[DROPPED] On Capital Punishment

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

(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.)

OOC: If that was the case, para. 1 is absolute fluff.

It is not immaterial that the member nations would no longer have any way to issue and carry out the death penalty. If the law bans the practice, then they are no longer permitted to issue it, plain and simple. They can't carry it out as far as law allows, because the law doesn't allow it. If IA didn't want for his resolution to become a blocker for a complete ban on death penalty, why include an absolute fluff clause that would be interpreted as a blocker by most voters - including me?

This interpretation is simply unreasonable. Consider GAR#147.

HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law

So does this mean that nations don't have to facilitate the extradition of anyone at all, if they simply ban it via their national law? That would be called a bad faith interpretation if anything.

[Ardiveds]

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."

"Showing mercy towards a serial rapist is barbaric because it belittles the suffering of the victim so no, the victim himself/herself showing mercy is not the same as a third person doing it but on the same note, what if the victims want their rapist to be castrasted or undergo severe corporal punishment or be impaled? Well if the punishment for a crime is to be determined by the victim, then we might as well abolish the penal code and ask the victims how they wish to punish the criminal. Your lack of bloodthirst towards inhuman monsters like serial rapists or terrorists is more disturbing to us than capital punishment."
--- Kaiser

[Kenmoria]

(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.)

OOC: If that was the case, para. 1 is absolute fluff.

It is not immaterial that the member nations would no longer have any way to issue and carry out the death penalty. If the law bans the practice, then they are no longer permitted to issue it, plain and simple. They can't carry it out as far as law allows, because the law doesn't allow it. If IA didn't want for his resolution to become a blocker for a complete ban on death penalty, why include an absolute fluff clause that would be interpreted as a blocker by most voters - including me?

(OOC: If the law doesn’t allow capital punishment, then member nations will still be permitted to allow capital punishment so far as General Assembly legislation permits. In the event that the death penalty is completely banned, it is of course true that member nations are allowed to use capital punishment as far as the law permits, since the GA wouldn’t disallow following extant legislation.

Paragraph 1 confirms what is already the case, that member nations have the right to carry out capital punishment unless General Assembly legislation elects otherwise. It is a clause that doesn’t have much of an effect, and therefore might be viewed as fluff. This doesn’t affect its interpretation.

This interpretation is simply unreasonable. Consider GAR#147.

HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law

So does this mean that nations don't have to facilitate the extradition of anyone at all, if they simply ban it via their national law? That would be called a bad faith interpretation if anything.

I would personally rule that this is a valid interpretation, and a sign of an easily-loopholeable law.)

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Paragraph 1 confirms what is already the case, that member nations have the right to carry out capital punishment unless General Assembly legislation elects otherwise. It is a clause that doesn’t have much of an effect, and therefore might be viewed as fluff. This doesn’t affect its interpretation.

OOC: This absolutely does affect its interpretation, at least would so irl. One of the commonly accepted interpretation rules is to read laws in such a way, as to not make any of their parts redundant (cf. rule against surplusage). I don't know how much real law interpretation rules can be applied in GenSec's eyes here, but it is a thing.

[Kenmoria]

Paragraph 1 confirms what is already the case, that member nations have the right to carry out capital punishment unless General Assembly legislation elects otherwise. It is a clause that doesn’t have much of an effect, and therefore might be viewed as fluff. This doesn’t affect its interpretation.

OOC: This absolutely does affect its interpretation, at least would so irl. One of the commonly accepted interpretation rules is to read laws in such a way, as to not make any of their parts redundant (cf. rule against surplusage). I don't know how much real law interpretation rules can be applied in GenSec's eyes here, but it is a thing.

(OOC: In the General Assembly, some resolutions have supposedly active clauses with very little effect, and several contain joke clauses which also don’t have any effect. The standard here is that, if there is a colourable reading of existing legislation that would result in a proposal not being illegal by contradiction, then that proposal is legal.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

"[P]reference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute . . . [w]e should prefer the plain meaning since that approach respects the words of [the legislature]". Lamie v United States Trustee, 540 US 526, 536 (2004).

