[SUBMITTED] Regulations of Capital Punishment

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: honestly never understood what made guillotines worse than hanging. The margin for error seems much less.

Guillotines are slightly more humane in a way, it's almost instant death as opposed to hanging helplessly for three minutes

OOC: I don't want to derail this too much, but hangings were supposed to break the neck of the sentenced, not strangulate them. That was why people were dropped. The guillotine eliminated the room for error (And made executions egalitarian).

On topic, capital punishment is already effectively banned in Preventing the Execution of Innocents. Even the Int'l Criminal Protocol won't change that, the line allowing the death penalty in PEoI and ICP are functionally identical.

[Cosmosplosion]

OOC: Proposal has been updated to address varying concerns.

[Araraukar]

OOC: On the chance that this is not a joke proposal...

Member Nations may not allow any sapient species to witness capital punishment, including any being participating in the capital punishment. This includes witnessing the capital punishment in-person and/or through a live feed and/or recordings; Clarifies that this clause does not prevent distribution of recordings of past capital punishments,

So the person executed can't witness their own execution? How's that going to work? Or any personnell, like the doctor (think lethal injections), who's there to make sure that the executee doesn't suffer unduly while being executed? And are recordings still allowed to be made for purposes other than watching the execution, such as making sure the personnell involved act professionally and don't, for example, sexually molest the executee right before their death?

And you're allowing the distribution of recordings, but not actually watching them.

Member Nations may only possess items required to carry out capital punishment if there is an imminent need to execute a prisoner,

You do understand that in lethal injections' case, many of the substances used are normally used in anesthesia, just at lower doses? And that injection needles are not used only in executions? What's the point of this clause to begin with?

Buildings or temporary structures, and the items within them, must be destroyed if capital punishment occurs within their confines;

So prisons and everything in them must be destroyed? What about the people in them? What's the actual usefulness of this? And wouldn't it encourage executions to happen in haphazardly built structures with unsafe equipment, that can cause serious discomfort or pain to the executee? Like, instead of a hospital bed they'd die staked to the ground outside, to avoid having to destroy the entire prison?

Maximum of one (1) capital punishment may be carried out within a building or temporary structure; This building or temporary structure must meet jurisdictional standards for residency and occupancy; Capital punishment cannot occur outside.

So staked to the ground in a tent. Which is a temporary structure where people can live safely. Again, what's the point of this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

All of those are the point.

[Tinfect]

OOC: On the chance that this is not a joke proposal...

OOC:
For the record, this draft exists for the sole purpose of wildly abusing a good-faith attempt at moderation by allowing future regulation, so as to make another childish roundabout ban like Preventing the Execution of Innocents was meant to be.

[Cosmosplosion]

All of those are the point.

Ah, someone gets it.

[Picairn]

"Update: Following a rejection by the Picairnian Medical Association to administer the death penalty through lethal injection, and a steady drop in crime for years, our Parliament has passed a motion to abolish the death penalty once and for all.

Since the topic has fully been rendered moot in our nation, we shall abstain on the matter."

OOC: Dang, Issue #806 "Unlicensed to kill" is a pretty ingenious way to convince me to abolish the death penalty.

[Araraukar]

All of those are the point.

Ah, someone gets it.

OOC: To quote Mythbusters: When in doubt, C4. With high explosives death is so instantaneous that even the executee won't "witness" it, the explosions and everything leading up to them can be recorded as they're not actually showing the death (because it's instantaneous), and if the executee is tied up and in a tent, then the rest of the requirements are satisfied as well.

IC: "...I can definitely see people turning up to see a series of explosions just for the awesomeness of it. Might even make a video of it, with the explosions fitting the music or something..."

[Shankaslovakia]

Imagine believing those who seek to besmirch the reputation of my glorious country through violent acts or words of disapprobation do not deserve to suffer the humiliation and pain that come with public executions. Imagine having any amount of respect for the ants I squash to keep the cogs turning. No quarter for the violators of our equitable laws!

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

OOC: On the chance that this is not a joke proposal...

Member Nations may not allow any sapient species to witness capital punishment, including any being participating in the capital punishment. This includes witnessing the capital punishment in-person and/or through a live feed and/or recordings; Clarifies that this clause does not prevent distribution of recordings of past capital punishments,

So the person executed can't witness their own execution? How's that going to work? Or any personnell, like the doctor (think lethal injections), who's there to make sure that the executee doesn't suffer unduly while being executed? And are recordings still allowed to be made for purposes other than watching the execution, such as making sure the personnell involved act professionally and don't, for example, sexually molest the executee right before their death?

And you're allowing the distribution of recordings, but not actually watching them.

Member Nations may only possess items required to carry out capital punishment if there is an imminent need to execute a prisoner,

You do understand that in lethal injections' case, many of the substances used are normally used in anesthesia, just at lower doses? And that injection needles are not used only in executions? What's the point of this clause to begin with?

Buildings or temporary structures, and the items within them, must be destroyed if capital punishment occurs within their confines;

So prisons and everything in them must be destroyed? What about the people in them? What's the actual usefulness of this? And wouldn't it encourage executions to happen in haphazardly built structures with unsafe equipment, that can cause serious discomfort or pain to the executee? Like, instead of a hospital bed they'd die staked to the ground outside, to avoid having to destroy the entire prison?

Maximum of one (1) capital punishment may be carried out within a building or temporary structure; This building or temporary structure must meet jurisdictional standards for residency and occupancy; Capital punishment cannot occur outside.

So staked to the ground in a tent. Which is a temporary structure where people can live safely. Again, what's the point of this?

(OOC) Echoing all of this. The need for a medical witness, the impracticality of only possessing tools for capital punishment right when they're needed, and the extremely unusual building restrictions all put me against this proposal.

Less important but still worth mentioning:

• I think an opening "The World Assembly," line would help here.
• The second clause is meant to be "Reiterating", right?
• The way you've formatted the proposal sort of creates one operative clause (the "Mandates" one) with three separate parts, and this feels almost like a workaround to avoid phrasing the meat of the legislation in proper WA format. I suggest breaking that into three bits by removing the "Mandates" and making the following clauses read more like, "Prohibits member states from possessing the materials…", etc.

I don't know if "capital punishment" needs a definition, but it's possible…

[Comfed]

OOC: On the chance that this is not a joke proposal...


So the person executed can't witness their own execution? How's that going to work? Or any personnell, like the doctor (think lethal injections), who's there to make sure that the executee doesn't suffer unduly while being executed? And are recordings still allowed to be made for purposes other than watching the execution, such as making sure the personnell involved act professionally and don't, for example, sexually molest the executee right before their death?

And you're allowing the distribution of recordings, but not actually watching them.


You do understand that in lethal injections' case, many of the substances used are normally used in anesthesia, just at lower doses? And that injection needles are not used only in executions? What's the point of this clause to begin with?


So prisons and everything in them must be destroyed? What about the people in them? What's the actual usefulness of this? And wouldn't it encourage executions to happen in haphazardly built structures with unsafe equipment, that can cause serious discomfort or pain to the executee? Like, instead of a hospital bed they'd die staked to the ground outside, to avoid having to destroy the entire prison?


So staked to the ground in a tent. Which is a temporary structure where people can live safely. Again, what's the point of this?

(OOC) Echoing all of this. The need for a medical witness, the impracticality of only possessing tools for capital punishment right when they're needed, and the extremely unusual building restrictions all put me against this proposal.

Less important but still worth mentioning:

• I think an opening "The World Assembly," line would help here.
• The second clause is meant to be "Reiterating", right?
• The way you've formatted the proposal sort of creates one operative clause (the "Mandates" one) with three separate parts, and this feels almost like a workaround to avoid phrasing the meat of the legislation in proper WA format. I suggest breaking that into three bits by removing the "Mandates" and making the following clauses read more like, "Prohibits member states from possessing the materials…", etc.

I don't know if "capital punishment" needs a definition, but it's possible…

The point of this proposal is to make it essentially impossible to carry out the death penalty

[Auze]

(OOC) Echoing all of this. The need for a medical witness, the impracticality of only possessing tools for capital punishment right when they're needed, and the extremely unusual building restrictions all put me against this proposal.

