[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

[Lord Dominator]

I never asked you to add a preamble. We're not a hive mind, you know.

You sure about that?

[Wallenburg]

Serious question: why bother banning capital punishment when you know member states won't comply with that ban? Really, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.

[New Min]

Serious question: why bother banning capital punishment when you know member states won't comply with that ban? Really, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.

That is exactly why this Assembly should be entirely abolished.

[Forensatha]

I believe the death penalty should be kept, mainly for the most heinous crimes.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."

[Ru-]

"This resolution is incredibly well written, and beautifully unambiguous, eloquent, and concise. I must applaud the authors for their effort, and as a world assembly ambassador, I can't help but see this as a beautiful work of art.

It is indeed unfortunate that Ru must vote against it should it reach the floor. The main reason for our opposition has already been stated by the esteemed ambassador from the Greater Vakolicci Haven, perhaps better then I could, so I shall simply voice my agreement with their statement:

"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."

I will add further that while Ru still retains the death penalty, I am proud to say that it has now been over a decade since it was last handed down anywhere within our kingdom. This is because it is reserved for only for the most heinous of crimes, the type that rattle society to it's core so completely, and involve the rare individuals who are so broken, so violent, so evil that society has no choice but to be done with them. In these circumstances vengeance proves necessary if for no other reason then to keep us sane, by giving us some small comfort and closure when faced with the unimaginable. Perhaps some of the nations in this assembly have not been plagued by the kind of serial murderers that have roamed Ru in the past, but I cannot imagine how we could reconcile the crimes of the likes of T. Charles Holden, The Woodsman, or the King of Darkness should this pass. We do agree that far too many nations do not treat capital punishment with the gravity it deserves. It is something that any good nation will, hopefully, never use. But must still be kept in reserve, should a circumstance so extraordinary occur that we are left with no other satisfactory option.

We are opposed."

"P.S. Also, we find it interesting that the same assembly that overwhelming passed GA #428 would give this proposal such serious consideration, as we were under the impression that this was passed specifically in response to nations who refuse to extradite legal citizens whose crimes surpass their statutes of limitations (such as our 40 year statute, which myself and my friends in the senate are now working to end for the instances outlined in that resolution) in the cases outlined there, and which this resolution does not exclude. I am sure you all realize that should this pass, none of us will be permitted to extradite war criminals who commit large scale genocide to the nations who were the victims of their crimes if we so choose in the majority of circumstances. I'm sure most here could name several death penalty nations both inside and outside the WA who have had such histories, and whose perpetrators have not as of yet, all been located. We are quite familiar the strong argument that applying our own law to these individuals robs these nations and their people of their rightful justice, as it has been yelled at us several times in the past. This resolution would force nations to deny it and try these people under their own legal systems."

Serious question: why bother banning capital punishment when you know member states won't comply with that ban? Really, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.

Because it puts international pressure on all member states to abolish it. Refusing to do so will make that nation non-compliant, something that no member nation actually desires. Unless the death penalty is such a fundamental policy issue for the ruling government or the predominant majority of the general public, that ending it would be considered a betrayal of their deepest core moral beliefs, this pressure will very likely be enough to spell it's end. There needs to be a lot of power indeed behind a national policy in order for a government to defy the entire WA over it.

Ru itself is actually a perfect example of this: Yes we have the death penalty, yes our current government does not wish to get rid of it, but I surely doubt this will continue to be the case should this pass. There is a fairly significant movement in Ru to abolish it at the moment, causing some political experts to muse that it may, someday in the future, be abolished completely as this movement continues to grow slowly in size over the years. However, it still lacks enough political capital on it's own to force an end to a punishment that has existed in some form in Ru for literally thousands of years, and has instead served to merely keep it's scope narrow. I anticipate that a resolution from the WA would be the push needed to finally put an end to it here and now, instead of having to wait for some future opportunity. This is likely the case with the great majority of death penalty nations. And keep in mind that even for ruling governments that do refuse, it at least adds a tremendously strong argument for those within their nation that have been fighting for abolition. Just because a resolution may not magically and immediately achieve the desired results in 100% of our membership, that does not mean it's passage isn't something worth fighting for. And this is coming from someone who intends to vote against this.

[Kenmoria]

"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."

One of the stuffier diplomats from the World Assembly, James Lewitt, rises to speak. “Whilst there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty, driving away nations is not one of them. It could be said that a ban on slavery harms nations that rely on the slave trade for their economy, or a ban on torture is unacceptable to those that consider part of ancient ritual sacrifice, also forbidden. The World Assembly isn’t there to pass proposals that please every nation, that would be impossible, and certainly shouldn’t aim to appease those who already are blatantly in noncompliance. The stronger the proposals passed, the more of an impact the WA has on global affairs. If nations leave, so be it, we cannot force them to stay nor should we want them to if they have no interest in following the legislation they voted on.”

