Voting In Progress: Charter Amendment Proposal | Painless Death Amendment

Well as you already know (since this is an amendment) according to Chapter 1 of the constitution....

All forms of execution are prohibited except lethal injection...

I'm probably going to abstain or say no to this one because not many countries probably don't need this added in.

We want to do without lethal injection, for reasons we'd like to keep to ourselves, but the idea of abolishing the death penalty is unfathomable to us.

-Secretary of Justice

btw, the name of the new option is a link, in case you didn't know

When will this go to voting?

(btw, have any of you checked out the link?)

Gansbaai thinks this is a good idea. However are prices for doing this higher than other forms of death? If so this may be one thing Gansbaai does not need to spend more money on. And even if it was, executioners usually take matters into their own hands.

(USNW aside, this is actually a pretty interesting thing)

^ Under the union's constitution, it seems you're not allowed to perform executions other than lethal injection. So im kinda curious on what you have.

Androidboi: This is a proposed amendment to the constitution.

So this:

"All forms of execution are prohibited except lethal injection..."

isn't part of the current constitution?

No, its an amendment, like how up until 1960 or so, Washington DC had didn't get to vote for president, but with a constitutional amendment, DC citizens could now vote for president. Same with the Painless Death Amendment.

androidboi wrote:So this:

"All forms of execution are prohibited except lethal injection..."

isn't part of the current constitution?

That is part of the constitution, this proposed amendment would add Nitrogen Asphyxiation to the accepted methods of execution.

The delegation from Republic of Insulo would also like to inquire about the cost, as this is a cost that would be borne on provincial governments, not the federal government, and we would like the correct authorities to be informed on this matter.

Otherwise we support this proposal.

voted.

Voted

Calma feels it is best to invest in new technology, methods and ideas and approves of the amendment. Currently Calma does not have anyone awaiting execution, however it is good to have it in place in case of need.

This Amendment has been enacted by a vote of 4-3-1.

When will we see Amendment 1 officialy posted?

As this is a Charter Amendment it requires a 2/3 majority, so we will move this back to the voting chamber, it needs two more yes's to pass.

if someone abstains, does that mean it still needs 2/3 of the 8 voters to pass? or is it 9 now?

2/3 of all the members have to vote yes, abstains doesn't change that, the just don't count as a yes or a no, although they kind of act like a no.

Abstains don't act as a no Chip it means that the voter doesn't care

K50, they still mean you don't care and that counts against a yes, so it acts as a no. You still have to have the same amount of yeses, so when you abstain you're pretty much voting no.