by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

8

DispatchBulletinCampaign

by The Official Account of 10KI WA Secretariat. . 47 reads.

GA "Repeal: "International Criminal Protocol"" Voting Overview

Overview

Proposal:
This proposal aims to repeal “International Criminal Protocol” on the basis that said proposal allows capital punishment.

Opinions:

For:

HumanSanity wrote:That said I'm personally leaning For and voted For in the poll because, while the existing replacements aren't up to snuff, a WA wide death penalty ban should happen. The death penalty is one of the most clearly horrendous government policies we delude ourselves into thinking is justified. Since the poll is tied, my vote breaks the tie and I'll be recasting my vote in favor.

Shy Guyia wrote: Hi guys. Welcome to my TED-talk about the top 10 Arguments against the death penalty.

1) You could kill an innocent person

Thank you for your time.

For. The replacement could just be the target resolution without the capital punishment part.

Qvait wrote:Judicial murder is a cruel and unusual punishment that must be universally abolished. Under no circumstances should we allow the continued existence of a punishment that is often torturous and amorally used in the name of revenge, not justice.

Against:

Fauxia wrote:Capital punishment is already effectively illegal with GA #443. Not that we support that. Forced abolition of the death penalty is the play of condescending, wealthy nations against those that are less fortunate.

But considering the target resolution does very little of substance in regards to capital punishment, while the rest of its clauses are acceptable, and apparently the author has acted dishonestly and the replacement is insufficient, absolutely against.

Tepertopia wrote:I think the benefits of the original resolution outweigh the concerns of the proposal at hand enough. We unanimously voted for the original ‒ in its entirety, contrary to the proposal's allegations, as I even mentioned the passage about the death penalty in my statement, so at least OWL voters would have been aware ‒ and I stand by our original arguments, especially with this proposal effectively only being a long ideological denunciation, more or less relying on the precedent of GA#438 "Repeal 'Crime and Punishment'" and the subsequent GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" alone.

Don't get me wrong ‒ I do think the death penalty isn't something to be proud of and should be avoided whenever possible, but I can understand that sometimes, in the most exceptional and severe of cases, lifetime imprisonment wouldn't be considered to fully bring justice. I'm therefore very much in favor of having this policy of allowing (not requiring or encouraging or similarly valuing approaches) the individual member-state to determine for itself its legality as a compromise ‒ which I believe to be the best approach to settling such morally highly controversial debates ‒, also keeping in mind that GA#443, the resolution passed following the cited precedent, already puts very sensible restrictions on executions (so far even that some call it a de facto ban on capital punishment!) and thus very effectively ensures due process as humanely as possible and watches closely on capital convictions being doubtlessly airtight.

Boston Castle wrote: Against. This is an ideological argument dressed up with the window dressing of a repeal.


RawReport