[PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Araraukar wrote:
So children can be freely imprisoned and let to be murdered and abused (as they can't legally consent to protective confinement) by the general population?

"The context of children respectively should be somewhat defined by the crime severity. As a minor from age 13 and up has hormones that can cause wild tendencies leading to such things as school shootings.
The parent(s) should hold some part of accountability as well. Proper home training could prevent such atrocities. Parent(s) or Legal Guardian(s) should be fully responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13 (see trial for minors definition below)

Minors on Felony Trial - Anyone under 18 is considered a minor any minor age 13 and up is held accountable as an adult for any felony action. Parent(s) are responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13, which at that point the child (still being a child until 18) would be fully responsible of upholding ethical and moral principles or will punished by the law and automatically tried in courts as an adult. Parent(s) are liable for all actions up until the child reaches 13 which at that point, the parent(s) are only liable if the parent(s) could have prevented the child's actions(proof of liability may be required by defendant attorney or prosecuting attorney depending on the severity of the case)."

This all is just an idea that I believe is important. If you don't agree, Toss it, there'd be no sense if we couldn't come to a bi-partisan agreement on the issue.

OOC: Please read GA Resolution #299 to get an idea of why this would not work (see "Extant Resolutions" link in my signature).

[Bears Armed]

Or we could be interpreting the execution of a pregnant individual as a forced abortion under GAR #128, where the state has the power to execute a criminal, but not to abort that individual's pregnancy against their will (even criminals have rights).

OOC
I'd be inclined to go with that explanation.

[Aclion]

Or we could be deciding that a fetus carried by a pregnant person sentenced to execution becomes the property or ward of its other parent, who assumes the carrying parent's right to veto its destruction by the state upon sentencing of the carrying parent.

Not unless an abortion is performed before the execution, because when they are executed they are dead, and cease to be a person.

[Kenmoria]

“The definitions clause 3 doesn’t quite work, as you are describing the ‘refusal or withholding’ of the first two items of the list, then switch to having the next items in the list being given rather than not given. This means the clause can be read as having the withholding of cramped conditions be deemed inhuman treatment.”

[Tinfect]

Not unless an abortion is performed before the execution, because when they are executed they are dead, and cease to be a person.

OOC:
This threadjack ends now. You can take it up with GenSec, or I will take it up with the mods.

[Lamoni]

Not unless an abortion is performed before the execution, because when they are executed they are dead, and cease to be a person.

OOC:
This threadjack ends now. You can take it up with GenSec, or I will take it up with the mods.

Threatening to call the mods qualifies as "mods as weapons." Don't do that, just report them in moderation. Other than that, the threadjack ends now.

[Seoking]

The general concept of judicial or prosecutorial independence is often cited as a justification to minimize the need for oversight of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”).1 However, keeping an international court accountable is necessary in order to maximize the performance, productivity, and efficiency of the court. To achieve this objective, effective oversight of an international body such as the ICC requires the performance of four primary functions: 1) financial and budgetary supervision, 2) administrative management, 3) oversight of misconduct of elected officials, staff members, and contractors, and 4) recommendations to the Assembly of States Parties (“ASP”) for improvements to the Court. This paper will lay out the need for each of these functions for the ICC and then discuss whether and to what extent the Independent Oversight Mechanism (“IOM”) established by the ASP is needed to facilitate and perform these functions. 9Apps Vidmate Cartoon HD

An oversight mechanism like the IOM could play a similar role for the ICC. While the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Preparatory Commission can make recommendations to the Court in certain situations, the ICC is likely to be constantly confronted with new and underdeveloped issues that require research, expertise, and proposals to help enhance the efficacy of the ICC.45 A permanent subsidiary body like the IOM that is committed to such a task can present relevant proposals for the ASP to consider and approve that “set out a range of options, explaining the legal, policy, and financial implications of each. The ASP would then be better placed to take appropriate decisions to steer the ICC, particularly through its formative early years”46 Such a oversight body that makes informed recommendations to the ASP is necessary for proper oversight of the ICC.

[Kenmoria]

“A lot of your prohibitions ignore safety concerns. If a minor is part of a gang and very violent, it could be that solitary confinement is the only way to prevent deaths. There needs to be exceptions for very compelling health concerns.”

