[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Kenmoria]

“Full support. In lieu of banning capital punishment, a piece of legislation that heavily regulates it and urges nations towards discontinuement is definitely the correct option. Hopefully, though it was amusing, this will be less controversial than the United Massachusetts delegation’s attempt.”

[Jocospor]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449946

Oh, yes! Wonderfully played, Ambassador, congratulations! *the Delegate's Office bursts into rapturous laughter*

And to think, Imperium Anlglorum was probably beginning to cry "Victory!" Oh well, what a shame. No doubt they'll try again, and again...and again. Anyway, cheers for now! *clink*

[Wallenburg]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449946

Oh, yes! Wonderfully played, Ambassador, congratulations! *the Delegate's Office bursts into rapturous laughter*

And to think, Imperium Anlglorum was probably beginning to cry "Victory!" Oh well, what a shame. No doubt they'll try again, and again...and again. Anyway, cheers for now! *clink*

Ogenbond, who took to minding his own business ever since he cast his against vote, had found himself the perfect resting position in his chair, and gone to work on the evening newspaper. When the ambassador from Jocospor started shouting enthusiastic taunts regarding the Anglican delegation, Ogenbond could only assume that they had nothing to do with his own actions, and so did his best to ignore his rowdy neighbors.

OOC: Challenges occur OOC. Links, especially to the NationStates forums, are also OOC.

[Ru-]

In light of the problems brought up by the ambassador for Auralia we will unfortunately have to change our vote to against.

We support the core idea of this proposal: creating a WA oversight comittee to review capital convictions to ensure actual guilt, curb nations who implement it haphazardly, and ensure established legal and constitutional protections are followed. The death penalty is serious, and we must ensure that if a nation decides to use it, that they treat it with the gravity it deserves.

against nevertheless, we hope the author pulls this and cleans it up for resubmission. Auralia may be against this in it's entirety on principle but thier criticism on specific articles is sound and should be heeded regardless. As it stands, this is a matter of "good idea, bad resolution"

[Kickemin]

Greeting ambassadors, the delegation from Kickemin would have attended before if we knew about the prawn sundae's and wine being so freely available.

However: This rehash of the previous ban on capital punishment is better, in the same way that dried dung is better than wet dung. For one, the number and variety of criminal justice systems you are going to impact with this proposal is huge. The cost is significant and the amount of red tape is close to unbearable. There are nations that don't appoint state paid defenders to every case, nations that don't run a large prison system and nations that don't allow plea deals. There is a reason why the majority of WA resolutions have loose wording as to apply to any situation.

As I stated before in my opposition to 'Ban on capitol punishment' this simply does not work for my nation. We don't execute people, much, but we do use the threat of execution to keep the public in line. You can call my system weak if you want but it works, we have a healthy economy, a strong socialist model and ruthlessly stamp out the slightest thought of dissent the moment it appears. How would we do this if the threat is, say conspiracy to blow up the government house (akin to Guy fawks) but is prevented? The charge is conspiracy to commit mass murder and treason, the sentence is most definitely death in this case. Assuming they are caught and jailed before the act is carried out we now have to spend at least a year gathering evidence and providing them with representation. This sort of clear cut case, while rare, is usually concluded within days or weeks. This is also the main intent of capitol punishment existing, to provide legal means to punish such actions.

Also, there are a few specific issues with the proposed resolution.

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 one 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.

So you are not allowing the establishment of legal precedent, the basis for most law? And a per head cap is just silly. If the new body would be overwhelmed without such a limit then the new body is unsuitable to perform the task at all.

Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defense 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.

So we can't print news reports about the incident? Because that is influencing the defense counsel.

Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:

establish an office of a solicitor, specialized in the prosecution of capital cases, who shall conduct the prosecution of all capital cases within their jurisdiction,

provide the defendant with adequate representation at the state's expense, barring concurrent representation, if the defendant is unable to pay for such counsel,

provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,

provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,

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

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.

