[DRAFT #5???] End Capital Punishment

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 71
Word count: 13

Now a standalone draft.

I am aware that this constitutes massive duplication of GA#545 "Military Death Penalty Ban." However, I am no longer satisfied that MDPB is fit for purpose and will be pursuing its repeal in the coming months with a view to replacing it with what you see below. ///// You will note that Death Penalty Ban allows for the death penalty for "crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war." IA has asserted that this is because support for an outright ban is "unclear." There's STILL only one way to find out...

End Capital Punishment
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

No person may be killed or seriously injured as punishment for a crime.

DRAFT REPOSITORY (in chronological order)

Drafts 1 and 2: Click here.

Recognising that GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban," while outlawing capital punishment in most circumstances, permits its deployment under military law in some circumstances, and

Seeking to abolish capital punishment in all circumstances across the WA, for reasons that have already been stated in GA#438, GA#533 and GA#535...

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law.

Noting that GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban," while outlawing capital punishment in most cases, does not consistently forbid its use under military law, and

Seeking to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances across the WA, yet again...

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty for all crimes where its imposition is not already forbidden by prior and standing international law.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Are you serious?

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC:
Are you serious?

OOC: I do believe that she is, in fact, serious. We never know though.

[Refuge Isle]

I do not mean to be pedantic, but it's understanding that the numeration "II"implies that there has been a "I"

[Tinfect]

I do not mean to be pedantic, but it's understanding that the numeration "II"implies that there has been a "I"

OOC:
It's currently at vote; it's not looking like it's going to pass at the moment, but there's two days left on the vote, so this is premature and frankly silly. It strikes of the badgering repeals of reproductive rights legislation, to be completely honest.

[Tinhampton]

OOC:
Are you serious?

All will be made clear in the coming days. I can confirm that politically significant concerns have been raised about the provisions of Article b which merit rectification.

OOC:
Are you serious?

OOC: I do believe that she is, in fact, serious. We never know though.

Floosh!

RE the ongoing conversation: The first Common Sense Act didn't pass, either.

[Refuge Isle]

OOC:
It's currently at vote; it's not looking like it's going to pass at the moment, but there's two days left on the vote, so this is premature and frankly silly. It strikes of the badgering repeals of reproductive rights legislation, to be completely honest.

That would be my joke, yes.

All will be made clear in the coming days. I can confirm that politically significant concerns have been raised about the provisions of Article b which merit rectification.

It's my personal political recommendation that you not attempt to push the existing voter fatigue on this subject even further. I fee like you have put a great deal of stock on the concept of a proposal with a single operative clause, made on the heels of a GA success on the same subject. But given that this would be the third rapid-fire proposal on the topic, I don't think even a perfectly drafted resolution would be keen to pass under the present conditions. Further work in this area should be pushed off for another day, lest an author further alienate themselves.

[Tinhampton]

All will be made clear in the coming days. I can confirm that politically significant concerns have been raised about the provisions of Article b which merit rectification.

It's my personal political recommendation that you not attempt to push the existing voter fatigue on this subject even further. I fee like you have put a great deal of stock on the concept of a proposal with a single operative clause, made on the heels of a GA success on the same subject. But given that this would be the third rapid-fire proposal on the topic, I don't think even a perfectly drafted resolution would be keen to pass under the present conditions. Further work in this area should be pushed off for another day, lest an author further alienate themselves.

My primary goal here is to see out the complete abolition of the death penalty in all member states - something that we were promised two-and-a-half years ago. Its length is immaterial, LOL.

This proposal is not urgent at this stage

[WayNeacTia]

OOC:
Are you serious?

It's Tinhampton. What do you think?

[Picairn]

Really? When the current proposal is getting more Against votes than For?

Gotta say, I respect your dedication, but the answer is No.

[Tinhampton]

This is on hold pending the result of Military Death Penalty Ban, by Qvait.

[WayNeacTia]

Character count: 589
Word count: 83

You will note that Death Penalty Ban allows for the death penalty for "crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war." IA has asserted that this is because support for an outright ban is "unclear." There's STILL only one way to find out...

(Image)
Protecting Sapient Life II
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban," while outlawing capital punishment in most circumstances, permits its deployment under military law in some circumstances, and

Seeking to abolish capital punishment in all circumstances across the WA, for reasons that have already been stated in GA#438, GA#533 and GA#535...

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law.

Drafts 1 and 2

So building a house of cards within a resolution is legal now? Was there a memo I missed somewhere outlining that particular rule change?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So building a house of cards within a resolution is legal now? Was there a memo I missed somewhere outlining that particular rule change?

Mentioning past resolutions is not a house of cards. See Safeguarding Nuclear Materials [2017] GAS 12.

[WayNeacTia]

So building a house of cards within a resolution is legal now? Was there a memo I missed somewhere outlining that particular rule change?

Mentioning past resolutions is not a house of cards. See Safeguarding Nuclear Materials [2017] GAS 12.

So if those three resoultions happen to be repealed, what actual legs does this have to stand on? This?

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law.

I don't buy it. This is nothing more than a blocker, and when I say nothing more I mean it. It does nothing other than that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mentioning past resolutions is not a house of cards. See Safeguarding Nuclear Materials [2017] GAS 12.

