[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Kenmoria]

“Is the fact that clause 1 says ‘subject to legislation’ intended to allow the future abolition of the death penalty?”

[New Min]

"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.

"Now don't get all insulted because of the comment made by the respected Ambassador of Separatist Peoples, you bellyacher."

[United Massachusetts]

"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."

"I don't believe it does so at the moment. That gives me hope and makes this compromise somewhat more appealing."

[Separatist Peoples]

"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.

Bell stands to comment, but the Ambassador from United Massachusetts beats him to it.

"Having WA oversight doesn't prevent you from executing. It just means you must be fair about it, Kingbassador. Surely you don't support killing the innocent."

[United Massachusetts]

"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."

The Emperor shakes his head.
"We were already winning the current battle. This seems like a last ditch effort to gain a victory by the anti-death penalty faction. I don't see it as a significant benefit. Besides, we are concerned of the abuse of WA authority this could cause, corrupt tactics and judgments, and undermining National Sovereignty. All in all, it seems halfheartedly written, and would need some fine-tuning to be even considered. We would applaud the effort and give our grudging respect, but we see the timing as too convenient and suspicious for us to do so."

"This would be a very Pyrrhic victory for us."

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell stands to comment, but the Ambassador from United Massachusetts beats him to it.

"Having WA oversight doesn't prevent you from executing. It just means you must be fair about it, Kingbassador. Surely you don't support killing the innocent."

"Indeed I don't, which is why I approve of this in theory, but doubtful it'll be effective and done fairly in practice. Corruption, bribery, an Anti Death Penalty agenda, could all result in this being twisted. Not to mentions the issues raised before." The emperor replied, in a more conciliatory tone.

"How, exactly, does the Prince of Diplomacy suggest that nations, who can interpret this as laxly or strictly as the text permits, will twist this in a way that limits their own sovereignty more than they desire?"

[United Massachusetts]

Bell stands to comment, but the Ambassador from United Massachusetts beats him to it.

"Having WA oversight doesn't prevent you from executing. It just means you must be fair about it, Kingbassador. Surely you don't support killing the innocent."

"Indeed I don't, which is why I approve of this in theory, but doubtful it'll be effective and done fairly in practice. Corruption, bribery, an Anti Death Penalty agenda, could all result in this being twisted. Not to mentions the issues raised before." The emperor replied, in a more conciliatory tone.

OOC: Part of the RP here assumes that the gnomes are not going to be corrupt, and that they are going to follow the tenets of a resolution faithfully.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Each case. It's a legal term, which to me, seems as if it would be able to be interpreted by national judicial systems.

"We were already winning the current battle. This seems like a last ditch effort to gain a victory by the anti-death penalty faction.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: The current 'battle' is pretty immaterial to the one this proposal is about. Crime and Punishment and its predecessor Convention on Execution passed overwhelmingly. And clearly, the idea of testing whether it is possible to ban capital punishment has yielded its result. This proposal here is effectively a return to the status quo ante.

“Is the fact that clause 1 says ‘subject to legislation’ intended to allow the future abolition of the death penalty?”

If the World Assembly is in fact willing to ban capital punishment and is presently and historically able to compromise on the position of regulating capital punishment, then I want to avoid repeal and replace of the matter just so another proposal could have its chance. I've also come to agree with my historical position. Blockers are annoying.

And this compromise bans execution for Treason,

People keep saying this. I don't know what kind of treason is really that punishable if it only directly affects one person. The attempt to assassinate Lincoln wasn't just killing Lincoln... it was a coordinated attempt to kill Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward. The successful attempt to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand also got his wife. And Princip wasn't even executed. When Oswald killed JFK, he also got a JD Tippit.

[Neo-Routhengard]

Michel read the new proposal churned out by the co-author of the controversial attempt to ban capital punishment. Although the older proposal drew his ire in not letting the nation execute those which cannot be reformed and would be a menace to even the inmates in the years to come, this current proposal had his interest. Neo-Routhengard had been successfully following the practice in its conglomeration of states, and wanted to know how would it be implemented in the whole Assembly.

