[SUBMITTED] Capital Punishment Neutrality

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina has closely followed the debate concerning the use of capital punishment in World Assembly nations. As such, we see that both sides of the argument have valid points, but that this is a NatSov issue that should be resolved in favor of all sides. However, we also believe that such attempts will take place until a resolution is on the books either for or against capital punishment. To settle this issue once and for all, we propose a middle ground. We posted an early draft in Grays Harbor's thread but feel that it can only be properly debated in its own. This is also a test of our political theory of Resolution Prohibition, which is what we plan to use for our future omnibus National Sovereignty Proposal, so we would like to invite a discussion on its legality.

PROPOSAL #1:
Capital Punishment Neutrality Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly does not impose ideologies upon its member nations, with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

UNDERSTANDING that there are valid arguments for and against capital punishment that are part of the ongoing debate.

HOPING to allow nations to choose their own destiny in this regard.

DEFINES capital punishment as the process by which a nation legally sponsors the execution of a convicted criminal by due process of law.

AFFIRMS that the right of a nation to regulate capital punishment as far as the legality or illegality of such punishment cannot be abridged.

REQUIRES that capital punishment be performed by means that will not lead to pain and suffering before death.

FURTHER REQUIRES that those considered "vulnerable subgroups" cannot be sentenced to undergo capital punishment. This includes:
i) Those who have not reached the age of majority.
ii) Those who are beyond a reasonable doubt legally insane.

URGES that capital punishment be considered only for crimes that are considered to be gross violations of law.

Proposal #2:
Capital Punishment Neutrality Act (or Capital Punishment Compromise Act)
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly does not impose ideologies upon its member nations, with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

UNDERSTANDING that many nations have implemented capital punishment as a form of deterrent for crime as well as a way to punish heinous criminals.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that many other nations have banned the death penalty due to moral objections.

CONVINCED that nations have a right to choose their own destiny with regard to the use of capital punishment.

DEFINES capital punishment as the state sponsored execution of a convicted criminal.

HEREBY DECLARES that the right of a nation to implement and carry out capital punishment within its sovereign jurisdiction cannot be abridged.

FURTHER DECLARES that the right of a nation to ban the use of capital punishment within its sovereign jurisdiction cannot be abridged.

REQUIRES that the use of capital punishment must be sought by due judicial process in the nation in question.

ESTABLISHES that one sentencing of capital punishment may only apply to one person, blanket orders of capital punishment cannot occur.

ENUMERATES the crimes for which capital punishment may be used to be, as the crimes are defined in the nation considering sentencing:
i) Crimes involving the forced death of another.
ii) Treason against state.
iii) Crimes against humanity.
iv) Forced carnal knowledge.

PROCLAIMS that during a sentencing:
i) Capital punishment must be weighed against possible lesser punishments.
ii) Capital punishment may only be considered a viable option during a plea bargain or after conviction. There can be no decision to seek capital punishment until conviction is official.

MANDATES that capital punishment must be exercised using a method that is scientifically accepted to cause minimal pain to the subject.

ALLOWS for a period of one year for appeals between the end of sentencing and the execution. No punishment may be levied during this yearlong period. Appeals may not be suppressed.

FORBIDS use of capital punishment against those below the national age of majority, those who are pregnant (at least until the pregnancy is complete), or those considered legally insane or otherwise incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions in the nation in question.

CLARIFIES that all terms not expressly defined in this resolution are up to interpretation by each nation and should be clarified in law.

URGES that capital punishment only be used when appropriate and not be misused by nations in a reckless way.

Capital Punishment Neutrality Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly will uphold the national sovereignty of its member nations with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

UNDERSTANDING that there are fantastic arguments for and against capital punishment that are part of the ongoing debate.

HOPING to allow nations to choose their own destiny in this regard.

DEFINES capital punishment as the process by which a nation legally sponsors the execution of a convicted criminal by due process of law.

AFFIRMS that the right of a nation to regulate capital punishment cannot be affected by further World Assembly Resolution pending repeal of this act.

REQUIRES that capital punishment be performed by means that will not lead to undue pain and suffering before death.

[Mousebumples]

I really should check the Resolution Rules again, but are outright blocker resolutions legal? (I'm thinking no ... ) As I see it, all this proposal/resolution would do is prevent future WA action - which ... isn't much of anything at all.

(I applaud the effort, but I don't think it'll make it past the mods.)

If you're still interested in pursuing this avenue, you may want to look at "encouraging" nations to make capital punishment rare and only for use in the most extreme sorts of crimes. I'd also recommend checking out "For the Detained and Convincted" as I can see some parallels/potential for contradiction.