How can I say there will not arise in future evidence that casts doubt on this event? And one year is a very long time to examine evidence.

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.

What about mentally incompetent citizens that commit large scale violent crimes? Not being mentally competent doesn't stop you doing it, just stops you understanding it.

In conclusion, this is a slightly polished turd. A centralized body for reviewing cases of capitol punishment is not something we are wholly opposed to, but a 'one size fits all' justice system is something we are.

We vote No.

[Otaku Stratus]

You know, I liked this, I liked the compromise, and I even kind of like redundant legislation like "don't do X wrong if you're gonna do X"
But there are too many mistakes here. The list of exclusions for execution are so arbitrary and convoluted, I can't imagine what kind of moral code they derived from, but it's definitely one that one person made up themselves appropos of nothing. And that's not where good laws come from.
This is looking like yet another WA ruling my nation will just quietly ignore after it inevitably passes.

[Arta]

This is just bad.

[The Sect Meces]

"Sector 18 after observation of the debate, and consideration of the proposal now votes against the proposal."

"Nothing personal."

[Palenar]

Under Palenaran law, criminals deemed impossible to rehabilitate are given the choice between life imprisonment and execution. In the same way that many people see capital punishment as unethical, we also recognize that it is unethical to deny those faced with life sentences the right to die. How would this be affected by this legislation? Until it is made clear that this integral part of our criminal justice system is not negatively impacted by this proposal—especially by the contentious 1-per-million clause—, Palenar will oppose this proposal.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

(disclaimer: This is, as usual for the forum, IC)

Thoughts:

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

This seems to be a statement locked in time and referring to a current situation, and therefore is inappropriate as a lasting comment on the record for GA legislation. In the future this may not be true. It could be argued that "considerable disagreement" is a flexibly ambiguous phrase that may allow this to always be true. To that, I'd say yes, yes it is, and flexibly ambiguous phrasing has no place in a legal document, which is what WA legislation must be.

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

In other words, this proposal is legalising capital punishment in all WA nations, or at the very least giving WA endorsement of the practice.

As a nation that is opposed to capital punishment morally, this is unacceptable.

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 one 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.

Ridiculously bureaucratic. How can you determine an arbitrary acceptable number of capital punishments?

While the intentions of this legislation are good, it is also a clear example of top-down WA meddling, constructed without any respect to national sovereignty, good sense or reasonable flexibility.

If the WA wants to prevent the execution of innocents, then it should be monitoring member nations that have poor human rights records, and bringing that to the attention of the membership. Heavy-handed and misguided legislation will, in fact, do nothing except create another layer of bloated bureaucracy for us to attempt to negotiate, and yet another meaningless set of restrictions to discourage undeclared nations from joining this august institution.

I therefore urge delegates and members to vote down this mess of a proposal.

[Airrajul]

The six kings of the Cenarion Circle discuss how they should respond to the presented WA resolution.

"The right to take human life lies within the hands of Justice and the government, not the World Assembly. The limitation of properly administered retribution corresponding to those who had committed a crime of such intensity is a clear infringement upon the Cenaric Imperium and many other nations' sovereignty. The reality is that no two sovereign states are the same, and no two ideas are the same. This forces nations who are more punishing against those who violate their legislation to submit, therefore causing undesirable complications in their delivery of just verdicts.

The Cenaric Imperium votes AGAINST this resolution."

[The Palentine]

<The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla was sitting at his desk. He was leaning back in his chair and had his feet propped up on his desk. In his right hand was a Wild Turkey on the Rocks, and in his left hand was a fine Yeldan cigar(TM). He was the very picture of relaxed contentment. He took a puff from his cigar and began to speak>
You lucky bastards, I wish I could sit around and listen to me all day. I've already voted against this proposal, however I've decided to stick around and observe the debate. I have hopes it will be as contentious as the previous one. So carry on and don't pay any mind to any giggling you might hear from me. Also the bar is restocked and open. I have Wild Turkey, Old Crow, and Old Granddad, Olde Frothingslosh Pale Stale Ale, and genuine West by Gawd Virginia Snakebite Remedy. See me if you need a snort.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[The Sect Meces]

"The bar sounds really nice right now, I won't lie."