“Although, I do think the war criminal problem outlined by the Ru delegation needs to be addressed, as it stops the worst of the worst from being extradited to the places they hurt most.”

[Uan aa Boa]

In clause 3 "in line" should be two words. Otherwise, this looks great and I think it's ready to go.

[United Massachusetts]

"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."

One of the stuffier diplomats from the World Assembly, James Lewitt, rises to speak. “Whilst there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty, driving away nations is not one of them. It could be said that a ban on slavery harms nations that rely on the slave trade for their economy, or a ban on torture is unacceptable to those that consider part of ancient ritual sacrifice, also forbidden. The World Assembly isn’t there to pass proposals that please every nation, that would be impossible, and certainly shouldn’t aim to appease those who already are blatantly in noncompliance. The stronger the proposals passed, the more of an impact the WA has on global affairs. If nations leave, so be it, we cannot force them to stay nor should we want them to if they have no interest in following the legislation they voted on.”

“Although, I do think the war criminal problem outlined by the Ru delegation needs to be addressed, as it stops the worst of the worst from being extradited to the places they hurt most.”

Presumably, if their crimes are so heinous as to want make the death penalty, they could be extradited to a court of international jurisdiction (for instance, a war crimes tribunal) that is likely to be established in the future. It's a thin line, but is absolutely there, I think.

Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.

Also:

Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.

The ban on the death penalty would appear to outlaw the death penalty only in courts of national jurisdiction. Thus, if an international court wants the death penalty, I shan't stop them. When said court is established, it is up to the WA to determine policy there.

I have merely left the door open to the possibility.

EDIT: Do I need to do this:

Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.

to prevent subnational units (ie. states, provinces, counties, etc.) from executing people?

[Kenmoria]

EDIT: Do I need to do this:

Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.

to prevent subnational units (ie. states, provinces, counties, etc.) from executing people?

(OOC: It would be very nitpicky to argue the current version of the clause allows for subnational units to execute people, since member state generally refers to all levels of governance at or below national. However, the revised version would absolutely shut that down.)

[Greater vakolicci haven]

One of the stuffier diplomats from the World Assembly, James Lewitt, rises to speak. “Whilst there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty, driving away nations is not one of them. It could be said that a ban on slavery harms nations that rely on the slave trade for their economy, or a ban on torture is unacceptable to those that consider part of ancient ritual sacrifice, also forbidden. The World Assembly isn’t there to pass proposals that please every nation, that would be impossible, and certainly shouldn’t aim to appease those who already are blatantly in noncompliance. The stronger the proposals passed, the more of an impact the WA has on global affairs. If nations leave, so be it, we cannot force them to stay nor should we want them to if they have no interest in following the legislation they voted on.”

“Although, I do think the war criminal problem outlined by the Ru delegation needs to be addressed, as it stops the worst of the worst from being extradited to the places they hurt most.”

Presumably, if their crimes are so heinous as to want make the death penalty, they could be extradited to a court of international jurisdiction (for instance, a war crimes tribunal) that is likely to be established in the future. It's a thin line, but is absolutely there, I think.

Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.

Also:

Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.

The ban on the death penalty would appear to outlaw the death penalty only in courts of national jurisdiction. Thus, if an international court wants the death penalty, I shan't stop them. When said court is established, it is up to the WA to determine policy there.

I have merely left the door open to the possibility.

EDIT: Do I need to do this:

Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.

to prevent subnational units (ie. states, provinces, counties, etc.) from executing people?

"The revised version would be unenforceable in the Greater Vakolicci Haven. The Havenic central courts, in Iros, which try criminals accused of federal crimes (largely treason and corporate offenses) does not practice the death penalty. However most criminal matters are handled by provincial courts, which the Havenic constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating. Changing this constitution would invariably result in the Haven ceasing to be: Celeria is not going to drop slavery, Velstrania will never allow it within its borders; Vrarna will never allow for private mercenary forces to operate from its territory, and the corporate states will not forego such a lucrative source of income."

[United Massachusetts]

"I'm not sure how this would make it unenforceable in the so-called "haven."

[United Massachusetts]

In clause 3 "in line" should be two words. Otherwise, this looks great and I think it's ready to go.

Thanks, Uan, for all the help. <3


Barring further objection, this will be submitted @ major.

[Uan aa Boa]

"The revised version would be unenforceable in the Greater Vakolicci Haven. The Havenic central courts, in Iros, which try criminals accused of federal crimes (largely treason and corporate offenses) does not practice the death penalty. However most criminal matters are handled by provincial courts, which the Havenic constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating. Changing this constitution would invariably result in the Haven ceasing to be: Celeria is not going to drop slavery, Velstrania will never allow it within its borders; Vrarna will never allow for private mercenary forces to operate from its territory, and the corporate states will not forego such a lucrative source of income."

