[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Imperium Anglorum]

Preventing the Execution of Innocents
Human Rights: Mild

---

Whereas there is considerable disagreement in the Assembly about the merits of banning capital punishment:

And whereas it is best to set a compromise, where the Assembly does its best efforts to permit, with effective regulations, capital punishment so to best reduce the chance of it falling upon those who have not committed the crime they are accused of:

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, as follows :—

1. Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.
   
   
2. There shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases. To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year. For the purposes of avoiding confirmation bias in assessments, the Division shall not keep records of capital punishment procedures.
   
   
3. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.
   
   
4. Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
   
   
   1. establish an office of a solicitor, specialised in the prosecution of capital cases, who shall conduct the prosecution of all capital cases within their jurisdiction,
      
      
   2. provide the defendant with adequate representation at the state's expense, barring concurrent representation, if the defendant is unable to pay for such counsel,
      
      
   3. provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,
      
      
   4. provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,
      
      
   5. prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,
      
      
   6. prove, such that there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence, and
      
      
   7. submit for review, to the Division, all facts of the case and conclusions reached at trial, at which time the Division shall decide whether to certify that all burdens of proof are met, there has been due process, and all conclusions on evidence are justifiable. If certification is withheld, the Division may dismiss or remand the case.
5. In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
   
   
   1. member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,
      
      
   2. permit the defendant full access to the national appellate system and appeal to the Division upon discovery of possibly exonerating evidence or admissible evidence which casts into doubt the narrative put forth by the prosecution at the time of trial, and
      
      
   3. provide to the defendant, in any legal proceedings related to their capital conviction, the same privileges afforded to defendant during and after the original trial.
6. Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method which is, upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.
   
   
7. Member nations shall not extradite, except to World Assembly judicial institutions or jurisdictions without capital punishment, any person charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence. Nor shall any person be extradited to a place likely to commence judicial proceedings, which would contravene World Assembly legislation, against that person.
   
   
8. No member nation shall carry out a capital sentence on any person which has not had their case record certified by the Division within the last year. Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before the Division has certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record, the defendant has exhausted all available appeals, or the Division has certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.
   
   
9. All individuals currently sentenced to capital punishment or charged of a capital crime shall be afforded the protections of this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reserved.

[Auralia]

Some initial comments:

1. We request that the following clause, or one that is substantially similar, be added to the proposal:

Member states are permitted to employ capital punishment for grave crimes and to regulate the practice within their jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this resolution and prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions.

2. We request that the following provision be reworked:

1. [...] To prevent the Capital Cases division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, there shall be submitted by any party within a jurisdiction, no more than one capital case case per one million inhabitants.

There is no timescale provided, which makes the scope of this limit unclear. It would also seem to prohibit any nation of less than one million people from employing capital punishment, which is arbitrary and unjust.

3. We request that the following clause should be amended as follows, so as to avoid an impossible standard:

2. [...] f. prove, such that there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence, and

4. We request that the following clause should be amended as follows, so as to avoid an impossible standard:

4. [...] All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method, which is substantively and upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven not to cause avoidable pain or suffering relative to available alternatives.

5. We request that the following clause should be amended as follows, so as to avoid an impossible standard:

5. Member nations are forbidden from extraditing, except to World Assembly institutions or jurisdictions subject to the provisions of this resolution, any person charged with a capital offence.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Jebslund]

Sofia Kerman rises. "It is with deep regret that Jebslund must oppose this resolution, particularly because this opposition rests on one part of one clause: The sixth clause, which, as written, prevents capital punishment for treason in the form of attempted assassination of government officials outside sanctioned duels, don't ask, rape, animal abuse, and crimes of a violent or sexual nature against minors. A simple tweak in the wording to require capital offenses to fulfill only one of those two conditions, which is to say either violent *or* directly affecting more than one person, rather than both, would remove this objection, or, perhaps, making exceptions for crimes considered particularly heinous within reason.".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Some initial comments:

1. We request that the following clause, or one that is substantially similar, be added to the proposal:

Member states are permitted to employ capital punishment for grave crimes and to regulate the practice within their jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this resolution and prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions.

Absolutely not.

2. We request that the following provision be reworked:

1. [...] To prevent the Capital Cases division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, there shall be submitted by any party within a jurisdiction, no more than one capital case case per one million inhabitants.

There is no timescale provided, which makes the scope of this limit unclear. It would also seem to prohibit any nation of less than one million people from employing capital punishment, which is arbitrary and unjust.

I meant to say per year. Apologies.

4. We request that the following clause should be amended as follows, so as to avoid an impossible standard:

4. [...] All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method, which is substantively and upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven not to cause avoidable pain or suffering relative to available alternatives.

Lethal injection, when it's done correctly with massive doses of anaesthetics and opiates, can accomplish this.

5. We request that the following clause should be amended as follows, so as to avoid an impossible standard:

5. Member nations are forbidden from extraditing, except to World Assembly institutions or jurisdictions subject to the provisions of this resolution, any person charged with a capital offence.

That's not an impossible standard.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

[*]Member nations are prohibited from issuing a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method, which is substantively and upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.

"We understand and applaud what you're basically going for here, Ambassador Wellesley, but the phrasing should be reworked. As is, the life of a convict hinges on whether or not a murder victim happens to have an acknowledged next of kin at the time of the murder. The deliberate, extended torture and mutilation of an old derelict cannot be punished with a death sentence, but a quick throat-slitting of someone's well-to-do uncle means the murderer may be executed. We cannot support any resolution that makes judgments, explicit or implied, about the relative worth of victims in this way."

"Or did my office misunderstand the meaning of 'directly affecting'? In either case, clarification would be welcome."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I wouldn't say that directly affects this hypothetical uncle.

[Liberimery]

I wonder, Ambassador, can you tell me if there are any lesser forms of punishment that we must inform the World Assembly about prior to our uses of them to punish a duly convicted felon? It seems to me that since your co-written ban is facing stiff opposition your strategy is to not outright ban the practice, but highly control it so that any attempt to execute a prisoner is opposed by a never ending string of red tape that would leave the nation with only the possibility of old age and natural causes as the form of execution.

Or do you intend to staff this subcommittee with decision makers who are pro-capital punishment only?

[Separatist Peoples]

I wonder, Ambassador, can you tell me if there are any lesser forms of punishment that we must inform the World Assembly about prior to our uses of them to punish a duly convicted felon? It seems to me that since your co-written ban is facing stiff opposition your strategy is to not outright ban the practice, but highly control it so that any attempt to execute a prisoner is opposed by a never ending string of red tape that would leave the nation with only the possibility of old age and natural causes as the form of execution.

Or do you intend to staff this subcommittee with decision makers who are pro-capital punishment only?

"It looks to me like the Imperium Anglorum is merely concerned with ensuring every reasonable end is pursued in an appeal. Six months doesn't seem that long to review evidence, and certifying the case to a committee seems reasonable as a compromise to ensure proper oversight."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I wonder, Ambassador, can you tell me if there are any lesser forms of punishment that we must inform the World Assembly about prior to our uses of them to punish a duly convicted felon?

No. No such requirement exists. I don't think it's entirely necessary. All nations will have gaols.

It seems to me that since your co-written ban is facing stiff opposition your strategy is to not outright ban the practice, but highly control it so that any attempt to execute a prisoner is opposed by a never ending string of red tape that would leave the nation with only the possibility of old age and natural causes as the form of execution.

I don't think so. I think that defence counsel can make mistakes, can fail to heed the importance of evidence. I think that prosecutors can overstate their case, that juries can convict because of innate biases. I think these are all problems which have to be dealt with. That's why these protections exist. If your life was on the line, you want to have counsel that is not so overworked that he cannot defend you. You want to have someone to check not just that the forms were submitted in the right order, but that the forms actually contain the information that the government claims it does and that their conclusions are justified.

To execute someone who is innocent would be a grave injustice. And we need checks to make sure that doesn't happen. And given that there exist so many Orc nations in the Assembly, we need to have those checks run by a international authority. Not having them would prove extremely detrimental to the goal to stopping innocents from being executed for crimes they did not commit.

Sure, I would want there to be no executions. I think that their existence, with human fallibility, means that we will get the wrong guy. I also think that if the Assembly is unwilling to eliminate the practice, we need to have strong and sufficient protections to get the right guy and to stop people from being executed unjustly for crimes they did not commit.

[Liberimery]

I wonder, Ambassador, can you tell me if there are any lesser forms of punishment that we must inform the World Assembly about prior to our uses of them to punish a duly convicted felon?

No. No such requirement exists. I don't think it's entirely necessary. All nations will have gaols.

Why, Mr. Ambassador, do you think it is unnecessary?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm over the character limit. I'll try to fix that.

Should be fine now.

I've tested it on a dry run. It's fine.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why, Mr. Ambassador, do you think it is unnecessary?

(1) I'm posting OOC. (2) My Ambassador is female. (3) There isn't much of a reason to have the WA know whatever punishments are available in some country. Whatever they are, they will already be regulated by resolutions like Treatment of Inmates, or this one, after passage. Moreover, knowledge of alternatives isn't entirely necessary to determine whether someone has a chance of being innocent or not.

---

I think I'll submit tomorrow, when the matter is still on everyone's minds.

[Liberimery]

Madam Ambassador, do you mean to suggest that we can trust nations under the current legislation to treat their prisoners decently accept in this one case where we must overregulate to make sure these otherwise trustworthy nations do everything right?

