[PASSED] Death Penalty Ban

[Separatist Peoples]

"Honestly, that nations are willing to declare war on their own people to protect execution demonstrates that the death penalty is in desperate need of a good ban."

[Thermodolia]

“Ambassador it’s not refusing to comply its creative compliance. We have an entire department just for the purposes of loopholes and exploiting them”

Bell smiles and nods." Indeed, I'm familiar with creative compliance. However, I am not sure of any good faith interpretation here that would allow executions, even couched in terms of creative compliance."

“As the law currently stands there’s nothing preventing a nation from lets say declaring the accused to be under martial law the entire time and then executing them.

There’s also the idea of letting “totally uncontrollable” mobs of vigilantes loose on the accused and then let said investigations get buried under mountains of paperwork”

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Bell smiles and nods." Indeed, I'm familiar with creative compliance. However, I am not sure of any good faith interpretation here that would allow executions, even couched in terms of creative compliance."

“As the law currently stands there’s nothing preventing a nation from lets say declaring the accused to be under martial law the entire time and then executing them.”

Oe would say, with a villainous smile: “Or we can just declare a war on our own people. Say, requalify some stupid street gang, or a bunch of illegal aliens an internal combatant. Our culture is okay with killing someone for the good of the people.”, she would say and add, with a gentle smile: “And yes, if it was I who had to die for the good of the people, I’d happily accept my fate, if nation is in need for me to fade”

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell smiles and nods." Indeed, I'm familiar with creative compliance. However, I am not sure of any good faith interpretation here that would allow executions, even couched in terms of creative compliance."

“As the law currently stands there’s nothing preventing a nation from lets say declaring the accused to be under martial law the entire time and then executing them.

There’s also the idea of letting “totally uncontrollable” mobs of vigilantes loose on the accused and then let said investigations get buried under mountains of paperwork”

"The former is not creative compliance, it's observing an exception. Though, any fair criminal justice system pernextant WA law would have a difficult time trying civilians under martial law when the civilians were, in fact, civilians.

"Allowing mob justice is theoretically an option, though systemically doing so would likely invite Compliance Commission investigations as to the good faith nature of your government's intent. I doubt this is an effective endeavor, and it is likely to cost your nation significantly in fines."

“As the law currently stands there’s nothing preventing a nation from lets say declaring the accused to be under martial law the entire time and then executing them.”

Oe would say, with a villainous smile: “Or we can just declare a war on our own people. Say, requalify some stupid street gang, or a bunch of illegal aliens an internal combatant. Our culture is okay with killing someone for the good of the people.”, she would say and add, with a gentle smile: “And yes, if it was I who had to die for the good of the people, I’d happily accept my fate, if nation is in need for me to fade”

"This plan contradicts extant law defining combatants, and is not a legal option. Nor a terribly clever one."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Oe would say, with a villainous smile: “Or we can just declare a war on our own people. Say, requalify some stupid street gang, or a bunch of illegal aliens an internal combatant. Our culture is okay with killing someone for the good of the people.”, she would say and add, with a gentle smile: “And yes, if it was I who had to die for the good of the people, I’d happily accept my fate, if nation is in need for me to fade”

She would continue reading the poem:
For many one should die with smile,
For many one should die with style
‘Cause what’s the reason for a living if you betray your own kind?
You must be stupid, either blind.
After finishing it she would look around, trying to find if anyone thought that it was any good.

[Thermodolia]

“As the law currently stands there’s nothing preventing a nation from lets say declaring the accused to be under martial law the entire time and then executing them.

There’s also the idea of letting “totally uncontrollable” mobs of vigilantes loose on the accused and then let said investigations get buried under mountains of paperwork”

"The former is not creative compliance, it's observing an exception. Though, any fair criminal justice system pernextant WA law would have a difficult time trying civilians under martial law when the civilians were, in fact, civilians.

“Yes but it is a loophole, one which we can exploit. Also the civilian ceases to be a civilian when they are conscripted into military service. That the conscription is retroactive isn’t considered fair is up for debate”

[Thermodolia]

Oe would say, with a villainous smile: “Or we can just declare a war on our own people. Say, requalify some stupid street gang, or a bunch of illegal aliens an internal combatant. Our culture is okay with killing someone for the good of the people.”, she would say and add, with a gentle smile: “And yes, if it was I who had to die for the good of the people, I’d happily accept my fate, if nation is in need for me to fade”

She would continue reading the poem:
For many one should die with smile,
For many one should die with style
‘Cause what’s the reason for a living if you betray your own kind?
You must be stupid, either blind.
After finishing it she would look around, trying to find if anyone thought that it was any good.

“Declaring a forever war on your population is quite, well stupid.”

[Laka Strolistandiler]

"This plan contradicts extant law defining combatants, and is not a legal option. Nor a terribly clever one."

Eh, we can clearly see loopholes here and there. For starters, this document doesn’t specify what clarifies as a combatant or even war. Yes, if it referenced any documents that would’ve been a problem, would it? Second of all, what prohibits us from simply, let’s say, literally declaring war on another country wishing to protect the right to kill? Of course there would be now real war, just saying...

[Untecna]

Well, now after an almost complete removal of the death penalty, now we have to worry about the complete abolishment, due to the proposal Protecting Sapient Life.
This is all going a bit far, now isn't it? I don't feel like we need to get rid of the death penalty, considering that no one can make a resolution and automatically get rid of all the death penalty policies throughout the WA world. And besides, no one is forced to change the policy because of the rules of the WA. This resolution and and Protecting Sapient Life will literally do nothing to the WA world, except pretend to work. These proposals are unnecessary and just clutter up the constant stream of actually good and useful proposals. I oppose this completely and hope that this and Protecting Sapient Life get repealed and not replaced.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This plan contradicts extant law defining combatants, and is not a legal option. Nor a terribly clever one."

Eh, we can clearly see loopholes here and there. For starters, this document doesn’t specify what clarifies as a combatant or even war. Yes, if it referenced any documents that would’ve been a problem, would it? Second of all, what prohibits us from simply, let’s say, literally declaring war on another country wishing to protect the right to kill? Of course there would be now real war, just saying...

"The term combatant is self explanatory. The protections afforded nonbeligerants are clearly defined. I wrote them."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The former is not creative compliance, it's observing an exception. Though, any fair criminal justice system pernextant WA law would have a difficult time trying civilians under martial law when the civilians were, in fact, civilians.

“Yes but it is a loophole, one which we can exploit. Also the civilian ceases to be a civilian when they are conscripted into military service. That the conscription is retroactive isn’t considered fair is up for debate”

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

[Neymarland]

Well, now after an almost complete removal of the death penalty, now we have to worry about the complete abolishment, due to the proposal Protecting Sapient Life.
This is all going a bit far, now isn't it? I don't feel like we need to get rid of the death penalty, considering that no one can make a resolution and automatically get rid of all the death penalty policies throughout the WA world. And besides, no one is forced to change the policy because of the rules of the WA. This resolution and and Protecting Sapient Life will literally do nothing to the WA world, except pretend to work. These proposals are unnecessary and just clutter up the constant stream of actually good and useful proposals. I oppose this completely and hope that this and Protecting Sapient Life get repealed and not replaced.

Well, if you have a problem, fix it yourself.

[Elwher]

“Yes but it is a loophole, one which we can exploit. Also the civilian ceases to be a civilian when they are conscripted into military service. That the conscription is retroactive isn’t considered fair is up for debate”

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

We have modified our conscription laws so that anyone committing a capital crime is automatically joining the military. Therefore, the crime was committed while a member of the military and is under the jurisdiction of military tribunals, and subject to the death penalty according to this resolution. No retroactive conscription, so that objection is satisfied.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

We have modified our conscription laws so that anyone committing a capital crime is automatically joining the military. Therefore, the crime was committed while a member of the military and is under the jurisdiction of military tribunals, and subject to the death penalty according to this resolution. No retroactive conscription, so that objection is satisfied.

"This does not follow. The crime has not been committed until its complete. Only then would conscription apply. There's still an element of retroactivity inherent in this approach. The perpetrator never availed themselves of a military jurisdiction until after the crime. There are a great many abusive and oppressive efforts being taken here with very little regard for the political externalities you are creating."

[Untecna]

Well, now after an almost complete removal of the death penalty, now we have to worry about the complete abolishment, due to the proposal Protecting Sapient Life.
This is all going a bit far, now isn't it? I don't feel like we need to get rid of the death penalty, considering that no one can make a resolution and automatically get rid of all the death penalty policies throughout the WA world. And besides, no one is forced to change the policy because of the rules of the WA. This resolution and and Protecting Sapient Life will literally do nothing to the WA world, except pretend to work. These proposals are unnecessary and just clutter up the constant stream of actually good and useful proposals. I oppose this completely and hope that this and Protecting Sapient Life get repealed and not replaced.

Well, if you have a problem, fix it yourself.

It's a lot easier to help others than to go alone, is it not?

[Neymarland]

Well, if you have a problem, fix it yourself.

It's a lot easier to help others than to go alone, is it not?

