Advertisement
by Auze » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:54 pm
by Tinhampton » Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:02 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:11 am
Auze wrote:"If it makes it to vote, we will support. It's kind of tiring to have to use legal loopholes to execute people when necessary." - Tom Stefan, Rep from Auze
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:38 pm
Tinhampton wrote:We are now Proposal-A-Go-Go, in lieu of any substantiative comments about the text of this draft.
Some dude wrote:...This could be the recipe for an Orange Julius and as far as I am concerned I will support it...
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:34 am
by Tinhampton » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:59 am
by Araraukar » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:06 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Superbunny » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:12 am
...Concerned at the mandate in Article 6 that, upon review, an execution can only be carried out with tools that definitely do not "cause pain or suffering," when in fact no apparatus on its own can painlessly end a sapient being's life...
by Bears Armed » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:18 am
Superbunny wrote:"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."
by Aclion » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:20 am
Superbunny wrote:...Concerned at the mandate in Article 6 that, upon review, an execution can only be carried out with tools that definitely do not "cause pain or suffering," when in fact no apparatus on its own can painlessly end a sapient being's life...
"Euthanasia. Lethal injection. Bullet directly to brain. All of those, I believe, would fall under painless."
"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."
by Superbunny » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:25 am
Bears Armed wrote:Superbunny wrote:"I will be taking some time to read this over to reach a final stance, but do not be surprised if this fails with a title like that."
"Unfortunately the title of any 'Repeal' proposal here is fixed by the title of the Resolution that it is trying to repeal..."
Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).
by Dome Artan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:14 pm
by The Yellow Monkey » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:53 pm
[In capital cases, Member Nations must] submit for review, to the Division, all facts of the case and conclusions reached at trial, at which time the Division shall decide whether to certify that all burdens of proof are met, there has been due process, and all conclusions on evidence are justifiable. If certification is withheld, the Division may dismiss or remand the case
by Auze » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:24 pm
by Sylh Alanor » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:22 pm
by Spartazka » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:11 am
by Araraukar » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:21 am
The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Yellow Monkey » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:14 am
Araraukar wrote:The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."
"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."
by Kenmoria » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:16 am
The Yellow Monkey wrote:Araraukar wrote:"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."
Really?
So every crime involving a perpetrator and a victim falls under this? That can't be right as it would render this language of the resolution completely pointless, because immediately preceding it the law already said you can't use capital punishment "as punishment for any non-violent crime" and by definition a violent crime requires a perpetrator and a victim.
Subject to just a bit of critical analysis, this interpretation is unreasonable and unpersuasive.
by The Yellow Monkey » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:18 am
Kenmoria wrote:“That is what we call ‘creative compliance’, or ‘malicious compliance’ from a more partisan standpoint. Though unreasonable and occasionally very silly, it is a vital tool for governments to put their spin on GA legislation.”
by Kaiserholt » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:20 pm
by Liberimery » Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:27 am
Araraukar wrote:The Yellow Monkey wrote:Article 6 of GA#443, in particular, contains impossible and improvident standards. Under that provision, capital punishment cannot be used "as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." I am not sure how others interpret this language, but it plausibly can be interpreted as prohibiting capital punishment for premeditated murder, however heinous, so long as nobody by the victim is "directly affected."
"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."
by New Bremerton » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:08 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:45 pm
The Yellow Monkey wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“That is what we call ‘creative compliance’, or ‘malicious compliance’ from a more partisan standpoint. Though unreasonable and occasionally very silly, it is a vital tool for governments to put their spin on GA legislation.”
Sounds like bull shit to me.
Edit: I take it, then, that Ara is merely pointing out that nations will go to absurd lengths to avoid some of the less-reasonable provisions in GA #443.
Liberimery wrote:Araraukar wrote:"Happily - if that word can be used in this context - every murder affects at least two people: the perpetrator and the victim."
I would argue that the victims family, friends, employers, employees, and community would all be victimized by a murder. Even if the Vic was a “Doe” the state would incur fiscal burdens of criminal investigation and burial in a pauper’s grave, which is charged to the citizens via taxation.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Tinhampton » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:06 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement