NationStates

---

248 characters. Will be Was submitted upon the passage of International Criminal Protocol I'll submit this sooner or later, honest!

Repeal "International Criminal Protocol"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#500

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #500 “International Criminal Protocol” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Worried that, by allowing members to legalise capital punishment, GA#500 prevents an international ban on the death penalty:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#500 "International Criminal Protocol," in the hope of replacing it with such a ban.

Do you even try anymore? Your argument falls flat, as there is a defacto ban on capital punishment anyway.

The subject matter is not beyond the pale; UM's repeal of Crime and Punishment used a similar argumentative strategy.

"Full support, the death penalty is a barbaric punishment that has no place in society."

“I don’t like the idea of a repeal simply stating a fact about the target resolution without any analysis. Perhaps add at least one clause about why the death penalty being allowed is so bad. However, I do support the idea of a repeal.”

The target resolution never explicitly legalizes the death penalty. Could you not just pass a resolution banning the death penalty outright? Just like how 128 legalized abortion sometimes, and 286 legalized it always.

OOC: Proposals are already being submitted to this effect

Flying Eagles wrote:The target resolution never explicitly legalizes the death penalty. Could you not just pass a resolution banning the death penalty outright? Just like how 128 legalized abortion sometimes, and 286 legalized it always.

OOC: Proposals are already being submitted to this effect

OOC:
It does not forcibly legalize capital punishment, it merely reserves to Member-States the right to determine its legal status.

Tinfect wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:The target resolution never explicitly legalizes the death penalty. Could you not just pass a resolution banning the death penalty outright? Just like how 128 legalized abortion sometimes, and 286 legalized it always.

OOC: Proposals are already being submitted to this effect

OOC:
It does not forcibly legalize capital punishment, it merely reserves to Member-States the right to determine its legal status.

It outlines best practices for execution, but doesn’t explicitly say “you may execute people”. Therefore, we believe you may pass a blanket ban on execution without conflicting the International Criminal Protocal.

Flying Eagles wrote:It outlines best practices for execution, but doesn’t explicitly say “you may execute people”. Therefore, we believe you may pass a blanket ban on execution without conflicting the International Criminal Protocal.

OOC:

Reserves to Member-States the right to determine the legality of capital punishment within their jurisdiction,

Tinfect wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:It outlines best practices for execution, but doesn’t explicitly say “you may execute people”. Therefore, we believe you may pass a blanket ban on execution without conflicting the International Criminal Protocal.

OOC:

Reserves to Member-States the right to determine the legality of capital punishment within their jurisdiction,

Whoops. We’re blind sometimes. Thanks!

I haven't abandoned this

Seeing as capital punishment is already banned internationally, I don't find this argument convincing.

Wallenburg wrote:Seeing as capital punishment is already banned internationally, I don't find this argument convincing.

How is it banned internationally, the at vote resolution permits member states to legalize it.

Astrobolt wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Seeing as capital punishment is already banned internationally, I don't find this argument convincing.

How is it banned internationally, the at vote resolution permits member states to legalize it.

The resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents doesn't ban capital punishment as such, it merely makes it practically impossible in all circumstances to carry out. I am 99% sure that's what Wallenburg refers to.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Astrobolt wrote:
How is it banned internationally, the at vote resolution permits member states to legalize it.

The resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents doesn't ban capital punishment as such, it merely makes it practically impossible in all circumstances to carry out. I am 99% sure that's what Wallenburg refers to.

OOC: I have seen this argument before, but I don't see why that would be the case. Would someone be able to spell it out for me?

Astrobolt wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:The resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents doesn't ban capital punishment as such, it merely makes it practically impossible in all circumstances to carry out. I am 99% sure that's what Wallenburg refers to.

OOC: I have seen this argument before, but I don't see why that would be the case. Would someone be able to spell it out for me?

The restrictions in Preventing the Execution of Innocents intersect in such a manner that member states cannot legally carry out a death sentence.

Astrobolt wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:The resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents doesn't ban capital punishment as such, it merely makes it practically impossible in all circumstances to carry out. I am 99% sure that's what Wallenburg refers to.

OOC: I have seen this argument before, but I don't see why that would be the case. Would someone be able to spell it out for me?

Right. First, you can only submit 1 case per million inhabitants per year for review (And all capital cases must be reviewed by the WA committee). This is already a bottleneck. Second, the standard of evidence is not just beyond reasonable doubt, but that there could not later be discovered evidence that could give doubt. Most importantly, though, is the review. The committee must have at least half a year for their review, you cannot carry out a capital sentence for a case where the review is more than a year old, and anyone convicted must be afforded extensive rights of appeal. The review and appeals process will certainly mean that all capital case certifications are more than a year old. Even getting to the review is a hurdle, but having the execution within a year of the review while at the same time affording due process is basically impossible. There may be edge cases of people essentially consenting to execution by waiving their rights and speeding along within the deadline, but capital punishment is functionally outlawed.
viewtopic.php?p=34697401#p34697401

Edit: Clarified the evidentiary standard.

Obligatory Proposal-A-Go-Go, lol

Wallenburg wrote:The restrictions in Preventing the Execution of Innocents intersect in such a manner that member states cannot legally carry out a death sentence.

OOC: People keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. There are legal ways around it without needing to faff with roleplay (which makes it even easier to bypass without being noncompliant). Difficult, yes, but not impossible.

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. The target resolution adequately prohibits capital punishment for all but the most severe crimes, and leaves to member nations the authority to legislate in all other cases."

(OOC: You still have ‘xxx’ in the text of the OP.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: You still have ‘xxx’ in the text of the OP.)

Good spot. Still working on this - the previous iteration failed to make quorum by quite a margin.

"Support. Makes sense that we would also prevent the state from killing people when we stop it from doing so much else regarding individual rights. Hopefully this can make it past the so called liberal democracies who retain this barbaric practice."

Tinhampton wrote:Good spot. Still working on this - the previous iteration failed to make quorum by quite a margin.

OOC:
Perhaps you should take that as a sign that an argument consisting purely of 'it won't let me pass what I want' is a poor one.

Tinfect wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Good spot. Still working on this - the previous iteration failed to make quorum by quite a margin.

OOC:
Perhaps you should take that as a sign that an argument consisting purely of 'it won't let me pass what I want' is a poor one.

No, it won't let me pass what the General Assembly expressed a desire for two years ago.