[DRAFT] Repeal "Legal Competence"

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly finds:

1. It is unnecessarily cruel for member nations to sentence children to life imprisonment without parole. This is for three reasons. First, because children have un-developed brains which are not yet capable of adequately comprehending the long term effects of their actions, they cannot internalise the extremely long-term impacts of crime. Second, children are capable of reforming with the right support, a fact which life imprisonment without parole implicitly denies. Third, it is broadly unjust to imprison people who have genuinely repented for their crimes and are extremely unlikely to commit them again. The option of parole ought to be open to child offenders which meet such criteria.

2. Section 4 of GA 299 "Legal Competence" reserves to member nations "the right... to set reasonable thresholds of maturity... for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions..." Because it would be a right of a child not to be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, this provision blocks the Assembly from passing legislation establish such a right. The continuation of this provision, which cannot be eliminated but by full repeal of the resolution as a whole, entrenches injustice into international law.

3. Replacement of the positive aspects of GA 299 "Legal Competence" is likely, in light of continued and purposeful activity in the Assembly both by the original resolution's authoring delegation and the various delegations to the Assembly more broadly. Opening up this topic for reconsideration would ensure that more youthful member nations are given the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to international law.

Now, therefore, be GA 299 "Legal Competence" repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The target. viewtopic.php?p=21186344#p21186344.

[Bananaistan]

“Opposed. WA imposed age limits which are blocked by the target are bad.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

“Opposed. WA imposed age limits which are blocked by the target are bad.”

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I would recommend then that your delegation get into contact with that for Bears Armed and write legislation which would reimpose such requirements. There is no mutual exclusivity between this repeal (or its arguments) and not having such WA-imposed age limits.

[Bananaistan]

“Opposed. WA imposed age limits which are blocked by the target are bad.”

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I would recommend then that your delegation get into contact with that for Bears Armed and write legislation which would reimpose such requirements. There is no mutual exclusivity between this repeal (or its arguments) and not having such WA-imposed age limits.

“Or we can we just leave this as is and not take up a hysterical won't-somebody-think-of-the-children position.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I would recommend then that your delegation get into contact with that for Bears Armed and write legislation which would reimpose such requirements. There is no mutual exclusivity between this repeal (or its arguments) and not having such WA-imposed age limits.

“Or we can we just leave this as is and not take up a hysterical won't-somebody-think-of-the-children position.”

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I'd rather think of the repentant adults those children may become. It's extremely unlikely that any child sentenced to life in prison would become eligible for parole while still being a child.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Just a quick thought, for now, being as it's after 1.30 a.m. and I'm rather sleepy (& staying online mostly to see how the bears' team does in their Quidditch World Cup quarterfinals match...) _

Couldn't you simply pass a resolution saying that any 'life' sentence (or, indeed, any sentence of imprisonment at all?) that -- in nations where the age of criminal responsibility is below the general age of legal competence -- is imposed on a minor must be re-assessed by the courts once they achieve legally competent status? I think that that should be legal without needing to repeal (and, hopefully, replace) #299... and I think that I had what seemed to be a sound reason in mind when I included criminal responsibility in that list.

I'll think further on this in the morning, and post here again then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Just a quick thought, for now, being as it's after 1.30 a.m. and I'm rather sleepy (& staying online mostly to see how the bears' team does in their Quidditch World Cup quarterfinals match...) _

Couldn't you simply pass a resolution saying that any 'life' sentence (or, indeed, any sentence of imprisonment at all?) that -- in nations where the age of criminal responsibility is below the general age of legal competence -- is imposed on a minor must be re-assessed by the courts once they achieve legally competent status? I think that that should be legal without needing to repeal (and, hopefully, replace) #299... and I think that I had what seemed to be a sound reason in mind when I included criminal responsibility in that list.

I'll think further on this in the morning, and post here again then.

If there is consensus that that would be a valid interpretation, I think that would be an acceptable course of action.

[Morover]

Hans Dersti, Morovian Department on the World Assembly Minister of Education.

"I have been nominated as my nation's delegation with regards to this proposal. We have reviewed the details, and while we find it unfortunate that it appears a repeal is necessary in order to accomplish the ultimate goal backing this proposal, it is an important enough cause in order to warrant a repeal and replace. We lend our support. There is a minor quibble, which will by no means prevent us from supporting the draft in any form, that the final point in the third clause is not appropriate to be placed in legislation, nor is it the concern of the World Assembly as an organization. While we certainly welcome new authors and appreciate the introduction of opportunities for less experienced delegacies, it seems out of place."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Just a quick thought, for now, being as it's after 1.30 a.m. and I'm rather sleepy (& staying online mostly to see how the bears' team does in their Quidditch World Cup quarterfinals match...) _

Couldn't you simply pass a resolution saying that any 'life' sentence (or, indeed, any sentence of imprisonment at all?) that -- in nations where the age of criminal responsibility is below the general age of legal competence -- is imposed on a minor must be re-assessed by the courts once they achieve legally competent status? I think that that should be legal without needing to repeal (and, hopefully, replace) #299... and I think that I had what seemed to be a sound reason in mind when I included criminal responsibility in that list.

I'll think further on this in the morning, and post here again then.

If there is consensus that that would be a valid interpretation, I think that would be an acceptable course of action.

OOC: I would support this approach. I don't think it would be an issue with GAR#299.