Extradition Bill [Passed]

[Verily]

I motion to for an amendment to change the wording to "...where he or she may receive cruel and unusual punishment for that crime."

After all, we should be consistent with the Constitution.

[Verily]

I motion to for an amendment to change the wording to "...where he or she may receive cruel and unusual punishment for that crime."

I cannot support this unless you specifically define cruel and unusual punishment to include the death penalty.  Otherwise you're going to ruin the purpose of this bill.  Cruel and unusual punishment (i.e. torture) for foreign-based prisoners is covered in another bill of mine that should be on the floor soon anyway.

How about "...where he or she may receive punishment in excess of that which would be administered in Atlasia."

(Bah, that's clunky wording.)

[Verily]

Nope.  I was referring to actual third  world countries.

It really can't be read that way in context, but if you want to back away from the statement, that's fine by me.

Signed,
Your Friendly "Repressive Backwater" Senator

He called the Northeast a "repressive backwater" but not a "third world hellhole".

Fortunately, I know what the next proposition I bring before the Northeast in October will be. It's really unfortunate we have no laws recorded in the Wiki after October 2005.

/Back on-topic

[Verily]

I've changed my mind about the amendment, especially after becoming aware that Ebowed has other proposals coming up about treatment of extraditees.

Nay

[Verily]

I believe the federal government, not the Northeast, would be in control of the extradition process, so the Northeast's policy on executions would not be relevant.

FWIW, the Northeast is likely to have banned capital punishment by this time next month.

[Verily]

Nay. This wording would suggest that Regions have the power to have direct dealings with foreign countries, which they do not.

[Verily]

Aye