Capital and Unusual Punishment Act, 2017


  • Admin

    I proposed the following act. The original act was repealed in my absence and I am saddened that my colleagues used such an opportune time to repeal it.

    The European Union has the responsibility to protect the life and liberty of every member of the European Union, and should therefore not allow states to use the law to kill persons convicted of crimes. Capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing. Unusual punishment is torture. Both must be outlawed immediately.

    Capital and Unusual Punishment Act (2017)

    Authored by Edward Firoux, Councillor of Inquista

    With special recognition to the late Sir Eric Pickles

    Section 1 - Definitions

    I. Capital Punishment is defined as a sentence passed upon a person convicted of an offence that requires that the convicted person be killed.

    II. Capital Offence is defined as an offence for which a sentence of capital punishment can be issued.

    III. Non Capital Sentence is defined as a sentence which does not involve the killing of an individual.

    IV. Unusual Punishment is defined as punishment that is extraordinary, degrading, and which inflicts unnecessary and intentional pain.

    Section 2 - Abolition of Capital Punishment, Capital Offences and Unusual Punishment

    I. 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.

    II. All member states shall prohibit capital offences. All persons convicted of capital offences on or after the date of passage of this act shall have their sentences commuted to non-capital sentences.

    III. Unusual Punishment shall henceforth be considered as torture and shall be considered as such under Section V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Section 3 - Overseas Extradition

    I. 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 4 - Implementation & Enforcement

    I. This act shall come into immediate effect on the date of approval and shall override all national laws.

    II. 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.


    Debate shall start NOW and will continue until 04:00 GMT 18 April 2017.

    Voting on amendments will then begin and continue until 04:00 GMT 20 April 2017.

    Final voting will then begin and will continue until 04:00 GMT 23 April 2017.




  • "I authored the previous repeal bill, I stand by my actions in regards to representing the government of Aalen at the time; however, I believe instead of going back and forth on this legislation that possibly a court verdict by the European Court of Justice may be more effective to bring an end to this issue. I will prepare longer comments for later today."- Speaker John Oliver


  • Admin

    That was a short lived Easter miracle. Here we are, disagreeing.

    The notion that this is up to the court to decide is absurd. We are the supreme legislative body of the European Union, what renders us unable to decide? Furthermore, our Courts can't even rule on the issue following its repeal anyway. Our Constitution clearly states that Courts can only determine whether an act or amendment of the European Council is in line with the Constitution, so there needs to be an act or amendment in place to begin with. There is nothing that states that Courts can object to repeals. I'm shocked that the Speaker of this chamber would suggest that we can't decide this for ourselves.


    Edward Firoux,

    Councillor of Inquista



  • Admin

    My simple question is who is defining the unusual punishment. A term that vague can be abused in common law courts.

    Julia Hartley-Brewer

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain


  • Admin

    Good question. The bill simply defines unusual punishment as punishment that is extraordinary, degrading, and which inflicts unnecessary and intentional pain. However, of course, the interpretation of what constitutes extraordinary or unnecessary punishment will be at the discretion of the residing justice at whichever court. Leaving the interpretation to courts will be the most sensible and practical move going forward. Anyone who vaguely remembers the Animal Rights and Animal Cruelty Act knows that trying to spell out each crime is logistical and bureaucratic disaster.


    Edward Firoux,

    Councillor of Inquista


  • Admin

    Thank you for clarifying the consequences. So it will be up to the judiciary of the home nation?


  • Admin

    And if there is a challenge at the European level, will the European Court step in and invalidate long standing legislative and traditional modes of punishment?


  • Admin

    Yes, it will be up to the judiciary of the home nation to make the interpretation, as that is where the sentencing is occurring. The ECoJ, of course, doesn't make such sentencing, and doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so. Member states can only be brought up to the ECoJ should they violate or fail to uphold our Constitution or the laws passed by our Council. I suppose, as per normal, if there is sufficient evidence that a member state has failed to uphold this legislation, then a plaintiff could formally bring up a case to ECoJ. Section II, Clause III of this Act proposes that unusual punishment shall be considered as torture, so then it would be a case of the ECoJ in making a ruling on whether a state is upholding Section V of the UDoHR or not. However, that is the specific duty of our Court, and Constitution explicitly states that the ECoJ is the supreme judicial authority of and in the European Union, so I don't believe it is overstepping its boundaries at all.

    For the record, Section V, Clause IV of the UDoHR already guarantees protection from cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment, but provides absolutely no basis of what this consists of. This Act would be a step in the right direction, by clarifying a contextual basis, providing a definition, and actually equating it to torture, which the UDoHR does not consider.


    Edward Firoux,

    Councillor of Inquista


  • Admin

    I thank Councillor Firoux again. Would it be possible to define torture in an appendix to this legislation more fully?

    Julia Hartley-Brewer

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain


  • Admin

    No problem. We probably ought to pursue that, but I'm not entirely sure how we could reconcile such a proposal with the current format of this proposal. It would probably be best to propose such a thing separately, just to keep things relatively clean.

    Edward Firoux,

    Councillor of Inquista


  • Admin

    As no amendments have been proposed, this shall go directly to final voting.


    On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote FOR this act.


    Edward Firoux,

    Councillor of Inquista




  • The Federal Republic of Derecta votes FOR this act.

    Julian Maverick,

    Derectan Councillor




  • The State Turkmenbaijan vote AGAINST


  • Admin

    I, Julia Hartley-Brewer, on behalf of The United Kingdom of Great Britain, vote FOR this legislation.



  • I, Devayani Chakpram as councillor pro tem for Gallambria, vote For this legislation.



  • I, John Oliver, on behalf of the 3rd Serene Republic of Aalen vote FOR the Capital and Unusual Punishment Act, 2017


  • Admin

    I, Gisela Stuart, on behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, vote AGAINST this Bill



  • I vote AGAINST this bill



  • I vote FOR this bill



  • HM's government votes FOR the Capital and Unusual Punishment Act of 2017.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.