Page 2 of 10
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:16 pmby WayNeacTia
"While we do not impose the death penalty for any crimes committed within our borders, we recognize the right of other sovereign nations to punish their criminals as they see fit. This proposal is nothing more than the complete decimation of national sovereignty and we will absolutely not support it in any way."
Wayne
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:12 amby Silvedania
"Full support."
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:23 amby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Wayneactia wrote:"While we do not impose the death penalty for any crimes committed within our borders, we recognize the right of other sovereign nations to punish their criminals as they see fit. This proposal is nothing more than the complete decimation of national sovereignty and we will absolutely not support it in any way."
Wayne
"Ambassador, if nations have a right to 'punish their criminals as they see fit,' should bans on torture be repealed?"
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:27 amby Greater Cesnica
Wayneactia wrote:"While we do not impose the death penalty for any crimes committed within our borders, we recognize the right of other sovereign nations to punish their criminals as they see fit. This proposal is nothing more than the complete decimation of national sovereignty and we will absolutely not support it in any way."
Wayne
"Ambassador, by joining this Assembly, a nation agrees to follow the mandate and will of this body. Non-compliant nations are shunned, even condemned. I suppose since we're talking about national sovereignty, that the General Assembly shouldn't prohibit genocide, right? A nation would have the right to purge their citizens of "undesirables", right? Of course not."
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:13 amby Marxist Germany
"The right to life is one that is inalienable from the womb to the tomb. This is a great step to be taken by the World Assembly, and it will receive my support."
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:47 amby Keswickholt
The Federal Republic has two stances on this proposal;
The first being that we fully support the end to the barbaric punishment that is Execution. The Federal Republic has abolished the Death Penalty and Capital Punishment.
The second being that, the General Assembly should not interfere with the internal criminal law of a nation.
The Federal Republic will not support this proposal.
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:12 amby Tinhampton
Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Senator Harrison, I take it that that you would support a repeal of the resolution On Female Genital Mutilation on the grounds that Keswickholtian legislation forbids such a practice and it is not the World Assembly's business to declare it or any other practice a criminal offence?
(IC AND OOC: SUPPORT)
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:42 pmby Grays Harbor
Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Senator Harrison, I take it that that you would support a repeal of the resolution On Female Genital Mutilation on the grounds that Keswickholtian legislation forbids such a practice and it is not the World Assembly's business to declare it or any other practice a criminal offence?
(IC AND OOC: SUPPORT)
False equivalence. The two are in no way comparable.
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:44 pmby Imperium Anglorum
We have X. It is unnecessary for the World Assembly to enforce X. Perform appropriate substitution. Warrants cross-apply.
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:12 pmby Bananaistan
"Bananaistan is opposed due to the military/war time exemption. "
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:06 pmby Imperium Anglorum
I'd rather pass what is more likely passable than go full moralist and end up with UM's two failed attempts at an absolute ban.
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:20 pmby Tinhampton
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd rather pass what is more likely passable than go full moralist and end up with UM's two failed attempts at an absolute ban.
Ban on Capital Punishment, which you co-authored with UM, received 43.75% of the vote two-and-a-quarter years ago (and was leading throughout the first day of voting or so). What makes you think that this draft would not fare any better were the words "except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war" omitted from Article 1?
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:21 pmby WayNeacTia
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"While we do not impose the death penalty for any crimes committed within our borders, we recognize the right of other sovereign nations to punish their criminals as they see fit. This proposal is nothing more than the complete decimation of national sovereignty and we will absolutely not support it in any way."
Wayne
"Ambassador, if nations have a right to 'punish their criminals as they see fit,' should bans on torture be repealed?"
"Torture is rarely a legally sanctioned punishment, and serves no purpose, other than to cause unnecessary pain. There is a difference."
Wayne
Greater Cesnica wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"While we do not impose the death penalty for any crimes committed within our borders, we recognize the right of other sovereign nations to punish their criminals as they see fit. This proposal is nothing more than the complete decimation of national sovereignty and we will absolutely not support it in any way."
Wayne
"Ambassador, by joining this Assembly, a nation agrees to follow the mandate and will of this body. Non-compliant nations are shunned, even condemned. I suppose since we're talking about national sovereignty, that the General Assembly shouldn't prohibit genocide, right? A nation would have the right to purge their citizens of "undesirables", right? Of course not."
"See above Ambassador. Attempting to over inflate a comment, just to prove a point, only makes you look like an ass. I would fully support a ban on nations using any form of capital punishment that causes undue pain and suffering. Yet I somehow, severely doubt that the Anglican delegation will make that compromise. What I won't support is a wholesale ban, which trounces on areas of national sovereignty."
Wayne
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:07 pmby Sylh Alanor
The presence of this draft has pushed me to vote in favour of the current repeal at vote, despite my misgivings. Full support, and I will be highly recommending this in our regional discussion should it reach quorum.
Posted:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:34 pmby Hookah Castle
I see no difference between killing a man for a crime or in a war. To suggest that the death penalty is somehow more or less abhorrent than any other exercise over state interests misses the point entirely. Another words if states can arrest and impose laws, why couldn't they kill? Once dominance has been established over the individual does it really matter at that point? Suddenly killing them goes too far?
