[DRAFT] Ban on Judicial Murder

[United Massachusetts]

---

Ban on Judicial Murder
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Proud of the protections for innocent inmates that it enacted under General Assembly Resolution 443, Preventing the Execution of Innocents,

Aware, however, that GA 443 still leaves the door open for member nations to engage in judicial murder, the practice of deliberately killing their own citizens as a form of criminal punishment,

Asserting that such practices contravene a basic respect for the fundamental dignity of all persons, in that they make the very right to live conditional, instead of acknowledging it as a basic human freedom,

Noting, further, that judicial murder is bad policy, in that there is little evidence to prove that it deters crime at all, only draws out the frustrations of crime victims by long legal processes, and offers no opportunities for rehabilitation,

Believing that, whereas judicial punishment is solely retributive, a proper punishment should serve to (a) deter crime, (b) punish crime, and critically, (c) open avenues for the rehabilitation of criminals,

The World Assembly, finally doing what it should have done in September 2018, by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled under the auspices human amity and cooperation, and charging forth to strike down every evil into the depths of the earth, hereby:

1. Prohibits any member-state from executing any individual within its jurisdiction as a form of criminal punishment,
   
   
2. Prohibits any member-state from extraditing any individual within its jurisdiction to another state where they will likely be executed,
   
   
3. Strongly urges member-states to commute the punishments of any individuals currently facing the prospect of execution, and through their proper legal mechanisms, find an alternative punishment.

[Catsfern]

as a nation that has no prisons but actively uses capital punishment, This will receive no support from me.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko Suou entered the room, no emotion on her face save for weary exhaustion. She examined the document. She looked up, one eye covered by a patch. She looked back down. Then back up. She looked at her forearm, covered in tally-mark scars, then back at the paper, then up again, then closed her eye and sighed.

“Say a mass murderer comes and kills twenty-four people in the span of an hour. You expect us to provide ‘em with food and water and safety for the rest of their life? Forget it. Execution is a necessity to eliminate some people of society who are better off dead. I hate to admit it, but prisons aren’t immune to escapees, breakouts. Only one way to solve the issue permanently.” She raised one of her knives, jabbing it into the sheet of paper. “Some say it’s barbaric. Sure, they can say that. You know what I thinks barbaric? Letting such monsters live, and paying for it with finances taken from those who suffer from their acts. Some crimes can never be forgiven. Call it murder all you want, I won’t argue. It is murder. The murder of those who deserve it.”

[Morover]

"I'm assuming this is your replacement of GAR#443, but if by some chance I'm mistaken (this definitely won't work if I am), please let me know. My changes are in red.

---

Ban on Judicial Murder
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Proud of the protections for innocent inmates that it enacted under General Assembly Resolution 443, Preventing the Execution of Innocents, Perhaps it's a stylistic choice, but I'd put "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" in quotations.

Aware, however, that GA 443 still leaves the door open for member nations to engage in judicial murder (this is what makes me question if it truly is a replacement - if it is a replacement, I suggest rewording this), the practice of deliberately killing their own citizens as a form of criminal punishment,

Asserting that such practices contravene a basic respect for the fundamental dignity of all persons, in that they make the very right to live conditional, instead of acknowledging it as a basic human freedom, I know it's entirely pedantic, but I still would shy away from saying "human" freedom.

Noting, further, that judicial murder is bad policy, in that there is little evidence to prove that it deters crime at all, only draws out the frustrations of crime victims by long legal processes, and offers no opportunities for rehabilitation, Both the "is a bad policy" and "draws out the frustrations" is entirely subjective.

Believing that, whereas judicial punishment is solely retributive, a proper punishment should serve to (a) deter crime, (b) punish crime, and critically, (c) open avenues for the rehabilitation of criminals, I do like this, quite a bit actually, but I cannot help but think that it will lead to some nations to oppose based solely on (c). Whether this is something you're worried about, I do not know.

The World Assembly, finally doing what it should have done in September 2018 (OOC: My stance on this isn't authoritative by any means, but this certainly seems to be metagaming. I know that personally, I don't roleplay my nation as being in the same timeline as the real world.), by the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled under the auspices human amity and cooperation, and charging forth to strike down every evil into the depths of the earth, hereby:

This seems rather drawn out. While not necessarily a bad thing, I do feel that your transitions are slowly increasing in length over time.


1. Prohibits any member-state from executing any individual within its jurisdiction as a form of criminal punishment, Perhaps this is an unlikely circumstance, but what if the convict requests the death penalty? I know that here in Morover, capital punishment is only used in cases where the convict requests it (which is, of course, rather rare). We find that suicide rates of ex-convicts is decreased drastically by doing this. Furthermore, the wording may make it possible for member-states to execute individuals for non-criminal punishments, should they find a proper reason to do so. While this could easily be patched out in a followup proposal, I think it would be ideal to have it concentrated in one place.
   
   
2. Prohibits any member-state from extraditing any individual within its jurisdiction to another state where they will likely be executed, This does seem to be the World Assembly overstepping its bounds, honestly. In reality, this can cause traitors (or any other severe criminal) to the state in non-member-states to flee to any member-state and be essentially granted impunity against their native laws.
   
   
3. Strongly urges member-states to commute the punishments of any individuals currently facing the prospect of execution, and through their proper legal mechanisms, find an alternative punishment. Uh, isn't this a given? If a criminal who would initially be on death row was still caught, the nation wouldn't just be like "Oh, okay. You're free to go!" They would have the next highest punishment they have for that crime enacted upon the individual.

[United Massachusetts]

To clarify, this is not a replacement. It stands on its own merits, and I do not need to repeal anything to pass this.

[Morover]

To clarify, this is not a replacement. It stands on its own merits, and I do not need to repeal anything to pass this.

OOC:

How does "Prohibits any member-state from executing any individual within its jurisdiction as a form of criminal punishment," (in your proposal) not contradict "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions." (Preventing The Execution Of Innocents)? I know it says "Subject to World Assembly legislation," but it would essentially negate that entire proposal and I don't think it was specifically talking about completely negating the resolution itself. Of course, I'd wait for a GenSec official ruling on it, but I do believe it would fall under contradiction for this.

Furthermore, "Prohibits any member-state from extraditing any individual within its jurisdiction to another state where they will likely be executed," (your proposal) would duplicate "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." (Preventing The Execution Of Innocents).

I legitimately don't think that this can be passed without repealing Preventing The Execution Of Innocents.

[United Massachusetts]

On mobile now, but a couple notes:

(a) "subject to World Assembly legislation" is the key. The resolution explicitly leaves open the door to a ban, and even the author acknolwedged as much. If he did not want to leave that door open, he should have referred to "prior, unrepealed World Assembly legislation".

(b) Partial duplication is legal and done quite frequently (see GA 286). Either way, I can delete that if you like.

(c) Referring to the date is not metagaming, iirc

[Morover]

All OOC:

(a) "subject to World Assembly legislation" is the key. The resolution explicitly leaves open the door to a ban, and even the author acknolwedged as much. If he did not want to leave that door open, he should have referred to "prior, unrepealed World Assembly legislation".

You're probably right. It very much reads to me as future proposals may restrict it further but may not ban it outright because it would make a vast majority of the original proposal is redundant. Of course, I can't speak for IA or GenSec, but my opinion on the legality of it remains as it was.

(b) Partial duplication is legal and done quite frequently (see GA 286). Either way, I can delete that if you like.

It's honestly fine, I was just pointing it out to strengthen my point, honestly.

(c) Referring to the date is not metagaming, iirc

Really? That seems very odd to me.

[Catsfern]

I still disagree with an outright ban, if it were just a restriction of it so it can't be applicable to crimes like theft then id be much closer to on board.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If UM would like to unsettle the compromise that was reached, that's his prerogative. I would caution UM against doing so for his own sake, since it could backfire against the anti-capital punishment crowd. But I guess, if he is really committed to this cause, some risks would have to be taken eventually.

Morover's position on contradiction would, if applied to GA 2, prohibit the passage of any legislation of any sort whatsoever for contradicting the national sovereignty guarantee. It would be a poor precedent to set. It is kind of like saying that because the provision in Ban on Secret Treaties upends some hypothetical international agreement, that proposal is illegal; to take such a position would require finding all proposals illegal, because there can be all manner of hypothetical international agreements.

Regarding the duplication claim, minor duplication is not illegal. Nor would there be a contradiction in setting more rigorous extradition standards, because the second clause, which prohibits extradition in any case which would violate World Assembly legislation, would apply.

[WayNeacTia]

This is something I can get behind. Title is misleading and too feelgoody for me.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: You might want to change about your ‘believing’ clause, as not all judicial punishments are solely retributive. I think you meant ‘judicial murder’ rather than ‘judicial punishment’.)

[East Meranopirus]

This is something I can get behind. Title is misleading and too feelgoody for me.

Agreed. Can it be "judicial executions" instead of "judicial murder"?

[Wallenburg]

Capital punishment is already banned. Duplication is bad.

[New Bremerton]

We went through this back in September Ambassador. This is nothing more than a repeat of Ban on Capital Punishment, which failed at vote. Once again, New Bremerton would like to register its staunch opposition to any attempt to outlaw capital punishment altogether. We advise the delegation from United Massachusetts to withdraw this draft or risk being humiliated a second time.

Strongly AGAINST.

Capital punishment is already banned. Duplication is bad.

OOC: Not technically if my reading of PtEoI is correct. It's only de facto banned.

[Araraukar]

Capital punishment is already banned.

OOC: Not really. Nor should it be. EDIT: Given the obvious loophole, this one doesn't work as a ban either.

[Kenmoria]

Capital punishment is already banned.

OOC: Not really. Nor should it be. EDIT: Given the obvious loophole, this one doesn't work as a ban either.

(OOC: Are you thinking of the loophole regarding a member state killing somebody in a foreign land? Or the one about private prisons being allowed executions?)

[Wallenburg]

Capital punishment is already banned.

OOC: Not really. Nor should it be. EDIT: Given the obvious loophole, this one doesn't work as a ban either.

Yes, really. The co-author of Preventing the Execution of Innocents has said as much.

[Araraukar]

Yes, really. The co-author of Preventing the Execution of Innocents has said as much.

OOC: Then they should've actually written it into the resolution. A reasonable reading of the text shows there's no ban, just restrictions.

OOC: Not really. Nor should it be. EDIT: Given the obvious loophole, this one doesn't work as a ban either.

(OOC: Are you thinking of the loophole regarding a member state killing somebody in a foreign land? Or the one about private prisons being allowed executions?)

OOC: Nope, and I'm not going to point it out lest it be blocked, but it's illegal for contradicting the previous one on the topic anyway (which specifically allows nations to have death penalty). Though the bit about private prisons is a good one, I hadn't thought of that.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC: Nope, and I'm not going to point it out lest it be blocked, but it's illegal for contradicting the previous one on the topic anyway (which specifically allows nations to have death penalty). Though the bit about private prisons is a good one, I hadn't thought of that.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here after some basic searches, but is there actually a resolution banning extrajudicial executions? Could that be the obvious loophole?

[American Pere Housh]

Ambassador Jonathan Delacroix looks at the proposal and scowls deeply. He looks at the WA Ambassador from United Massachusetts with an angry look on his face.
"As a nation that uses capital punishment for the heinous crimes, The Confederate Republic will not support this proposal in any form. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the care of, for example, serial killer for the rest of his or her life. People like this deserve to be executed for their crimes and aren't innocent as you call them. You will find no support from my nation whatsoever."

[Jebslund]

Sofia Kerman stands. "In the course of the history of most sapient species, there have always, and will always, be those whom, for one reason or another, are beyond rehabilitation and/or are too dangerous to allow to live for the amount of time required. It is the belief of Jebslund that imprisonment serves two purposes and two purposes alone: To provide rehabilitation to those convicted of crimes, and to protect the public at large from dangerous individuals. If a person is a danger to the public at large, then said person *must* be separated from the public. This is not a matter of retribution, but of safety. With this in mind, no prison is escape-proof. If you build a better prison, nature and training will build a better escapee. In addition, there are those who will never repent, no matter how much effort is put into rehabilitation or psychological care. There are those who, at their core, are incapable of compassion, incapable of remorse, and/or incapable of recognising the wrongness of their actions. These people cannot be rehabilitated. Therefore, it serves no useful purpose to keep them in cells that can be better used to hold those who *can* be reformed. Execution, therefore, is the only answer for such individuals, not as retribution, but as a means to protect the public from them in a manner that they stand a statistically insignificant chance of escaping from. It is a fact that, given enough time and enough attempts, even a .0000000001% chance of success will eventually result in success. This is why Jebslund views the banning of executions as a foolhardy decision and will vehemently oppose the proposed legislation."

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Not really. Nor should it be. EDIT: Given the obvious loophole, this one doesn't work as a ban either.

Yes, really. The co-author of Preventing the Execution of Innocents has said as much.

What co-author? There is no co-author listed on that resolution.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Since “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,” but “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,” capital punishment is already banned.

The division has to have six months for evidence reexamination, and the counsels have to have six months for the same process, one after the other. Even if there is only one counsel involved, that stills totals up to twelve months or a year, so the time limit has been used.)

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

The Soviet Delegation walked in, putting his glasses on his face.

"Capital Punishment is not 'Judicial Murder'. It is a legitimate form of punishment for criminals that do not deserve life; mass murderers, terrorists, criminal sex offenders. If a man walked straight into New Boston and shot 30 people, do you really want to give him free food, free bed, free water, and a free shower? What about the bombers at Moscow, Minsk, and the World Trade Center? Do you think that we would want to provide for their every need, the people who indiscriminately killed over 3,000 people combined? This is an unacceptable resolution, and if this does pass, you can expect us to vote against it."