[American Pere Housh]

International Criminal Protocol

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong

(Image)

Origin: Imperium of Tinfect,

Author: Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy

Imperial Division of Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Action

Counsel: Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative

Counsel: Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative

---

The World Assembly,

Annoyed by the insistence regarding passing yet another pointless non-compromise that will merely facilitate legal abuses and result in infinitely worse legislation being passed,

Acknowledging prior attempts to ensure that the criminal justice systems of Member-States operate in a just and ethical manner,

Dismayed by their failure to adequately provide protections from legal abuse and to provide closure and restitution to victims,

Seeking to immediately prevent any further abuses of criminal justice systems,

Hereby;

Defines:

1. Solitary confinement as the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and prison staff,
2. Protective confinement as the severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates due to clear and present dangers to their life in the general prison population, or risks posed by the prisoner to other inmates in the general prison population,
3. Inhumane conditions as the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance, medically or mentally necessary healthcare, severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,

Prohibits:

1. The holding of any prisoner in inhumane conditions,
2. The holding of any prisoner under the age of majority in solitary confinement.
3. The holding of any prisoner in solitary confinement for any period greater than three days, or in consecutive periods of solitary confinement,
4. The holding of any prisoner in protective confinement without the informed consent of the prisoner, barring circumstances that render the prisoner legally unable to make such a decision, or circumstances in which the prisoner would present risks to individuals in the general prison population if not held in protective confinement,
5. The use of capital punishment for any crime that did not result in unlawful death, exceptionally cruel treatment such as torture or rape, or an exceptional betrayal of national security,
6. The sentencing of any individual under the age of majority, or any individual deemed legally incompetent, to capital punishment,
7. The practice of summary or otherwise extrajudicial executions,

Mandates:

1. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal recourse for the investigation of any undue violence or abuse by prison staff,
2. That Member-States provide to prisoners sentenced to capital punishment accessible legal counsel and support, including access to appeals and stays of execution,
3. The use of the highest reasonable standards of evidence when considering the use of capital punishment,
4. That all executions be held at a reasonable date past sentencing, to be no shorter than a period of thirty days, alongside any processing time for legal requests, inquiries, and appeals, as appropriate,
5. That, in the case of a pregnant individual being sentenced to capital punishment, that execution be stayed until such time as the prisoner is no longer pregnant,
6. That protective solitary confinement be be utilized only when there exists a clear and present danger to holding the prisoner within the general prison area,
7. That prisoners subject to protective or solitary confinement be allowed regular contact with psychiatric staff, and access to standard visitation,
8. That, once a prisoner has been subjected to protective confinement, all practical measures must be taken to allow their safe return to general prison populations as soon as possible.

Clarifies that prisoners legally incapable of consent may be held in protective confinement as a temporary measure until a legal guardian can be contacted,

"Yes, yes, the Imperium is well-aware that Preventing the Execution of Innocents still stands; consider this a... gesture of good faith."

OOC:
Let's not pretend this is anything else but a replacement for Preventing the Execution of Innocents. My repeal for said resolution may be found here. I'm out of practice at this, so if it's an abomination... just, like, tell me why.

I do have a request though; if anyone can think of a way to prevent executions for minor crimes, that'd be great, because the only idea I've got is to explicitly restrict Execution to a handful of crimes, and, quite frankly, I do not believe that I could write that list alone. So, if you have a better way, or, a list, that'd great.

1. Added a limited exception for protective confinement, and various requirements regarding it.
2. Added Sierra Lyricalia's first suggestion, and substantially cleaned up the draft.
3. Loosened restrictions on Solitary Confinement.
4. Added accommodation for legally incompetent persons, in the event that this is still somehow applied to mental hospitals. Also removed access to visitation from punitive solitary confinement. Might bring it back. Prohibited Solitary Confinement from being used on anyone under the age of majority.
5. More severely restricted capital punishment. No kids, pregnant people, or severely mentally ill people. Also no summary execution.
6. Removed 'unusual'.
7. Applied Wallenburg's edits.

"Ambassador, we may disagree on many things but other than the solitary confinement part of the proposal, the Empire will support this proposal."

[Araraukar]

“A lot of your prohibitions ignore safety concerns. If a minor is part of a gang and very violent, it could be that solitary confinement is the only way to prevent deaths. There needs to be exceptions for very compelling health concerns.”

OOC: Tinfect said she'd work on these things, but other things (NS related as well as RL) have been making her busy recently.

[Kenmoria]

“A lot of your prohibitions ignore safety concerns. If a minor is part of a gang and very violent, it could be that solitary confinement is the only way to prevent deaths. There needs to be exceptions for very compelling health concerns.”

OOC: Tinfect said she'd work on these things, but other things (NS related as well as RL) have been making her busy recently.

(OOC: My mistake, I hadn’t seen that.)

[Morover]

That all executions be held at a reasonable date past sentencing, to be no shorter than a period of thirty days, alongside any processing time for legal requests, inquiries, and appeals, as appropriate,

"Perhaps this is nitpicky, but it seems to me that thirty days be a somewhat arbitrary time. Furthermore, it seems to me to be more humano-centric. This is all hypothetical of course, but say there is a species that has a lifespan of thirty days, and a member of that species commits treason against their native government. Under the current phrasing, capital punishment is essentially off-limits, despite being explicitly allowed. Furthermore, not all nations have the same time-scale as the Imperium, and 'days' may be meaningless to them."

"I know I'm being pedantic, but it is something that I'd prefer to be addressed before this is submitted as opposed to after."

