Repeal: Abolition of Capital Punishment Act
Abolition of Capital Punishment Act 2015
Author- Authored by Rt Hon Sir Eric Pickles CEDM, Councillor for Davishire
Section 1- Definitions
1a- Capital Punishment- A sentence passed upon a person convicted of an offence that requires that the convicted person be killed.
1b- Capital Offence- An offence for which a sentence of capital punishment can be issued.
1c- Non Capital Sentence- A sentence which does not involve the killing of an individual.
Section 2- Abolition of Capital Punishment
a- All member states shall cease in the sentencing and implementation of capital punishment for those convicted of any offence on or after the date of passage of this act with immediate effect in times of peace. In times of war, capital punishment shall be permitted with regards to military personnel of belligerent states.
b- Those persons sentenced to capital punishment prior to the passage of this act will have their sentences commuted to a non-capital sentence.
Section 3- Capital Offences
a- As a result of the passage of this act, there shall be no capital offences in times of peace. This does not apply to military personnel of belligerent states in times of war.
Section 4- Overseas Extradition
a- No member state can extradite an accused person to a state outside of the European Union where capital punishment is in operation and is a possible sentence for the crimes of which a person be accused.
Section 5- Implementation & Enforcement
a- This act shall come into immediate effect on the date of approval and shall override all national laws.
b- The implementation of this act shall be overseen by the Office for the Commission of Internal Affairs.
c- Failure to implement this act or actions which are a breach of this act as specified shall result in legal action through the European Court of Justice.
The Duxburian Union believes that this act cannot possibly be allowed to stand if the Council is seriously considering repealing the Cannabis Act. The Capital Punishment Act only passed 7 to 5, vs 12 to 7 for Cannabis. The act crushes national sovereignty, having forced nations to commute-down existing sentences against their will and having decided how they can punish their own people, with no clear benefit to their legal system. The act also came into effect immediately, overriding all national laws. The only legal way to comply with this act was to do so immediately, with no transition period. Yet, 6 months is not enough for certain other acts? The amount of hypocrisy flowing through the Council right now deserves a sentence of capital punishment.
Councillor of the Duxburian Union
Debate on the repeal proposal ends at 18:33 GMT, 29/10/15
Voting on the repeal proposal ends at 18:33 GMT, 1/11/15
"Councillor Devoy, is tit for tat really the way forward?"
To enforce the legitimacy of the European Council and the integrity of democratic rule? Absolutely!
Councillor of the Duxburian Union
"You realise how hard you make it for us nations not embroiled in this conflict, and want the EUs powers but just simply disagree with the acts?"
There is rule of law, or there is anarchy. There is no conflict.
Nobody is going to be pleased with European legislation all of the time. This is the point of voting and democracy, to decide what we should or shouldn't do, in the fairest way possible. If you disagree with something, build a majority opinion against it. Don't make 23 amendments, drag your heels over the course of 6 months, and then declare that you won't follow the law, as Davishire has done. Davishire had 6 months to repeal the Cannabis Act, and it did absolutely nothing until the deadline for compliance and legal action was threatened. All of our existing legislation is threatened by this precedent, and I intend to challenge as many of our acts as it takes for councillors to stand up and defend the institution.
Councillor of the Duxburian Union
"I think you have made your point, that is why we must use every bit of our power to block that repeal, at least until legal action has taken place"
It saddens me to now see this on the Council floor. I can't believe that state-sanctioned killing is now back on the table for repeal. This barrage of repeals and feverous proclamation of national sovereignty is completely undermining the EU and its laws and institutions.
I definitely agree with your point Councillor Devoy and I will take a stand and defend our institutions. However, that is why I am precisely against this. Capital punishment is a murderous form of cruel and unusual punishment. Safety from capital punishment should be a basic human right, and really should be in our UDHoR in the first place. The EU should take human rights very seriously, and should safeguard people from actors that seek to infringe upon these rights. If the EU is to repeal this Act, then this will be a serious blow to our institutions and everything this organization stands for.
