[GA, defeated] - Murderers get nothing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Murderers get nothing
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform
Proposed by: Barfleur | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Reluctant to interfere with the legal systems of member nations when not necessary to secure a fundamental sapient right, but nonetheless

Of the mind that it is a manifest injustice for a sapient being who has unlawfully killed another sapient being to profit from such killing,

Hereby enacts as follows:
  1. Definitions.
    In this Resolution:
    1. "person" means any sapient being and includes any sentient being or machine recognized by law as being a person,
    2. "murder" means the killing of a person, in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in which such killing took place, when the perpetrator acted with intent to kill the victim or a third party, and
    3. "court of competent jurisdiction" means the relevant court or tribunal of a member nation having jurisdiction over the crime.

  2. Profit bar.
    Where a person stands convicted of murder (whether as a principal, accessory, or co-conspirator) and the conviction has become final on direct appeal or collateral review, the court of competent jurisdiction shall issue an order:
    1. forbidding the person to receive any money or any other thing of value, whether from inheritance, life insurance, as payment for a contract killing, or otherwise, as a direct result of the murder, and
    2. directing the person to disgorge, in a manner to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction, any money or property so obtained.

  3. Disposal of tainted assets.
    Money or property disgorged under section 2 shall be disposed of:
    1. by transferring or dividing the same as provided in the last will and testament of the deceased, in the case of money or property obtained by virtue of inheritance, except that no such money or property shall be transferred to a person convicted of the murder of the deceased,
    2. by transferring or dividing the same among dependents and named beneficiaries, in the case of money or property obtained by virtue of life insurance, excluding any person convicted of the murder of the deceased,
    3. by forfeiting the same to the state, in the case of money or property obtained as payment for a contract killing, and
    4. as provided by the law, in any other case.

  4. Further provisions.
    Member nations are strongly encouraged, but not required, to enact legislation forbidding individuals convicted of murder to profit from the licensing of any first-person account of the commission of such murder.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
15401
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution bans anyone convicted of a murder from gaining from certain funds resulting from the said murder, for example (as cited in the resolution), if person A kills person B, and person A was originally entitled to inheriting life insurance money from person B, that money is disgorged. There is an additional emphasis on contract killings. It also prevents sidelines like murderers earning royalties books based on the murder.

Recommendation
Members of the Ministry have expressed significant concerns over the definitions on "murder", "intent", as well as its significant intervention over local blood inheritance law, such as per stirpes vs per capita laws. We believe the intent of the resolution is worthy but there are substantial nagging concerns that are likely to result in significant repeal-and-replace efforts on this resolution even if it passes.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote GA resolution, "Murderers get nothing".
 
Last edited:
The title is a bit cute by half for me but the WA lacks much in the way of standards nowadays so why not.

For
 
That definition of murder is rather questionable, but I don’t think it has any impact on the proposal’s substantive merits, so I will vote for this.
 
I have some nagging concerns that this means the WA is barging into inheritance laws, which really I think is not something that I am genuinely comfortable with in terms of being an international issue. Am switching from For to Against until I figure this out:

Actually I should have caught this as it's basic probate law, but anyway:

  • Clause 3(b) does not define if the "beneficiaries" refer to the beneficiaries of the dead or beneficiaries of the murderer.
  • Now say if person A is a son of person B, and person B murdered person C, who is person B's father, it's not clear if person A is disinherited as a result
  • And as IA points out, if the above is correct, under 3(a), if person B is the murderer, and person C has no will, and if local laws go per stirpes, and say person C's children are B, X, Y, Z, the funds go to X, Y and Z rather than to B, so A is punished for something that was not A's fault.
 
Last edited:
The definion of "person" within section 1.a (especially "[...] or machine recognized by law as being a person") sounds rather strange to my ears.

Otherwise, despite maybe getting a bit away from the usual field of international law, the whole proposition does make sense.

For
 
Ansgard McCartnon:
The definion of "person" within section 1.a (especially "[...] or machine recognized by law as being a person") sounds rather strange to my ears.

Otherwise, despite maybe getting a bit away from the usual field of international law, the whole proposition does make sense.

For
Click to expand...

There's quite a bit of concerns about it overstepping into domestic blood inheritance laws and that being "not something the WA should get involved in"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top