NationStates

IC: Written by Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith.
OOC: In preparation for the inevitable(???).

Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#443

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #443 “Preventing the Execution of Innocents” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that GA#443's laudable efforts to directly regulate capital punishment are now superfluous in light of GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban" and GA#545 "Military Death Penalty Ban," which combine to forbid capital punishment in all circumstances,

Hopeful that the target resolution's general provisions to ensure fairness for all those standing trial, regardless of what punishment they could face for their crimes, will be swiftly reinstated in some form, and

Remaining confident in its belief that a repeal, without equivalent and subsequent replacement, of both GA#535 and GA#545 is highly unlikely...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents."

Full support.

If the military death penalty ban passes, I will support this. However, I will not support a full ban of the death penalty.

What's the point? Having this on the books ensures the regulation of capital punishment in the event that the more restrictive bans are repealed. Repealing it seems like asking for trouble.

Junitaki-cho wrote:What's the point? Having this on the books ensures the regulation of capital punishment in the event that the more restrictive bans are repealed. Repealing it seems like asking for trouble.

I'd say having an entire WA committee staffed with people to do nothing is wasteful. redundant resolutions have also been repealed in the past

Junitaki-cho wrote:What's the point? Having this on the books ensures the regulation of capital punishment in the event that the more restrictive bans are repealed. Repealing it seems like asking for trouble.

I concur.

Bump, in light of the MDPB getting a lot of attention in recent days. I unsurprisingly agree with Honeydewistania regarding the earlier bit

Bump 2, and I have provisionally numbered Qvait's thing as GA#546 (assuming that Honeydewistania/STATNII's repeal passes). This will likely - if not almost certainly - be submitted about a week from now.

Tinhampton wrote:...assuming that Honeydewistania/STATNII's repeal passes...

Which it didn't. I intend to submit this at Monday minor.

Strongly opposed. Clause 7 of GAR#443 is vital in ensuring WA nations are unable to send their prisoners to be executed in other nations. If the current at-vote passes, this repeal would open up severe loopholes.

Junitaki-cho wrote:Strongly opposed. Clause 7 of GAR#443 is vital in ensuring WA nations are unable to send their prisoners to be executed in other nations. If the current at-vote passes, this repeal would open up severe loopholes.

Articles 2-3 of MDPB (which I appreciate that you have voiced significant concerns about, although that is not the topic of this thread):

Article 7 of PtEoI prohibits members from deporting any person

• who is "charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence" beyond "World Assembly judicial institutions or jurisdictions without capital punishment," OR OTHERWISE
• "to a place likely to commence judicial proceedings, which would contravene World Assembly legislation, against" them.

While "World Assembly legislation" will soon forbid capital punishment in all cases, GA#443.7 - unlike MDPB - covers all "[WA] legislation", not just that about capital punishment.

Consider GA#177.4, which requires member states to guarantee to "all victims of fraud... compensation... equal to or greater than the value of the loss" incurred from said fraud, "and that this compensation shall be derived from the fiscal and/or material assets of the perpetrator of the act of financial fraud which resulted in the loss." It would not under GA#443.7 be permissible for a member state where financial fraud is a civil offence and which harbours an immigrant perpetuator of financial fraud to deport that immigrant back to his (non-member-state) home country which requires that compensation for victims of financial fraud be dispensed from a government fund funded by taxation and created for that purpose. This is an absurd but unintended consequence of the target resolution.

I fail to see how the second requirement of GA#443.7 is any different to the main provisions of GA#545.2 and GA#545.3 (read in conjunction), namely that retentionist states:

• may receive residents of member states who they could sentence to death in the absence of regulations, but
• are in fact subject to regulations with the effect of preventing them from sentencing these residents to death.

The difference is that these regulations are imposed upon the abolitionist/WA member state in GA#443 and the retentionist state in GA#545. The main question here is who you trust to keep the retentionist state's end of the bargain.

I await the day when you no longer intend to push proposals on the line of single-sentence novelty. Likely, I will be waiting for some time yet.

There's nothing negative caused by keeping the target on the books, and there is nothing gained from having it removed. Lacking any argument at all in the proposal and otherwise having no reason to act, this proposal has no support from me.

Tinhampton wrote:I fail to see how the second requirement of GA#443.7 is any different to the main provisions of GA#545.2 and GA#545.3 (read in conjunction), namely that retentionist states:

• may receive residents of member states who they could sentence to death in the absence of regulations, but
• are in fact subject to regulations with the effect of preventing them from sentencing these residents to death.

The difference is that these regulations are imposed upon the abolitionist/WA member state in GA#443 and the retentionist state in GA#545. The main question here is who you trust to keep the retentionist state's end of the bargain.

It's different in one very important way: #443 doesn't allow member states to deport prisoners to non-WA states which practice the death penalty. Contracts are not regulations, and they certainly don't hold power when you're taking them outside the WA, where there are no tools for repercussions. You take away #443, there's nothing stopping me from reaching an off-the-books understanding with a non-WA nation that I'll ship them prisoners, they'll violate their contracts, and the prisoners will be killed. In this scenario, my nation has done nothing wrong, can't possibly be held accountable for the decisions of the receiving nation, and the receiving nation can't be touched.

I'm unmoved by your argument that #443.7 has unreasonable interactions with extant legislation - compliance with WA law, and the expectation that a WA nation will extend those laws and benefits to its residents, is a feature rather than a bug. I'm also disappointed this argument, which I'm certain you've had in mind from the conception of this proposal, is nowhere to be found in the proposal text. Barring a persuasive argument for the merits of repealing GAR#443, I see no reason to vote in favour of this.

Strong oppose for reasons already given.

So the entire premise of this repeal is because there are two other resolutions that passed after it, therefore we need to repeal this one. Not entirely convinced by that reasoning and therefore opposed.

Outer Sparta wrote:So the entire premise of this repeal is because there are two other resolutions that passed after it, therefore we need to repeal this one. Not entirely convinced by that reasoning and therefore opposed.

yes but those resolutions actually do what GA#438 wanted the World Assembly to do before the co-author of the original Ban on Capital Punishment decided to submit his own proposal

This will now not be submitted as scheduled, and may not be submitted at all depending on circumstances.

This is no longer on hold, you (Tinhampton) can now start drafting again.

Drew Durrnil wrote:This is no longer on hold, you (Tinhampton) can now start drafting again.

Break glass in case of emergency... sure, why not?

(Tentatively no longer on hold. I will refreeze this draft and fully support Wallenburg in his efforts if he decides to embark on a redraft.)

31-08-2021 EDIT: Back on hold, for obvious reasons.