[DRAFT] Ban on Juvenile Life Sentences

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ban on Juvenile Life Sentences
Civil Rights: Mild

The World Assembly finds as follows:

It is unnecessarily cruel for member nations to sentence children to life imprisonment without parole.

1. Children have undeveloped 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.
   
   
2. Children are capable of reforming with the right support, a fact which life imprisonment without parole implicitly denies.
   
   
3. 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.

The provision in section 4 of GA 399 "Legal Competence" which allows member nations to "set reasonable thresholds of maturity [or] mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions" does not contradict this proposal. It is not a right or responsibility to be subject to life imprisonment without parole; it would be the opposite of a right and, because being so subject would be a thing done to a person rather than something that person must do, not a responsibility.

Now, therefore, be it enacted as follows:

1. In this resolution, the term "life sentence" refers both to prison sentences issued for the period of a person's life as well as prison sentences issued for a period equal to or exceeding the expected natural life of that person.
   
   
2. The practice of sentencing a person under the age of majority to a life sentence without parole is abolished.
   
   
3. All sentences contravening this resolution must be commuted forthwith under procedures not inconsistent with World Assembly law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Connected to viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=507269&p=38799341#p38799341.

[Untecna]

Ban on Juvenile Life Sentences
Civil Rights: Mild

The World Assembly finds as follows:

It is unnecessarily cruel for member nations to sentence children to life imprisonment without parole.

1. Children have undeveloped 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.
   
   
2. Children are capable of reforming with the right support, a fact which life imprisonment without parole implicitly denies.
   
   
3. 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.

Now, therefore, be it enacted as follows:

1. The practice of sentencing persons under the age of majority to life sentences without parole is abolished.
   
   
2. All sentences contravening section 1 must be commuted forthwith under procedures not inconsistent with World Assembly law.

This... this I can get behind.

I can't really find anything wrong with it either, although the commuting of sentences might cause a bit of legal trouble, depending on the amount of children in that situation, which really shouldn't be much in the first place, but who am I to know that?

[CoraSpia]

One of the many proposals which I wish could go further, a lot further, but will support as a stepping stone.

[Jedinsto]

As I recommended on the discord, it might be worth double abolishing the death penalty when used against children. I heard that minor duplication is allowed, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[Honeydewistania]

As I recommended on the discord, it might be worth double abolishing the death penalty when used against children. I heard that minor duplication is allowed, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

If its banned already, whats the point?

[The Python]

As I recommended on the discord, it might be worth double abolishing the death penalty when used against children. I heard that minor duplication is allowed, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

If its banned already, whats the point?

Because it's harder to repeal.

One of the many proposals which I wish could go further, a lot further, but will support as a stepping stone.

This.

[Morover]

Full support in its current state. I can't find any issues straight-out, though I'm sure more experienced players will find something I missed. Good luck, and I'm looking forward to voting for it!

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Shouldn't any adults who are not legally competent also be granted comparable protection? Cases to be reviewed, and the possibility of parole placed on the table, if & when they [re]gain legally competent status?

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Would there be any exemptions from this? Children are capable of doing horrible crimes and it would be unfair for the family if the child was allowed out of jail.

[CoraSpia]

Would there be any exemptions from this? Children are capable of doing horrible crimes and it would be unfair for the family if the child was allowed out of jail.

"Many nations do not permit children to vote, drink alcohol, serve in the military or gain employment because of a claim they are not mentally mature enough. What gives you the impression that somebody who is not mentally mature enough to do any of these things can be expected to have the maturity levels required to comprehend a criminal act, or that they should be able to suffer such life-destroying consequences?"

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Would there be any exemptions from this? Children are capable of doing horrible crimes and it would be unfair for the family if the child was allowed out of jail.

"Many nations do not permit children to vote, drink alcohol, serve in the military or gain employment because of a claim they are not mentally mature enough. What gives you the impression that somebody who is not mentally mature enough to do any of these things can be expected to have the maturity levels required to comprehend a criminal act, or that they should be able to suffer such life-destroying consequences?"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... gs-8753436
Kids murder people all the time. You don't need to be mentally mature to commit a crime.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just to be clear, this is about the practise of actually keeping someone imprisoned until they die, not "life sentence" - which in RL Finland is, i I remember correctly, 20 or 25 years (the length of calculated human generation)?

What about criminally insane psychopaths who never repent and can never be deemed safe for release? And yes there are minors who fit the category. I won't post links to intentional torture-murders of children by "children" but there are RL examples aplenty. Minors who understand right and wrong and life and death perfectly well and yet choose to do horrible things. Or is permanent hospitalization in a closed ward not counted as imprisonment?

[Hulldom]

OOC: Shouldn't any adults who are not legally competent also be granted comparable protection? Cases to be reviewed, and the possibility of parole placed on the table, if & when they [re]gain legally competent status?

I concur with Bears here, but I think, perhaps differently from Bears, that some sort of general code of protections for adults without legal competence (beyond 299) should be written.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Shouldn't any adults who are not legally competent also be granted comparable protection? Cases to be reviewed, and the possibility of parole placed on the table, if & when they [re]gain legally competent status?

I concur with Bears here, but I think, perhaps differently from Bears, that some sort of general code of protections for adults without legal competence (beyond 299) should be written.

OOC
I planned to follow up #299 with a proposal on the relative rights & responsibilities of legal guardians & their wards but (partly because of GenSec duties being added to my activities) never found time or energy to do so: Possibly, although I don't now remember for sure, I also threw the idea out there for other authors to attempt but nobody else was sufficiently interested at that time either. Perhaps your suggestion could be folded into a proposal of that nature, if enough people want one? If nobody else gets around to producing a viable draft in the fairly near future then I'll move it up my 'To Do' list, but there are several other projects that I'd really prefer to give higher priorities...

[Hulldom]

I concur with Bears here, but I think, perhaps differently from Bears, that some sort of general code of protections for adults without legal competence (beyond 299) should be written.

OOC
I planned to follow up #299 with a proposal on the relative rights & responsibilities of legal guardians & their wards but (partly because of GenSec duties being added to my activities) never found time or energy to do so: Possibly, although I don't now remember for sure, I also threw the idea out there for other authors to attempt but nobody else was sufficiently interested at that time either. Perhaps your suggestion could be folded into a proposal of that nature, if enough people want one? If nobody else gets around to producing a viable draft in the fairly near future then I'll move it up my 'To Do' list, but there are several other projects that I'd really prefer to give higher priorities...

OOC: A someone with a disorder where, if a few things had broken the other way I'd be staring down the path of always having a guardian to manage my affairs, I'll take up the challenge.

[CoraSpia]

"Many nations do not permit children to vote, drink alcohol, serve in the military or gain employment because of a claim they are not mentally mature enough. What gives you the impression that somebody who is not mentally mature enough to do any of these things can be expected to have the maturity levels required to comprehend a criminal act, or that they should be able to suffer such life-destroying consequences?"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... gs-8753436
Kids murder people all the time. You don't need to be mentally mature to commit a crime.

"You do, however, have to be mentally mature to understand the law as well as develop a full understanding of right and wrong."

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I planned to follow up #299 with a proposal on the relative rights & responsibilities of legal guardians & their wards but (partly because of GenSec duties being added to my activities) never found time or energy to do so: Possibly, although I don't now remember for sure, I also threw the idea out there for other authors to attempt but nobody else was sufficiently interested at that time either. Perhaps your suggestion could be folded into a proposal of that nature, if enough people want one? If nobody else gets around to producing a viable draft in the fairly near future then I'll move it up my 'To Do' list, but there are several other projects that I'd really prefer to give higher priorities...

OOC: A someone with a disorder where, if a few things had broken the other way I'd be staring down the path of always having a guardian to manage my affairs, I'll take up the challenge.

OOC: Okay. I'll see whether I can find my old notes, in case anything there might be useful to you.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... gs-8753436
Kids murder people all the time. You don't need to be mentally mature to commit a crime.

"You do, however, have to be mentally mature to understand the law as well as develop a full understanding of right and wrong."

OOC: Even without a "full" understanding, it is possible for people to have enough understanding to realize that certain acts are considered 'wrong' and should not be done. (And that's even without considering any possible differences in mental development patterns for non-human sapients...)

[Jedinsto]

Nothing in this proposal requires that any serial killers be released. Only that they have a chance at parole.

One issue I've realized, there's nothing here stopping 100 year long sentences being imposed and claiming that those sentences are not life sentences.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nothing in this proposal requires that any serial killers be released. Only that they have a chance at parole.

One issue I've realized, there's nothing here stopping 100 year long sentences being imposed and claiming that those sentences are not life sentences.

I agree that is an issue and have therefore defined life sentence.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The issue with GAR#299 isn't resolved.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The issue with GAR#299 isn't resolved.

I read my repeal, which I believe was reflective of the warrants given for contradiction, and I'm now confused as to how GA 299 allegedly contradicts. The warrant given is:

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... including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of... criminal responsibility".

Criminal responsibility is not the same as sentencing guidelines. You can hold children criminally responsible. The issue is orthogonal to how you punish them for criminality to which they are held responsible.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hmmm, I get what you're saying but I think quoting only as far as "rights" is an issue: " Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights"

In this case the "any other right" is the right not to be sentenced to life imprisonment.

I've also looked back on that thread now too. This is till the best way to go IMO: viewtopic.php?p=38799455#p38799455

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?

In particular this would prolly get at the softie liberal stuff you people around here love that ICly Bananaistan would oppose.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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?

In particular this would prolly get at the softie liberal stuff you people around here love that ICly Bananaistan would oppose.

While I responded positively to the idea then, I don't think it gets around the problem of children being sent to jail for life. If they did the deed at like 12 or something, that's just six years into the future (assuming majority of 18 as in most countries) and it's plausible that a court would say something like "not enough of a record right now to change the sentence". Insofar as that's the case, requiring reassessment over and over again to deal with the problem of not having enough to wait and see with is very close indeed to just banning all life sentences without parole, which is a topic I don't want to deal with right now.

OOC: Hmmm, I get what you're saying but I think quoting only as far as "rights" is an issue: " Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights"

I think I did miss this when re-reading today. This is the non-inclusive includes canon.