[DROPPED]Repeal:Death Penalty Ban

[East Gia Newskers]

Repeal: “Death Penalty Ban”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #535 “Death Penalty Ban” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applaud that there have been constant debates on whether death penalty shall be banned for member nations.

Raising honourable examples Repeal: “Crime And Punishment” and Repeal: “International Criminal Protocol”.

Commend the author of GAR#535 for pushing the debate into a new area.

Concerned, however, to find contradictions to currently standing resolution on this topic.

Referencing Article 1 of GAR#535,

"The death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war."

Interpreting, that under the aforementioned resolution, death penalty for civilians is abolished for all World Assembly members nations under all circumstances.

Therefore, citing both GAR#2 "Rights And Duties Of WA States" and GAR#443 "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents".

"Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly..."(GAR#2, Section III, Article 9).

"...member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions."(GAR#443, Article 1).

Believed, that every passed resolution shall be carried out in good faith and maintained to the highest standard,

Conclude that the rights granted, namely, the rights to carry out capital punishments on civilians, in Article 1 of GAR#433 shall be upheld.

Dismayed, to find out that there currently is a contradiction with GAR#535.

Referencing, also, to GAR#535.

"Gravely concerned that even under stringent protocols death penalties are issued against people who are actually innocent of the crimes for which they are to be punished,"(GAR#535, Introduction)

Referring to GAR#433,

"And whereas it is best to set a compromise, where the Assembly does its best efforts to permit, with effective regulations, capital punishment so to best reduce the chance of it falling upon those who have not committed the crime they are accused of: "(GAR#433, Introduction)

Believed that there is enough protection against death penalty for the innocents.

Conclude that the basis of GAR#535 shall not stand.

To better upheld past passed resolutions and clear contradictions in the current World Assembly Legislation,

Hereby repeals GAR#535 Death Penalty Ban.

[East Gia Newskers]

OOC: It is my first time writing any resolutions and repeals, so please go gentle with me.

TLDR is that the raised resolution contradicts an earlier resolution(cough, written by the same people, cough), hence needs to be repealed.

Honestly, I was a bit surprised to find this issue was never raised when the resolution first come out and lots of people wanting to repeal it (if my memory didn't fail me).

Suggestions and ideas and greatly appreciated, to those who are against this repeal, I would love your reason and I hope I can clear your doubt, but still remember, go gentle with me.

[Refuge Isle]

It is not a contradiction.

Member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions. That is to say member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions for all crimes where the death penality is still a valid punishment. The text in GAR#443 does not speak to when such sentences are valid or when they must be used. For all cases under a military penal code committed during time of war, WA nations may sentence and carry out capital punishments still. The title of GAR#535 may be misleading in that regard, but the two resolutions are compatible.

[East Gia Newskers]

It is not a contradiction.

...For all cases under a military penal code committed during time of war, WA nations may sentence and carry out capital punishments still.

OOC: I see. Because I go with the civilian jurisdiction aspect of the bill, which did not get exempted by article 1 of GAR#535, I kind of still see it as a contradiction. But feel free to correct me, because I might be very wrong lol.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You cut off the front of the actual clause you think is contradictory. That clause in full is actually: Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions. If the WA fully banned the death penalty in every circumstance, this still would be exercising a power granted to it in GA 443 s 1.

[East Gia Newskers]

You cut off the front of the actual clause you think is contradictory. That clause in full is actually: Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions. If the WA fully banned the death penalty in every circumstance, this still would be exercising a power granted to it in GA 443 s 1.

Hi Imperium, nice to see the author of the two resolutions making an appearance here. In reality, I kind of intentionally cut it to make my case more sound. But I do have a question here. Do "Subject to World Assembly legislation" cover both already passed resolution and future resolutions?
(I know this point (contradiction) can be argued against myself very easily, and to be honest I kind of thought it was a bit weak when I wrote it too.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

You cut off the front of the actual clause you think is contradictory. That clause in full is actually: Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions. If the WA fully banned the death penalty in every circumstance, this still would be exercising a power granted to it in GA 443 s 1.

Hi Imperium, nice to see the author of the two resolutions making an appearance here. In reality, I kind of intentionally cut it to make my case more sound. But I do have a question here. Do "Subject to World Assembly legislation" cover both already passed resolution and future resolutions?
(I know this point (contradiction) can be argued against myself very easily, and to be honest I kind of thought it was a bit weak when I wrote it too.)

In my view, 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' includes later legislation, as later legislation is still World Assembly legislation. To create a 'prior legislation' requirement, one would have to say 'prior legislation' or something to that effect.

There was a discussion between me and Sierra Lyricalia on whether 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' or similar clauses allow the WA to prohibit the thing they ostensibly permit. See viewtopic.php?p=38038988#p38038988. My position is that they do: anything else would raise threshold questions without manageable standards for resolution while disregarding a number of canons of statutory interpretation. Regardless, the discussion there is only relevant to my remarks above; it is not relevant re Death Penalty Ban, as DPB does not prohibit the death penalty in its entirety.

[Jedinsto]

Since it is not a contradiction, you will have to remove that from your repeal, or it would be an honest mistake, and be illegal, I believe.

[East Gia Newskers]

Hi Imperium, nice to see the author of the two resolutions making an appearance here. In reality, I kind of intentionally cut it to make my case more sound. But I do have a question here. Do "Subject to World Assembly legislation" cover both already passed resolution and future resolutions?
(I know this point (contradiction) can be argued against myself very easily, and to be honest I kind of thought it was a bit weak when I wrote it too.)

In my view, 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' includes later legislation, as later legislation is still World Assembly legislation. To create a 'prior legislation' requirement, one would have to say 'prior legislation' or something to that effect.

There was a discussion between me and Sierra Lyricalia on whether 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' or similar clauses allow the WA to prohibit the thing they ostensibly permit. See viewtopic.php?p=38038988#p38038988. My position is that they do: anything else would raise threshold questions without manageable standards for resolution while disregarding a number of canons of statutory interpretation. Regardless, the discussion there is only relevant to my remarks above; it is not relevant re Death Penalty Ban, as DPB does not prohibit the death penalty in its entirety.

Thanks for the clarification, that will make my case way shakier, well it has been a learning experience for me to get beaten, thanks to Refuge Isle and Imperium Anglorum in the thread for bringing me new insights to GAR, I am not pursuing to push the repeal any further.

[Jedinsto]

In my view, 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' includes later legislation, as later legislation is still World Assembly legislation. To create a 'prior legislation' requirement, one would have to say 'prior legislation' or something to that effect.

There was a discussion between me and Sierra Lyricalia on whether 'Subject to World Assembly legislation' or similar clauses allow the WA to prohibit the thing they ostensibly permit. See viewtopic.php?p=38038988#p38038988. My position is that they do: anything else would raise threshold questions without manageable standards for resolution while disregarding a number of canons of statutory interpretation. Regardless, the discussion there is only relevant to my remarks above; it is not relevant re Death Penalty Ban, as DPB does not prohibit the death penalty in its entirety.

Thanks for the clarification, that will make my case way shakier, well it has been a learning experience for me to get beaten, thanks to Refuge Isle and Imperium Anglorum in the thread for bringing me new insights to GAR, I am not pursuing to push the repeal any further.

You came to the right place, and, if you have any GA ideas in the future, we'd be happy to hear them.

[East Gia Newskers]

Thanks for the clarification, that will make my case way shakier, well it has been a learning experience for me to get beaten, thanks to Refuge Isle and Imperium Anglorum in the thread for bringing me new insights to GAR, I am not pursuing to push the repeal any further.

You came to the right place, and, if you have any GA ideas in the future, we'd be happy to hear them.

Thanks mate, as a debater in real life, I love to look at legislation document and find loopholes, I hope I will get some more interesting idea to present to you guys in the near future.