[Tinfect]

"Perhaps this is nitpicky, but it seems to me that thirty days be a somewhat arbitrary time. Furthermore, it seems to me to be more humano-centric. This is all hypothetical of course, but say there is a species that has a lifespan of thirty days, and a member of that species commits treason against their native government. Under the current phrasing, capital punishment is essentially off-limits, despite being explicitly allowed. Furthermore, not all nations have the same time-scale as the Imperium, and 'days' may be meaningless to them."

"I know I'm being pedantic, but it is something that I'd prefer to be addressed before this is submitted as opposed to after."

"Ambassador, the possibility of sapient life with a lifespan of less than thirty days is... so utterly remote, that it is hardly worth consideration. In any case, the concept of a solar day is hardly restricted to human species. In any case, the specifics of time may be handled by the International Measurements Institute as established by Resolution Eighty-Eight."

[Maowi]

'Could you explain what is meant by 'consecutive periods of solitary confinement'? Perhaps I am attempting to interpret it incorrectly, but the term seems rather vague.'

[Morover]

"Perhaps this is nitpicky, but it seems to me that thirty days be a somewhat arbitrary time. Furthermore, it seems to me to be more humano-centric. This is all hypothetical of course, but say there is a species that has a lifespan of thirty days, and a member of that species commits treason against their native government. Under the current phrasing, capital punishment is essentially off-limits, despite being explicitly allowed. Furthermore, not all nations have the same time-scale as the Imperium, and 'days' may be meaningless to them."

"I know I'm being pedantic, but it is something that I'd prefer to be addressed before this is submitted as opposed to after."

"Ambassador, the possibility of sapient life with a lifespan of less than thirty days is... so utterly remote, that it is hardly worth consideration. In any case, the concept of a solar day is hardly restricted to human species. In any case, the specifics of time may be handled by the International Measurements Institute as established by Resolution Eighty-Eight."

OOC: I totally forgot about GAR#88 My apologies.

IC: "Yes, it is incredibly unlikely. I see why you instituted the limit, but I still feel it is a bit arbitrary. However, it is not enough to change my vote to 'against,' should GAR#443 be repealed."

[Araraukar]

'Could you explain what is meant by 'consecutive periods of solitary confinement'? Perhaps I am attempting to interpret it incorrectly, but the term seems rather vague.'

Does consecutive here mean back-to-back?

Yes.

[Maowi]

Does consecutive here mean back-to-back?

Yes.

OOC: I personally find 'consecutive' too vague here. To me it initially reads as though you are banning the merging of three-day periods of solitary confinement to make one longer period, which is evidently not what you mean as you have banned that already. I think the length of time between two periods of solitary confinement which makes them not consecutive is not objectively obvious, so I'd support the addition of a specific gap.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think the length of time between two periods of solitary confinement which makes them not consecutive is not objectively obvious, so I'd support the addition of a specific gap.

OOC: Personally I think that would take it too far into micromanagement. Well, further than it already is.

[Maowi]

OOC: I think the length of time between two periods of solitary confinement which makes them not consecutive is not objectively obvious, so I'd support the addition of a specific gap.

OOC: Personally I think that would take it too far into micromanagement. Well, further than it already is.

OOC: Obviously it's down to Tinfect to decide, but in a case like this I'm quite happy with micromanagement...although I'd support this either way.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Personally I think that would take it too far into micromanagement. Well, further than it already is.

OOC: Obviously it's down to Tinfect to decide, but in a case like this I'm quite happy with micromanagement...although I'd support this either way.

(OOC: I think this would be better left with good-faith compliance meaning that a nation won’t let a convict into the general populace for one second, and then claim solitary confinement periods weren’t consecutive. It’s a judgement call that would have to be made in a prison in RL, which is more realistic than fixed time.)

[Tinfect]

OOC:
For the record, in the unlikely event of the passage of the current repeal, this will be submitted immediately.
I'd like to make sure it's ironclad before then, if it comes to it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Mandate 6 uses "protective solitary confinement", which is not a defined term. Is this a typo or leftover from an earlier draft?

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Reminder that this is still happening, before any of y'all get any ideas.

[Araraukar]

OOC: My above point has not been addressed. Also, does mere imprisonment in general (as opposed to roaming free on the streets) and being required to stay in your cell for the majority of time (you would be allowed to see and talk with other prisoners and staff, just not physically interact with them) count as severe confinement for the third definition?

[Tinfect]

OOC: My above point has not been addressed. Also, does mere imprisonment in general (as opposed to roaming free on the streets) and being required to stay in your cell for the majority of time (you would be allowed to see and talk with other prisoners and staff, just not physically interact with them) count as severe confinement for the third definition?

OOC:
It was a typo, sorry for the delay.

And, do you meant the first condition? I don't think that would count as severe confinement, it might be questionable prison practice, but I don't think it'd fall under the draft.