[GA] Extrajudicial Punishment Ban [Complete]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Bakhton
Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Understanding that numerous circumstances result in the occurrence of extrajudicial activity in a nation, such as the overworking or underfunding of the police, corruption of a nation’s legal system, or the base need for retributive justice innate within us all,

Believing, however, that the prejudiced punishment of unconvicted or untried suspects to be often immoral due to it often leading to instances where innocent people are harmed, and that proper attention should be given to ensuring a fair trial of all persons incriminated of unsavory acts under the rule of law,

Hereby defines for the purpose of this resolution:

• Extrajudicial punishment as punishment by civilians or governments causing physical and/or mental harm apart from a formal legal authority for those suspected of criminality or transgressions against society or persons.
• Physical and/or mental harm as a state of immense distress for a person in both or either their physical and mental well-being, resulting in the sensation of physical hurting and/or psychological trauma.

Hereby mandates:

• No member nation shall allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial punishment through refusing to enact proper legal punitive measures on those who enact the aforementioned punishments on suspected individuals.
• All member nations must make extrajudicial punishment a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems.

Clarifies that nothing in this legislation criminalizes interference in criminal activity until the appropriate representatives of the law arrive to arrest the suspected individuals, as long as those individuals do call upon those representatives within a reasonable amount of time.

Clarifies further that this proposal neither applies to nations lacking a formal legal system nor applies to the issues of proper parenting.

Encourages further neutrality and objectivity in member nations courts and criminal procedures, along with measures to mend social ills that lead to prejudiced extrajudicial punishment against certain groups of people.

Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

The proposal effectively codifies into WA law a ban on murder and assault when done as retribution or vigilantism either as individuals or as a mob, which is redundant as it is reasonable to assume that most nations already make such actions illegal. Mob violence occurs not because of failure to prohibit it, but inability to enforce, something not even a WA resolution can do.

In the case of governments conducting extrajudicial punishments, the WA already effectively bans it resolution 37, mandating that "all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence," and in GA Resolution 9 by outlawing torture, including "sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation."

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against this resolution.

For

For - this resolution will significantly improve the rights of the citizenry of WA nations.

I'm against. I think it's poorly drafted.

First, the definition of extrajudicial punishment is very narrow. It relates only to punishments that cause "a state of immense distress for a person in both or either their physical and mental well-being, resulting in the sensation of physical hurting and/or psychological trauma".

So jailing someone extrajudicially would presumably be allowed. It's a rather limited set of rights.

Kind of surprisingly, I haven't been able to find some similar protection already in the books. So there's potential there, but not as currently written.

I also don't think that "a formal legal authority for those suspected of criminality or transgressions against society or persons" is the greatest drafting.

Guy:

- (snipped) -

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, taking things by and large, etc., I have to agree. To borrow a phrase, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Barring a Randite or BioShock-based conception of the state, the proposal basically says that, we're gonna ban murder and assault. There's really no reason why any nation wouldn't have such laws, otherwise, they wouldn't really be much of a nation altogether.

I also don't think that it solves the problem which it sets out to solve: that of lynching, mob violence, and what-not. Mob violence doesn't occur because authorities are not empowered to stop it, rather, it is that authorities are unwilling or unable to stop it, something that doesn't change when we put a few words to text. Honestly, it is almost as if it said 'the WA hereby bans murder and assault'.

Furthermore, the provision in 2(ii) that 'All member nations must make extrajudicial punishment a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems', I feel, creates a problem in that creation of a future international criminal court would be undercut by this resolution. Such a provision, to me, due to its blocking nature, is unacceptable.

I agree with what IA said, and also:

"Believing, however, that the prejudiced punishment of unconvicted or untried suspects to be often immoral..."

This means that even criminals are allowed to run free until they stand trial (continuing to commit whatever crime they committed), or are thrown into jail before they are convicted, which is contradictory to this.

"No member nation shall allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial punishment through refusing to enact proper legal punitive measures on those who enact the aforementioned punishments on suspected individuals."

All that does is ban murder, assault, and psychological torture (or something), which should all be illegal already. As IA said, governments usually want to stop this, it's just that they don't want to, or have the ability to. If they both wanted to and had the ability to, it wouldn't happen in the force place.