[Uan aa Boa]

Most importantly, we believe that if a nation chooses to execute its citizens, responsibility for that should rest squarely on that nation. While the Assembly has chosen not to prohibit such practices, neither should it lend them a fig leaf of legitimacy by tacitly giving each execution its approval.

This is a strange conception of complicity, for lack of a better term. We should not do good things because possibly some of those good things are bad things, and we would have some complicity in doing them? The kind of moral puritanism that requires belies the notion of a comparative between a world in which the action happens and one in which it doesn't.

It seems to me that you think we should take no action to actually guarantee, substantively, that judicial proceedings against capital defendants conform to Assembly legislation and notions of justice. Instead, we should do that pie-in-the-sky thinking that leads us into passing no legislation to protect anyone or anything at all.

In other places such as here you've likened capital punishment to slavery in terms of the way we should be willing to compromise with it. If the resolution that bans slavery were to be repealed I wonder if you'd propose a system whereby a quota of people could be enslaved so long as a WA committee certified that an appropriate volume of paperwork had been submitted.

Fairness in Criminal Trials already offers substantial protection to all defendants and I submit that all defendants are worthy of equal protection. If you think that existing legislation is insufficient to guard against miscarriages of justice, in capital cases or otherwise, then it would be better to remedy that shortcoming.

[The Gregarian Republic]

This proposal looks like a carbon copy of the previous proposal with minimum changes. We here in The Gregarian Republic do not necessarily like to use capital punishment for every little crime, and we do believe in fair trials. However, we disapprove of a world governing body to attempt to strong arm smaller nations into a forced compliance. Therefore the people of The Gregarian Republic implore you all to vote against this obvious infringement upon individual countries' rights. Thank you.

[Toiletchiya]

Hi, I am regional delegate for [region-tag=]The Bird in the toilet[/region-tag].
Please can anyone advise what to do, what's best for our region's interest?

[Union of the North]

Official dispatch of Union of the North

On behalf of His Majesty and in accordance with the Office of the High Chancellor, we reluctantly agree to support this legislation, while our government is seriously concerned with our autonomous right to prosecute our citizens who violate our laws at the highest levels in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, and whether or not our right to do so will be hindered by further bureaucracy. We simultaneously recognize that it is a significant step in increasing Human Rights on not just a national, but a global level.

[Nova Trieste]

"Greetings gentlemen, I am ambassador Günther Kreidl, here to represent the Armed Republic of Nova Triest in this debate. Now, I've looked at this new proposal and..."
*phone rings*
"Oh, excuse me for one second"
"Yes Lord General? Yes, I'm at the Assembly right now. Yes, 3 days before the vote ends, more than enough to complete your... "work" at the maximum security prisons. Sure, that's the first thing I'll ask. Yes absolutely. Yes, thank you Lord General, I'll do my best. *click*

"All right, where was I? Oh yes, I would like to clarify an issue with the proposal that raised more than a few questions at our senate. You see, we're a newborn country with a relatively small population, and we're just ended a war with independence against city-states which employed PMCs. The remnants of these private armies are infesting our territory, plaguing our country with banditry, organized crime, terrorism and so on. The question is, how are we supposed to... dispose of all the scum we catch if we can't execute more than 10 convicts a year?"

[The Manticoran Empire]

"Is the purpose of this resolution to make judges, lawyers, and jurors commit suicide or is that just a side effect that the author is perfectly fine with? Now I fully understand not wanting to execute the innocent. I'm sure everyone can agree that the innocent should not be executed and it is better if a guilty man goes free than an innocent man be sent to prison. However, a trial does have more people involved than just the defendant and many court systems already have a backlog of cases. This resolution would do nothing to help alleviate the workload. If anything, it would ensure that innocents spend MORE time in prison than they do currently. It is entirely possible that this Resolution will result in people DYING in prison before they have a chance at a trial."