On the other hand an outcry toward the death penalty is a splendid idea. Because rapists and (ironically) murderers should be roaming the streets.
So signed merely because all of humankind should implode and accelerate into a rapidly decaying anarchy.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:34 amby Bananaistan
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd rather pass what is more likely passable than go full moralist and end up with UM's two failed attempts at an absolute ban.
OOC: What you have here will block a full ban.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:51 amby Tinfect
OOC:
Presuming the current draft allows Member-States to execute the perpetrators of genocide and other such war crimes, this is actually acceptable.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:38 amby Kenmoria
Bananaistan wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd rather pass what is more likely passable than go full moralist and end up with UM's two failed attempts at an absolute ban.
OOC: What you have here will block a full ban.
(OOC: How would it? Clause 1 doesn’t reserve the right for member nations the right to determine the status of capital punishment for war crimes; it just means that this particular piece of legislation isn’t making any mandate on the issue.)
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:55 amby Einherjarstein
My people are safe. They are fed, they make a good income, homelessness has been eradicated, and their healthcare is free. Make no mistake, the laws of Einherjarstein are strict. But my people are aware of the laws of their country. They are aware of the consequences of breaking those laws. Because of the threat of corporal and capital punishment, the citizens of Einherjarstein are in the bottom 10% of the world's crime rate.
We do not keep prisoners on death row for years awaiting trial. Evidence is gathered, a suspect is determined, and brought before a judge. If judged innocent, the accused is free to go; exonerated of the crime. If found guilty, punishment will be dealt out in accordance with the laws of our sovereign state. If capital punishment is warranted, it is done in public, and my citizens will vote on how the condemned shall be executed.
Since my citizens are fully aware of their laws, and are complicit in choosing the type of capital punishment used to execute their fellow Einherjarsteiners, why should the death penalty be banned in Einherjarstein?
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:03 amby Separatist Peoples
Einherjarstein wrote:My people are safe. They are fed, they make a good income, homelessness has been eradicated, and their healthcare is free. Make no mistake, the laws of Einherjarstein are strict. But my people are aware of the laws of their country. They are aware of the consequences of breaking those laws. Because of the threat of corporal and capital punishment, the citizens of Einherjarstein are in the bottom 10% of the world's crime rate.
We do not keep prisoners on death row for years awaiting trial. Evidence is gathered, a suspect is determined, and brought before a judge. If judged innocent, the accused is free to go; exonerated of the crime. If found guilty, punishment will be dealt out in accordance with the laws of our sovereign state. If capital punishment is warranted, it is done in public, and my citizens will vote on how the condemned shall be executed.
Since my citizens are fully aware of their laws, and are complicit in choosing the type of capital punishment used to execute their fellow Einherjarsteiners, why should the death penalty be banned in Einherjarstein?
"Because courts are inherently fallible and the death penalty is irreversible. And because subordinating justice to mob rule invites abuse."
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:22 amby Greater Cesnica
Separatist Peoples wrote:Einherjarstein wrote:My people are safe. They are fed, they make a good income, homelessness has been eradicated, and their healthcare is free. Make no mistake, the laws of Einherjarstein are strict. But my people are aware of the laws of their country. They are aware of the consequences of breaking those laws. Because of the threat of corporal and capital punishment, the citizens of Einherjarstein are in the bottom 10% of the world's crime rate.
We do not keep prisoners on death row for years awaiting trial. Evidence is gathered, a suspect is determined, and brought before a judge. If judged innocent, the accused is free to go; exonerated of the crime. If found guilty, punishment will be dealt out in accordance with the laws of our sovereign state. If capital punishment is warranted, it is done in public, and my citizens will vote on how the condemned shall be executed.
Since my citizens are fully aware of their laws, and are complicit in choosing the type of capital punishment used to execute their fellow Einherjarsteiners, why should the death penalty be banned in Einherjarstein?
"Because courts are inherently fallible and the death penalty is irreversible. And because subordinating justice to mob rule invites abuse."
"I could not have put it any better myself, Ambassador."
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:39 amby Sierra Lyricalia
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Presuming the current draft allows Member-States to execute the perpetrators of genocide and other such war crimes, this is actually acceptable.
OOC: I would agree with this both IC and OOC. I read it right now, though, as continuing to prohibit capital punishment for crimes against humanity occurring outside of wartime or not being prosecuted by a specifically military court. RL examples of such cases might be found in Rwanda or Indonesia.
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:56 amby Picairn
"If war crimes include genocides and mass killings, then this proposal has our support.
No war criminal should remain alive after capture and trial. That's also why we will oppose a full ban, if it ever materializes in the GA."
Posted:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:48 pmby Boston Castle
"Inhumane, unjust, and fundamentally undermines the dignity of life-no matter how poorly lived it was...
I'm referring to capital punishment, of course. The Castellian delegation fully supports this proposal, Ambassador Wellesley."
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:55 amby Bananaistan
Kenmoria wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: What you have here will block a full ban.
(OOC: How would it? Clause 1 doesn’t reserve the right for member nations the right to determine the status of capital punishment for war crimes; it just means that this particular piece of legislation isn’t making any mandate on the issue.)
OOC: Yes, I mustn't have grasped section 1 correctly on first reading. This is correct.