Less important but still worth mentioning:

• I think an opening "The World Assembly," line would help here.
• The second clause is meant to be "Reiterating", right?
• The way you've formatted the proposal sort of creates one operative clause (the "Mandates" one) with three separate parts, and this feels almost like a workaround to avoid phrasing the meat of the legislation in proper WA format. I suggest breaking that into three bits by removing the "Mandates" and making the following clauses read more like, "Prohibits member states from possessing the materials…", etc.

I don't know if "capital punishment" needs a definition, but it's possible…

The point of this proposal is to make it essentially impossible to carry out the death penalty

Just a little earlier...

Ah, someone gets it.

OOC: To quote Mythbusters: When in doubt, C4. With high explosives death is so instantaneous that even the executee won't "witness" it, the explosions and everything leading up to them can be recorded as they're not actually showing the death (because it's instantaneous), and if the executee is tied up and in a tent, then the rest of the requirements are satisfied as well.

IC: "...I can definitely see people turning up to see a series of explosions just for the awesomeness of it. Might even make a video of it, with the explosions fitting the music or something..."

Never underestimate the power of people to find creative ways around these sorts of laws.

[Cosmosplosion]

This proposal has been submitted.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

"Full support, Ambassador."

[Attempted Socialism]

This is not necessary. Capital punishment is already effectively banned, this resolution will just create problems; it won't actually hinder more executions than existing laws.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Are you for real with this?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I marked this illegal as well as GH. It seems that caught some players off guard based on Discord chatter, so I'll explain my thoughts:

The proposal purports to improve civil rights, but actually limits member state possession of certain items. If it regulated persons who were not state actors, it might be Moral Decency, but it regulates states. Given that, I suspect that Global Disarmament is more accurate, since it functions to remove assets from criminal justice systems (police, colloquially).

I'm generally a flexible adjudicator on category, but the more I look at this the less I think one can justify Civil Rights.

[Honeydewistania]

Could it be moral decency if written like ‘bans the public from attending executions’?

Anyways against, until you write it as it is: ‘Ban on Public Executions’. Getting sick of this roundabout nonsense to ban capital punishment, it’s not going to happen. Public executions are a little cruel though, so that’s an idea

[Cosmosplosion]

Per Sep's advice, I will be resubmitting under a new category.

[Cosmosplosion]

I will note my decision to change the strength of the proposal as well. While initially submitted under the highest category, I feel as if given the topic, that could only apply on this specific policy if the proposal was an outright ban of capital punishment, which it is not.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm not convinced on the category. Which particular part reduces military or police spending?

[Wallenburg]

As has already been pointed out, this prohibits the possession of the very same items necessary for self-defense, hunting, meat processing, and national defense, let alone all the other applications of potentially lethal objects. This almost certainly contradicts several existing resolutions, since your resolution doesn't even limit this prohibition to arms, instead prohibiting all items. By necessity, any item reasonably capable of killing someone must be prohibited, which runs into issues with nearly every blocker out there.

[Gegeklia]

Against. Whilst I fully support regulation of capital punishment, surely it should focus on the humanity of method, than whether or not structures concerned are dismantled afterwards? Especially considering that nitrogen and argon inhalation is obviously the best method, and should ideally use air-tight chambers that would be expensive to continually reconstruct. I mean, sure, short-fall hanging would work fine in temporary gazebos, but I don't think that should be what it's all about.

[Cretox State]

As has already been pointed out, this prohibits the possession of the very same items necessary for self-defense, hunting, meat processing, and national defense, let alone all the other applications of potentially lethal objects. This almost certainly contradicts several existing resolutions, since your resolution doesn't even limit this prohibition to arms, instead prohibiting all items. By necessity, any item reasonably capable of killing someone must be prohibited, which runs into issues with nearly every blocker out there.

My interpretation is that the proposal would prohibit such items only if they are required to perform capital punishment. A gun isn't required; neither is a knife or anything else, really. Ironically, an absurdly overreaching clause seems to be nullified by loose wording. The real meat of the proposal is still:

Member Nations may not allow any sapient species to witness capital punishment, including any being participating in the capital punishment. This includes witnessing the capital punishment in-person and/or through a live feed and/or recordings; Clarifies that this clause does not prevent distribution of recordings of past capital punishments

[Tinfect]

OOC: I'm not convinced on the category. Which particular part reduces military or police spending?

OOC:
Given that the proposal effectively requires Member-States to completely dismantle their militaries and medical systems, that, presumably.