Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:29 pm
by Jocospor » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:30 pm
Wallenburg wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449946
by Wallenburg » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:38 pm
Jocospor wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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*
by Ru- » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:56 pm
by Kickemin » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:16 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Otaku Stratus » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:23 am
by The Sect Meces » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:29 am
by Palenar » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:39 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:59 am
Whereas there is considerable disagreement in the Assembly about the merits of banning capital punishment:
Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.
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.
by Airrajul » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:11 am
Airrajul International Broadcast — "Nothing But Straight"®: *Static*
by The Palentine » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:21 am
by The Sect Meces » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:25 am
by Uan aa Boa » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:32 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Uan aa Boa wrote: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.
by The Gregarian Republic » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:42 am
by Toiletchiya » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:45 am
by Union of the North » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:02 am
by Nova Trieste » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:52 am
by The Manticoran Empire » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:10 am
by True Spain » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:25 am
Auralia wrote: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
by Firstaria » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:33 am
by Rovikstead » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:49 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Really? Where is it? You had opportunity to comment on it too. In fact, you had three days to do so.
The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom wrote:** RED FLAG ** . ** RING CHURCH BELLS ** . ** BESTIALITY ALERT ** . ** CHRISTIANS TAKE COVER **
by The Greater Oregon State » Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:55 am
by Arkanon » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:06 am
by Grater Tovakia » Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:15 am
Arkanon wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement