[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

[Capa Virieglia]

So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them. Taxpayers won't be happy. Why should our single coin be wasted on these kinds of people?

[Bears Armed]

So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them.

And if they're Bears then that prolonged captivity would almost certainly drive them hopelessly insane, in one or more ways, making execution -- as long as the methods usable are sensibly limited -- actually the more merciful option...

[Kenmoria]

So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them. Taxpayers won't be happy. Why should our single coin be wasted on these kinds of people?

“Not comfort them. Just feed them the bare minimum to allow them to live and keep them in a cell just short of psychological torture.”

[Thyerata]

IC
The Federal Republic objects to this proposal as an interference on states' rights. Our Constitution guarantees to every person the right to life

(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 22bis, every person has the right to life. The State shall not arbitrarily deprive any person in its jurisdiction of their lives, except as provided in Section 22bis. It shall have an active duty to protect life of any person within its jurisdiction, including the lives of its armed forces when on deployment.
(2) Subject to section 22bis, the State may not derogate from, limit, or restrict this right in any way. Furthermore, it is subject to the “eternity” provisions in Part V of this Constitution

. As is clear, the Constitution expressly envisages an exception to this right. Section 22bis contains our procedural rules on the death penalty, which in relevant part are as follows

(1) Sentence of Death shall be a competent penalty in criminal matters, subject to the provisions of subsequent paragraphs in this section.
(2) a Court may only impose sentence of death for the following offences:
(a) Murder
(b) Crimes against humanity
(c) War crimes
(d) Genocide
The offences listed in subsubsections (b) to (d) shall be justiciable in the State, solely at the Federal level, due to the State’s obligations enumerated in section 20, and the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Consequently these offences are part of the Federal criminal law, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8(3)(d) and the Parliament’s powers therein. As such, Parliament may not repeal any jurisdiction in respect of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide.

. Later provisions of that Section establish fundamental guarantees to proect the rights of those against whom the State is seeking sentence of death - for example, the Prosecution must prove aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is an automatic right of appeal to an Autonomous Supreme Court or the Federal Supreme Court, depending on who sentenced the defendant. We believe that these provisions provide robust protections of an accused person's rights.

OOC
I've done international human rights and I know that hte DP is not the best punishment in the world. It's arbitrary, can go horribly wrong and - forgive the pun - is dying a slow death in America because of a decreasing supply of drugs. Since the GA is primarily IC, however, I would vote based on my IC comments above.

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perchance, have you read GA 2?

[Thyerata]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perchance, have you read GA 2?

*Matthew reads GAR 2*
*Matthew shrugs* So?

OOC: I know that, for game mechanics purposes, Resolutions are instantly binding and I don't doubt that, but I think there is a growing trend for RPing non-compliance...

[Wallenburg]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perchance, have you read GA 2?

*Matthew reads GAR 2*
*Matthew shrugs* So?

OOC: I know that, for game mechanics purposes, Resolutions are instantly binding and I don't doubt that, but I think there is a growing trend for RPing non-compliance...

OOC: No, there isn't. At the very least, try to actually be creative, instead of saying "lol, fuck off I do what I want".

[Separatist Peoples]

*Matthew reads GAR 2*
*Matthew shrugs* So?

OOC: I know that, for game mechanics purposes, Resolutions are instantly binding and I don't doubt that, but I think there is a growing trend for RPing non-compliance...

OOC: No, there isn't. At the very least, try to actually be creative, instead of saying "lol, fuck off I do what I want".

OOC: to clarify, creative as in creative compliance and generating interesting roleplay. Not just coming up with new and innovative ways to say "but we don't do this." I can spend all day coming up with justifications about why one ignores resolutions. Its dead easy. Creative compliance or generating good roleplay? Thats tricky.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: No, there isn't. At the very least, try to actually be creative, instead of saying "lol, fuck off I do what I want".

OOC: to clarify, creative as in creative compliance and generating interesting roleplay. Not just coming up with new and innovative ways to say "but we don't do this." I can spend all day coming up with justifications about why one ignores resolutions. Its dead easy. Creative compliance or generating good roleplay? Thats tricky.

OOC: I, being the tolerant, bleeding-heart softie that I am, can even accept well-roleplayed noncompliance. However, it's lazy and rather insulting to the community for people to go around saying "lol, nope" to resolutions they don't like.

[Republica comunista del Sur]

Strongly disagree, capital punishment must remain the solution to end criminality.

[Capa Virieglia]

This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.

Please don't kill me judge and executioner I have committed a crime and I have done wrong don't execute me

The only bad thing knowing it was a rash fast decision

[Kenmoria]

This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.

In terms of category, the current one is correct. Capital punishment, as laid out in the preamble of this proposal, has flaws, such as there being no way to reverse of compensate if the individual was in fact innocent.

[New Min]

This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.

"Here we go again..."

[Quantipapa]

I support. This is passed.

[Uan aa Boa]

This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.

Ambassador, you're free to vote against when the time comes, but I'm sure that we can take as read all the one line statements of opposition from hell holes such as The Psycho Reich.

[Quantipapa]

I said I support this. So make sure this meets quorum.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I said I support this. So make sure this meets quorum.

It is

I support. This is passed.

Hasn't reached vote until Wallenberg resolution finishes

[Grenartia]

I said I support this. So make sure this meets quorum.

Pst. Ambassador. You are not the final arbiter here.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I said I support this. So make sure this meets quorum.

Pst. Ambassador. You are not the final arbiter here.

Wait he was roleplaying I thought it was ooc

[Grenartia]

Pst. Ambassador. You are not the final arbiter here.

Wait he was roleplaying I thought it was ooc

Whether he is or not, it was worth mentioning.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Restating, however, that the death penalty institutionalizes a model of justice with only retributive value, a model inherently flawed in its assertion that violence and killing are best dealt with by more bloodshed,

"Nah. If you do it right, killing the prisoner is both cheaper and more merciful; and if there's no chance for rehabilitation, why bother trying? I'm lookin' at the mad bombers in the Cult of Salvi here, but I'm sure there are other examples."

Concerned that the use of capital punishment prevents nations from taking steps to correct errors in their legal process, the most grave and final sentence having already been delivered,

"Yeah, that's a biggie. This is why you limit it to acts of terrorism and other serious depravities. And, you know, don't have a justice system based on cop quotas and scapegoating."

Believing that life sentences and other alternative punishments better provide criminals with the opportunities to repent for their wrongs and improve their habits,

"What's the point of repentance and improvement if they're never gonna release you? Why should a guy with a life sentence participate in a rehabilitation program when a judge and jury have already decided he'll never be eligible to return to society? Frankly I'd rather you kill me and get it over with."

Asserting that justice is best served without the death penalty, for it is cruel, condemns certain innocent people to death, and rejects the affirmation that all sapient life is valuable by its very existence,

"Cruel? Not more so than life imprisonment, especially where solitary confinement, rape, and slavery are the order of the day. Kills innocent people? Addressed a minute ago - limit it and make sure your justice system doesn't suck. Rejects the affirmation...? I do reject that 'affirmation.' What happens when there are too many people for the ecosystem or the life support unit you happen to have? Someone is going to die; but if you assume everyone is inherently valuable, you'll try to keep them all alive, straining the system until you kill everyone. This view is religiously-sourced poison, at odds with WA law on the freedom of religion as well as inherently inimical to life generally. Nobody has a 'right to life' beyond that necessary to keep society from collapsing due to people killing each other. This moral rigidity you're trying to pave over the Assembly sounds nice, but it's a recipe for disaster outside the comforts of a rich, well-developed country with no ecological problems or resource scarcity."

"In short, ambassador, your precepts and foundations are wrong, and so the resolution itself cannot be supported. Only Clause 3 is justifiable, but that can't overpower the mistakes of the other two mandates. We vote No."

[Defutavia]

OOC: But capital punishment is an IG policy, is it not? Does this affect the game? Would nations with the capital punishment policy enabled be banned from the WA if this proposal were to become reality?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The WA doesn't have a 1-to-1 relationship with the stats (part of why the magical compliance argument based on stats is ridiculous, but whatever).

[Lord Dominator]

The GA's relationship with issues/stats is one based on cheating. The GA remains faithful, but issues/stats continue to cheat on the GA.