Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:55 pm
by New Min » Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:56 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"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.
by United Massachusetts » Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:58 pm
New Min wrote:"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."
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:00 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"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.
by United Massachusetts » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:08 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:United Massachusetts wrote:"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."
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:09 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote: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.
by United Massachusetts » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:09 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:49 pm
Bears Armed wrote: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.
Eternal Lotharia wrote:"We were already winning the current battle. This seems like a last ditch effort to gain a victory by the anti-death penalty faction.
Kenmoria wrote:“Is the fact that clause 1 says ‘subject to legislation’ intended to allow the future abolition of the death penalty?”
Eternal Lotharia wrote:And this compromise bans execution for Treason,
by Neo-Routhengard » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:14 pm
by Jocospor » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:11 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by Sacara » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:18 pm
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:27 pm
Sacara wrote: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.
by Lord Dominator » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:18 pm
Jocospor wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by Malsti » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:20 pm
by The Earth Systems Alliance » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:31 am
by Malsti » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:02 am
by The Earth Systems Alliance » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:21 am
Malsti wrote: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.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:34 am
Jocospor wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by The Earth Systems Alliance » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:37 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Jocospor wrote: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."
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:55 am
The Earth Systems Alliance wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"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?"
by Jocospor » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:59 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Jocospor wrote: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."
by Arasi Luvasa » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:05 am
Sacara wrote: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.
by Sacara » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:43 am
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.Arasi Luvasa wrote: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.
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Malsti » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:55 am
The Earth Systems Alliance wrote:Malsti wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:27 am
Sacara wrote: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 wrote: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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement