[DRAFT] WA Convention on Execution

[Unibot]

While having put that 'grand plan' to get Rule IV abolished in motion (which now has become a game of patience..), Charlotte Ryberg just quickly wrote and submitted a resolution which 'borrowed' similar ideas from this draft which Glen-Rhodes and I created a few months ago. I think Ryberg's proposal is a cheap ripoff to be perfectly honest, so GR and I found it imperative to bring this to 10ki's attention and try to blow the cobwebs off this and get it into shape for a quick submission.

On a happier note, we'd love to make sure this resolution is 10ki friendly, and seeing as how you ladies and gents offered a lot of good criticism on the Multilateral Prosecution Act, I wouldn't be surprised if you wowed me again.

GRAB YOUR RED EDITING PEN, FOLKS!

WA Convention on Execution A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights. Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Unibotian WA Mission The World Assembly, Recalling that the sovereign right of governments to penalize law offenders is subject to immunities recognized by international law, Affirming that the living have a universal duty to respect one another’s right to live, Asserting that while the deterrence of state execution is often disputed, no life in exchange for disincentive can be an ethical source of deterrence as it ignores the universal duties of the living, Stressing that no misjudgment by a government can be undone after the victim of misjudgment is executed, Understanding that if no individual has the right to organize when others will continue to live or die; neither should a government that represents a nation of individuals, Sympathizing with the philosophy of some member-nations, that if individuals commit murder or hurt another individual through crimes such as rape and mutilation, they have decided for themselves when they will die, Hereby: 1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution: a. “Execution” as the lawfully sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime; b. “Summary execution” as the execution of an individual without a trial as stipulated by this resolution; c. “Extrajudicial execution” as the act of extraditing an individual to or otherwise placing an individual into the custody of a non-member nation, with the intent of allowing that nation to execute that individual outside of the regulations of this resolution; 2. Declares that all member-nations must provide a separate sentencing hearing after convicting an individual, to decide on the applicability of an execution; 3. Affirms that the freedom of member-nations to execute individuals for intentionally inflicting or directly facilitating severe physical harm to other persons is hereby protected from restrictions made by international law; 4. Establishes exceptions to article 3 for the following persons: a. Those who are pregnant, b. Those who lack the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of their crime, or to conform their behavior to the law, c. Children and those with equivalent mental capacity; 5. Prohibits the use of summary execution and extrajudicial execution, and requires that a fair and equitable route of seeking monetary compensation and justice for the family of victims of such executions be devised by the judicial system of each member nation; 6. Encourages any nation that has legalized execution to restrict its use to the most extreme cases, where the offender will likely commit their transgressions again, and to provide a route for commutation or pardon; 7. Urges member-nations to respect the dignity of the punished with a method of execution that does not demean the existence of the punished or provide unnecessary torture or agony for them. Co-authored by Glen-Rhodes.

[Takaram]

Would you mind clarifying Article 4c where it says "and those with equivalent mental capacity"? It seems to me that this is covered under 4b.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Jul 16, 2010 22:31:27 GMT -5 Takaram said:

Would you mind clarifying Article 4c where it says "and those with equivalent mental capacity"? It seems to me that this is covered under 4b.

As the one who wrote Article 4, I suppose I should answer. 4c is extremely similar to 4b. 4b was written with the 'insanity defense' in mind, while 4c was written for people who legitimately have the mental capacity of a child.

4b is pretty much an exact copy of the mental capacity test, as defined by the American Law Institute.

[Cerb]

Maybe this makes me a monster, but I have a problem with 4a.

I think that 4a could be interpreted as a get out of execution for any crime card.

The way it is worded, my lawyers could easil argue that Janet M'bigmurderer
can never be put to death because she is pregnant, despite murdering and eating children by the score.


Perhaps the pregnant individual could be tweaked a bit to state that the individual can not be executed while pregnant, but can be executed after delivery of the child.

I have a whole herd of pedantic lawyers that will waive this in our face and shout that the individual is pregnant during the act of crime and the trial so is exempt from execution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Jul 19, 2010 14:07:43 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Perhaps the pregnant individual could be tweaked a bit to state that the individual can not be executed while pregnant, but can be executed after delivery of the child.

I don't think the proposal currently prevents nations from jailing pregnant women until they have their child, then executing them. It only bans the actual execution of pregnant women. If Unibot doesn't object, I wouldn't mind clarifying that, though.

[Deleted]

You said my draft is a cheap rip-off, honoured ambassador? I didn't want to go into all that complexity of the appeals process.

[Unibot]

Jul 21, 2010 3:42:02 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

You said my draft is a cheap rip-off, honoured ambassador? I didn't want to go into all that complexity of the appeals process.

And we did.. with success too, without an appeal system your resolution remains a 'cheap knockoff' and if you do try and follow us, you're still just chasing us... my suggestion would be to try and be more creative instead of just.. well.. doing everything GR and I are doing, but with less effort.

I'd also like to ask the 10000 islands crowd how they feel about the Death Penalty in general? Pro or anti?

[Pompadoodle]

Jul 21, 2010 21:49:27 GMT -5 Unibot said:

Jul 21, 2010 3:42:02 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

You said my draft is a cheap rip-off, honoured ambassador? I didn't want to go into all that complexity of the appeals process.

And we did.. with success too, without an appeal system your resolution remains a 'cheap knockoff' and if you do try and follow us, you're still just chasing us... my suggestion would be to try and be more creative instead of just.. well.. doing everything GR and I are doing, but with less effort.

I'd also like to ask the 10000 islands crowd how they feel about the Death Penalty in general? Pro or anti?

I'm strongly anti. I think that the death penalty is barbaric.

But then I'm European. Educated opinion on this side of the Atlantic is generally very anti. In the US its a different situation altogether.

[Takaram]

I tend to be more anti, but I'm willing to make an exception on occasion.

[Cerb]

For my nation? Totally in favor.

[Ananke II]

I'm against the death penalty, so my first feeling upon seeing a WA proposal, which "legitimize" the death penalty is to be against. However after having thought a bit it's probably better to have a resolution which clearly lays down a structure for nations to follow, rather than just leaving it unregulated. Since an outright ban on the death penalty in all member nations probably won't get passed.

[Unibot]

Aug 5, 2010 15:11:13 GMT -5 Ananke II said:

I'm against the death penalty, so my first feeling upon seeing a WA proposal, which "legitimize" the death penalty is to be against. However after having thought a bit it's probably better to have a resolution which clearly lays down a structure for nations to follow, rather than just leaving it unregulated. Since an outright ban on the death penalty in all member nations probably won't get passed.

If 10ki supported it with a stacking? I'd say its very likely it could pass because Alsted is in full support of a full out ban, that's a six hundred vote stack.. and I could probably get a hundred or so more to follow shortly. That's like dropping the atomic bomb of voting stacking on a proposal.

[Ananke II]

Heh, that might fun to see. Especially all the teeth gnashing from the national sovereignity and right-wing people.

10ki is pretty mixed when it comes to political opinions though, so I'm not sure whether the majority would end up being for or against such a resolution.

[Walabamba]

I like the current resolution you have put together but I would be completely in favour of an all out ban on the death penalty. It might be possible to pass it, but for it to reach quorum might be even more difficult if that makes any sense, that's what I've seen with proposals like that anyway

[Guy]

We'll need to have a very early poll though, won't we?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Since Unibot handed over the proposal to me and suggested I change the preamble, I have done so. Not much of the proposal has changed. However, 3b might need to be removed, due to Charlotte Ryberg's proposal, if it passes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Understanding the signficiant moral and ethical challenges of capital punishment,

Acknowledging that the extremes of both ends of the debate cannot be fairly applied across the entire World Assembly,

Wishing to uphold the sovereignty of this facet of national penal law, but to also prevent unconscionable use of capital punishment,

The World Assembly hereby

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
a. “Execution” as the lawfully sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime;
b. “Summary execution” as the execution of an individual without a trial as stipulated by this resolution;
c. “Extrajudicial execution” as the act of extraditing an individual to or otherwise placing an individual into the custody of a non-member nation, with the intent of allowing that nation to execute that individual outside of the regulations of this resolution;

2. Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed World Assembly resolutions;

3. Establishes exceptions to article 2 for the following persons:
a. Those who are pregnant,
b. Those who lack the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of their crime, or to conform their behavior to the law,
c. Children and those with equivalent mental capacity;

4. Requires that a trial in which execution is a possible punishment be separated into two parts, wherein the first part determines guilt or innocence and the second part decides the applicability and merits of an execution;

5. Prohibits the use of summary execution and extrajudicial execution, and requires that a fair and equitable route of seeking monetary compensation and justice for the family of victims of such executions be devised by the judicial system of each member nation;

6. Encourages any nation that have legalized execution to restrict its use to the most extreme cases, where the offender will likely commit their transgressions again, and to provide a route for seeking commutation or pardon;

7. Mandates that any use of execution be done in a way that avoids undue and overly cruel pain and suffering.