[DEFEATED] Murderers Get Nothing

[Barfleur]

Murderers Get Nothing
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Reluctant to interfere with the legal systems of member nations when not necessary to secure a fundamental sapient right, but nonetheless

Of the mind that it is a manifest injustice for a sapient being who has unlawfully killed another sapient being to profit from such killing,

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   In this Resolution:
   
   1. "person" means any sapient being and includes any sentient being or machine recognized by law as being a person,
   2. "murder" means the killing of a person, in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which such killing took place, when the perpetrator acted with intent to kill the victim or a third party, and
   3. "court of competent jurisdiction" means the relevant court or tribunal of a member nation having jurisdiction over the crime.
2. Profit bar.
   Where a person stands convicted of murder (whether as a principal, accessory, or co-conspirator) and the conviction has become final on direct appeal or collateral review, the court of competent jurisdiction shall issue an order:
   
   1. forbidding the person to receive any money or any other thing of value, whether from inheritance, life insurance, as payment for a contract killing, or otherwise, as a direct result of the murder, and
   2. directing the person to disgorge, in a manner to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction, any money or property so obtained.
3. Disposal of tainted assets.
   Money or property disgorged under section 2 shall be disposed of:
   
   1. by transferring or dividing the same as provided in the last will and testament of the deceased, in the case of money or property obtained by virtue of inheritance, except that no such money or property shall be transferred to a person convicted of the murder of the deceased,
   2. by transferring or dividing the same among dependents and named beneficiaries, in the case of money or property obtained by virtue of life insurance, excluding any person convicted of the murder of the deceased,
   3. by forfeiting the same to the state, in the case of money or property obtained as payment for a contract killing, and
   4. as provided by the law, in any other case.
4. Further provisions.
   Member nations are strongly encouraged, but not required, to enact legislation forbidding individuals convicted of murder to profit from the licensing of any first-person account of the commission of such murder.

"I've been thinking for some time about this proposal, and have decided now is as good a time as ever to 'go for it,' as the young people say."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Finally, a reasonable WA proposal worth commenting on.

We believe that the definition of perpetrator should be expanded, as at the moment it appears to only cover individuals who directly inflict the injuries. For example, someone who hires a contract killer to commit a murder they stand to gain monetarily from appears to be exempt from the proposal's mandates, as are accessories to murder such as getaway drivers and fixers. If this is amended, this can be supportable.

[Barfleur]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Finally, a reasonable WA proposal worth commenting on.

We believe that the definition of perpetrator should be expanded, as at the moment it appears to only cover individuals who directly inflict the injuries. For example, someone who hires a contract killer to commit a murder they stand to gain monetarily from appears to be exempt from the proposal's mandates, as are accessories to murder such as getaway drivers and fixers. If this is amended, this can be supportable.

"That is good advice. Very good advice."

[Mesogiria]

directing the person to disgorge, in a manner to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction, any money or properry so obtained.

Just a typo.

[Verdant Haven]

- While I realize definitions are included for purposes of outlining terms within the resolution, I would suggest not using "homicide" by itself to mean "unlawful killing." "Homicide" has a widely understood and accepted meaning in law, and it seems liable to cause confusion to change it here ("Homicide" is a technical term meaning the killing of one person by another, justified or not, regardless of legality. Murder is a specific type of criminal homicide, as is manslaughter, but "justifiable homicide" and "non-culpable homicide" are things as well). Perhaps "culpable homicide" would work more cleanly?

- I don't think you need the "and" at the end if 1.c.ii – it makes all of 1.d a sub-part of the 1.c either/or clause, and neutralizes 1.d effectiveness as a definition outside the constraints of 1.c

- I'm not sure it is a good idea to proclaim that a WA committee has jurisdiction over asset forfeiture in member nations simply because a national of one nation committed murder in another nation. That is getting the WA involved directly in the criminal punishment phase of trials it did not operate nor have a stake in. It seems the appropriate thing would be to require that the perpetrator's home nation and the convicting nation work together to carry out the mandate. The WA will have zero ability to enforce, in practical terms, any such forfeiture. The involved nations, on the other hand, will have absolute legal and practical ability to do so.

- Typo in 2.b: properry - > property.

- 3.a and 3.b need clarifying language to avoid self-contradiction. The sort of murder motivation discussed in 2.a, wherein the perpetrator would receive financial benefits from inheritance or insurance, are precisely because the perpetrator is in fact the named beneficiary in a last will and testament, or on an insurance account. Presently this would bar a person from receiving a payment, and in the very next clause mandate that they be given the payment they just surrendered.

- I would suggest 4.b be tweaked in accordance with my first feedback point above – "homicide" is not the name of a crime that a person is going to be convicted of - it's a technical description of something that occurred within a crime (murder, manslaughter, etc). My personal recommendation would be, using the "culpable homicide" language suggested above, something like "…forbidding individuals convicted of any crime involving culpable homicide…."

[Simone Republic]

- While I realize definitions are included for purposes of outlining terms within the resolution, I would suggest not using "homicide" by itself to mean "unlawful killing." "Homicide" has a widely understood and accepted meaning in law, and it seems liable to cause confusion to change it here ("Homicide" is a technical term meaning the killing of one person by another, justified or not, regardless of legality. Murder is a specific type of criminal homicide, as is manslaughter, but "justifiable homicide" and "non-culpable homicide" are things as well). Perhaps "culpable homicide" would work more cleanly?

This. The wording would need to be very tight here. Involuntary homicide (such as the killing of Michael Jackson), or manslaughter in common law jurisdictions, sometimes are only a few years behind bars. DUI related deaths as well.

At the moment opposed, but I should have more comments when I am back in town. For example, what if the murderer has extended families to support etc? Compensation for victims? Who gets the money first? The relevant clauses are very unclear on this.

Also there's issues with how life insurance is handled in GA law, but I never got around to fixing that.

[Midlona]

[*]did an act that killed the victim while in the process of committing or facilitating a violent crime and a reasonable person would have foreseen that such act would result in death . . .

The Ambassador from the Federal Republic of Midlona objects to this provision. She states,

"The concept of 'felony murder' is a web of legal fiction that ought to be avoided. Many nations, such as Midlona, do not recognize the concept and, as reiterated in the opening lines of this resolution, the World Assembly should be careful when 'interfer[ing] with the legal systems of member nations when not necessary to secure a fundamental sapient right.' It could be argued that the concept of 'felony murder' is an infringement on the rights of criminal defendants.

I believe the resolution is improved by this provision's removal. Doing so would focus the scope of the resolution back towards murder or the killing of another with malice aforethought/intent to kill. As other representatives have pointed out, this language adds to the line blurring the resolution creates between 'unlawful killing' and 'murder.' Removing this provision would be a positive step in reducing that confusion."

[Barfleur]

"The inclusion of the felony murder doctrine was somewhat anachronistic, as that doctrine has been more or less abolished in Barfleur's own laws, and so we see no real loss in its excision from this proposal. We have taken into account suggestions to improve how assets are divided, to make sure that no participant in the murder is able to profit. While we recognize that it is often the case that murders, especially robbery-murders and contract killings, are committed out of desperation, and that perpetrators often have dependents to support, we do not see this as a valid reason to permit them to profit from their crime. As to compensation for victims, we see keeping the money in the manner that the decedent wished it to be kept as the best way to provide compensation, with the caveat that the proposal would not forbid member nations from requiring murderers to compensate victims' surviving kin even further.

"Typographical and grammatical errors have been corrected."

[Midlona]

"The inclusion of the felony murder doctrine was somewhat anachronistic, as that doctrine has been more or less abolished in Barfleur's own laws, and so we see no real loss in its excision from this proposal. We have taken into account suggestions to improve how assets are divided, to make sure that no participant in the murder is able to profit. While we recognize that it is often the case that murders, especially robbery-murders and contract killings, are committed out of desperation, and that perpetrators often have dependents to support, we do not see this as a valid reason to permit them to profit from their crime. As to compensation for victims, we see keeping the money in the manner that the decedent wished it to be kept as the best way to provide compensation, with the caveat that the proposal would not forbid member nations from requiring murderers to compensate victims' surviving kin even further."

Midlona supports these changes and, with them, the resolution.

[The Ice States]

I would vote for as written, however I still have some comments. "As payment for a contract killing" should have the "as" removed in Section 2a. "And" should be changed to "or" in Section 3c. I'm not sure about the Natsov arguments in the preamble.

[Elyreia]

“The changes made for the definition of murder in its current state should not run afoul Elyreian legalities (as the only tegun in our nation that does not define premeditated homicide as ‘murder’ still must have an equivalent); as such we are in favor of this current draft pending further challenges.”

[Simone Republic]

"We still distinguish between felony murder and manslaughter, especially with regards to intent" says the bear, ripping apart a wolf as it speaks. "So as it stands, no dice."

[Barfleur]

"We still distinguish between felony murder and manslaughter, especially with regards to intent" says the bear, ripping apart a wolf as it speaks. "So as it stands, no dice."

"Out of curiosity, what are the intent requirements for each such crime? And in any case, the proposal would not preclude your nation from applying similar laws to felony murder, if you so choose."

[Verdant Haven]

"The proposed resolution seems sufficiently improved. At this time, I would be comfortable recommending that my constituents support it, so that I may cast a favorable ballot according to their will."

[Simone Republic]

"We still distinguish between felony murder and manslaughter, especially with regards to intent" says the bear, ripping apart a wolf as it speaks. "So as it stands, no dice."

"Out of curiosity, what are the intent requirements for each such crime? And in any case, the proposal would not preclude your nation from applying similar laws to felony murder, if you so choose."

Other way around. Culpability is not the same as involuntary (there's a slight difference).

Also what's the deal for nations that don't make murders a crime in the first place? WA has no resolution barring murders (it somehow has a ban on death penalty but murders don't have to be a crime).

[Kenmoria]

"Out of curiosity, what are the intent requirements for each such crime? And in any case, the proposal would not preclude your nation from applying similar laws to felony murder, if you so choose."

Other way around. Culpability is not the same as involuntary (there's a slight difference).

Also what's the deal for nations that don't make murders a crime in the first place? WA has no resolution barring murders (it somehow has a ban on death penalty but murders don't have to be a crime).

(OOC: The proposal would have no effect in a nation without the criminalisation of murder, which seems sensible. Of course, not having criminalised murder is entirely insensible, but the proposal’s response thereto makes sense.)

[Barfleur]

"Out of curiosity, what are the intent requirements for each such crime? And in any case, the proposal would not preclude your nation from applying similar laws to felony murder, if you so choose."

Other way around. Culpability is not the same as involuntary (there's a slight difference).

"I apologize, I assumed you were referring to voluntary manslaughter, which in some nations would be considered murder if the defendant had the intent to kill (or even just do great bodily harm in some jurisdictions)."

(OOC: The proposal would have no effect in a nation without the criminalisation of murder, which seems sensible. Of course, not having criminalised murder is entirely insensible, but the proposal’s response thereto makes sense.)

OOC: Unlike marital rape or domestic violence, I don't see a reason to require member nations to criminalize murder, as (a) I imagine every nation with an existing government has already done so, and (b) homicide offenses are almost universally viewed as among the most serious and not subject to the minimization associated with some other offenses.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The proposal would have no effect in a nation without the criminalisation of murder, which seems sensible. Of course, not having criminalised murder is entirely insensible, but the proposal’s response thereto makes sense.)

OOC: Unlike marital rape or domestic violence, I don't see a reason to require member nations to criminalize murder, as (a) I imagine every nation with an existing government has already done so, and (b) homicide offenses are almost universally viewed as among the most serious and not subject to the minimization associated with some other offenses.

(OOC: I completely agree. Mandating criminalisation of murder is superfluous given what we can assume reasonable domestic jurisdictions.)

[Barfleur]

OOC: In this house we believe that murderers ought to get nothing. Consider that a bump.

[First Nightmare]

Three things:
1. You probably need to define what makes a decision by a court "final"
2. There needs to be a limitation on the courts member states have to consider. At minimum, it should exclude courts of non-member states for obvious reasons.
3. This resolution needs a clause on anything that cannot be disgorged anymore(for a variety of reasons such as intentional destruction, having been destroyed in a natural disaster, having been stolen, used up...)

[Barfleur]

Three things:
1. You probably need to define what makes a decision by a court "final"
2. There needs to be a limitation on the courts member states have to consider. At minimum, it should exclude courts of non-member states for obvious reasons.
3. This resolution needs a clause on anything that cannot be disgorged anymore(for a variety of reasons such as intentional destruction, having been destroyed in a natural disaster, having been stolen, used up...)

"As to your first point, we have clarified that a conviction is final when it can no longer be appealed or attacked on collateral review. As to your second point, this body has no jurisdiction over non-member nations, let alone their court systems, so making that explicit would be meaningless. If a court within a member nation (and, therefore, WA jurisdiction) has jurisdiction of the offense, it is covered by the proposal; if not, the proposal could not apply in any case. As to your third point, if it can no longer be disgorged, then the disgorgement requirements simply do not apply. We would be open to requiring convicted murderers in such a case to repay the value from their own funds, if other delegations are of the view that that would be practicable."

[The Overmind]

We would be open to requiring convicted murderers in such a case to repay the value from their own funds, if other delegations are of the view that that would be practicable.

I think this is already sufficiently addressed by 3.d

[Barfleur]

We would be open to requiring convicted murderers in such a case to repay the value from their own funds, if other delegations are of the view that that would be practicable.

I think this is already sufficiently addressed by 3.d

"We tend to agree. I've been thinking about ways to send that money to the victim's surviving kin, but I'm worried about creating uncertainty as to who would have a legal claim to it. So the current language will probably remain in place and member nations can set their own rules."

[Barfleur]

"I was shaking at the knees! Could I come again please? Yeah the ladies were to kind! You've been--"
Ambassador Norfield abruptly stops and turns around when he realizes that he is not in his room, his shirt is not on his body, and he is air-guitaring one of the tunes he had heard at the Stranger's Bar. Well, since he's already committed to the bit...
"--thunderbumped!"

OOC: Our friend Edmure is now canonically an AC/DC fan, because why not.

[Barfleur]

OOC: I thought I'd bumped this yesterday, but now I see I had only edited the OP. Consider this a last call.