Good luck!

[Quadrimmina]

Your delegation is thanked for their analysis, right now the rules state:

Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

I'm not sure if this would fall in a legal gray area or be a part of "prohibiting types of legislation".

[Quelesh]

This is an interesting idea. I would have no choice but to oppose this proposal because it would prevent a future resolution prohibiting capital punishment entirely, which is the proper fate for such a barbaric practice. However, I can certainly see the appeal of a compromise on the issue.

Since it would specifically allow member states to execute people, I feel that there should be much greater restrictions placed upon the practice than the minimal restrictions imposed by the current language. The current draft, as the esteemed ambassador from Mousebumples pointed out, says nothing about the types of crimes that may be subject to the death penalty.

In addition, the word "undue" is wholly insufficient; I would recommend its replacement with "unnecessary" or even its elimination altogether. Certain states may argue that no amount of pain and suffering is "undue" to someone who committed a crime punishable by death. They would be subject to existing international law prohibiting torture, of course, but they could certainly devise a method of execution as painful as possible unhindered by this resolution and the word "undue."

Regarding legality, I think the AFFIRMS clause can be amended to avoid that issue. The "cannot be affected..." wording can safely be eliminated, in favor of simply stating that member states are in general free to implement or to not implement capital punishment. This would have the effect of preventing a future resolution prohibiting (or requiring) capital punishment without a repeal of this resolution.

In any case, the word "regulate" in that clause should be changed. Stating that future resolutions cannot affect the right of member states to regulate capital punishment has much broader implications, as it means that nearly any future WA resolution that has anything to do with capital punishment would first require a repeal of this one. No future resolution could prohibit particular methods of execution, for example, or set judicial standards of due process higher than those in non-capital cases in order for someone to be executed, or require a certain robustness in the appeals process, etc.

As I said, I must oppose this proposal on principle, but I respect the idea.

[Bears Armed]

Capital Punishment Neutrality Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly will uphold the national sovereignty of its member nations with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

Specifically mentioning 'national sovereignty' in a proposal is likely to get it deleted.

UNDERSTANDING that there are fantastic arguments for and against capital punishment that are part of the ongoing debate.

Probably legal, I think.

HOPING to allow nations to choose their own destiny in this regard.

"HOPING"? If this were to get passed then you'd be doing more than just "hoping" in that respect...

DEFINES capital punishment as the process by which a nation legally sponsors the execution of a convicted criminal by due process of law.

I'm going to think furrther about this definition.

AFFIRMS that the right of a nation to regulate capital punishment cannot be affected by further World Assembly Resolution pending repeal of this act.

Outright ban on future WA legislation = definitely illegal. What you need to say, instead, is something along the lines of
"Recognises the right of nations to decide for themselves whether or not to include capital punishment amongst the potential penalties for breaking their laws;"

REQUIRES that capital punishment be performed by means that will not lead to undue pain and suffering before death.

This clause might be enough to get the proposal out of the 'pure blocker' category and therefore make it legal, but I'm dubious about that. I seriously suggest expanding it significantly, moving it to above the previous clause so that it looks more like the main emphasis of this proposal, and changing the title to indicate that emphasis rather than "Neutrality". Oh, and a limit that's actually implicit in the submission process means that titles have a maximum length of 30 characters including spaces so you'll need a slightly shorter one...

My government supports the basic principles behind this proposal.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Manticore Reborn]

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn tentatively supports this proposal. Although my government is concerned by the petty offenses for which some governments find the death penalty to be an acceptable punishment, we find the lack of definition for what crimes may warrant capital punishment an advantage over the Criminal Punishment Act as defining every crime where said punishment is acceptable would be much too cumbersome to legislate in a manner that would satisfy all parties. However, we do feel that restrictions on those without the metal capacity to understand the issues at hand should be added to this legislation.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

[Quadrimmina]

We appreciate the comments offered and have amended our proposal. To address Manticore Reborn's issues with regard to misdemeanors being considered for capital punishment, we have added an "URGES" clause, which means nothing but is symbolic of this resolution's purpose of allowing capital punishment within "reasonable limits". Also, failing to find a concurrence on insanity preventing capital punishment, we have decided to use each nation's definition of "legally insane"as the benchmark for prevention of capital punishment, leaving it up to each individual nation to decide when someone is considered "legally insane".

We hope these changes are palatable, and will help appease both those who push for illegality and legality of the death penalty, by preventing ambiguous mandation.