"The canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule, see Arlington Central School Dist Bd of Ed v Murphy, 548 US 291, n 1 (2006) (“While it is generally presumed that statutes do not contain surplusage, instances of surplusage are not unknown”); Connecticut Nat Bank v Germain, 503 US 249, 253 (1992) (“Redundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting . . . ”)." Marx v General Revenue Corp, 568 US 371, 385 (2013) (full stops omitted).

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

"[P]reference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute . . . [w]e should prefer the plain meaning since that approach respects the words of [the legislature]". Lamie v United States Trustee, 540 US 526, 536 (2004).

"The canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule, see Arlington Central School Dist Bd of Ed v Murphy, 548 US 291, n 1 (2006) (“While it is generally presumed that statutes do not contain surplusage, instances of surplusage are not unknown”); Connecticut Nat Bank v Germain, 503 US 249, 253 (1992) (“Redundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting . . . ”)." Marx v General Revenue Corp, 568 US 371, 385 (2013) (full stops omitted).

OOC: And? No rule is absolute. But it is still a rule and you haven't made any case as to why it shouldn't be followed here.

Whereas there is considerable disagreement in the Assembly about the merits of banning capital punishment:

And whereas it is best to set a compromise, where the Assembly does its best efforts to permit, with effective regulations, capital punishment so to best reduce the chance of it falling upon those who have not committed the crime they are accused of:

Moreover, unless that preamble is straight up lying about the intent of the law, it should be interpreted in this way. Otherwise how on earth is it a "compromise", when you "give" nations pro-death penalty what they already have in return for heavy regulations on the practice they support? Inb4 "Preamble isn't used in legal interpretation" - you still chose it as an integral part of your resolution. And while it can't be used to interpret norms by itself, it is used in functional interpretation of the law, when the text itself may be read in two ways - which is the case here.

Another point - a complete ban on the death penalty makes Capital Cases division inoperable, because nobody will be allowed to forward to it any cases for review. Meanwhile this committee operates as mandated by GAR#443. Rendering it inoperable is a clear cut case of contradiction for me.

Also, on the subject of inoperability - even if this does not in fact contradict GAR#443, how is this not an amendment to that resolution? GAR#443 currently has an effect on nations, this proposal would completely void that effect. That ought to count as an amendment, as it effectively deprives a resolution of all its active clauses. GAR#443 doesn't do anything under this.

[Stellonia]

OOC: It seems as if everyone overlooks the fact that this draft is a response to an attempt to repeal GA#443.

[Imperium Anglorum]

SRE:

Surplusage is not a rule of Interpretation applied at all (yet) in this jurisdiction, if it could be called that; calling it a rule is massively overstating your case. Existing precendee already directly contradicts your claim:

should the Ambassador wish to insert the "subject to any limitations existing in international law", it would completely remove any confusion on the issue. Habeas Corpus Act, (2012) 1 IAM 19.

That aside, precedent clearly states that amendments are only in cases where text is in fact changed:

There is a reason that Amendment violations are separate from Contradiction violations. An amendment contradicts the existing terms, but breaks the game specifically because previous legislation can't be modified. If it wasn't for this underlying difference, Amendment violations could otherwise fall under Contradiction violations. So there must be something substantively different between the two, and we believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation. Protection of Nuclear Armaments, [2017] GAS 1.

The system established in P Innocents is specified entirely to make it possible for a future resolution to ban capital punishment without necessity of repeal; the reason for that is to prevent unnecessary repeals followed by failed replacement attempts. That is the compromise. If you wanted to claim that P Innocents is completely inoperative if a resolution were passed to ban capital punishment, that is an honest mistake. It is also an honest mistake to claim that the Capital Cases division is operable "because nobody will be allowed to forward to it any cases for review".

I will also also note that taking your view on superfluity would also imply that most of the Bill of Rights 1688 is inoperative because most of it is spent restating "auntient [ancient] Rights and Liberties", eg that "the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall". Legislatures routinely repeat things and they are routinely held operative by courts (especially ones in pure common law jurisdictions).

---

Stellonia: If you were to pass legislation of this sort, consider (1) that repeal is unnecessary and (2) that repeal is unlikely.

[Stellonia]

Stellonia: If you were to pass legislation of this sort, consider that repeal is unnecessary.