[Sacara]

The Sacarian Ambassador to the World Assembly rises and speaks, "The Sacarian Delegation views this proposal much more flattering than the one currently up for vote. However, we will not take a side in this case until the current vote is over. Until then, we will continue to campaign to ensure proposal at vote right now is defeated."

[Ruskland-Preuben]

“I guess we’ll be neutral for a bit, until the current vote ends.”

[Jebslund]

[OOC: Seriously, though, IA, I like it, but no exception for particularly heinous crimes to the conditions required for execution to be on the table? Not to mention those conditions make outright, irrefutable treason no longer eligible as a capital offense...]

[Aclion]

I have to go to sleep but I like the look of this from a quick read. Will give it a more thorough look tomorrow and see if anything springs up.
Oh wait this was already submitted. :\

[Jocospor]

Oh, the irony, the sweet, sweet irony of it all. *the 'clink' of champagne glasses can be heard throughout the Delegate's Office*

Imperium Anglorum knows that the resolution it co-authored is set to fail. In a desperate attempt to restore credibility, the nation has concocted this monstrosity. And look, you can see just how cooperative its been thus far:

1. We request that the following clause, or one that is substantially similar, be added to the proposal:

Member states are permitted to employ capital punishment for grave crimes and to regulate the practice within their jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this resolution and prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions.

Absolutely not.

...Well, cooperative in spirit, we're sure. *half the Delegate's Office shake their heads while the other starts angrily hurling champagne glasses across the room*

Among the plethora of problems within this resolution, clauses 6 and 7 still too heavily infringe nations' sovereign rights - oh, don't worry, we know we won't have to wait long to be told otherwise.

Nations of the World Assembly should know that a rather large faction has formed against Imperium Anglorum, and the Imperium itself should consider its next moves carefully. If this resolution somehow makes it to the floor, a campaign against it will be funded.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have to go to sleep but I like the look of this from a quick read. Will give it a more thorough look tomorrow and see if anything springs up.
Oh wait this was already submitted. :\

Test run, look a few posts up.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
So a nation with a population of just 100'00 (which is perfectly possible IC, because nations have never been officially required to RP as having their full 'coded' OOC populations) could only submit one capital case for evaluation every ten years, if it was so unlucky as to have them more often (as might be the case for, e.g. a nation afflicted by violent terrorists or a poor nation on a major drug-smuggling route)?
By "one capital case" do you mean strictly "a capital case against one individual" or would submitting a case in which two [or more] co-defendants were found guilty of participation in a single crime be allowed? The wording doesn't make this clear, and I can see scope for arguing both ways... and requiring one convicted criminal to wait [potentially] for years longer than their allies to receive judgement doesn't look very 'just' to me.
In any case, I am opposed OOC and the Bears are opposed IC as well: Even a WA appeals court against potentially-unsafe judgments would probably go beyond what I & they consider reasonable, especially bearing in mind the existing resolutions on fair trials & equal rights & so on, and requiring that all capital[/u] convictions be reviewed by this committee no matter how clearly correct they are is a ridiculous insult to member nations' ability to handle such matters.

[New Min]

"We do not want to have any proposal pass that prevents the WA from banning capital punishment, and henceforth we will vote against this proposal, Madam Ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

The Emperor burst out in laughter, before clearing his throat and forcing himself to stop.

"This is nothing but a rehash and rewording of the current resolution up for debate about capital punishment but allows the WA to decide, thus resulting in this being able to be abused by corrupt ideological WA members or officials, and solves none of the issues of the other resolution except making you sound more in the right. We condemn this resolution as a blatant desperate attempt to undermine the current vote and hereby cut off diplomatic relations with the authors, only to be conducted here."

"Sorry, Ambassador Emperor Bucko, but I'm fairly certain the first clause permits execution, which makes this radically different from the one at vote."

[United Massachusetts]

Ugh. I really was hoping for something more expansive. Countries like the US can legally execute 300 or so people per year, much more than they presently do. This is hardly compromise.

[United Massachusetts]

"Sorry, Ambassador Emperor Bucko, but I'm fairly certain the first clause permits execution, which makes this radically different from the one at vote."

The Emperor rolls his eyes and chuckles.
"De Jure, yes, but not De Facto. And this compromise bans execution for Treason, as well as the resolution calls for the WA to be involved. This can be easily abused to make the death penalty de facto extinct. Our issue is the WA being involved at all, as we have the right to maintain an independent Justice System. And Emperor Bucko? Your nation has no sense of dignity if they let you represent your nation while using such juvenile insults." The Emperor leaned back.

Such arrogance and petty hostility. This is disgusting.

"If I were you, I'd be jumping for joy right now. This pretty clearly protects your right to execute, and gives you significant leeway to do so."