[Accelerator - GA] Repeal "International Criminal Protocol"

[Cretox]

Repeal "International Criminal Protocol"
Accelerator Draft Discussion and Review
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #500
Primary Author: Greater Cesnica | Coauthor: Pope Saint Peter the Apostle Tinhampton | Onsite Topic
Replacement | Fair Treatment of Prisoners​

---

General Assembly Resolution #500 "International Criminal Protocol" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding GA #500 "International Criminal Protocol" for its intended goal, which was ostensibly to preserve the civil liberties of those imprisoned from the horrors of state-sanctioned legal abuses,

Dismayed that the resolution permits member states to decide the legality of capital punishment; a state-sanctioned penalty that this Assembly regards as inherently abhorrent and as posing a devastating detriment to civil liberties,

Cognizant that many ambassadors were unaware of the resolution’s toleration of the death penalty at the time of its passage, perhaps because of its focus on the rights of prisoners,

Referring to the fact that this body has previously repealed otherwise well-meaning resolutions on such grounds (see also GA#438 Repeal: “Crime And Punishment”),

In particular, it must be noted that:

• The death penalty is always inconsistent with the inherent dignity of the person,
• The costs of the administrative effort necessary to fully prove the guilt of the convicted almost always outweighs any of its possible financial benefits,
• The presumption that the death penalty lowers violent crime rates is based on the empirically false assumption that the circumstances of violent crime can be considered in a vacuum where criminals act rationally,
• The death penalty rarely aids the family of homicide victims, as it merely adds the emotional baggage of yet another life lost, and
• The use of such a severe, irreversible penalty can further exacerbate disparities in justice systems, especially those with existing widespread discrimination,

Further noting that since the justifications presented for the use of the death penalty are insufficient to allow member states to legalize it, this esteemed Assembly ought to prohibit it - which cannot occur in the presence of the target resolution,

Appalled that this resolution stands in the way of preventing the execution of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit; an atrocity that will continue to occur so as long as this resolution remains in force,

Resolved that the numerous benefits and protections this resolution brings forth does not outweigh the crippling blow it inflicts upon civil liberties; a disservice to the good intentions that fostered it,

Hereby repeals GA #500 "International Criminal Protocol".

Co-authored by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle and Tinhampton.

Note: This is an internal discussion on a draft proposal accepted to the WA Accelerator Program. Please rip this draft apart and offer any comments you may have; the objective here is to help the author make this proposal better. If the author does not have access to this subforum, comments will be communicated to them by the Minister or an assigned Deputy. Detailed feedback is appreciated and encouraged!

---

Sponsorship Voting Instructions:

• Vote Accept if you want the Ministry and Delegate to sponsor the proposal upon submission.
• Vote Reject if you want the Ministry and Delegate to not sponsor the proposal upon submission.

Detailed opinions on whether to sponsor this proposal are likewise appreciated and encouraged!

---

Accept	Reject
4	3

 

[Cretox]

Reserved.

 

[Tinfect]

Reject.

The argumentation of the repeal is near-entirely arbitrary or speculative, and where it isn't, it fails to take into account the restrictions on capital punishment imposed by both the target and prior legislation on the subject. The repeal presents an easily deconstructed strawman, and proceeds to deconstruct it. There is no substantive argument against the target. The draft is simply not ready for the support of this program at this time, regardless of one's thoughts on the target resolution.

 

[Honeydewistan]

Reject from me. anti-capital punishment argument without anything to support it? You can do better (or perhaps you can’t)

 

[saintpeter]

Reject from me. anti-capital punishment argument without anything to support it? You can do better (or perhaps you can’t)

I have academic sources for all the arguments, that I can send you once I'm on my PC.

As to Tinfect: the presented opinion are a lot of big words, but no actual precise comments. Shrug.
......
I know there are some people here (although in the minority) that support the death penalty and I understand you'll then oppose this. Fair. But please make constructive comments instead of some generic big words. Also, voting to Accept.

 

[Tinfect]

As to Tinfect: the presented opinion are a lot of big words, but no actual precise comments. Shrug.

The same could easily be said of your draft, and, in fact, has been. The draft is quite short, and offers no actual, substantive criticism of the target, in favor of an attempted takedown of capital punishment in general. It's an argument to ban capital punishment, which would be technically fine on a resolution, but which fails to actually engage with the target. I think that's exceedingly poor practice, and not something this program should support.

