NationStates Jolt Archive

This challenge has already been made (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12117300&postcount=26), but assuming moderators missed it among a bunch of other posts, I'd like to remake it:

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act" (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sentencing), which recently made it to quorum and is slated to come to vote on Christmas, contains a certain problematic clause:

CONCERNED that individual states may use capital punishment for ANY offense they so choose including, but not limited to shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing, and adultery;This runs afoul of Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48), which forbids sentencing that is not "proportional" to the offense, and would obviously bar death sentencing for shoplifting and the like. Thus the clause is a false argument, bringing the proposal in violation of the Honest Mistakes section of the UN Proposal Rules, and I would ask that it be deleted before long.

Thank you.

Not a mod, but I'd like to point out that "Fair Trial" does not reference sentencing at all.... a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which: 8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime. [my emph]Verdict and sentencing being two separate portions of trial, the argument above is negated because it itself is dependent on an error.

Not a mod, but I'd like to point out that "Fair Trial" does not reference sentencing at all.Verdict and sentencing being two separate portions of trial, the argument above is negated because it itself is dependent on an error.

I don't think so. While colloquially we know the verdict to be the judgment, in the case of Fair Trial I believe the author meant "sentences"

Verdict cannot be proportional to crime- it is either guilty or not guilty, there can be no "partly guilty" or "just a liffle bit innocent". It is very clear that the author meant "sentence" and not "verdict." Were we to read it any other way, judgment would be entirely based on the severity of the crime, a verdict of "not guilty" being given for petty theft with five eyewitnesses.

While I'm not a Game Mod and don't have the authority to make a ruling on the legality challenge, I will say that y'all are both being overly legalistic and silly.

While I'm not a Game Mod and don't have the authority to make a ruling on the legality challenge, I will say that y'all are both being overly legalistic and silly.
Um, if all are guilty of that, then that does absolutely nothing to resolve the dispute. What would be more helpful is pointing which one side is being legalistic and silly (not that those two necessarily equate to being wrong anyway).

Um, if all are guilty of that, then that does absolutely nothing to resolve the dispute. What would be more helpful is pointing which one side is being legalistic and silly (not that those two necessarily equate to being wrong anyway).

I'm sure Kenny and Rubina are both quite capable of seeing why their behavior is overly legalistic and silly. I'm also sure that, given their capability, they don't need me to explain in detail why a repeal of the FSA saying it's CONCERNED that all sorts of bad things can happen because the use of capital punishment is not restricted by the FSA does not constitute a patently false argument.

That said, maybe I'm completely wrong and they do need an explanation. For that, all they need to do is look at the previous legislation in question.

The resolution "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" simply defined what a fair trial is in light of the provisions of "Fair Trial," so the entirety of its effect is bound up with the earlier resolution. This is the text of "Fair Trial":

We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Which, as you can see, does nothing but "maitain[sic]". Hardly a mandate. Since "Fair Trial" (upon which "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" rests) does essentially nothing, it's pretty fair to say that neither FT nor DoFT give any substantive protections of persons from non-proportional sentencing of the kind described in the repeal text.

Since it is true that DoFT does not prevent non-proportional sentencing, Kenny's argument that it does and thus contradicts the repeal argument is, dare I say, overly legalistic and silly.

Similarly, Rubina's argument that because DoFT uses the word "verdict" rather than "sentence" it clearly does not apply to sentences and thus offers no protection from non-proportional sentencing is overly legalistic and silly. Because the truth is that DoFT offers no protections because all it does is define a term from an earlier, and even less useful, resolution. It has nothing to do with which words were included.

In an extreme capitalizt society, shoplifting could indeed be a capital offense, and the sentence would be proportional. Ditto adultery in a theocracy (remember the stonings in certain societies?); and I could probably make a case for trespassing and drug possesion if I wanted to spend time on it. Which I don't.

The key is the interpretation of 'proportional', and I'm going to throw that back to the nations, since it isn't explicitly defined. If their society wants to define littering as a capital offense, there's nothing in UN rules (that I can remember offhand) that prevents them from doing so.

Were this the Supreme Court of the United States, or the World Court in The Hague, I'd probably spend more time on this decision. As it is, I agree with Hotrodia. That's not sufficient reason to remove this proposal from quorum, and I hereby rule it legal.

I had missed this thread until it was pointed out on another forum and thus didn't have a chance to reply earlier.

As it is, all I have to say now is thank you for letting this proceed.