[PASSED] Repeal GA #443 (PtEoI)

[Goobergunchia]

Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"

---

---

Category: Repeal || Target: GA #443 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recalling the extensive history of World Assembly delegations addressing the question of capital punishment,

Rejecting the condemnable practice of sacrificing equal protection under the law and the obstruction of justice in order to prevent the execution of convicted felons,

Recognizing GA #535 "Death Penalty Ban" and GA #545 "Military Death Penalty Ban", two extant resolutions that enact bans on capital punishment without handicapping the ability of member states to pursue justice,

The World Assembly hereby repeals #443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" on these grounds:

1. The target dishonestly disguises a death penalty ban as mere regulation for the purpose of preventing wrongful executions.
   
   
2. The target converts member states into safe havens for suspected mass murderers, mobsters, war criminals, and terrorists as a result of the extradition restrictions in section 7.
   
   
3. Several sections make a mockery of justice, embarrassing the World Assembly by their continued existence.
   
   
   1. By the creation and application of the Capital Cases division of the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, a committee originally intended solely for the purpose of overseeing the publication of international agreements, the World Assembly imposed cumbersome and excessive oversight of the justice systems of member states. The Capital Cases division practiced oversight over every case in which a convict received a capital sentence, regardless of whether there existed any basis to suspect wrongdoing, negligence, or miscarriage of justice on the part of the member state.
      
      
   2. The capital punishment quota established in section 2 obstructed equal protection under the law, requiring member states to sentence criminals convicted of similar crimes to unequal punishments.
      
      
   3. Section 4.e facilitated disruptions in judicial proceedings, increasing the frequency of mistrials and the need for appellate verdicts, as a result of demolishing all limits to the defense's admission of evidence, including proof of fabrication or falsification, failure in the chain of custody, and standards of confidentiality.
      
      
   4. Section 4.f requires member states to prove that additional evidence, true or false, could not arise to "cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence". This raises the standard for conviction from "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" to an impossible standard of "guilt beyond any doubt".
      
      
   5. Section 5.a required member states to, following a guilty verdict at trial, grant the defense six months to review evidence, and grant the Capital Cases division another six months after that for the same reason, before carrying out any execution. In conjunction with section 8, which provided that trial certification by the Capital Cases division (and with it the authority to carry out an execution) expires after one year, this prohibited any execution in most member states.
      
      
   6. Section 8 permitted convicted criminals to avoid execution indefinitely and to obstruct the course of justice by merely refusing to "exhaust all available appeals".
4. Section 6 required member states to only adopt execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". Since the threat of death itself produces emotional suffering in almost all individuals, and since no authority can prove that any form of execution causes no degree of physical pain or suffering, this again prohibited all execution methods.
   
   
5. GA #535 "Death Penalty Ban" and GA #545 "Military Death Penalty Ban" exceed the desired effects of the target resolution, rendering its restrictions obsolete.

[Wallenburg]

Reserved

[Hulldom]

"We agree with the repeal of this resolution, Ambassador. Though we should not that this is solely on the ground that the death penalty is already banned by subsequent law."

OOC: The only thing I can maybe think of to improve this would be changing "justice" to "reason" in clause 3 and slotting clause 4 as a new subsection f.

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Here to say "fuck yeah" on behalf of Delegate-Ambassador Smith... I think.

[Araraukar]

"Support."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This was submitted. Regarding the argument presented in 3f. What impact does the word "or" have in section 8 of the target?

The second part of section 8 states that no sentences shall be carried out unless X, Y or Z. The repeal alleges that this means that all X, Y and Z must be carried out. I'm leaning towards honest mistake.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: This was submitted. Regarding the argument presented in 3f. What impact does the word "or" have in section 8 of the target?

The second part of section 8 states that no sentences shall be carried out unless X, Y or Z. The repeal alleges that this means that all X, Y and Z must be carried out. I'm leaning towards honest mistake.

OOC: The target structures that sentence as a negation:

Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: The target structures that sentence as a negation:

Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

This. If X or Y or Z then not A. The context, though, should be enough. The roadblocks to completing an execution are laid out as:

• the Division has not certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record,
• the defendant has not exhausted all available appeals, and
• the Division has not certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.

I'm rather certain the Division would be unsatisfied with member states ignoring two of these for any given execution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

[Bananaistan]

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

I'm struggling to see how nor turns or into and.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

Those are exceptions (unless, except, barring, or what have you). In the target, the condition of occurrence is a time or event (actually, three of them), not an exception. In that case, any necessary event not happening prevents the desired occurrence. Your fondness for lists suggests if you'd intended the meaning you're currently arguing for, you would have structured it that way to remove precisely this doubt. As is, the Compliance Commission has leeway to say that any of these three events not happening is sufficient to invalidate the carrying out of a capital sentence.

As Wally points out, the context makes your meaning plain: why have two separate, different certification steps by the Division, certifying entirely separate things, if they aren't both necessary? And if two items in this construction are necessary, the third can hardly be optional.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

Those are exceptions (unless, except, barring, or what have you). In the target, the condition of occurrence is a time or event (actually, three of them), not an exception. In that case, any necessary event not happening prevents the desired occurrence. Your fondness for lists suggests if you'd intended the meaning you're currently arguing for, you would have structured it that way to remove precisely this doubt. As is, the Compliance Commission has leeway to say that any of these three events not happening is sufficient to invalidate the carrying out of a capital sentence.

As Wally points out, the context makes your meaning plain: why have two separate, different certification steps by the Division, certifying entirely separate things, if they aren't both necessary? And if two items in this construction are necessary, the third can hardly be optional.

Your response seems to deal with three things:

1. Exceptions. "You cannot have cookies from the cookie jar unless you clean your room or mow the lawn" is a pick one, not a do both. While I can imagine parents might want both to happen, if that were to be the case, one would phrase it in terms of "do both" or "clean your room and mow the lawn". Moreover, the interpretation you're putting forward is, not to put too fine a point on it, not entirely straightforward: the clause in question does not establish a list of prerequisites, it requires member nations to meet at least one of the following conditions before killing someone. (All the conditions lead inevitably to full Capital Cases division review, but that's the point: to force both prosecutors and defendants, opposed to just defendants, to send capital cases to the Division.)

2. Apparently when I write lists they mean something different from when other people write them? Or is it that you think I intended your interpretation? Because it pretty obviously isn't that I intended that. How do I know? Because I can assert it as the author. This "but when IA writes it, it doesn't mean what it says" is very irregular. A less irregular way to find meaning would be to look at the preamble of the law in question, per Blackstone, which would indicate interpretations in line with the stated goal of the law: producing a compromise on capital punishment. Viewing the target in terms of full abolitionism would be an extra-textual inference historically frowned upon. And even if the target explicitly framed itself in those terms, the clear meaning of the text overrides. Eg the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not intended to protect LGBTQ workers from discrimination (admitted by the majority and the liberal wing of the US Supreme Court). Nevertheless, "only the written word is the law". Bostock v Clayton County (2020) 590 US _ (slip op at 2).

What I think is meant here is to create grounds for some kind of judicial post-legislative scrivener's correction under something akin to the absurdity doctrine. That is very much out of place here. The absurdity doctrine applies only in cases where there is an odd result that emerges mechanistically from the text. Reading the proposal to create an odd result (a ban on capital punishment by not making enough appeals) is the exact opposite of what the absurdity doctrine would command. Only after an odd result is found can a purposivist examination commence. Commencing a purposivist examination to invent an odd result puts statutory interpretation on its head.

3. The Compliance Commission (or any committee) lacks authority to deviate from the wording of a resolution. What the Compliance Commission, or any committee for that matter, might think of it is a distraction from the actual issue of interpreting the clause. We cannot observe the actions of the committee; a GenSec member asserting that the committee might do something is, in reality ,just a fig leaf over what a GenSec member already chose to do. Nor would Compliance Commission determinations be dispositive; the actual authority to determine what the law means is vested in the Independent Adjudicative Office which determines the merits, per GA 440 1(b).

