are thus punished,

3. REQUIRES member states to revoke any current death sentences,

4. PERMITS member states to implement lesser punishments in the stead of these death sentences, and

5. ENCOURAGES member states to establish commissions to investigate previous cases in which capital punishment was applied, in order to establish whether or not the executed individual was indeed guilty of the crimes for which they were executed.

I agree that killing innocent people is not good but we need to give criminals the punishment they deserve so to avoid killing innocent people we need to strengthen and improve our police force. Its the better option.

"Strengthening police forces alone would cause more innocent executions, not fewer. A better approach is addressing your criminal justice system after charging."

[Picairn]

"Fully against from clause 1. As other nations have stated, some crimes are so heinous and morally reprehensible that the Empire of Picairn reserves capital punishment as a proper punishment for those detestable crimes. Furthermore, this serves as an effective deterrent, a reminder of what awaits the criminals if they so choose to go against the virtues of a free society and trample upon the lives of innocent people.
If the Federated States of Stellonia are concerned with the wrongful execution of innocents, which Picairn firmly opposes and has instituted checks and balances to minimize the consequences, perhaps its government should focus on that. A blanket ban is not the solution."

[Stellonia]

I know. I am writing this proposal in response to an attempt to repeal that resolution.

Which it won't be.

That resolution passed very narrowly, and it contains weaknesses that leave it vulnerable to attack in a repeal attempt.

[Galvaleon]

"On the matter of capital punishment, the Federal Republic of Galvaleon agrees that if the justice is well made and no individuals have privileges on the judgment of their acts (such as possesing more economic power than other persons), execution on individuals with specified crimes commited by them should be allowed.

Crimes such as mass murder, rape, terrorism, ethnic extermination, and so on, should be punished by death. Certain acts may draw the individual to a point of never return to normal society, so capital punishment is the way to deal with it."

[Ardiveds]

It has been. Read Preventing the Execution of Innocents, then maybe get back to us with something fresh?

I know. I am writing this proposal in response to an attempt to repeal that resolution.

"As a nation that is very much pro capital punishment, we assure you that resolution will not be easily repealed. The reason being that those against capital punishment see that as a acceptable compromise since attempts to totally ban capital punushment have failed before, while those for capital punishment see it as a shield against resolutions like this draft.
As for ourselves, we oppose this on the ground that particularly heinous crimes like serial murders, rapes, terrorism etc. need to have heinous punishments. A person who shows mercy on a serial rapist is no better than the criminal himself."
--- Kaiser

[Imperium Anglorum]

Full support. There is also no duplication or contradiction.

[Kathol Rift]

Fully oppose. There are crimes that deserve execution. What about a serial killer? A terrorist who kills 50 people? A rapist who has raped for three years? We can’t leave them alive to potentially escape and continue committing their crimes, and there would be no justice.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

A person who shows mercy on a serial rapist is no better than the criminal himself."

"What if the victims don't believe in the death penalty and merely want their rapist imprisoned? Are they still no better than he is? Your primitive, absolutist bloodthirst is half the reason why the will to total abolition is so strong in this Assembly. It's also positively medieval."

[United Massachusetts]

OOC:
Don't bother; you'd have as much chance of repealing NAPA as passing something like this.

Something akin to this has only been tried once, and by a controversial author (myself) at that. It was a remarkably close vote. I think a full-fledged, no-nonsense ban on capital punishment remains possible and ought to be pursued.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

I believe this does in fact contradict existing WA legislation, namely GAR#443: Preventing the Execution of Innocents, its para. 1 to be specific.

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

"Subject to World Assembly legislation" does indeed include future legislation, such as this one, but in my opinion WA is absolutely forbidden from issuing a complete ban on the capital punishment. It can only issue further limitations on the practice. Full ban would mean that the member nations would simply no longer be permitted to sentence for death penalty, not even "subject to WA legislation".

Death penalty is a good and humanitarian alternative to a life sentence without parole. I consider the latter to be a harsher penalty actually, as it deprives a person of liberty and forces them to live in a prison for the rest of their life, which will be rather miserable. Death penalty is a swifter punishment and fulfills the same role. It is also regulated by WA law very heavily already, the whole attention is given to it and at the same time long-term imprisonment is treated as a non-issue.

[Kenmoria]

I believe this does in fact contradict existing WA legislation, namely GAR#443: Preventing the Execution of Innocents, its para. 1 to be specific.

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

"Subject to World Assembly legislation" does indeed include future legislation, such as this one, but in my opinion WA is absolutely forbidden from issuing a complete ban on the capital punishment. It can only issue further limitations on the practice. Full ban would mean that the member nations would simply no longer be permitted to sentence for death penalty, not even "subject to WA legislation".

Death penalty is a good and humanitarian alternative to a life sentence without parole. I consider the latter to be a harsher penalty actually, as it deprives a person of liberty and forces them to life in a prison for the rest of their life, which will be rather miserable. Death penalty is a swifter punishment and fulfills the same role. It is also regulated by WA law very heavily already, the whole attention is given to and at the same time long-term imprisonment is treated as a non-issue.

(OOC: I disagree with your interpretation. Member nations are only permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment so far as WA legislation allows. This means that, if there is a resolution completely banning capital punishment, then member nations would still be permitted to use the death penalty to the extent permitted by WA law; the fact that this would be not at all is immaterial.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I believe this does in fact contradict existing WA legislation, namely GAR#443: Preventing the Execution of Innocents, its para. 1 to be specific.

"Subject to World Assembly legislation" does indeed include future legislation, such as this one, but in my opinion WA is absolutely forbidden from issuing a complete ban on the capital punishment. It can only issue further limitations on the practice. Full ban would mean that the member nations would simply no longer be permitted to sentence for death penalty, not even "subject to WA legislation".

Death penalty is a good and humanitarian alternative to a life sentence without parole. I consider the latter to be a harsher penalty actually, as it deprives a person of liberty and forces them to life in a prison for the rest of their life, which will be rather miserable. Death penalty is a swifter punishment and fulfills the same role. It is also regulated by WA law very heavily already, the whole attention is given to and at the same time long-term imprisonment is treated as a non-issue.

(OOC: I disagree with your interpretation. Member nations are only permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment so far as WA legislation allows. This means that, if there is a resolution completely banning capital punishment, then member nations would still be permitted to use the death penalty to the extent permitted by WA law; the fact that this would be not at all is immaterial.)

This interpretation is correct.