Since the Haven is clearly not compliant with GA#23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking and GA#37 Fairness in Criminal Trials you can add this proposal to the list when it passes.

Thanks, Uan, for all the help. <3

You're welcome, it's a fine thing you're doing here.

[Bears Armed]

"The revised version would be unenforceable in the Greater Vakolicci Haven. The Havenic central courts, in Iros, which try criminals accused of federal crimes (largely treason and corporate offenses) does not practice the death penalty. However most criminal matters are handled by provincial courts, which the Havenic constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating. Changing this constitution would invariably result in the Haven ceasing to be: Celeria is not going to drop slavery, Velstrania will never allow it within its borders; Vrarna will never allow for private mercenary forces to operate from its territory, and the corporate states will not forego such a lucrative source of income."

Since the Haven is clearly not compliant with GA#23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking and GA#37 Fairness in Criminal Trials you can add this proposal to the list when it passes.

OOC
Also GA#2, which says that member nations can't use their constitutions as justification for non-compliance...

[Omicron Convenience IV]

Haven's claims are literally impossible. It is not possible to fail to comply with WA resolutions, it is automatic and completely effective. Claims to the contrary should be dismissed, because they are necessarily wrong.

[Kenmoria]

Haven's claims are literally impossible. It is not possible to fail to comply with WA resolutions, it is automatic and completely effective. Claims to the contrary should be dismissed, because they are necessarily wrong.

(OOC: This is not considered true, as there have been passed resolutions that specifically mention the consequences of noncompliance, most currently the Administrative Compliance Act. Although it is often seen as poor roleplaying to ignore GA legislation, it can be done well and is by no means impossible.)

[Omicron Convenience IV]

Acknowledging the consequences of noncompliance is immaterial. 'If false, do this' does not in fact have any effects, because the 'this' part is never executed. I certainly won't try to detract from roleplay by arguing that it should not be permissible to make these enforcement mechanisms. It also is probably beneficial for IC consistency.

That does not change, however, the fact that compliance is mandatory and that the enforcement systems are unnecessary. And if you really want to quote resolutions, then go here, because 'each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory'. Compliance is mandatory, and the game mechanics make it impossible to fail to comply. Haven's claims are not viable.

[Ru-]

OOC: the stat changes and game mechanics are unavoidable, the rp implications are extremely avoidable, which is why ACA was written in the first place. Many players do not give a fig about stats and mechanics because they are RP players who log onto the site just to RP their nation. Everything you said is true, but it only focuses on the game mechanics. Which are not close to being everything the WA is about.

[A Cornstar]

Regarding the author's religious inspiration, I would like to remind my esteemed brother of Genesis 9:6, Acts 25:10-11, and Romans 13:1-4.
In any case my nation RP is that our society is entirely militarized; we'll just formally declare war on crime.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Looks like in queue. Going to support

[A Cornstar]

Even if this passes, so will the repeal. Just like with last year's same-sex. marriage debate.

[United Massachusetts]

Regarding the author's religious inspiration, I would like to remind my esteemed brother of Genesis 9:6, Acts 25:10-11, and Romans 13:1-4.
In any case my nation RP is that our society is entirely militarized; we'll just formally declare war on crime.

I would like to remind my brother equally that the risen Lord himself was a victim of the execution of the innocent, and his life would appear to indicate opposition to the very notion of "eye for an eye" justice. This is particularly noteworthy considering that Jesus himself publicly thwarted an execution, claiming that only he without sin should throw stones at the adulterer.

[A Cornstar]

Regarding the author's religious inspiration, I would like to remind my esteemed brother of Genesis 9:6, Acts 25:10-11, and Romans 13:1-4.
In any case my nation RP is that our society is entirely militarized; we'll just formally declare war on crime.

I would like to remind my brother equally that the risen Lord himself was a victim of the execution of the innocent, and his life would appear to indicate opposition to the very notion of "eye for an eye" justice. This is particularly noteworthy considering that Jesus himself publicly thwarted an execution, claiming that only he without sin should throw stones at the adulterer.

On the first two points I can only agree, though not with the implication that capitol punishment need be primarily retributive. On the matter of the adultress, I'd call it a difference in interpretation.
My belief in the death penalty is based on the view of nations as like organic bodies, though I could conceive of it becoming totally unjust in a post scarcity scenario.

[Bears Armed]

[quote="A cornstar";p="34582113"I would like to remind my brother equally that the risen Lord himself was a victim of the execution of the innocent

OOC; But wasn't that supposed to be a part of God's plan, and necessary?