[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"

[Auralia]

This is a revised version of this likely-to-be-discard resolution which does not suffer from the legality issues described here.

This is my proposed replacement.

Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #443

Affirming that member states should take all reasonable steps to avoid executing an innocent person;

Regretting that GAR #443, "Preventing the Execution of Innocents", sought to accomplish this goal by establishing an international judicial mechanism for reviewing capital convictions (herein referred to as the "Division") that is grossly unfair, absurdly complex, full of ambiguities, and seems designed to ban capital punishment in all but name;

Criticizing the target resolution in particular for:

1. demonstrating a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial systems of member states by subjecting every capital case to invasive World Assembly oversight, even when there is zero evidence of negilgence or malpractice,
   
   
2. engaging in unjust discrimination on the basis of member state population by requiring member states to submit "no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year" to the Division, rendering it difficult or impossible for smaller nations of fewer than one million people to use capital punishment,
   
   
3. contributing to violations of the basic principles of justice by forcing member states to treat similarly situated convicts differently with respect to their eligibility for capital punishment, depending on whether the member state happened to exceed the aforementioned quota,
   
   
4. blocking valid limits to discovery, such as personally identifying information that is not material to the case, by requiring that the defense be provided with "all evidence collected in the process of investigation" without exception,
   
   
5. blocking valid limits to the admission of evidence, such as proof of fabrication, by requiring member states to "prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence" without exception,
   
   
6. requiring member states to meet the effectively impossible standard of proving that "there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant" rather than the more common standard of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
   
   
7. creating needless delay by requiring an additional post-sentencing discovery period of six months each by the Division and the defense, and by arbitrarily requiring these periods to occur serially rather than concurrently,
   
   
8. arbitrarily prohibiting the execution of those who have brutally tortured and killed only one person as opposed to several,
   
   
9. arbitrarily prohibiting member states from extraditing individuals to other member states with capital punishment if said individuals are likely to be charged with capital offenses, even if said member states agree to abide by the protections of the target resolution,
   
   
10. seemingly permitting a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not "exhaust[ing] all available appeals", and
    
    
11. arbitrarily expiring Division certification after only one year even if there have been no material changes to the case record, and providing no clear mechanism for certification to be renewed;

Supporting the passage of true and lasting compromise legislation on the issue of capital punishment;

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #443, "Preventing the Execution of Innocents".

[Battlion]

No, I’m tired of this now.

Can we not just move on?

[Kenmoria]

“Really? Again? The issue of voter fatigue is quite prevalent now, and I never supported repealing the target resolution in the first place. This is a perfectly good repeal, that addresses pervert conceivable flaw in Preventing the Execution of Innocents, but I like the fact that capital punishment is de facto prohibited, which will never happen again if a repeal passes.”

[Wallenburg]

This is excellent. I cannot make any significant suggestions.

[Marshite Ponies]

"The Republic of Akila supports this repeal as it considers the target resolution, while well-intentioned, unreasonably obstructionary."

[Doing it Rightland]

No, I’m tired of this now.

Can we not just move on?

That's not really gonna be happening, especially considering it appears as if it's starting to devolve into a tit-for-tat between nations trying to block IA's "Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction" versus the "Repeal Preventing the Execution of Innocents."

It's unfortunate that this is the case, as the World Assembly should not be frivolously use to fuel rivalries between nations. This proposed repeal identifies a lot of the issues with the target, and as much as anti-capital punishment people may want to keep PEOI, the fact of the matter is that it has a lot of flaws.

While I admire the goals of the target, it was assembled hastily and passed without a productive review, and for that reason I support this 3rd (I think) and hopefully final repeal proposal.

[Ru-]

If GenSec chose not to allow it to be so painfully easy to challenge a repeal due to honest mistake we wouldn't be having this problem. (or the problem with repeal universal jurisdiction, for that matter) That people can do it after it has already hit the floor and has started winning makes it appear even more irritating to the casual voter.

Needless to say we support this. Bad resolutions must be striken from WA law no matter how many attempts it takes.

[Liberimery]

If GenSec chose not to allow it to be so painfully easy to challenge a repeal due to honest mistake we wouldn't be having this problem. (or the problem with repeal universal jurisdiction, for that matter) That people can do it after it has already hit the floor and has started winning makes it appear even more irritating to the casual voter.

Needless to say we support this. Bad resolutions must be striken from WA law no matter how many attempts it takes.

The purpose of challenges are to allow for flaws to be addressed even at a late stage. If they are not identified, than there could be situations where a law could conflict with another because no one caught the issue.

[Ru-]

If GenSec chose not to allow it to be so painfully easy to challenge a repeal due to honest mistake we wouldn't be having this problem. (or the problem with repeal universal jurisdiction, for that matter) That people can do it after it has already hit the floor and has started winning makes it appear even more irritating to the casual voter.