Don't tell me that. Tell that to the person who is currently working on a repeal.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

-snip-

OOC: So, to recap. A committee somehow operates even if the sole practice it is supposed to review is forbidden, a resolution setting up a procedure for dealing with the death penalty has an effect on nations even if the practice is banned.

That "breaking the game" is exactly why I would count this as an amendment. GAR#443 raises a national stat because it has a tangible effect on nations. With a full ban, it has no effect on nations (if you think it does, do pray tell what it is). The procedure set in it is defunct. It only has a potential effect then, it becomes operable again when the ban is repealed.

I don't even know what you are talking about re:English Bill of Rights and operatibility. Something with redundant provisions is inoperative, because other provisions already have the same effect. This is why we have Duplication rule. Rule against surplusage isn't an argument that the law is inoperative, it is a device to make all the parts of it operative (when they could possibly not be otherwise).

Same with precedent claim. You miss the essence of my claim. Addition of "subject to WA law/international law" isn't superfluous by itself. If it is added to a section containing the right covered by sovereignty of nations, interpreting it in a way that allows WA to ban the exercising of a right altogether makes it superfluous. Case you cited, where someone is advised to include the phrase, is irrelevant. I'm not arguing against the phrase, but the spin you gave it.

OOC: It seems as if everyone overlooks the fact that this draft is a response to an attempt to repeal GA#443.

Considering that, I will bugger off of this thread. If submitted after GAR#443 repeal, the draft would be completely legal. As such I would only be taking up space that helpful criticism of others could otherwise take.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That "breaking the game" is exactly why I would count this as an amendment. GAR#443 raises a national stat because it has a tangible effect on nations. With a full ban, it has no effect on nations (if you think it does, do pray tell what it is). The procedure set in it is defunct. It only has a potential effect then, it becomes operable again when the ban is repealed.

I've told you the information about the amendment rule, at some point you will accept it.

Same with precedent claim. You miss the essence of my claim. Addition of "subject to WA law/international law" isn't superfluous by itself. If it is added to a section containing the right covered by sovereignty of nations, interpreting it in a way that allows WA to ban the exercising of a right altogether makes it superfluous. Case you cited, where someone is advised to include the phrase, is irrelevant. I'm not arguing against the phrase, but the spin you gave it.

Then you also have to accept that GA 2 has an irrelevant provision enshrining national sovereignty when that provision does exactly nothing and has been interpreted to do exactly nothing for the last twelve years.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"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."

"Showing mercy towards a serial rapist is barbaric because it belittles the suffering of the victim so no, the victim himself/herself showing mercy is not the same as a third person doing it but on the same note, what if the victims want their rapist to be castrasted or undergo severe corporal punishment or be impaled? Well if the punishment for a crime is to be determined by the victim, then we might as well abolish the penal code and ask the victims how they wish to punish the criminal. Your lack of bloodthirst towards inhuman monsters like serial rapists or terrorists is more disturbing to us than capital punishment."
--- Kaiser

"There it is - your fear is showing. It's inconceivable to you that humans can actually be terrible to each other, so you dehumanize them in the hope that you won't have to confront the worst parts of your own souls. When desperate mad bombers kill your civilians, they're subhuman terrorists, but when your fighter pilots kill their civilians, it's collateral damage. That way you can rest easy secure in the knowledge that you're not one of them, deserving of death."

"The reason the victims do not pass sentence is the same reason a properly constituted state does not use torture and disfigurement as punishments - the state is to treat its people dispassionately and equally, as the arbiter of justice, not of vengeance. Our government agrees that those criminals who are simply beyond the capacity for rehabilitation ought to be put out of everyone's misery as soon as possible. But this is almost impossible to articulate in this Assembly because of primitives like you.
Your viscera-spattered inquisition gives all proponents of capital punishment the sick aroma of the gibbet yard. It's because of you that the institution is effectively banned."

"Of course, this is all academic - I am not enthralled with the most recently published repeal of the current Byzantine system of catch-22s, and the author of this proposal has explicitly dropped it. I see no point in continuing here. Good day, sir."

Leo puts the couple of nearby papers into his briefcase, shuts it, picks it up, and leaves the chamber.

[Stellonia]

OOC: I have dropped this draft. Evidently it does not have the ability to receive a majority of votes.