[True Spain]

Following up from my initial comments, I have now had the opportunity to read the proposal in detail and I have the following comments:

I will start by noting that in general, I am opposed to international criminal courts. They demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial systems of member states and are an unacceptable violation of national sovereignty. This is no less true for the court of appeals for capital cases established by this proposal ("the Division").

1. Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

As IA has made clear, s.1 is intentionally not a blocker. This proposal leaves open the possibility of the World Assembly banning capital punishment in future. In what sense, then, is this proposal a "compromise"? Why should any member state who supports the use of capital punishment vote in favour? What do we gain?

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.

s.2 requires that member states not submit "more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year". As I mentioned earlier, this effectively prohibits smaller nations of less than one million people from using capital punishment. This constitutes unjust discrimination on the basis of member state population and is absolutely unacceptable. I have already pointed this out to IA but he does not seem to have addressed this issue.

Moreover, this limit is arbitrary. There could be legitimate reasons why a member state may need to exceed this limit. At the very least member states should be permitted to pay for the costs of handling the additional applications, rather than prohibiting them outright.

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.

s.3 requires that member states not "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." While I can understand the intent of this clause, it certainly needs to be clarified. As written it would likely prohibit law enforcement officials from demanding that the defendant comply with a legal search warrant or subpoena, if doing so would permit the government to acquire evidence which would compromise the defendant's defense.

4. Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
a. 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,

s.4(a) requires the establishment of a single office for prosecuting capital cases. Why the micromanagement? The Division will have to review everything anyways.

c. provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,

s.4(c) requires that the defense be provided with "all evidence collected in the process of investigation". But there are valid limits to discovery, such as personally identifying information that is not material to the case. Such limits would be barred by this clause.

d. provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

s.4(d) requires that defendants have at minimum 1 year to review evidence against them. This is not ideal; these kinds of limits should be specific to the circumstances of the case, and one year might be much too long in some cases.

e. prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,

s.4(e) requires member states to "prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence". This is absurd. What if the evidence is judged to have been fabricated? It still has to be admitted and shown to a jury?

f. 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,

s.4(f) uses a standard of "doubt" rather than "reasonable doubt", which is impossible to reach. I have already pointed this out to IA but he did not address it.

Moreover, s.4(f) does not require member states to prove guilt; it instead requires them to provide that "there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt" on guilt. I'm not sure whether this is an equivalent or higher standard. Either way the wording is problematic and should be changed.

5. In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
a. 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,

s.5(a) seems to require an additional post-trial discovery period of up to 18 months: six months for the Division, prosecution, and defense each. What on earth is the point of this delay? Why isn't pre-trial discovery adequate? Why can't the evidence be examined concurrently?

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.

s.6 would in some cases prohibit execution as a punishment for treason or similar crimes against the state, since these are not necessarily violent crimes. It would also prohibit execution of those who have only violently tortured and killed one person, as opposed to several. These are unacceptable limitations.

s.6 also requires the use of execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". IA gave as an example sedation followed by lethal injection. The problems with this approach are numerous. Some criminals want to be killed awake. Some states do not have access to the drugs used to perform lethal injections. And punishment in general need not and should not be painless. Unnecessary pain should be avoided, but it seems appropriate that a defendant should be awake for a sentence of death, which will necessarily involve some pain.

I think lethal injection in particular is also problematic insofar as it tends to medicalize and sanitize capital punishment. Capital punishment is not a medical treatment. It is an act of state violence, and the method should reflect this fact.

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.

s.7 arbitrarily prohibits member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. Why this arbitrary limitation? Shouldn't it be enough that both nations respect the protections of this legislation?

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.

s.8 would permit a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not exhausting all available appeals, because then the Division could not certify the case.

The certification provisions in s.8 also differ from the certification provisions in s.4(g). What does this mean, exactly? Is a member state permitted to request certification for the requirements in s.4(g), but not for the ones in s.8?

Does the expiry of certification after all year apply to all certification provisions, or just a subset? Why does certification expire in the first place, and why only after one year, given all of the opportunities for delay in this process? Can certification be renewed?

Is the Division even required to certify even if all conditions are met? Can it simply always decline certification, effectively banning capital punishment?

---

In summary, this is an awful proposal. It is absurdly long, needlessly complex, full of ambiguities, and seems designed to ban capital punishment in all but name. While I opposed UM's proposed ban on capital punishment, at least it was honest about its intent. That's more than I can say for this proposal.

We oppose.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Absolutely extraordinary. We stand behind Chief Ambassador Martin Russell, and expect to see a better, more polished version of this rushed attempt at a resolution once this one is defeated as well. We appreciate the intent of this resolution, not so much its many obvious flaws. I am proud to announce that True Spain will be voting against as well."

Chief Ambassador Roberto de Montoya of True Spain

[Firstaria]

On the behalf of the Overlord of Firstaria, we are shocked and appealed at the support given to this resolution on the guise of “it doesn’t ban capital punishment, so it’s ok.” and on the complete lack of sight of his proposer.

The more we read the proposal, the more is clear that the objective of this is to assure every capital punishment trial will be held in accordance of fair trial principles so that the Defendant can have proper Defense and the trial will not be rushed or corrupted. Although we applaud that, we found a resolution specufically pointig at capital punishment redundant, as these values should be held high in EVERY trial, regardless of the charge and the possible punishment.

Having noticed that, we also realize that the clause to avoid to overwhelm this “Division” is utterly ineffective. As WA member nations easily surpass the trillions without ever trying, and we highly doubt the number will lower under this limit. This would mean that the Division would easily deal with more than one million cases a year, which will all require maximum attention due to the argument discussed. We see this as an incident bound to happen, and by such not solving the core of the problem, the risk of misuse of Capital Punishment or condeming an innocent.

We are shocked at how the resolution fails to consider that evidences could also be witnesses, demanding much red tape and bureaucratic preocedures to lengh and make harder to pursue capital punishment...but not considering it will inevitably encompass these innocent citizen in the horrible system, and considering some cases may even require Witness Protection, this can easily turb into a resolution that will actually damage more the innocent than the guilty, or even worse discourage people from testify against criminals, a despicable result in our and we hope everyone opinion.

Not only that, but bt not defining standards of what can be considered a capital punishment case, or not realizing that forcing arbitrary extension to case examination, this resolution does more harm than good in two cases. The first, this resolution has no clear behaviour in the case of the Defendant pleading Guilty, who will still be forced to attend a year for a trial that would be easily solved due to external influence. This is, objectively, a breach of rights of an individual, and although we do admit there could be false confession cases, individuals who could choose death to cover something will abuse the lenght of process to try to commit suicide, forcing memeber nations to defend these individual under extreme duress, denying them even more rights where a swift trial would have easily solved by exposing his lie.

Moreover, this resolution “red tape” as we will define it from now on, only apploes to the right of a fair trial, not to the possibility of Capital Punishment used instead of a conviction. By using the “red tape” and mechanism that allow the Prosecution to charge the Defendant with capital punishment, an individual can be help pending trial for appalling periods of time, and the Division seems to have no right to suspend extremely weak trials as long as they are fair, meaning nations could exploit the “red tape” to detain opposition to them and blame the Division for it. Although we do know this system may be nothing new for many corrupt states, the idea of this practice being now sponsored by the WA due to this resolution is sockening at best.

Under the Firstarian custom of “ Critics should be constructive “, we propose a simple change to solve many of these problems: instead of forcing nations to propose Capital Punishment cases to the Division as soon as the possibility arises, even before a trial, create the right for a Defendant found guilty of a crime that leads to capital punishment to appeal to the WA Division on the basis of lack of fair trial. By having the Division examine those appeals and refusing those where fair trial practices were applied, and turning an obligation into a right, you ease the work of this WA department to a more acceptable level, and allow cases to have not guilty verdict in swift times, meaning only individual at ACTUAL risk of capital punishment will be addressed by this resolution.

