DRAFT Body Integrity Act

[Erythrina]

My first attempt, so cut me slack for any crass mistakes:

This World Assembly:

Pointing out crime prevention is a legitimate and ever-necessary concern;

Noting that in the pursuit of that goal, nations can resort to barbaric practices such as the cutting of limbs, even for petty crimes;

Disgusted at this perversion of justice;

Therefore:

Forbids any kind of mutilation as criminal punishment.

My research so far indicates that category/strength is paramount to even initiate one of these. From what I've read, I'd go along with Human Rights, significant.

[Cardoness]

Sorry, but this is covered by at Resolution #9 Prevention of Torture.

[Erythrina]

Are you talking about this? (In any case, thank you)

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
-Physical, sexual, or psychological abuse,
-Forced maintenance of physically uncomfortable positions, such as stress positions or forced standing,
-Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation,
-Subjection to intrusive noise, such as noise that is continuous or excessively loud,
-Sleep deprivation,
-Deprivation of adequate food and drink,
-Denial of necessary medical care,
-Denial of right to religious observance,
-Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering.

I don't think this language is clear enough as to prohibit mutilation. A mutilation could be carried out in an asseptic, anesthesized, sedated environment. (therefore getiing round the "inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering" part)

Further thoughts?

[Cardoness]

I can think of few things more painful then physical mutilation. The language is designed to be broad so that some ingenious mad dictator doesn't come up with a unique form of torture that is not covered by WAR-9.

2. Such acts include, but are not limited to:
-Physical, sexual, or psychological abuse,

Such acts include...physical...abuse. And I imagine that when the person wakes up there will be some measure of pain and discomfort.

[Erythrina]

I see your point. Thanks for engaging. But, taken to its logical conclusion, doens't any kind of incarceration produce "some measure of pain and discomfort" ?

And an ingenious mad dictator could still cut limbs and replace them with fully functional prostheses ! Therefore claiming physical capacity wasn't reduced in the slightest, perharps he could even argue it was improved. For the inmate's benefit.

[Cardoness]

I see your point, and yes it does. Torture is the act of taking it up a notch. The Res says "severe discomfort". You could argue what might be clasified as severe forever, it is just one of those things, you know it when you see it.

And an ingenious mad dictator could still cut limbs and replace them with fully functional prostheses ! Therefore claiming physical capacity wasn't reduced in the slightest, perhaps he could even argue it was improved. For the inmate's benefit.

"Such acts include...Sensory deprivation. This usually refers to sight or hearing, but last I knew, touch was one of the five senses.

If you really want to make a go of it you will need to expound on it a bit more. Show in the resolution how this is different and not yet covered. It needs more substance. It was a good first try/first draft, it just needs more. Ask yourself what issue are you passionate about that hasn't been covered yet? There are only 111 of these things so far. Not a lot when you consider the whole realm of law.

[Freeoplis]

We support the honored Ambassador's legislation, however a declaration that is not covered by existing legislation we feel is neccessary, apart from this we will lend our full support.

[Quadrimmina]

We agree with the intent of this resolution, but feel as though limiting it only to criminal punishment leads to an interpretation issue. Primarily, the issue is that a nation could punish someone for a criminal act but it technically be done as an unrelated measure. This is a great starting point, and we hope to work with the delegation from Erythrina to ensure a finished product that is properly done to ensure everyone's bodily integrity is protected.

[Grays Harbor]

We agree with the intent of this resolution, but feel as though limiting it only to criminal punishment leads to an interpretation issue. Primarily, the issue is that a nation could punish someone for a criminal act but it technically be done as an unrelated measure. This is a great starting point, and we hope to work with the delegation from Erythrina to ensure a finished product that is properly done to ensure everyone's bodily integrity is protected.

Especially from barbaric acts such as genital mutilations.

Here we go again.

[Quadrimmina]

We agree with the intent of this resolution, but feel as though limiting it only to criminal punishment leads to an interpretation issue. Primarily, the issue is that a nation could punish someone for a criminal act but it technically be done as an unrelated measure. This is a great starting point, and we hope to work with the delegation from Erythrina to ensure a finished product that is properly done to ensure everyone's bodily integrity is protected.

Especially from barbaric acts such as genital mutilations.

As I said numerous times before, so long as innocent, harmless, and arguably beneficial procedures like circumcision are not prohibited, we are fine with that. The Canadaian delegation is asked to cease and desist from calling that genital mutilation. Even if you believe it is, in trying so hard to ban circumcision in your genital mutilation act, you are putting many more people at risk. Genital mutilation (not circumcision) is a horrible, horrible thing. Any mutilation is. And we need to protect people from it. With your constant quibbling about it, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not protect the victims of this horrible thing because you want to "protect" others from something that arguably is nothing significant. And even if it is, isn't it better to protect people from that which is universally accepted to be bad than that which is controversially bad? Just so at least some protections are on the table? Or would you rather gamble those lives in the attempt to "save" the lives of people that aren't losing much but a bit of foreskin?

[Kryozerkia]

We agree with the intent of this resolution, but feel as though limiting it only to criminal punishment leads to an interpretation issue. Primarily, the issue is that a nation could punish someone for a criminal act but it technically be done as an unrelated measure. This is a great starting point, and we hope to work with the delegation from Erythrina to ensure a finished product that is properly done to ensure everyone's bodily integrity is protected.

Especially from barbaric acts such as genital mutilations.

This is not the place for it. Don't start.

[Serrland]

My first attempt, so cut me slack for any crass mistakes:

This World Assembly:

Pointing out crime prevention is a legitimate and ever-necessary concern;

Noting that in the pursuit of that goal, nations can resort to barbaric practices such as the cutting of limbs, even for petty crimes;

Disgusted at this perversion of justice;

Therefore:

Forbids any kind of mutilation as criminal punishment.

My research so far indicates that category/strength is paramount to even initiate one of these. From what I've read, I'd go along with Human Rights, significant.

If you wish to pursue this, the Serri delegation would recommend first repealing this pre-existing legislation and rewriting it to incorporate elements of your proposal. As it is now, it is something of a duplication.