NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried get a proposal to pass a while ago that restricted how execution could be carried out and attempted to avoid a cruel form of punishment.

I knew some people would oppose the idea, but some stated it was an illegal proposal because of the Fair Sentencing Act. I believed this for a while, but then other nations' representives stated that it was perfectly legal due to previous rulings that banned cruel and unusual punishment and torture.

I am going to try to get this proposal to quorum again, but this time I would like to get some input on how (if at all) I could make this a legitamate proposal. Some people said I should mention the resolutions involved. So far, the two most relevant resolutions I could find were Fair Sentencing Act (of course) and END BARBARIC PUNISHMENT. If anyone finds any other relevant resolutions, feel free to mention them here.

Here's what I have so far:

The United Nations,

RECALLING, That all nations have the right to choose sentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act,

HOWEVER, also recalls the resolution END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS, which states that punishments must
not be cruel or unusual

DECLARES that improper or inhumane execution constitutes a form of cruel and unusual punishment

STATES that no member nation may use improper or inhumane execution as a form of punishment

Improper or inhumane execution is defined as:

1. Any form of execution that allows viewing by the general public whether complusory or optional

1a. The following may be allowed access to the execution by the nation state:
All persons involved in carrying out the execution
All legal authorities involved in the sentencing
Any persons deemed victims of the crime
Any persons legally recognized as direct family of the criminal to be executed
The Legal counsel of the aforementioned criminal

All of the above mentioned may be permitted access to the execution, though none are guarenteed access

1b. Executions may be recorded by video recording or auditory recording devices to kept by the government for use in relevant matters of state

2. Any form of execution where the act of executing the criminal takes place over a period of time longer than 2 hours

2a. This period of time includes only the time from the act intended to kill the criminal takes place, not time spent in a prison facility

3. Any form of punishment intended to cause pain to criminal

3a. All actions involved in the execution must relate to causing a quick, painless death of the criminal

3b. The criminal has the right to be rendered unconscious through medication and the right to pain numbing medication if available

That's it. I'm not great at writing these things, and my point three feels messed up, but I just can't figure out what to add to it.

Much as I'd like to support this, the question of legality is now "is this already completely covered by End Barbaric Punishments?" To be honest, I'd hope that detailing what is cruel and unusual for executions would be acceptable, but I wouldn't put money on it.

3. Any form of punishment intended to cause pain to criminal
Don't you mean "execution"? Otherwise you're stepping a long way outside your subject.

As currently written it probably breaks the 'house of cards' rule, because of its reliance on the existing prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishments as a justification.

What is the current standing of the UN then? Because the Fair Sentencing Act would allow any form of punishment because of national autonomy, but that would contradict the End Barabaric Punishment?

I'm new at this and I didn't know if this was already covered. It didn't really seem like it. And the last time I tried to pass something like this, someone recomended recalling the two resolutions.

Oh yeah, I did mean execution, not punishment.

The Dominion notes a contradiction.

See:
1. Any form of execution that allows viewing by the general public whether complusory or optional

1a. The following may be allowed access to the execution by the nation state:
All persons involved in carrying out the execution
What if the state declares it mandatory that a public audience was to be involved in the carrying out of the execution as witnesses or merely to see his passing?

3. Any form of punishment intended to cause pain to criminal

3a. All actions involved in the execution must relate to causing a quick, painless death of the criminal

3b. The criminal has the right to be rendered unconscious through medication and the right to pain numbing medication if available
This will be your doomsday clause. Many nations use a painful execution as a deterrent to major crimes. Also, what will you do to the fascist and authoritarian governments?

What happens if a government has no arms and has no access to executions except through stoning, drowning, pressing, or repeated stabbing? Oh wait...I withdraw that statement. I do believe that in that case [that of a government having no access to ways to execute one other than by those means], the executioners' PURPOSE is not to cause pain, but to kill. Except that in doing so, they cause pain (as a byproduct).


The Dominion

What happens if a government has no arms and has no access to executions except through stoning, drowning, pressing, or repeated stabbing? Oh wait...I withdraw that statement. I do believe that in that case [that of a government having no access to ways to execute one other than by those means], the executioners' PURPOSE is not to cause pain, but to kill. Except that in doing so, they cause pain (as a byproduct).


The Dominion

I would respond to this statment that if they cannot meet the standards of the conditions in this resolution, they should have no buisness in executing its citizens.

The Principality of New Avarin does in fact feel that execution is a proper and necessary punishment for certain crimes against people & catbois. We do so humanely, and without causing unnecessary pain and discomfort to the criminal we are executing. We encourage member nations who do execute citizens for crimes to follow our standards for humane treatment of prisoners.

Respectfully,

His Highness,
Marek Renthier-Hart, Prince Royal of New Avarin & Ambassador-at-Large and General Consul

I understand the intent of this resolution. Some may object to the use of improper in that if the criminal is successfully executed it wasn't improper. An improper execution would be a botched execution.

Additionally I agree that some nations use "severe" forms of execution as a deterrent to crime. That is probably the biggest sticking point.

You could probably get around that by specifying the forms objected to and a rationale as to why ... except that might open up a subject that is incredibly distasteful to many.

Nations will react as they perceive the resolution through the lens of their experiences.

You've been given some good advice, do your best and see if it flies. Good Luck

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

I would respond to this statment that if they cannot meet the standards of the conditions in this resolution, they should have no buisness in executing its citizens.

The Principality of New Avarin does in fact feel that execution is a proper and necessary punishment for certain crimes against people & catbois. We do so humanely, and without causing unnecessary pain and discomfort to the criminal we are executing. We encourage member nations who do execute citizens for crimes to follow our standards for humane treatment of prisoners.

Respectfully,

His Highness,
Marek Renthier-Hart, Prince Royal of New Avarin & Ambassador-at-Large and General Consul
That you encourage member nations to execute citizens in a humane way does nothing if these member nations have no access to a humane execution. If this is the case, the passing of this proposal would see that some governments would not be able to execute their citizens at all, depriving them of one of their most powerful tools in law and order (jails could only hold so many).


The Dominion

That you encourage member nations to execute citizens in a humane way does nothing if these member nations have no access to a humane execution. If this is the case, the passing of this proposal would see that some governments would not be able to execute their citizens at all, depriving them of one of their most powerful tools in law and order (jails could only hold so many).


The Dominion

Common sense would dictate that if they did not have the resources to end a persons life quickly, and without unnecessary pain; they would also not likely have resources to even house criminals.

Again, I reiterate; if they have to resort to barbaric and torturous methods of executing their citizens, they should not be executing them at all.

Respectfully,

His Highness,
Marek Renthier-Hart, Prince Royal of New Avarin & Ambassador-at-Large and General Consul

Common sense would dictate that if they did not have the resources to end a persons life quickly, and without unnecessary pain; they would also not likely have resources to even house criminals.
Which is why, I suppose, executions would be necessary.


Again, I reiterate; if they have to resort to barbaric and torturous methods of executing their citizens, they should not be executing them at all.
See above.


Respectfully,
The Dominion