NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #180
Proposed by: Euphobes

Description: UN Resolution #180: Fair Sentencing Act (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations;

Agreeing with the sentiments expressed in the Fair Sentencing Act,

However, not convinced that establishing independent bodies is the best way to oversee sentencing decisions,

Concerned that the running and maintaining of these bodies is uneconomical and impractical,

Further concerned that the aforementioned organisations have no power to enforce their verdicts and thus are rendered ineffective,

Noting that in certain circumstances, such as times of war, trials can be impractical and undesirable, something that this resolution does not take into account,

Drawing attention to the subjectivity of the words "fair" and "just", which makes the act less effective because those adjectives can be attributed to many processes and there is no mention of what the minimum standard as system has to meet to qualify as fair,

Informing the global community that many member states cannot afford to provide the high standards of legal process outlined and thus the resolution is impractical,

Declaring that the rights of different cultures to have separate judicial systems are not sufficiently covered in the Act:
1. No specific protections or rights are afforded to these nations.
2. Nations with a faith-based legal system whereby a divine being is, through omens or otherwise, able to show the citizens a verdict is not protected under this act.

Further affirming that it should not regulate how a society treats criminals as it is a matter of conscience and fundamentally a social issue beyond the jurisdiction of any international governing body,

Asserting that the Act is excess to requirements, as previous legislation enacted by this body provides sufficient cover for human rights with regard to sentencing,

Maintaining that a more detailed piece of legislation should be implemented in place of the Fair Sentencing Act,

Believing that this Act is an impediment to other pieces of legislation,

1. Repeals the Fair Sentencing Act
2. Remind nations of their duties to their people under previous legislation
3. Calls for a more detailed replacement resolution.
A few things:
- to be arrogant, for someone who I've never heard of, this is a strikingly well-presented repeal;
- its style is naggingly familiar;
- its still a faulty argument because:
It doesn't say why independent bodies are no good at overseeing sentencing decisions. So by the same process, I have decided that independent review boards CURE CANCER. Equally, I don't see running a couple of committees as likely to ground economies into dust. And, fairly obviously, the powers allotted to the committees is something for the nations to decide, given whether they exist or not is also a national decision.
It then it does a bit of a twistabout, arguing in one clause that the resolution is subjective to the point of meaninglessness (somewhat valid) and in the very next clause that it's got our balls in a vice (considerably less valid). Either it's vague, allowing for a range of systems, or it's narrow, excluding many systems: get your teeth out of that cake.
The next clause is just silly, probably to the point of illegality, because a fairly large right clearly is granted to nations by the proposal. That was the whole point. And in fairness, the author probably didn't know this, but FSA was written by a theocratic nation. Our legal system may not decide cases on the basis of Mother Wena's flatulence or whatever, but we're not about to proclude other similarly moral cultures from practicing their beliefs. Also odd that Euphobes is an "atheist theocracy".
It then goes really downhill by saying that the UN shouldn't interfere with sentencing. Um...
I agree entirely with the next clause. Previous legislation is sufficient: hence the blocker - there's nothing more the UN can productively do.
We finally confirm our destination in Shit Creek, and our inventory as distinctly paddleless, with the plea for a detailed replacement, after several clauses of whingeing about national rights. You don't want a more detailed replacement. So don't ask for one.

Still, it's reassuring to see there a couple of testicles floating about somewhere out there. (Well, the thought of floating testicles actually isn't at all reassuring, but I'm being a snide prick here.)

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

OOC: Kivisto, there's no point doing the whole

The United Nations
That's us!

thing. It's annoying and a waste of space scrolling past them.

Just for the fun of it, I wanna take this one apart. I haven't done that here in the GA for a while, and this seems a likely candidate for it...

Description: UN Resolution #180: Fair Sentencing Act (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Convince me.

Argument: The United Nations;

That's us.

Agreeing with the sentiments expressed in the Fair Sentencing Act,

Yeah. I can agree with that.

However, not convinced that establishing independent bodies is the best way to oversee sentencing decisions,

So, you'd prefer them overseen by dependant bodies? Bodies that will be relying upon other entities, and resultingly biased towards those entities? That makes about as much sense as a brick parachute.

Concerned that the running and maintaining of these bodies is uneconomical and impractical,

Needs justification. A lot of it. What is impractical about maintaining a body that will ensure the fairness of judicial sentencing? How is it uneconomical to use this body to help avoid unnecessary litigation in the form of appeal after appeal based on the unfairness of court verdicts?

Further concerned that the aforementioned organisations have no power to enforce their verdicts and thus are rendered ineffective,

So don't have them. Nations that wish to utilize this tool to increase the level of actual justice they provide will grant these bodies the necessary powers.

Noting that in certain circumstances, such as times of war, trials can be impractical and undesirable, something that this resolution does not take into account,

There are other bits of legislation that fairly well cover emergency and war situations in most cases. For the rest, consider the ramifications of abandonning justice in the name of expedience. Skipping a proper trial because it is inconvenient is a first rate step towards eliminating the trial procedure in its totality.

Drawing attention to the subjectivity of the words "fair" and "just", which makes the act less effective because those adjectives can be attributed to many processes and there is no mention of what the minimum standard as system has to meet to qualify as fair,

An assumption of rational world leaders will deal with most concerns in this area. There are also numerous other resolutions on the books that adequately cover what is meant by "Fair" and the like as it regards the judicial systems of the world.

Informing the global community that many member states cannot afford to provide the high standards of legal process outlined and thus the resolution is impractical,

Cannot afford a high standard of legal process? Having a quality judicial system is not a matter of money, it is a matter of standards. It is a matter of ensuring that the system is free of corruption. It is a matter of making certain that all applicable evidence is analyzed to the fullest to ensure the highest degree of accuracy in verdicts.

Declaring that the rights of different cultures to have separate judicial systems are not sufficiently covered in the Act:
1. No specific protections or rights are afforded to these nations.

You mean other than the right to decide upon sentencing for themselves?

2. Nations with a faith-based legal system whereby a divine being is, through omens or otherwise, able to show the citizens a verdict is not protected under this act.

As a non-theocracy, I can't rightly speak for them, but FSA guarantees the same rights to every nation, regardless of creed.

Further affirming that it should not regulate how a society treats criminals as it is a matter of conscience and fundamentally a social issue beyond the jurisdiction of any international governing body,

Good thing that FSA leaves it in the hands of the nations then.

Asserting that the Act is excess to requirements, as previous legislation enacted by this body provides sufficient cover for human rights with regard to sentencing,

....Care to name a few that cover it in this fashion?

Maintaining that a more detailed piece of legislation should be implemented in place of the Fair Sentencing Act,

How much more detailed would you want it to be? FSA covered all of the ground it was intended to cover.

Believing that this Act is an impediment to other pieces of legislation,

As is every other resolution we pass. Irrelevant.

1. Repeals the Fair Sentencing Act

Not with these arguments.

2. Remind nations of their duties to their people under previous legislation

Don't worry. We remember.

3. Calls for a more detailed replacement resolution.

Why?

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich swats away a pair of floating testicles.

Believing that this Act is an impediment to other pieces of legislation,Oh, like mandatory capital punishment with organ harvesting?

Oh, wait. That's just coincidence.Calls for a more detailed replacement resolution.Let me guess: one that imposes a single penal code on the rest of us.

I'll pass on that, but thanks for playing.

I've let this proposal die. It got 33 approvals, though, so someone must have liked it.

It got 33 approvals, though, so someone must have liked it.
A proposal to elect a rutabaga to be both Secretary General of the NSUN and the new NationStates administrator would get 25 or so automatic votes if we allowed it to stay on the list. Don't read too much into your 33 approvals.

That's if it is a joke proposal; and people vote for it because they think it is "a bit of fun". However, "Repeal Fair Sentencing Act" was not a joke proposal and didn't have a telegram campaign, so some UN delegates must have liked it: if they weren't convinced by it or objected to it then they would have not approved it.
Your example and my proposal are different things: with my proposal it didn't have the "let's endorse it for a laugh" factor in it that was present in your example.

There are also a few delegates who will add their approval just because it's a repeal, even though it may be terrible. There are also delegates who approve everything on the bloody list.

That is most likely why you got 33 approvals without TGing. Sure, there may have been a few that actually liked it. Stranger things have happened.

Who approves everything? I haven't noticed that.

Who approves everything? I haven't noticed that.
WZ Forums

WZ forums is only 1 delegate, so 32 others must have liked my proposal for some reason. (I'm ignoring the fact that 2000 either didn't see it or didn't like it)

Euphobes, I think you may be taking the comments the wrong way. It is a good repeal, although I stand by my criticisms of some of its arguments. It's just that gathering approvals doesn't immediately indicate that it's a good repeal, because most proposals will pick up a few. 33 without TGing is quite good, though.