[GA - PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

International Criminal Protocol
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Tinfect | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Annoyed by the insistence regarding passing yet another pointless non-compromise that will merely facilitate legal abuses,

Acknowledging prior attempts to ensure that the criminal justice systems of Member-States operate in a just and ethical manner,

Dismayed by their failure to adequately provide protections from legal abuse and to provide closure and restitution to victims,

Seeking to immediately prevent any further abuses of criminal justice systems,

Hereby;

Defines:
  1. Protective confinement as the severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates due to clear and present dangers to their life in the general prison population, or risks posed by the prisoner to other inmates in the general prison population,
  2. Punitive confinement as the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and prison staff for any reason other than those established under protective confinement,
  3. Inhumane conditions as: the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance or of medically or mentally necessary healthcare; the maintenance of severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,
Prohibits:
  1. The holding of any prisoner in inhumane conditions,
  2. The holding of any prisoner in punitive confinement,
  3. The holding of any prisoner in protective confinement without the informed consent of the prisoner, barring circumstances that render the prisoner legally unable to make such a decision, or circumstances in which the prisoner would present risks to individuals in the general prison population if not held in protective confinement,
  4. The use of capital punishment for any crime that did not result in unlawful death, exceptionally cruel treatment such as torture or rape, or an exceptional betrayal of national security,
  5. The sentencing of any individual under the age of majority, or any individual deemed legally incompetent, to capital punishment,
  6. The practice of summary or otherwise extrajudicial executions,
  7. The practice of forced prisoner labor,
Mandates:
  1. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal recourse for the investigation of any undue violence or abuse by prison staff,
  2. That Member-States provide to prisoners sentenced to capital punishment accessible legal counsel and support, including access to appeals and stays of execution,
  3. The use of the highest reasonable standards of evidence when considering the use of capital punishment,
  4. That all executions be held at a reasonable date past sentencing, following any processing time for applicable legal requests, inquiries, and appeals,
  5. That, in the case of a pregnant individual being sentenced to capital punishment, that execution be stayed until such time as the prisoner is no longer pregnant,
  6. That protective confinement be be utilized only when there exists a clear and present danger to holding the prisoner within the general prison area,
  7. That prisoners subject to protective confinement be allowed regular contact with psychiatric staff, and access to standard visitation,
  8. That, once a prisoner has been subjected to protective confinement, all practical measures must be taken to allow their safe return to general prison populations as soon as possible,
Reserves to Member-States the right to determine the legality of capital punishment within their jurisdiction,

Clarifies that prisoners legally incapable of consent may be held in protective confinement as a strictly temporary measure until a legal guardian can be contacted.
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!
 
Arguably a wolf in sheep's clothing, "International Criminal Protocol" seeks to protect various rights of those sentenced to death, but in doing so, relegates the legalization of capital punishment entirely to member nations. This is unacceptable in its own right.

There are more specific issues that must also be made apparent. The proposal requires that executions of the pregnant only be held off until they are no longer pregnant, denying expectant parents the opportunity to raise their child and separating families. As a result, pregnant women may feel pressured to get an abortion when they would otherwise choose not to, so that their child need not suffer having their parent executed. Possibly the most important problem is that the proposal prevents the WA from banning the death penalty, ultimately failing to address capital punishment itself and betraying any good intentions the proposal may have had. Even with the highest level of protection and due process being provided concerning capital punishment, innocent people may still end up being executed. Regardless of any other good provisions the proposal contains or any valid arguments it makes, this penultimate clause soils it.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "International Criminal Protocol".
 
Last edited:
For.

Minor grammar nitpick: Section 6 of the Mandates reads:
That protective confinement be be utilized only when there exists a clear and present danger to holding the prisoner within the general prison area,
Click to expand...
 
Although I had previously shown my support for this, I must now retract that support. I was under the impression that P Innocents already had an effective ban on capital punishment, but it has been brought to my attention that there is an interpretation of P Innocents that may make it so that it doesn't actually do that. My understanding of the resolution is that the year needed for defence made it so that the requirement that execution needed to occur before one year had passed is impossible to achieve, thus effectively banning executions, but the counter-point is that the time the defence needs is pre-trial, whereas the maximum time permitted for executions is post-trial. This interpretation is entirely reasonable, in my opinion, and thus makes my support on this (which was conditional on the fact that between the limits outlined in this and the essential ban present in P Innocents made the allowance for capital punishment a non-issue) null.

There are several other possible issues with this, the most notable of which is the note on pregnant individuals, which implies a possibility of potentially forced-abortion, which isn't necessarily okay, nor is leaving a child without a mother from what is basically the instant they're born.

I am firmly AGAINST this proposal now. Capital Punishment should not be permitted to be legalized.
 
Last edited:
The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs is currently internally discussing the proposal in question. Just a reminder that votes can be changed while the thread is open.
 