I know there are some people here (although in the minority) that support the death penalty and I understand you'll then oppose this. Fair. But please make constructive comments instead of some generic big words. Also, voting to Accept.

Trying to poison the well like this is not appreciated. I will oppose both of the other GA proposals in this program at vote; my IC opinion, or opinions unrelated to the quality of the draft, have been deliberately set aside for engaging with this program.

 

[Comfed]

Accept.
I’ll have more reasons as soon as I’m at my desktop computer.

 

[saintpeter]

The same could easily be said of your draft, and, in fact, has been. The draft is quite short, and offers no actual, substantive criticism of the target, in favor of an attempted takedown of capital punishment in general. It's an argument to ban capital punishment, which would be technically fine on a resolution, but which fails to actually engage with the target. I think that's exceedingly poor practice, and not something this program should support.

The target offers many good protections; that is not the point. The problem is that - completely unnecessarily - it includes a clause that prohibits the WA from banning the death penalty, which is exactly why TNP opposed this proposal when it was at vote originally. I believe - as did TNP when 500 was at vote - that this is sufficient grounds to oppose the target.

When a proposal explicitly prevents the WA from banning the death penalty, a criticism of the death penalty is in fact substantive criticism of the resolution. I.e. if Resolution X prevents the WA from banning Y, then the WA could very rightfully repeal X in order to ban Y.

You are, of course, free to resubmit 500 without the controversial clause were it to be repealed. In fact, if you don't intend to, I would be perfectly willing to author a replacement myself, but I'll give you the choice.

 

[Cretox]

First off, I'm really glad the charged language was toned down. Also, I've been informed that Saintpeter might be the one submitting this instead of Tinhampton. The only reason for this repeal to exist in the first place is because of the capital punishment blocker in the target: "Reserves to Member-States the right to determine the legality of capital punishment within their jurisdiction".

Because of this, the repeal isn't arguing against the target so much as it's arguing against the death penalty in general. My main question here would be whether the blocker alone warrants repealing the entire target resolution, considering that there are ways to circumvent the blocker and prohibit the death penalty in effect if not explicitly (see GA #443).

In terms of actual writing, I have a problem with these statements:

there is a clear consensus among leading criminologists

very few of those who personally knew victims of homicide

If you want to keep these claims, I suggest rephrasing them along the lines of (4).

This is a weird one, since there's literally only one repeal hook and the repeal is constructed around the idea of that hook instead of the target itself.

 

[Gorundu]

Because of this, the repeal isn't arguing against the target so much as it's arguing against the death penalty in general. My main question here would be whether the blocker alone warrants repealing the entire target resolution, considering that there are ways to circumvent the blocker and prohibit the death penalty in effect if not explicitly (see GA #443).

While ideally the resolution wouldn't have contained the blocker in the first place, I would much rather see a repeal accompanied by a replacement now that it is in effect. For this reason, I must vote to reject the sponsorship for the time being.

 

[saintpeter]

While ideally the resolution wouldn't have contained the blocker in the first place, I would much rather see a repeal accompanied by a replacement now that it is in effect. For this reason, I must vote to reject the sponsorship for the time being.

As I noted, I am perfectly fine writing a replacement, but given that @Tinfect could literally copy-paste 500 without the blocker and submit that, I am awaiting whether she intends to do that upon repeal. If not, I will write a replacement.

 

[saintpeter]

In terms of actual writing, I have a problem with these statements:

there is a clear consensus among leading criminologists

very few of those who personally knew victims of homicide

If you want to keep these claims, I suggest rephrasing them along the lines of (4).

Could you specify what the problem is? In my view, these statements are tangibly different from clause 4, given that a nation could reasonably not suffer from widespread discrimination. This is not true, however, for the effects described in those subclauses, given they are based on foundational human psychology. Someone could argue that nations may not have humans, but in those cases the target resolution also makes no sense, given it makes similar presuppositions based on foundational human psychology (e.g. that people need human interaction).

......

Updated one of the subclauses to align with PEoI.

 

[saintpeter]

I still intend to pursue this. I believe that Tinfect would submit a replacement if the resolution is repealed, so that should address @Gorundu's concern.

 

[saintpeter]

*bump*

 

[Cretox]

*bump*

I think this should really be accompanied by a proposal banning capital punishment outright, for when ICP and P. Innocents are repealed.