As you can see, a simple change like that eliminates so many concerns, that we believe this resolution is the result of a severe lack of debate and urge people to vote AGAINST it until the proposer will properly wngage in such debate, lest we will have to consider him a mere Glory Hound.

[Rovikstead]

Really? Where is it? You had opportunity to comment on it too. In fact, you had three days to do so.

OOC: Three business days when school has already started for most students, and those committing to a career may not have the luxury of time to look over this proposal.
People may spend weeks or even months drafting. Three days is not a lot, and certainly not enough to act rude or overly defensive if someone criticizes your proposal after its submission. I genuinely hope that you're just being sarcastic and that I just took this comment out of context because otherwise, I honestly don't know what else to say.

[The Greater Oregon State]

There are immoralities you don't commit! If you commit rape, you deserve sufficient torture and a painful death. I shouldn't have to say that but leave it to the Anglos to act as though they rule every nation and that their immoral and degenerate behaviors will not only be pushed around the world but enforced. I am absolutely shocked that nobody in the General Assembly are willing to completely disagree 100% on this. There is no compromise here! In a nation like ours where moderate crimes like assault get you a trip to the Colosseum, you would try and incriminate me for their death, even though they knew full well the punishment for their crime and deliberately committed it. The Anglos act as though there should be no real punishment for this! It's absolutely rediculous! If you vote for this resolution, you're voting to protect violent criminals, promotion of degeneracy, and indulgence in immorality without due punishment for it.

[Arkanon]

The humble Commonwealth of Arkanon would like to raise a few points regarding the proposal:

1. The proposal is classified under "Strength: Mild". Our government sees this as a gross understatement of the proposal's reach. An international court with jurisdiction in all member-states with power over each member-state's judicial system is hardly "Strength: Mild".

2. Section 6 bans capital punishment for all non-violent crimes and crimes not directly affecting more than one person. This seems to ban any capital punishment for crimes like drug dealing, treasonous espionage, or financial crimes (e.g. embezzlement from an organization). It seems to completely disregard any anti-social aspect a (criminal) act could have, instead defining itself narrowly within "crimes with a clear victim". This ban on capital punishment under certain circumstances further calls into question the "Strength: Mild" classification.

3. There seems to be no provision for a maximum amount of time the division can deliberate. According to 5(a), the division must be given 6 months to "discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant", but there doesn't seem to be a deadline for division approval. This can result in the stalling of a case for political reasons or simple overwork, violating the reasonable right to a speedy judgement.

For these reasons as well as concerns about the proceedings around this and the previous proposal, the Commonwealth of Arkanon votes NO.

[Grater Tovakia]

The humble Commonwealth of Arkanon would like to raise a few points regarding the proposal:

1. The proposal is classified under "Strength: Mild". Our government sees this as a gross understatement of the proposal's reach. An international court with jurisdiction in all member-states with power over each member-state's judicial system is hardly "Strength: Mild".

2. Section 6 bans capital punishment for all non-violent crimes and crimes not directly affecting more than one person. This seems to ban any capital punishment for crimes like drug dealing, treasonous espionage, or financial crimes (e.g. embezzlement from an organization). It seems to completely disregard any anti-social aspect a (criminal) act could have, instead defining itself narrowly within "crimes with a clear victim". This ban on capital punishment under certain circumstances further calls into question the "Strength: Mild" classification.

3. There seems to be no provision for a maximum amount of time the division can deliberate. According to 5(a), the division must be given 6 months to "discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant", but there doesn't seem to be a deadline for division approval. This can result in the stalling of a case for political reasons or simple overwork, violating the reasonable right to a speedy judgement.

For these reasons as well as concerns about the proceedings around this and the previous proposal, the Commonwealth of Arkanon votes NO.

Agreed, also congrats on the first post.