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Just so we're clear, then: it is your contention that, other pieces of the target having been fulfilled, a nation may then execute a convicted person if they have exhausted all possible appeals, even if the Division has NOT certified an absence of case irregularities, AND it has not certified that all involved procedures comport with WA law?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Just so we're clear, then: it is your contention that, other pieces of the target having been fulfilled, a nation may then execute a convicted person if they have exhausted all possible appeals, even if the Division has NOT certified an absence of case irregularities, AND it has not certified that all involved procedures comport with WA law?

Under that specific clause, yes. Other clauses may not be so permitting. The clause in question makes no claims as to being an exhaustive list of the conditions or prerequisites which must be fulfilled in part or in full, I am here taking an agnostic view on the issue at hand in the last post, before some nation can decide to kill someone. (The "Nor" signal being dispositive there.)

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1586162

[Free Domelec Gorjicartlan island]

if this resolution passes im focked because ummm..... Warcrimes

[Greater Cesnica]

As a note, a legality challenge has been raised against this resolution by IA. It may be found here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=509369

[Axixic]

Repealing Previously Passed Legislation is a waste of governmental resources, pointless busywork, and hardly contributes to World stability. The sponsors of this legislation should immediately resign from the WA and bury themselves in a pit of itchy leaves until the next full moon.

Axixic has spoken, bless be those who heed those words!

[Wallenburg]

Repealing Previously Passed Legislation is a waste of governmental resources, pointless busywork, and hardly contributes to World stability. The sponsors of this legislation should immediately resign from the WA and bury themselves in a pit of itchy leaves until the next full moon.

Axixic has spoken, bless be those who heed those words!

"Sorry to bury you under the paperwork of removing bad law from the books."

[Texkentuck]

President Bram W. Schirkophf takes a puff of his cigar and takes a drink of his Texkentuck Vodka. Ambassador Verbatimkophf is sitting next to the president and is enjoying the same type of vodka and cigars.

President Schirkophf makes the following statement-

Our nation is strongly against the death penalty but once again. This proposal is right in line of domestic policy and by repealing isn't our nation saying we support the death penalty. We are simply respecting this nations judicial system to deliver justice. Also the proposal crosses over into the way war criminals are handled which should be a whole diffirent proposal. Now if their is a simple proposal that actually protects the innocent we will most definitely vote for it.



Ambassador Verbatimkophf states to the WA - this proposal is a conglomeration of two proposals....We must repeal this proposal which is crafted well but the nature of some of the text deserves it's own proposal.... He looks to President Schirkophf and states sir should I repeal?! President Schirkophf states firmly REPEAL! Then shouts with glee REPEAL IN THE NAME OF THE UCCR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Verbatimkophfs assistance walks over and hands the paper to the ambassador. Then each President Schirkophf and Ambassador Verbatimkophf Abruptly stamp the paper with their own stamp of For Repeal......

President Schirkophf then states to the WA. We repeal in the name of sovereignty. We repeal because this is a proposal that looks like two proposal wrapped into one......

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

[Cathamye]

I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond, having disappeared from the voting chamber for some time, enters once again, shoes scuffing across the floor from the door to the author's podium. He draws a sheet of paper from his coat. It unfolds. Performatively calm, Ogenbond reads its contents.

"The Wallenburgian Office of Compliance and Investigation, having reviewed General Assembly Secretariat legality deliberations alongside Mr. Gensalkes, has returned its confirmation of its earlier findings. This resolution is, by all accounts, legal according to our Wallenburgian experts. It seems, however, the Secretariat's translators have a different opinion on the Anglican language. By section 2 of my office's Minimum Standard Policy, I am required to register an abstention on this resolution, and prepare my office to register a vote against it depending on the decision of the Secretariat."

[Hookah Castle]

Yeah I'll vote this. If any WA wanted to execute their criminals I'd offer asylum for them (and a job lol)

[Texkentuck]

I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

The President smiles and finishes a quick puff of his cigar.....
The president states- We believe that proposals have been put through which is overwhelmingly popular to WA nations and the WA tends to stack proposals which we believe to be against the rules of the WA. One of the many reasons we vote for the repeal...Their are proposals of this nature in place with other proposals....We believe it to be a rule that has been allowed to be broken...

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck
UCCR