Needless to say we support this. Bad resolutions must be striken from WA law no matter how many attempts it takes.

The purpose of challenges are to allow for flaws to be addressed even at a late stage. If they are not identified, than there could be situations where a law could conflict with another because no one caught the issue.

Agreed, I am not a casual voter so I can get over the bad optics of it all. My real complaint is with GenSec's precedent on honest mistake creating this issue in which repeals are posted, challenged and reposted with only the one small article redacted.

GenSec should instead be asking if the totality of the repeal's argument is based on the mistake. This should be especially the case if we happen to know how the voting is going. Who can stand up and say with z straight face that 4,000 votes were cast only on the mistaken belief that the article in question was valid. Repeals are not the same as new resolutions, they do not have the same lasting impact on future WA action, since they have no effect other then to eliminate a particular piece of legislation from the books. However it seems as though they are treated with even greater scrutiny then resolution proposals.

Maybe as an advocate of general GA restraint it's just much easier for me to think repeals are not a huge deal and to argue for looser rules for repeal validity.

But the bottom line of what i am saying is this: voters feeling fatigue over the two repeals in question (Auralia's and IA's) need to just get over it. 2nd and 3rd superfluous repeal attempts are just a reality of our WA today, and are simply necessary to actually get an unpopular law out of the WA. At least as long as we keep treating honest mistake like we are.

[Battlion]

Ignoring the almost ten million other repeal attempts that clogged up the queue

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Good god third attempt. Fatigue should be setting in for some people.

But the bottom line of what i am saying is this: voters feeling fatigue over the two repeals in question (Auralia's and IA's) need to just get over it. 2nd and 3rd superfluous repeal attempts are just a reality of our WA today, and are simply necessary to actually get an unpopular law out of the WA. At least as long as we keep treating honest mistake like we are.

Yeah

[The Sect Meces]

"Sector 18 will throw in our support for what hopefully will be the final time this issue will be brought up again."

[New Bremerton]

FOR. Hopefully for the last time. IA is re-drafting Repeal OUJ as well, which I will also support, again.

[Hehateu]

Hurry and get this repealed. I've got about 2 million innocent people I need to hang.

[Bears Armed]

Hurry and get this repealed. I've got about 2 million innocent people I need to hang.

OOC
The GA also has passed resolutions about not punishing people without convicting them of crimes first, and giving people who've been charged with crimes fair trials.

[Aclion]

If GenSec chose not to allow it to be so painfully easy to challenge a repeal due to honest mistake we wouldn't be having this problem. (or the problem with repeal universal jurisdiction, for that matter) That people can do it after it has already hit the floor and has started winning makes it appear even more irritating to the casual voter.

It's actually really easy to ensure a proposal will not be challenged before it gets to vote, authors are aware when the proposal queue updates and will secure approvals before submitting, which they will do immediately after an update. If they are successful, and it's becoming ever more common, this gives people only 12 hours to read the proposal, check it's legality and issue a challenge, and get a majority of gensec to read the challenge; and authors are aware that NS's largest player base, Americans, will be asleep after major, so they can do this when most us aren't even online. Add to that that larger regions are well aware of the effect of voting early it is not uncommon for the results of a vote to be decided within a few hours.

I hardly see why we should be more lenient on the rules simply because authors who break the rules deliberately evade the system we use to check for violations.

[Kavagrad]

Bored of this, I'll be honest. Opposed.

[Astoriya]

This again?

It's still a resounding no from me

[United Massachusetts]

I got the first vote on this resolution. Note that for a period of time, this was failing by a margin of 0% to 100%.

[Ru-]

And it's finally back up for vote.

Voting in favor, obviously.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I'm loathe to be on the same page as Auralia for once, but good luck, hopefully this and your replacement get in place.

[New Bremerton]

Third time's a charm, I hope?

FOR. Yet again.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Not this thinly veiled attempt at normalizing authoritarian regimes and wanton state-sponsored murder of civilians again. Solid NO. Hopefully this "repeal" will get STRUCK DOWN for the LAST time and never mentioned again. And if this DOES get repealed, expect either me or anyone else from TCB to re-instate PTEOI once again, in one form or another. You may kill off one act, but you cannot kill the idea. And even if you repeal this one, what guarantees that PEOI will not get reintroduced in the future? Remember, Streisand Effect. More you try to repeal or block something, the more the publicity and controversy it draws, and therefore makes it more likely for a repeal attempt to fail. Still, NO from me, and I encourage my fellow comrades of the TCB region and WA delegate to follow suit.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

Against

[Kenmoria]

“I didn’t support this when it was first attempted, nor do I do so now. The resolution ‘Preventing the Execution of Innocents’ represents as much as a compromise as should be given on th disuse of capital punishments. I firmly vote AGAINST.”