He then stood up and declared, "This measure at the table right now is more favorable than the current one at the vote. It is a good compromise between not letting innocent citizens face the fate of dying due to the death penalty, while assuring member-states that the death penalty will be served, and in the most efficient of ways. But, as the Emperor stated here, I would like to know about the details of how this will be implemented in the World Assembly. In Neo-Routhengard there are twenty free states and twenty-five disputed states, each with their own supreme courts, and the Superior Court of Neo-Routhengard only convenes on issues of significance to the United Kingdom as a whole, and one of the main issues given to the Superior Court is the death penalty, this served in Neo-Routhengard as the sentence to high terrorism. As of my reign and the constitution written upon my revolution against Demirand, only four people out of the hundreds of millions of the citizens of Neo-Routhengard are executed for violating the peace, and all are welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the citizens." He then turned his glance towards the other royal within the assembly. "As for the question of treason, we should peer into the mind of the treasonist and see why they are plotting treason. In Neo-Routhengard the rights of free speech and belief are honored greatly, and treasonists always turn towards force when they see that their thoughts were being suppressed by system and society. No matter what, they should be proven wrong, not by killing them, but by reasoning with them. What they might have are ideas that in their opinion will turn the world for the better, and if their ideas turned out to be unsavory, we as leaders and monarchs should prove that they are wrong in their assumptions. Given time, they might turn away from their evil ways and help us in the betterment of the society and the system that dumped them in the first place; and in my personal experience, former treasonists and revolutionaries turned out to be the nation's greatest supporters."

[Jocospor]

If the World Assembly is in fact willing to ban capital punishment and is presently and historically able to compromise on the position of regulating capital punishment, then I want to avoid repeal and replace of the matter just so another proposal could have its chance. I've also come to agree with my historical position. Blockers are annoying.

What you want is to restore your international reputation after this crushing blow, and that won't be what the World Assembly wants. Even as we speak, nations from around the world are unifying, intent on taking action against you.

Your refusal to deny our allegations only strengthens your guilt.

[Sacara]

Until the first clause is changed, we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. It seems as if the author is copying the original resolution they repealed, which the added bonus of allowing future World Assembly members to ban capital punishment going forward.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Until the first clause is changed, we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. It seems as if the author is copying the original resolution they repealed, which the added bonus of allowing future World Assembly members to ban capital punishment going forward.

If you think it's plagiarism, you should make a legality challenge.

[Lord Dominator]

If the World Assembly is in fact willing to ban capital punishment and is presently and historically able to compromise on the position of regulating capital punishment, then I want to avoid repeal and replace of the matter just so another proposal could have its chance. I've also come to agree with my historical position. Blockers are annoying.

What you want is to restore your international reputation after this crushing blow, and that won't be what the World Assembly wants. Even as we speak, nations from around the world are unifying, intent on taking action against you.

Your refusal to deny our allegations only strengthens your guilt.

"Poppycock, ambassador who I don't like. You're the only one who seems to think that nations are uniting against the authoring delegation, instead of going back to their usual state of not paying attention. Do try to remain irrelevant however."

[Malsti]

Ambassador, our nation has followed the current vote with an amount of dissapointment, though not entirely unexpected diasapointment.

However Malstian diplomats, unlike representatives from some more barbaric nations, do recognise that international legislation is not some zero sum game but a series of compromises. However unpalatable the death penalty may be to our nation, legislation of it throughout the WA is preferable to no legislation at all.

With that in mind, given a main complaint against said penalty is that it discourages investigations into potential cases of miscarriage of justice as the guilty party is dead, could this resolution not mitigate some of that damage? Perhaps a requirement to investigate and review death penalty cases after the sentence has been carried out? If the proponents of the death penalty are correct and the murder victim requires justice from beyond the grave, then we would argue so to do the inevitable innocents sentenced to death.

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

"What? This again? Look, respected ambassador of Imperium Anglorum, you will find that this so-called compromise is just another blatant attempt of the World Assembly to interfere with our justice system. You will find not just the Alliance, but those who opposed the Ban on Capital Punishment against this resolution. We understand that the goals of both the Ban and this are sincere, but whether we wish to abolish the death sentence is within our sovereign right to rule our nations. You establish additional red tape and instead of helping carry out justice, you impede our national courts. You also aid potential terrorists, traitors and rapists by giving them ample time to escape from where they are detained before the sentence that our courts have ruled be executed. This delegation asks you to refrain from attempting to stir controversy within the Assembly again, as the Ban on Capital Punishment, which you co-authored, has done so. in short, stay away from our justice system and stop trying to overrule our people's authority. said Ambassador Irons, as firm as ever.

