[Draft] Restriction of Unjust Execution

[Tinfect]

OOC: People will also come at it from the ideological perspective. So those who support capital punishment will favor yours, whereas those who don't will favor mine.

OOC:
And yet it passed the first time, with the threat of a no-exemption ban behind it, and without the support of virtually every major region. Conditions will be much the same.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: People will also come at it from the ideological perspective. So those who support capital punishment will favor yours, whereas those who don't will favor mine.

OOC:
And yet it passed the first time, with the threat of a no-exemption ban behind it, and without the support of virtually every major region. Conditions will be much the same.

OOC: We shall see. Also, that rhymed

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:
The proposal was not rushed. It had been drafted for quite an extended period prior, and retains much of the text of the original. To my admittedly poor memory, this thread was posted before the repeal even made it to vote; about as early as I could have possibly posted. This attack is dishonest and absurd,

OOC: You could've waited with submitting...

OOC:
That was dependent on IA not submitting his before I even woke up. I do like to have a vague chance of getting to vote, it generally helps.

OOC: What's the point if it fails upon reaching the floor? Just refine it.

You honestly can't expect people in politics to intentionally place themselves in a losing situation. If IAs resolution comes to vote first, Tinfect will certainly have lost this round. There's necessarily an emphasis on time here, since if IA's is passed, Tinfect's will become illegal for contradiction. I want the death penalty to be abolished (I merely found PEoI sufficient if roundabout), but that doesn't preclude understanding why someone wishing to retain it would have to submit and seek to have their resolution on the floor before IA's ban.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: You could've waited with submitting...

OOC: What's the point if it fails upon reaching the floor? Just refine it.

You honestly can't expect people in politics to intentionally place themselves in a losing situation. If IAs resolution comes to vote first, Tinfect will certainly have lost this round. There's necessarily an emphasis on time here, since if IA's is passed, Tinfect's will become illegal for contradiction. I want the death penalty to be abolished (I merely found PEoI sufficient if roundabout), but that doesn't preclude understanding why someone wishing to retain it would have to submit and seek to have their resolution on the floor before IA's ban.

OOC: You do make a fair point, not gonna lie.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This has been withdrawn, as there's virtually no chance of it getting to vote as a legal proposal at this point. I'll strip out elements duplicated by Fair Treatment of Prisoners and likely resubmit with a singular focus on war-criminal executions if there's no word from IA's draft on that.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Because certain people won't give the matter a moment of peace, this has been done right now. Formatting suggestions would be appreciated, because right now, it's ugly as fuck as a draft.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC:
Because certain people won't give the matter a moment of peace, this has been done right now. Formatting suggestions would be appreciated, because right now, it's ugly as fuck as a draft.

I don't think it looks ugly. That being said, does the wording of the active clause block future bans on executing people for genocide, war crimes, or the holding of slaves? Also, doesn't DPB essentially void the necessity of this draft? Unless your intention is to insert that blocker.

[Tinfect]

I don't think it looks ugly. That being said, does the wording of the active clause block future bans on executing people for genocide, war crimes, or the holding of slaves?

OOC:
If it doesn't, that's a problem. Feel free to suggest a fix, ideally one that doesn't add a second clause; I enjoy the elegance of it all being in one.
In any case; question why you have any great desire to protect the lives of the perpetrators of genocide, murderers of civilians, and holders of slaves.

[Greater Cesnica]

I don't think it looks ugly. That being said, does the wording of the active clause block future bans on executing people for genocide, war crimes, or the holding of slaves?

OOC:
If it doesn't, that's a problem. Feel free to suggest a fix, ideally one that doesn't add a second clause; I enjoy the elegance of it all being in one.
In any case; question why you have any great desire to protect the lives of the perpetrators of genocide, murderers of civilians, and holders of slaves.

My desire is to prevent the execution of innocents. Simple. No court is free from the potential of making an error. With perpetrators of genocide it may be harder to perform a miscarriage of justice; but I suspect that when it comes to war crimes that may be a more prevalent concern. I do have two things though:

"Annoyed by the insistence regarding passing yet another pointless non-compromise that will merely facilitate legal abuses,"

I would replace 'regarding' with 'on' here. Just reads and flows better IMO.