"All member nations must make extrajudicial punishment a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems."

Any sane nation would have pretty much any form of extrajudicial punishment banned already, and this is even further redundant.

"Believing, however, that the prejudiced punishment of unconvicted or untried suspects to be often immoral..."

This means that even criminals are allowed to run free until they stand trial (continuing to commit whatever crime they committed), or are thrown into jail before they are convicted, which is contradictory to this.

Voting Against

Against as per Mystery

On second thoughts, I urge a vote for this resolution.

I say, ehh ok I guess

Malayan Singapura:

I say, ehh ok I guess

Click to expand...

How insightful!

Could you please follow the instructions in the OP and cast one of the four options? Thanks.

Guy:

Spoiler

I'm against. I think it's poorly drafted.

First, the definition of extrajudicial punishment is very narrow. It relates only to punishments that cause "a state of immense distress for a person in both or either their physical and mental well-being, resulting in the sensation of physical hurting and/or psychological trauma".

So jailing someone extrajudicially would presumably be allowed. It's a rather limited set of rights.

Kind of surprisingly, I haven't been able to find some similar protection already in the books. So there's potential there, but not as currently written.

I also don't think that "a formal legal authority for those suspected of criminality or transgressions against society or persons" is the greatest drafting.

Click to expand...

I agree with this statement, so I vote against this resolution.

As it stands right now, I recognize the vote to be 2-3 and will be casting my vote Against the resolution should it come to vote.

Against. AlthoughI can see an idea behind it is poorly written. I agree with Guy and Mystery

For.

I think, despite the shortcomings detailed by Guy and Mystery, the steps taken by this resolution are important steps to take. Additionally, while many nations have laws prohibiting extrajudicial executions and torture, many do not, and even in those which do, those laws are frequently ignored. By giving the WA a degree of oversight in this matter, it may be easier to police these breaches of the law, and it certainly will be easier for the international community to police them.

Otto IV:

Additionally, while many nations have laws prohibiting extrajudicial executions and torture, many do not, and even in those which do, those laws are frequently ignored.

Click to expand...

The WA already prohibits torture. It's like resolution 4 or something. And why do you believe that putting words to paper to ban murder and assault will do anything to nations which already do not have such laws? And if nations already have such laws, why do you believe that guaranteeing equal enforcement of those laws would do anything when it is already guaranteed by resolution 35?

Otto IV:

By giving the WA a degree of oversight in this matter, it may be easier to police these breaches of the law, and it certainly will be easier for the international community to police them.

Click to expand...

Due to On Universal Jurisdiction, the World Assembly possesses no authority to supersede the criminal jurisdiction of its members, which means that if a nation were to break WA law, it is only that nation who can compel punishment (assuming that the perpetrators do not go abroad).

As a reminder, this will enter the voting floor at the next major update. We're voting.

Vote is 3-4 so that's still going to be an Against vote that I cast.

Against - "Mending social ills" it doesn't really mean anything because what constitutes a social ill?

Against

Against

Against.

This matter is of special importance, no doubt. But I think the first thing the WA should consider is extrajudicial procedures in general (such as forcing evidence, torture, confessions vitiated by such problems, among others). Surely the current resolutions already cover many of the aspects mentioned, making the resolution at vote more ambiguous and weak (not to mention that it tries to "clarify" specific issues, while the main purpose is not addressed appropriately, in my opinion).

In one way or another, it would be a great contribution to review existing legislation and look for any gaps or needs, so that they can be completed. I agree with IA's commentary on provision 2 (ii), at the same time I am excited to know that other nations are interested in creating an International Criminal Court, or something like that; If this is the case, the content and scope of existing legislation should be further reviewed.

Edit - After a quick review of the current legislation, I can highlight aspects such as:

i) GA - Resolution #9 stands against torture, including "Sensory deprivation, such as prolonged confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation [...]".
ii) GA - Resolution #37 mandates that "[...] all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence".
iii) There are a few resolutions against extrajudicial practices, and even against "post-facto laws or practices".

I recognize the vote now stands at 4-7. The against vote will remain.

Present

Against.

Against

Agreeing with AI, Guy, and others.

I believe that this bill is stating the obvious. By narrowly describing what Extrajudicial action is this could almost hurt a nation's enforcing power on crimes.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.