My vote remains for. I'm indifferent on capital punishment, but the rest seems fine to me.
 
Morover:
...There are several other possible issues with this, the most notable of which is the note on pregnant individuals, which implies a possibility of potentially forced-abortion, which isn't necessarily okay, nor is leaving a child without a mother from what is basically the instant they're born...
Click to expand...

I don't have the right or power to vote here, but I just want to clarify a couple things from an outside perspective. GAR #128 "On Abortion" already prohibits forced abortions without regard for citizenship status, criminality, or other social stigmas; and the current state of GA law already permits pregnant persons to be put on death row (to the extent that we interpret "P. Innocents" as something other than a byzantine Catch-22). This proposal not only does not signify a new threat to pregnant individuals, it protects them from execution while pregnant; and it does not block future resolutions that might create more substantial protections for them.

In short, the above are not good reasons to oppose. The only valid reason I see to oppose is utter hostility to capital punishment, an institution which this proposal accepts (though again, I think this doesn't block a total ban - only prohibits certain instances, and a total ban would [most likely] remain legal for a later resolution to tackle if this passes and P. Innocents were repealed).

(edit: struck portion based on obsolete version of text)

In my opinion, further protections for pregnant persons against capital punishment might remain legal after this passes (I can't and won't be more detailed than that in a hypothetical), so I have not struck that portion.
 
Last edited:
Sierra Lyricalia:
I don't have the right or power to vote here, but I just want to clarify a couple things from an outside perspective. GAR #128 "On Abortion" already prohibits forced abortions without regard for citizenship status, criminality, or other social stigmas; and the current state of GA law already permits pregnant persons to be put on death row (to the extent that we interpret "P. Innocents" as something other than a byzantine Catch-22). This proposal not only does not signify a new threat to pregnant individuals, it protects them from execution while pregnant; and it does not block future resolutions that might create more substantial protections for them.

In short, the above are not good reasons to oppose. The only valid reason I see to oppose is utter hostility to capital punishment, an institution which this proposal accepts (though again, I think this doesn't block a total ban - only prohibits certain instances, and a total ban would [most likely] remain legal for a later resolution to tackle if this passes and P. Innocents were repealed).
Click to expand...
Thank you SL
 
Sierra Lyricalia:
I don't have the right or power to vote here, but I just want to clarify a couple things from an outside perspective. GAR #128 "On Abortion" already prohibits forced abortions without regard for citizenship status, criminality, or other social stigmas; and the current state of GA law already permits pregnant persons to be put on death row (to the extent that we interpret "P. Innocents" as something other than a byzantine Catch-22). This proposal not only does not signify a new threat to pregnant individuals, it protects them from execution while pregnant; and it does not block future resolutions that might create more substantial protections for them.

In short, the above are not good reasons to oppose. The only valid reason I see to oppose is utter hostility to capital punishment, an institution which this proposal accepts (though again, I think this doesn't block a total ban - only prohibits certain instances, and a total ban would [most likely] remain legal for a later resolution to tackle if this passes and P. Innocents were repealed).
Click to expand...
I poorly phrased that due to general poor knowledge (and lack of total clarity) at the time of posting, but I meant an unintentional pressure in an attempt to not have their child grow up without a mother. However, I missed that part of P Innocents, and as such, that part is somewhat null.

I am curious to hear why you think that a total ban would remain legal, should this pass - especially given the penultimate clause.
 
Gorundu:
After looking at SL's explanation, For
Click to expand...
Ok, this is a bit of a wtf moment. The only version of the proposal I read was the one on the NS forums, which for some reason doesn't include the very important second-last clause. That's why I've always been kinda confused about this being described as a blocker.

So I'm going to withdraw my vote for now, and like Morover I would like to see some more clarification from @Sierra Lyricalia
 
Last edited:
Gorundu:
Ok, this is a bit of a wtf moment. The only version of the proposal I read was the one on the NS forums, which for some reason doesn't include the very important second-last clause. That's why I've always been kinda confused about this being described as a blocker.

So I'm going to withdraw my vote for now, and like Morover I would like to see some more clarification from @Sierra Lyricalia
Click to expand...

Egad. This was my issue also, I was looking at the version without that clause. I retract that part of my opinion. Post edited.
 
Last edited:
Sierra Lyricalia:
Egad. This was my issue also, I was looking at the version without that clause. I retract that part of my opinion. Post edited.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's on me, it's been in the version I have on my computer for a few versions, but I'm a fucking idiot and never added it to the forum version.
 
I am voting Present. While I am satisfied that GA#443 Preventing the Execution of Innocents renders execution impossible, I am hopeful that an explicit ban on capital punishment could be passed in the future, which this resolution would stand in the way of.
 
The vote is, by my count, is very close. Will hold off on a WA vote for now.
 
Last edited:
The vote is currently swaying in the For's favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top