Capital Punishment Neutrality Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly does not impose ideologies upon its member nations, with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

UNDERSTANDING that there are valid arguments for and against capital punishment that are part of the ongoing debate.

HOPING to allow nations to choose their own destiny in this regard.

DEFINES capital punishment as the process by which a nation legally sponsors the execution of a convicted criminal by due process of law.

AFFIRMS that the right of a nation to regulate capital punishment as far as the legality or illegality of such punishment cannot be abridged.

REQUIRES that capital punishment be performed by means that will not lead to pain and suffering before death.

FURTHER REQUIRES that crimes committed by those who can prove that they are legally insane cannot be subject to capital punishment for crimes committed as a result of that insanity.

URGES that capital punishment be considered only for crimes that are considered to be gross violations of law.

[Manticore Reborn]

This representative cannot put his finger on exactly what has happened, but has a feeling that this legislation has taken a step backwards.

My government suggests that the honorable representatives from Grays Harbor and Quadrimmina caucus on this issue and present a unified proposal to put this contentious issue to rest once and for all.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

[Nullarni]

I must say, I am truly stunned at the fact that we may support your version of legislation over those proposed by the delegations from Unibot and Grays Harbor.

I will support your proposal completely once you tighten it up a bit and ensure that it is 100% legal.

Also, update your first post with the current version of the proposal so that we don't have to search the whole thread for it.

[Mousebumples]

Might I recommend creating a section that would outlaw the use of capital punishment in certain populations? (i.e. legally insane, minors, etc.) I think that might be a more straightforward way of organizing, and I think that outlawing the use of capital punishment of some of the more vulnerable of our citizens may improve the overall quality.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

We are sorry that the delegation from Manticore Reborn feels that way, and hope the following draft helps to mitigate any concerns you have concerning this proposal.

Meanwhile, the delegation from Mousebumples is thanked for their input, and it will be implemented immediately.

Capital Punishment Neutrality Act
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

SEEKING to ensure that this august assembly does not impose ideologies upon its member nations, with respect to the right of each nation to implement or ban capital punishment.

UNDERSTANDING that there are valid arguments for and against capital punishment that are part of the ongoing debate.

HOPING to allow nations to choose their own destiny in this regard.

DEFINES capital punishment as the process by which a nation legally sponsors the execution of a convicted criminal by due process of law.

AFFIRMS that the right of a nation to regulate capital punishment as far as the legality or illegality of such punishment cannot be abridged.

REQUIRES that capital punishment be performed by means that will not lead to pain and suffering before death.

FURTHER REQUIRES that those considered "vulnerable subgroups" cannot be sentenced to undergo capital punishment. This includes:
i) Those who have not reached the age of majority.
ii) Those who are beyond a reasonable doubt legally insane.

URGES that capital punishment be considered only for crimes that are considered to be gross violations of law.

Please let our delegation know what would make this legislation more palatable. Considering it is supposed to be a compromise legislation, it is important that delegations from both sides of the debate give feedback as to what needs to change.

[Enn]

Enn cannot support any proposal on this matter except an outright ban. We seek to remove capital punishment from all nations' lawbooks, not to allow it to be codified into the General Assembly's Resolutions.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Manticore Reborn]

Enn cannot support any proposal on this matter except an outright ban. We seek to remove capital punishment from all nations' lawbooks, not to allow it to be codified into the General Assembly's Resolutions.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn respects the Ambassador from Enn's convictions. However, I ask why does she feel her nation has the right to impose its view of morality on the entire world?

[Quelesh]

Enn cannot support any proposal on this matter except an outright ban. We seek to remove capital punishment from all nations' lawbooks, not to allow it to be codified into the General Assembly's Resolutions.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn respects the Ambassador from Enn's convictions. However, I ask why does she feel her nation has the right to impose its view of morality on the entire world?

Not the entire world; just the entire World Assembly.

In seriousness, though, why did the authors of the Charter or Civil Rights, For the Detained and Convicted and Habeas Corpus feel that their nations had the right to impose their view of morality on the entire WA?

[Manticore Reborn]

In seriousness, though, why did the authors of the Charter or Civil Rights, For the Detained and Convicted and Habeas Corpus feel that their nations had the right to impose their view of morality on the entire WA?

Point granted.

However, my government still does not think this is an issue others should be able to decide for our kingdom.

[Quadrimmina]

Enn cannot support any proposal on this matter except an outright ban. We seek to remove capital punishment from all nations' lawbooks, not to allow it to be codified into the General Assembly's Resolutions.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

The representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn respects the Ambassador from Enn's convictions. However, I ask why does she feel her nation has the right to impose its view of morality on the entire world?