Hereby prohibits any Member-State from sentencing or carrying out capital punishment for any crime, excluding genocide, war crimes, or the holding of slaves.

Replace "excluding" with "but reserving to member states the right to carry out capital punishment for". There's your blocker. That being said, if you do fix that and insert your blocker I will be opposing this; but I'm sure you're aware of that.

[Tinfect]

Replace "excluding" with "but reserving to member states the right to carry out capital punishment for". There's your blocker. That being said, if you do fix that and insert your blocker I will be opposing this; but I'm sure you're aware of that.

OOC:
That's expected, thank you.

[Greater Cesnica]

Replace "excluding" with "but reserving to member states the right to carry out capital punishment for". There's your blocker. That being said, if you do fix that and insert your blocker I will be opposing this; but I'm sure you're aware of that.

OOC:
That's expected, thank you.

No worries.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is this the thread where ICP 2 used to be?

[Greater Cesnica]

Is this the thread where ICP 2 used to be?

Yes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tinfect, given that this draft is basically on a totally different topic (unless the topic of the death penalty really is that all-consuming), could you place this proposal in a separate thread?

[Tinfect]

Tinfect, given that this draft is basically on a totally different topic (unless the topic of the death penalty really is that all-consuming), could you place this proposal in a separate thread?

OOC:
It's a bit late for that, and certainly there's no reason to post a second, identical thread.

[WayNeacTia]

Support.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The title should be adjusted, ambassador. Restriction implies limitation without banning. Based on the title, it sounds like the World Assembly is allowing some, but not all, unjust executions. Perhaps a stronger word than restrict would serve you better."

[Untecna]

"I would suggest a few more descriptions or articles, ambassador, but I respect your take on the situation and wish the best."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
The draft has been adjusted, and clarified somewhat.

In related news, I think I've found the purpose of my next draft, once all this nonsense is over with.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Pro tip, ambassador: the preamble really doesn't fit the title. We're in favor, of course, but would suggest couching it in terms of protecting innocent people from the despicable excesses of corrupt and incompetent criminal justice systems and the inevitable mistakes of even the best ones; while pointing out that it's more or less impossible to falsely convict someone of a war crime. At that point the opposition has to adopt an unenviable if not totally indefensible position."

"Further suggestions as they occur to us but otherwise the operative measures are in good shape."

"Good luck!"

[Tinfect]

"Pro tip, ambassador: the preamble really doesn't fit the title. We're in favor, of course, but would suggest couching it in terms of protecting innocent people from the despicable excesses of corrupt and incompetent criminal justice systems and the inevitable mistakes of even the best ones; while pointing out that it's more or less impossible to falsely convict someone of a war crime. At that point the opposition has to adopt an unenviable if not totally indefensible position."

"Further suggestions as they occur to us but otherwise the operative measures are in good shape."

"Good luck!"

"This, and other adjustments have been made. Other delegations are reminded that extant World Assembly legislation provides additional protections against wrongful conviction, such that it is, again, effectively impossible."

OOC:
Some clauses salvaged from International Criminal Protocol, for the most part.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Reserves to member states the right to carry out capital punishment for genocide or war crimes, as defined by the World Assembly,

OOC: Isn't this a HoC violation?

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Since the other repeal was submitted before I realized the at-vote had changed, I'm digging this up again.

OOC: Isn't this a HoC violation?

No, and plainly so.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Isn't this a HoC violation?

No, and plainly so.

OOC: Where are these terms "defined by the World Assembly"?

[Tinfect]

OOC: Where are these terms "defined by the World Assembly"?

OOC:
Vague handwaving at nonspecific prior legislation is not illegal; it is not a house of cards. Later legislation can continue to define it. The clause remains in force, if, ineffectual, if the World Assembly has no standard for war crimes or genocide. In such a case, the clause would provide no limitation to Prohibition 1. Similar language has been used in dozens of prior resolutions.