This argument of precedent is very dangerous. Now that the Nuclear Weapons Act has been repealed, with Cannabis possibly awaiting the same fate, and this now on the table, then it is clear that this supposed precedent despises constitutional rule and democracy. While I am glad that I will be opposing both of these repeals on that table, I realise that I really should have taken a stand and should of voted against the repeal of the Nuclear Weapons Act as well. I'm glad that I at least didn't vote in favour for it, because it seems that it has now opened the flood gate for individual Councillors to cry disfranchisement, national sovereignty and as one Weissian Councillor described the Council, a place of "tyranny of the majority". Is that what democracy is called now? Is the EU now seen as a place that interferes too much in member sates, one that shouldn't be trusted with keeping nuclear weapons in check, one that shouldn't concern itself for drugs in the region, and one that shouldn't guarantee its people freedom from cruel punishment? If this is the new precedent, then I will most definitely be voting against this too.
Also, the tit-for-tat politics is really petty by the way. What is the phrase that kids use thee days to show disappointment? Something like SMH? SMH.
"If the Union would revoke this motion, perhaps instead we could form a bloc of nations, a temporary party, to prevent the repeals for the time being and begin pushing through actual legislation, and protect the EU?"
I find myself firmly agreeing with the Councillor of Poretos, for once. The EU is definitely lacking a progressive voice. Euroscepticism has taken an increasingly larger hold on the region, and along with the mistrust of the EU, war and militarisation has also become widespread across the region. If anything, all these repeals show why we so badly need to reform the Europarty system, and why we desperately need organised caucuses.
This is a disgrace and utter disgrace.We are in a constitutional crisis and need to be locked down. We need council dissolved immediately.
Thank you Councillor even if the 'for once; was a bit firm. Councillor Norreport, are you truly suggesting that or can you just see no vioable alternative? Because such a step would mean no legislation could take place at all, and this could not have come at a worse time considering the ECOJ and Commision are unable to respond, we must provide a response.
We should shut down this chamber until the new commission is settled in and can be of service
Councillor I agree but how?
Inimicus last edited by
"I do see the Duxburian Councillor's point in this. If the Cannabis Act is an infringement on national sovereignity, this Act most definitly, without doubt, is, too. As a matter of fact, the Inimician government sees this as a great deal more important matter than the legalisation of Cannabis. I applaud the DU councillor's thinking and will support his point of view.
Ralph Jaevons, Councillor on behalf of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Artabanos of Inimicus
Framptonia last edited by
In the original debate on this Act, Framptonia abstained on the grounds that the Act allowed Capital Punishment under certain circumstances and whilst we supported the abolition of capital punishment in most instances we could not vote in favour of an Act that allowed for capital punishment, even if the circumstances were obscure.
There is no comparison between the repeals of the Abolition of Capital Punishment Act and the EU Cannabis Act. The reason that there is a difference is because the allowance of capital punishment is a breach of Section III of Article V of the Constitution of the European Union.
When joining the Union every nation agrees to give up an element of its sovereignty. It seems very odd that some states want to impose their views about cannabis usage on other nations in order to grant their nationals rights to use cannabis in other countries, yet at the same time we have nations wanting the right to kill their own citizens.
This absolute and totally arrant nonsense. Councillor Devoy should be ashamed at bringing this repeal to the Council Chamber. While Framptonia abstained in the initial vote on the Act, it will vote against this repeal.
"I voted against the ACPA in the first place, and I will vote for this repeal should it actually make it to vote, on much the same grounds that I have consistently opposed the Nuclear Weapons Act and the European Cannabis Act. Cllr. Hughes and Cllr. Firoux make the point that capital punishment may be a breach of the UDoHR, and they may well be right - but that, of course, is an issue for the ECoJ."
"But this, of course, actually has nothing to do with the death penalty, and everything to do with cannabis. In that instance, I suppose I ought to reiterate again that, yes, I opposed both originally, and am in favour of the repeal of both; but I also ought to point out that capital punishment, like nuclear weaponry, is a much graver issue, a much more cross-border issue - should nations be able to execute citizens of other EU member-states, for instance? - than the legal status of cannabis, and therefore is a much more valid issue for Europolis to get involved in. What is so dangerous, so insulting, about the European Cannabis Act is its sheer triviality. It, unlike this and unlike the NWA, is a case of this Chamber coming up with an extraordinarily minor issue that arguably need not even be dealt with at the national level, let alone the European level, and deciding to make it a European-level issue."
Halsberg last edited by
Voting on this motion of repeal is now open.
I, Rachel Reeves, on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland vote AGAINST this repeal.
I, Peter Montfort, on behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, vote FOR this repeal.
On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this repeal.