Not the entire world; just the entire World Assembly.

In seriousness, though, why did the authors of the Charter or Civil Rights, For the Detained and Convicted and Habeas Corpus feel that their nations had the right to impose their view of morality on the entire WA?

A world government, such as the World Assembly, is created with the purpose of protecting individuals in the world. As such, it must be noted that those resolutions were drafted unilaterally for that purpose. However, our nation feels that the presence of capital punishment protects our people from those who would want to do them harm.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina hereby requests that this debate be tabled until such time that we may enter talks with the delegation from Grays Harbor concerning this matter and the best course of action to take on this matter. We thank the delegation from Manticore Reborn for this suggestion and we will either continue our own threads or open a new thread when this joint resolution is drafted and agreed upon.

[Grays Harbor]

The Republic of Quadrimmina hereby requests that this debate be tabled until such time that we may enter talks with the delegation from Grays Harbor concerning this matter and the best course of action to take on this matter. We thank the delegation from Manticore Reborn for this suggestion and we will either continue our own threads or open a new thread when this joint resolution is drafted and agreed upon.

We concur with this, and are currently working together with the delegation from Quadrimmina to put forth a joint proposal, as we appear to be working towards similar ends. Our respective staffs have been locked in the GH embassy conference room until they can hammer out an acceptable compromise joint draft of our two proposals.

As we have cut off their supply of Ale until they do reach an agreement, we suspect it may not take that long.

[Grays Harbor]

Enn cannot support any proposal on this matter except an outright ban. We seek to remove capital punishment from all nations' lawbooks, not to allow it to be codified into the General Assembly's Resolutions.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

We can respect your honesty in this and support your right to dissent on this matter, however, we believe that trying to push your own morals off on everybody with a total ban is not right, which is why we believe that nations should have the right to make that decision for themselves. We would remind our colleague from Enn that your morals are not everybody's morals.

[Manticore Reborn]

As we have cut off their supply of Ale until they do reach an agreement, we suspect it may not take that long.

Doesn't this violate some sort of cruel and unusual treatment regulation?

[Quadrimmina]

As we have cut off their supply of Ale until they do reach an agreement, we suspect it may not take that long.

Doesn't this violate some sort of cruel and unusual treatment regulation?

It would, except our noble delegation has brought some in. In fact, our delegation actually left the documents relating to our proposal back at our embassy considering the fact that we needed the room in our suitcases for ale.

[Embolalia]

Do we seriously have three different death penalty proposals up for discussion? Wow.
Anyway, I think I would support this one. Although, I just need clarification: Does this restrict the banning by the WA, sometime in the future, of capital punishment for some specific crime? And I assume that this permits other, non-WA, international agreements, organizations, et cetera to ban the death penalty?

[Quadrimmina]

Do we seriously have three different death penalty proposals up for discussion? Wow.
Anyway, I think I would support this one. Although, I just need clarification: Does this restrict the banning by the WA, sometime in the future, of capital punishment for some specific crime? And I assume that this permits other, non-WA, international agreements, organizations, et cetera to ban the death penalty?

We've had a lot more than 3...these are just the three most discussed. Also, this proposal is temporarily withdrawn pending a proposal that is expected to be submitted within the next few days by the coalition of our delegation and that of Grays Harbor. To answer your questions though, it does restrict the banning of capital punishment for a specific crime. And regarding agreements, those are allowed, but if one is privy to those agreements, etc, then they would ban it in their own nation anyway.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Do we seriously have three different death penalty proposals up for discussion? Wow.

The Grays Harbor and Quadrimmina delegations are working together on a single capital punishment rights proposal.

Anyway, I think I would support this one. Although, I just need clarification: Does this restrict the banning by the WA, sometime in the future, of capital punishment for some specific crime? And I assume that this permits other, non-WA, international agreements, organizations, et cetera to ban the death penalty?

The proposal from Grays Harbor limited the right to use capital punishment two specific crimes, and I would hope the 'coalition' draft does the same. That's not to say, however, that capital punishment is illegal for all other crimes; the World Assembly simply wouldn't recognize that there's any protected right to use it for other crimes. If written to only include certain crimes, the World Assembly would be able to prohibit the use of capital punishment for other crimes in the future.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Glen-Rhodes]

Also, this proposal is temporarily withdrawn pending a proposal that is expected to be submitted within the next few days by the coalition of our delegation and that of Grays Harbor.

I hope the plan isn't to submit the proposal without allowing proper review and debate first.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Accidentally clicked quote instead of edit. :\