NationStates Jolt Archive

Too long, didn't read: Are you for or against the death penalty?

Greetings all,

The Community of Wabasso is a relatively new nation. Myself and the governing bodies feel it is our duty to be close with not only our community, but the communities of other nations. The more points of view, the better.

The time has come for our nation to decide on whether the death penalty will be implemented. We believe the government should make swift and definite decisions, so this issue will not be dismissed. The decision leaves only two options, Yes or No.

As Wabasso's leader and representative, I ask other nations to share their opinions and reasons for making a choice either way. As it may be apparent, my current stance is undecided.

PRO: I feel that the death penalty may serve as justice in certain murder cases, especially multiple homocides.

CON: No judicial system will ever generate a 100% guarantee on whether the suspect was the actual criminal, in 100% of the cases. The risk of executing an innocent individual is always at risk.

Something else to consider: Our community believes in the preservation of human life to the extent that situations should be resolved in a way which saves the maximum number of lives. For example, we negotiate with terrorists if meeting their demands means that less life is lost than attempting to have them neutralized (including the lives of the terrorists).

My apologies if this issue has already been brought to this forum. If so, I ask kindly to be directed to the thread, and I will move my thoughts there.

How is killing two people make the world any better?
the death penalty should be abolished

^^ i agree. ''death penalty'' is murder in itself, and totally contradictory. also, it hasnt stopped crime at all. therefore, it is useless

The Socialist Republic retains the death penalty not as a method of deterrant or punishment, but because it is a practical measure. The simple truth is that, despite the best efforts of the criminal justice system, some people simply cannot be rehabilitated or drawn away from a criminal lifestyle. For those people, it is not only impractical and wasteful to keep them alive, but also potentially dangerous; especially when working within a system that generally releases criminals after a set time period.

In the Socialist Republic, we adhere to a system built upon the primary remedies of rehabilitation and execution. As a moderate and responsible state, it is not our place to say when a criminal has been adequately punished or its victims fully compensated. In the execution of our judicial role, it is our duty solely to maintain order for the society we administrate and the safety of the people we govern. Once this principle is acknowledged, our strategy becomes clear. When a criminal is convicted by Xanthalian courts, they are dispatched to a rehabilitation center, where through disciplinary and educational action we hope to condition them for release into society as law-abiding productive citizens. When a rehabilitation center determines that this is not possible or, alternatively, when an individual is convicted of crimes repeatedly despite attempts at rehabilitation, the offender is destroyed. In this manner, we effectively create a system that simultaneously achieves substantial deterrance and a high criminal rehabilitation success rate.

In short, our recommendation on the maintenance of your nation's death penalty depends almost completely upon how the state applies it. The use of execution as a means in itself, without carefully designed systems of apprehension, trial, and rehabilitation surrounding it, is, in our opinion, an ultimately fruitless practice. If criminals are killed without adequate opportunity to demonstrate their innocence, in an attempt to dissuade others from committing criminal acts, or in a spirit of vengeance or repayment, their execution is unlikely to yield positive results. It should also be noted that a civilization having inadequate civil, economic, and political freedoms or a sizable faction living in poor conditions will retain a rebellious spirit regardless of the reigning authority's attempts to quell it. However, in a free, stable, and prosperous society the institution of the death penalty as a practical measure to be implemented on citizens that cannot feasibly be made to function as lawful and productive members of that society is not an unreasonable proposition and can actually increase efficiency when carefully integrated into law and procedure.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The Allied States of Gun Manufacturers feels that the death penalty is a waste. Due to the way our court system is structured, if we were to sentence someone to death, it would end up costing more than keeping that person alive and incarcerated for the remainder of their life. This is due to court costs, lawyer fees, and other miscellaneous expenses caused by the automatically allowed appeals they would receive.

If the prescription and execution of the death penalty is so costly, the means to the end are inefficient. If further appeal and trial is required to determine the true guilt of the convicted, we would argue that the party should not have been convicted in the first place. The prescription of the death penalty should not entitle the accused to a greater margin of doubt on the part of the judiciary. If it does, the inescapable implication is that the judicial system does not give adequate consideration to the potential innocence of the accused by default, a sure sign of unacceptably low standards for determining guilt. Our argument remains the same as previously noted.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Fellow associates,

In introduction, we feel it is no other nation's business how you choose to run yours, nor what you choose to do concerning your criminals. We have always been, and shall remain, strong proponents of sovereign right. Giving away that right to others, we believe, is unwise and opens the door, however slightly, to meddling in your inernal affairs by outside influences later.

That being said, we are for the death penalty, when the situation calls for it. We do not see the gain in warehousing those who have little to no chance of being productive members of our society - while we do not hold this to be the case with all criminals, it is a simple fact that there will always be those who are unsalvageable.

It is also our belief that a strong system of law be in place to discourage such transgressions to begin with, and to actively pursue those who do choose to cross the line.

While we believe in due process, unlike some nations, we do not believe in dragging the judicial process out for interminable lengths of time, and hence do not overtax the legal system, or our citizens on account. Nor do we feel that with the technology available today that the risk is high of terminating innocents. If something unfortunate as that were to occur, we are of the strong belief that it is better that an innocent be put to death wrongly than thousands of guilty be allowed to go unpunished, or that we allow the justice system to become unweildly and toothless.

I suppose in summary the question becomes this - will you act for the greater good, and in the interest of the majority of your people, or will you allow the handful of those who prove themselves incapable or unwilling of adding to your society to in essence dictate your laws?

Either way, we will of course respect your choice, and your right to make it. Best of luck with your deliberations.

--Cesare Calabrese, Dominion Chancellor

Thank you for your well-thought-out replies. Dread Lady Nathicana, the final decision is always my own. Thank you for offering your opinion in spite of your warning.

We have decided to implement the death penalty. We believe that the judicial system combined with the advanced state of criminal forensics will be capable of properly considering each case.

Opinions to the contrary did not provide much support for their stance.