Well, yes, support is vital to any cause.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

“Yes but it is a loophole, one which we can exploit. Also the civilian ceases to be a civilian when they are conscripted into military service. That the conscription is retroactive isn’t considered fair is up for debate”

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

Hehe, comrade, we can clearly voluntarily enlist all of the nation into the military! You should know that all of our citizens are legally abliged to serve a combat term. I’m not speaking about The Perpetual War On Crime, actual war against actual combatants, peacekeeping mission, etc.

[Greater Cesnica]

This is all going a bit far, now isn't it?

Nope. I support the complete abolition of capital punishment in all forms.

[Avleristan]

The Federation of Avleristan view it as a sovereign right to make the laws of a nation regarding penal laws and capital punishment. With all do respect to the leaders who are in favor of a Death Penalty ban, I would like to point out the fact that every day the general assembly is getting more and more authoritarian, telling sovereign nations what they can and can't do. This assembly should be for the benefit of all nations rather than the suppression of the rights of the judiciaries of certain nations. I hope that those in favor will find it in their heart to overturn the decision and take the word of the Avleri people, who have suffered far too long with oppression from outside forces, that the Death Penalty ban will bring further divide in a world which need uniting.

Thank you

[Neymarland]

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

Hehe, comrade, we can clearly voluntarily enlist all of the nation into the military! You should know that all of our citizens are legally abliged to serve a combat term. I’m not speaking about The Perpetual War On Crime, actual war against actual combatants, peacekeeping mission, etc.

Why should we know? It's not in Neymarlandian education.

[Neymarland]

The Federation of Avleristan view it as a sovereign right to make the laws of a nation regarding penal laws and capital punishment. With all do respect to the leaders who are in favor of a Death Penalty ban, I would like to point out the fact that every day the general assembly is getting more and more authoritarian, telling sovereign nations what they can and can't do. This assembly should be for the benefit of all nations rather than the suppression of the rights of the judiciaries of certain nations. I hope that those in favor will find it in their heart to overturn the decision and take the word of the Avleri people, who have suffered far too long with oppression from outside forces, that the Death Penalty ban will bring further divide in a world which need uniting.

Thank you

The WA is there to say what you can and can't do. If you think that's authoritarian, then leaving the WA is what you should do.

[Greater Cesnica]

The Federation of Avleristan view it as a sovereign right to make the laws of a nation regarding penal laws and capital punishment. With all do respect to the leaders who are in favor of a Death Penalty ban, I would like to point out the fact that every day the general assembly is getting more and more authoritarian, telling sovereign nations what they can and can't do. This assembly should be for the benefit of all nations rather than the suppression of the rights of the judiciaries of certain nations. I hope that those in favor will find it in their heart to overturn the decision and take the word of the Avleri people, who have suffered far too long with oppression from outside forces, that the Death Penalty ban will bring further divide in a world which need uniting.

Thank you

The WA is there to say what you can and can't do. If you think that's authoritarian, then leaving the WA is what you should do.

An ironic state of affairs, considering the resolution at-vote seeks to oppose authoritarianism.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I suppose we have a terminology issue. I don't see using an exception as a loophole. Though, jurisdictionally, conscription does not apply retroactive jurisdiction by nature. The person was a civilian at the time of the crime. The crime was governed by civilian laws (by virtue of the military being uninvolved at that point). Shifting jurisdictions to suit government policy is not only abusive, it makes entities within a state unable to plan compliance accordingly for civil and criminal matters. Uncertainty like this drives up the cost of literally all actions, and correspondingly reduces the ability to engage in socially helpful acts. It strikes me as a suicidal approach."

Hehe, comrade, we can clearly voluntarily enlist all of the nation into the military! You should know that all of our citizens are legally abliged to serve a combat term. I’m not speaking about The Perpetual War On Crime, actual war against actual combatants, peacekeeping mission, etc.

"I am not your comrade. Enlistment isn't voluntary if it is compulsory as part of citizenship, and nothing in here addresses my prior points. It sounds as though you had an idea and thought it clever but forgot the topic at hand."

[Untecna]

The WA is there to say what you can and can't do. If you think that's authoritarian, then leaving the WA is what you should do.

An ironic state of affairs, considering the resolution at-vote seeks to oppose authoritarianism.

It seeks to oppose "authoritarianism" while using authoritarianism.

Forcing nations to do such a thing (which will not work, I'm not convinced) is not opposing so-called "authoritarianism", it's using the exact same word that they say the death penalty is to try and progress their views.

[Greater Cesnica]

An ironic state of affairs, considering the resolution at-vote seeks to oppose authoritarianism.

It seeks to oppose "authoritarianism" while using authoritarianism.

Forcing nations to do such a thing (which will not work, I'm not convinced) is not opposing so-called "authoritarianism", it's using the exact same word that they say the death penalty is to try and progress their views.

If you don't agree with the majority, then leave the WA. That simple.