• there is a clear consensus among leading criminologists that the death penalty does not reduce homicide rates; and
• very few of those who personally knew victims of homicide report the death penalty as having benefited their closure process at all, adding the emotional baggage of yet another life lost.

I just can't get behind the inclusion of these 2, with statements such as "among leading criminologists" and "very few."

Other than that, tentative support. It's a really simple repeal whose success will mostly come down to external factors.

 

[saintpeter]

I think this should really be accompanied by a proposal banning capital punishment outright, for when ICP and P. Innocents are repealed.


I just can't get behind the inclusion of these 2, with statements such as "among leading criminologists" and "very few."

Other than that, tentative support. It's a really simple repeal whose success will mostly come down to external factors.

Changed the language.

 

[saintpeter]

Major updates done.

 

[Westinor]

Support/Accept.

The language seems fine now, and I agree with the statement by Cretox above.

 

[Comfed]

Accept

 

[Tinfect]

This has been submitted, if anyone's curious: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=greater_cesnica_1610514451

My prior argumentation stands, for the record:

Reject.

The argumentation of the repeal is near-entirely arbitrary or speculative, and where it isn't, it fails to take into account the restrictions on capital punishment imposed by both the target and prior legislation on the subject. The repeal presents an easily deconstructed strawman, and proceeds to deconstruct it. There is no substantive argument against the target. The draft is simply not ready for the support of this program at this time, regardless of one's thoughts on the target resolution.

 

[Gorundu]

After seeing the proposed replacement and some further consideration, I've decided I will continue to vote to reject. The replacement is rather underwhelming and the opportunity to ban capital punishment once and for all, a goal which this proposal is predicated upon, is yet to materialise.

 

[saintpeter]

After seeing the proposed replacement and some further consideration, I've decided I will continue to vote to reject. The replacement is rather underwhelming and the opportunity to ban capital punishment once and for all, a goal which this proposal is predicated upon, is yet to materialise.

I would note that Tinfect is also planning to submit a new version of ICP if repealed which, as far as I understand, would not contain the death penalty clause.

 

[Tinfect]

I would note that Tinfect is also planning to submit a new version of ICP if repealed which, as far as I understand, would not contain the death penalty clause.

This is not true. I have said as much several times. I have never said anything that would imply that I would remove the blocker after repeal, and I have specifically shut this idea down several times, directly to you at least once. You have said this enough that I am only able to assume it is a deliberate lie, and I am tiring of it.
The current backup for International Criminal Protocol, should it be repealed, contains the blocker. Feel free to go read it at your leisure on the NS forums.

 

[saintpeter]

This is not true. I have said as much several times. I have never said anything that would imply that I would remove the blocker after repeal, and I have specifically shut this idea down several times, directly to you at least once. You have said this enough that I am only able to assume it is a deliberate lie, and I am tiring of it.
The current backup for International Criminal Protocol, should it be repealed, contains the blocker. Feel free to go read it at your leisure on the NS forums.

A rather aggressive message. You have not, as far as I know, told me anything directly, nor "shut this idea down several times". In fact, in order to get clarity, I had to ask Cretox to ask you what your plans were. I misremembered what he told me; from what he said (this was in Nov.), your plan was to revise the clause "[r]estricting it more strongly to outright war crimes".

 

[Tinfect]

A rather aggressive message. You have not, as far as I know, told me anything directly, nor "shut this idea down several times". In fact, in order to get clarity, I had to ask Cretox to ask you what your plans were. I misremembered what he told me; from what he said (this was in Nov.), your plan was to revise the clause "[r]estricting it more strongly to outright war crimes".

I have done exactly so every time you or someone else involved in the repeal have repeated the claim, and I have done so several times. I have explained this publicly and privately on countless occasions.
As for what I've told Cretox, that is in fact the case, as reflected in the aforementioned revision on the NS forums

 

[saintpeter]

I have done exactly so every time you or someone else involved in the repeal have repeated the claim, and I have done so several times. I have explained this publicly and privately on countless occasions.
As for what I've told Cretox, that is in fact the case, as reflected in the aforementioned revision on the NS forums

I do not recall you making that claim to me directly, as you claimed. You may have said it in some thread or to someone else, in which case I hadn't seen it. If I did, I wouldn't have contacted Cretox to get clarity.

On the subject, though, it's unfortunate you'd want to include that clause. But your choice.