[Malsti]

Ambassador, your concerns here do not quite marry with your discussion on the resolution currently under discussion.

Firstly you seem to be under the impression that this is a ban. It clearly states within the proposal that WA nations may enforce the death penalty. It is there in black and white ambassador.

Secondly, you note a level of interference within your judiciary. Given that your nation quite rightly enforces strict reviews and consideration at every step of the process when the death penalty is imposed - as you yourself stated ambassador - these scant requirements in this resolution would be a mere drop in the ocean of your own nation's justice system and associated red tape.

If traitors and terrorists have not somehow managed to escape during what is by your own admission lengthy and complex journey from arrest to execution, I struggle to see how the scant requirements of this resolution would give these prisoners time to escape. I would also note how proud you were ambassador of your nation's economic strength and technological prowess. I struggle to see how prisoners could even contemplate escape from your no doubt formidable prisons.

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

Ambassador, your concerns here do not quite marry with your discussion on the resolution currently under discussion.

Firstly you seem to be under the impression that this is a ban. It clearly states within the proposal that WA nations may enforce the death penalty. It is there in black and white ambassador.

Secondly, you note a level of interference within your judiciary. Given that your nation quite rightly enforces strict reviews and consideration at every step of the process when the death penalty is imposed - as you yourself stated ambassador - these scant requirements in this resolution would be a mere drop in the ocean of your own nation's justice system and associated red tape.

If traitors and terrorists have not somehow managed to escape during what is by your own admission lengthy and complex journey from arrest to execution, I struggle to see how the scant requirements of this resolution would give these prisoners time to escape. I would also note how proud you were ambassador of your nation's economic strength and technological prowess. I struggle to see how prisoners could even contemplate escape from your no doubt formidable prisons.

"Our prison system works pretty well as it is. It's efficiency is unquestioned since it focuses on rehabilitation. I defend the nations that may not have a pretty good system. And Ambassador, there are 2 types of red tape: national and supranational. If you are truly allowing the Assembly to dictate how you run your nation, judiciary wise, then maybe I could set up a committee and make my own demands. If you deny them, heh, I might as well intervene. You also seem to forget that Judiciary and Executive are two different branches, with the former being independent from the latter. Unless, of course, your executive is tied with your judiciary." says Ambassador Irons.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the World Assembly is in fact willing to ban capital punishment and is presently and historically able to compromise on the position of regulating capital punishment, then I want to avoid repeal and replace of the matter just so another proposal could have its chance. I've also come to agree with my historical position. Blockers are annoying.

What you want is to restore your international reputation after this crushing blow, and that won't be what the World Assembly wants. Even as we speak, nations from around the world are unifying, intent on taking action against you.

Your refusal to deny our allegations only strengthens your guilt.

"Ambassador, I know you're hardly an expert on matters in the General Assembly, but even you can see that a proposal failing at vote doesn't impact one's national reputation much at all. Baseless threats, on the other hand, do."

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

What you want is to restore your international reputation after this crushing blow, and that won't be what the World Assembly wants. Even as we speak, nations from around the world are unifying, intent on taking action against you.

Your refusal to deny our allegations only strengthens your guilt.

"Ambassador, I know you're hardly an expert on matters in the General Assembly, but even you can see that a proposal failing at vote doesn't impact one's national reputation much at all. Baseless threats, on the other hand, do."

"Let us all relax a little bit, shall we? Let's keep this friendly debate, civilized."
The Ambassador grabs a few glasses and puts them on the table
"Anyone care for some refreshments?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, I know you're hardly an expert on matters in the General Assembly, but even you can see that a proposal failing at vote doesn't impact one's national reputation much at all. Baseless threats, on the other hand, do."

"Let us all relax a little bit, shall we? Let's keep this friendly debate, civilized."
The Ambassador grabs a few glasses and puts them on the table
"Anyone care for some refreshments?"

"Ambassador, that is friendly and civilized debate. You'll notice I used no epithets, hurled no bottles, threatened no war, and didnt spit even once. That's a good day for anybody in the Festering Snakepit."

[Jocospor]

What you want is to restore your international reputation after this crushing blow, and that won't be what the World Assembly wants. Even as we speak, nations from around the world are unifying, intent on taking action against you.

Your refusal to deny our allegations only strengthens your guilt.

"Ambassador, I know you're hardly an expert on matters in the General Assembly, but even you can see that a proposal failing at vote doesn't impact one's national reputation much at all. Baseless threats, on the other hand, do."

Baseless threats... *the Delegate's Office sniggers* Just...you...wait...

And, on the contrary, we've failed three votes in the World Assembly - and that has certainly impacted our reputation.

You would be wise to disassociate yourself with Imperium Anglorum. These are dangerous times, "ambassador".

OOC: We don't RP one ambassador as you like, though the Confederation's delegate is Robert Kraaken. Rather, we write from the perspective of an office - a collective of secretaries, if you like - because we don't believe our delegate would trouble himself with sending these everyday communications himself.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Until the first clause is changed, we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. It seems as if the author is copying the original resolution they repealed, which the added bonus of allowing future World Assembly members to ban capital punishment going forward.

OOC: Would you prefer that it be repealed when someone else wishes to attempt a ban on capital punishment again? That clause merely plays the purpose of keeping this resolution in place while such an attempt is carried out. If you are certain that capital punishment won't be abolished, then the clause is a net-win for all.

[Sacara]

OOC: Would you prefer that it be repealed when someone else wishes to attempt a ban on capital punishment again? That clause merely plays the purpose of keeping this resolution in place while such an attempt is carried out. If you are certain that capital punishment won't be abolished, then the clause is a net-win for all.

OOC: I’m aware of why the clause is there, however, we cannot know what future generations will do and t just leaves the door open. The clause has no need to be there.

[Malsti]

Ambassador, your concerns here do not quite marry with your discussion on the resolution currently under discussion.

Firstly you seem to be under the impression that this is a ban. It clearly states within the proposal that WA nations may enforce the death penalty. It is there in black and white ambassador.

Secondly, you note a level of interference within your judiciary. Given that your nation quite rightly enforces strict reviews and consideration at every step of the process when the death penalty is imposed - as you yourself stated ambassador - these scant requirements in this resolution would be a mere drop in the ocean of your own nation's justice system and associated red tape.

If traitors and terrorists have not somehow managed to escape during what is by your own admission lengthy and complex journey from arrest to execution, I struggle to see how the scant requirements of this resolution would give these prisoners time to escape. I would also note how proud you were ambassador of your nation's economic strength and technological prowess. I struggle to see how prisoners could even contemplate escape from your no doubt formidable prisons.

"Our prison system works pretty well as it is. It's efficiency is unquestioned since it focuses on rehabilitation. I defend the nations that may not have a pretty good system. And Ambassador, there are 2 types of red tape: national and supranational. If you are truly allowing the Assembly to dictate how you run your nation, judiciary wise, then maybe I could set up a committee and make my own demands. If you deny them, heh, I might as well intervene. You also seem to forget that Judiciary and Executive are two different branches, with the former being independent from the latter. Unless, of course, your executive is tied with your judiciary." says Ambassador Irons.

I will choose to ignore the not very veiled threats of military action against my humble nation once more ambassador as I imagine all junior ambassadors from such an insecure nation go through such a phase when finding themselves out of their depth. It is true that the Malstian defense forces would not offer much opposition to a determined aggressor but I would hope that here in these halls right is determined by something other than use of weapons.

I too am concerned by those nations too impoverished to establish an adequate system of trials, oversight and appeals for their condemned prisoners. I trust you'll join me in congratulating the author for ensuring that the World Assembly will gladly shoulder the economic and expert burden that would otherwise be unduly placed on such nations should this resolution demand that such oversight be carried out within the nation?

Could you perhaps direct me to a single passage in this resolution that asks for a layer of security, appeal or oversight that you do not feel is reasonable to grant to a defendant facing the death penalty?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I’m aware of why the clause is there, however, we cannot know what future generations will do and t just leaves the door open. The clause has no need to be there.

I've been around long enough and passed enough resolutions to tell you that what's going to happen is that any blocker will get repealed, like it was a few weeks ago. Then we will be sitting around with no protections for innocents while some ban attempt does or does not fail. Whether it fails or not is pretty immaterial. I would much rather that those protections didn't go away.

If you really want a blocker, go find some little smidge not touched on this resolution and pass one yourself. I just don't want it as a rider to this one.

Could you perhaps direct me to a single passage in this resolution that asks for a layer of security, appeal or oversight that you do not feel is reasonable to grant to a defendant facing the death penalty?

No, insert juvenile whinging here about how I want to kill everyone I want to kill without having to give them any due process.