So if those three resoultions happen to be repealed, what actual legs does this have to stand on? This?

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law.

I don't buy it. This is nothing more than a blocker, and when I say nothing more I mean it. It does nothing other than that.

That some resolutions have been repealed doesn't change the past or that previous resolutions stated rationales for taking certain actions. Resolution history is not inaccessible due to repeal. That the House of Cards rule does not prohibit mere reference has been well-established for four years now.

[WayNeacTia]

So if those three resoultions happen to be repealed, what actual legs does this have to stand on? This?

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law.

I don't buy it. This is nothing more than a blocker, and when I say nothing more I mean it. It does nothing other than that.

That some resolutions have been repealed doesn't change the past or that previous resolutions stated rationales for taking certain actions. Resolution history is not inaccessible due to repeal. That the House of Cards rule does not prohibit mere reference has been well-established for four years now.

Fair enough. You still haven't answered my question though. What exactly does this accomplish, other than merely being a blocker and nothing else? There is nothing here other than "don't execute people".

[Imperium Anglorum]

That some resolutions have been repealed doesn't change the past or that previous resolutions stated rationales for taking certain actions. Resolution history is not inaccessible due to repeal. That the House of Cards rule does not prohibit mere reference has been well-established for four years now.

Fair enough. You still haven't answered my question though. What exactly does this accomplish, other than merely being a blocker and nothing else? There is nothing here other than "don't execute people".

How is that not a policy?

[Tinhampton]

So if those three resoultions happen to be repealed...

GA#533 is a repeal and therefore cannot be repealed itself

[WayNeacTia]

Fair enough. You still haven't answered my question though. What exactly does this accomplish, other than merely being a blocker and nothing else? There is nothing here other than "don't execute people".

How is that not a policy?

It is. That is not the point I am getting at though. My apologies. I will ask this a different way. As I am sort of out of the loop on the whole rule change and such, is it legal for a resolution to completely render another current resolution that is still on the books moot?

[Imperium Anglorum]

How is that not a policy?

It is. That is not the point I am getting at though. My apologies. I will ask this a different way. As I am sort of out of the loop on the whole rule change and such, is it legal for a resolution to completely render another current resolution that is still on the books moot?

If you mean like how On Abortion is basically moribund after the passage of Reproductive Freedoms, I don't immediately see any bar.

[Tinhampton]

Given that I fully intend to embark upon a forthcoming repeal of the Military Death Penalty Ban (a resolution that is a barely-functional mess with GA#535 in place and an incomprehensibly incoherent annex should that ever be struck out) which will probably be submitted around the last week of March July 2022, and plan upon replacing it with what you see above, I also see fit to bump this thread.

Protecting Sapient Life would have passed (by a ridiculously narrow margin) had The South Pacific voted in favour of it - thus rendering MDPB completely unnecessary. The general sentiment in TSP's then-onsite "WA Voting Center" was perhaps best summarised by Tepertopia when he complained that "such a landmark act by the WA [would] be carried out by a more thought-out piece of writing than this obviously rushed attempt at profiteering off recent resolutions that actually had at least an effort put into them to present all the points this proposal lazily doesn't care to make."

Anjo's first complaint was that PSL had no effort put into it whatsoever. (Amerion also claimed that resolutions shouldn't have "five lines of justification" or something.) If you exclude the "Co-authored with Gorundu" notice (and co-authorships have stopped counting towards the character limit since last month), PSL was about 700 characters and 105 words long. Yet Repeal "Voting Equality for Freed Inmates," End Conversion Therapy, Repeal "Ban on Conversion Therapy," Repeal "International Salvage Laws" - all of them shorter, in terms of both character and word count than PSL - have all passed over the past eleven months or so. Shorter resolutions have consistently passed in both chambers of the World Assembly over the past fourteen years, and then the Unleaded Nozzles before that.

The other major concern raised about PSL II (and perhaps PSL itself) was that it was overly opportunistic - or that, as Refuge put it earlier in this thread, not "even a perfectly drafted resolution would... pass under the present conditions." That no serious proposals on this topic have reached vote since March 2021 should be extremely telling, however.

The World Assembly deserves a comprehensive ban on the death penalty, not a hastily stuck-together double decker.

(Any and all further constructive commentary is welcome.)

[Tinhampton]

Greatest Hits Radio: The Good Times Sound Like This

[Kenmoria]

“Instead of this odd pseudo-reference to past resolutions, why not simply ban the death penalty from being imposed under military law? I’m sure that there is some justification about due process that could explain this in isolation, and it makes complete sense when considered with GA #535. I find myself broadly in support of this proposal, on the grounds of policy, but I think that there a more elegant ways to achieve this.”

(OOC: This may not be a violation of house-of-cards in the letter of the law, but it definitely is in spirit. I don’t like the idea of having a resolution that can only be explained with reference to past legislation.)

[Tinhampton]

Assistant Lydia Anderson: If I wanted to ban the death penalty for military use only, I'd support the status quo. And if I supported the status quo, I wouldn't even come anywhere near considering this proposal as written.

[The Orwell Society]

Strenuously opposed. Good try.