NationStates Jolt Archive

As a delegate I cannot approve of this proposal. It uses the ideal of "two wrongs do not make a right".

This is an opinion, maybe even judgemental, but NOT the reason the death penalty should be banned.

The fact is that a death penalty is pronouced by fallible human beings, and further, this penalty, once carried out is irrevocable.

My country has the death penalty for several criminal acts, hence, we will not support this proposal. Although some people believe that this is within the UN's jurisdiction because it is a human rights issue, we tend to disagree. Anyone who violates someone else's right to life gives up their own. The people of Har Akir overwhelmingly reaffirmed their approval of the death penalty in a referendum. Citizens had the choice to abolish executions for horribel crimes, but they would have to absorb the cost of maintaining the life of said criminals. 99.8% voted to retain our current criminal justice system. Dead criminals cost nothing. Prisoners with life sentences are very expensive.


Chair of the Har Akir Business Bureau
Prime Minister of the Borderlands
UN delegate for the realm of Thirteen Sixty-nines

We have the death penalty only for the worst criminals such as Islamic Extremists & Terrorists, Rapists and Repeat Murderers.

We also have the death penalty for extreme offenders.

Capital punishment has the big disadvantage to be irreversible. This means, that, since humans tend to fail, sometimes innocent peole are sentenced to death. It is the opinion of all Rejistanian parties, that our state never will install capital punishment, since no one wants to risk the death of an innocent person.

We have the death penalty only for the worst criminals such as Islamic Extremists & Terrorists, Rapists and Repeat Murderers.

What about Christian, Buddhist, Hindi, Jewish, Taoist, and Sikh extremists and terrorists?

We have the death penalty only for the worst criminals such as Islamic Extremists & Terrorists, Rapists and Repeat Murderers.

What about Christian, Buddhist, Hindi, Jewish, Taoist, and Sikh extremists and terrorists?


The concept of a Taoist terrorist is a bit of an oxymoron. The same for Buddhist. Although Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, they certainly have the lion's share. Christians would be #2.

We have the death penalty only for the worst criminals such as Islamic Extremists & Terrorists, Rapists and Repeat Murderers.

You single out one faith and then put it in the same grouping as rapists and cerial killers...?

The concept of a Taoist terrorist is a bit of an oxymoron. The same for Buddhist. Although Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, they certainly have the lion's share. Christians would be #2.

From an American perspective perhaps, to many the US has a near monopoly on terrorism.

Anyways death penalty = bad because:

- Its irreversible and people can and have made mistakes
- It lowers the state to the level of the criminal
- Its based purely on getting revenge rather than dealing with crime
- It is not an effective deterrant
- It is based on primative concepts of people being good or evil.

and some other reasons too probably but those should do for now.

my country believes in capital punishment. We believe it is a good way to root out the "bad weeds" in our gene pool. Also we have quite a humane way of executing our criminals.

We have the death penalty only for the worst criminals such as Islamic Extremists & Terrorists, Rapists and Repeat Murderers.

What about Christian, Buddhist, Hindi, Jewish, Taoist, and Sikh extremists and terrorists?


The concept of a Taoist terrorist is a bit of an oxymoron. The same for Buddhist. Although Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, they certainly have the lion's share. Christians would be #2.

Actually I'd say historically Christians are #1. If you will look at the Thirty Years War, 1/3 of Germany's population was killed in the name of God. During the Crusades, the Christian crusaders were usually less tolerant than the Muslims towards conquered peoples, etc.

Becuase of the threat of an innocent person being executed (and therefore the delegitimization of the State), The Commonwealth The Global Market uses the death penalty only in the most extreme of circumstances and the standard of proof is much higher than in non-capital cases. Otherwise our criminals are put to forced labor.

Capital punishment has the big disadvantage to be irreversible. This means, that, since humans tend to fail, sometimes innocent peole are sentenced to death. It is the opinion of all Rejistanian parties, that our state never will install capital punishment, since no one wants to risk the death of an innocent person.

Ah, but what about the risk of a paroled known killer murdering another innocent person?

At least in my nation, imposition of capital punishment requires not only a unanimous jury opinion (on top of the unanimous vote to convict), but also the concurrence of trial judges, appellate courts and the Supreme Court. At each appellate level, the court can reduce the sentence, should that court find even the slightest hint of doubt of the convict's guilt. We are satisfied that the number of possible executions of persons who did not commit the murder for which they were convicted is likely to be much smaller than the number of innocent victims who would likely be murdered by potentially-released convicted killers.

Opponents of capital punishment are fond of the aphorism that "Better than one hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished." I ask them, what of the cost in lives of innocent citizens? Are the lives of victims of crime less valuable than those of criminals?

Capital punishment has the big disadvantage to be irreversible. This means, that, since humans tend to fail, sometimes innocent peole are sentenced to death. It is the opinion of all Rejistanian parties, that our state never will install capital punishment, since no one wants to risk the death of an innocent person.

Ah, but what about the risk of a paroled known killer murdering another innocent person?

At least in my nation, imposition of capital punishment requires not only a unanimous jury opinion (on top of the unanimous vote to convict), but also the concurrence of trial judges, appellate courts and the Supreme Court. At each appellate level, the court can reduce the sentence, should that court find even the slightest hint of doubt of the convict's guilt. We are satisfied that the number of possible executions of persons who did not commit the murder for which they were convicted is likely to be much smaller than the number of innocent victims who would likely be murdered by potentially-released convicted killers.

Opponents of capital punishment are fond of the aphorism that "Better than one hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished." I ask them, what of the cost in lives of innocent citizens? Are the lives of victims of crime less valuable than those of criminals?

If a criminal kills an innocent man, the criminal is morally responsible.

If the state kills an innocent man, not only is it morally responsible but it also loses its legitimacy... thus justifying regime change.

In addition, most murders do not come from things like serial killers but from your run of the mill one-time-murders. Of course, a SINGLE Judge/State Attorney named Roland Freisler in 3 years executed more people than every single murderer in the history of the 20th century.

The state must be held to a different standard than a criminal. When the death penalty is applied it must be applied with a higher standard of proof than a normal conviction.

Why do we kill people, who kill people, so we can show people that killing people is wrong?

Why do we kill people, who kill people, so we can show people that killing people is wrong?

amen my friend.

Why do we kill people, who kill people, so we can show people that killing people is wrong?

I think we should be aware of who we're killing, though. Like what was earlier stated, its not just one-time murderers that are executed. It includes multiple murderers that wouldn't mind killing others while in prison, or if they escaped.

The difference between a murderer and the state is that the state aims to protect its citizens, and if that means that they must break misleading moral codes that this quote suggests, I'm supportive of that.

From an American perspective perhaps, to many the US has a near monopoly on terrorism.

Well, it is times like these that I wonder how we can EVER agree on anything. If I wasn't used to the steady barrage of anti-US sentiment on this site, I would be quite insulted and enraged. But I guess I can classify my mood as irritated- enough so that I am having difficulty responding. I guess I should be used to hearing things that I know to be complete rubbish. I firmly believe that those in the world who think of the United States as a terrorist entity are simply brainwashed by some form of propoganda. Can someone who is not as connected to this issue respond to this please? I have to change the subject, lest a steady barrage of flame quality material begins pouring from my fingertips...

so...as for the death penalty...
- Its based purely on getting revenge rather than dealing with crime

Not in my country. I don't ascribe to an eye for an eye. I simply don't want to pay for the upkeep of a criminal. Why should he sit on his ass and have productive members of society pay for his meals? I am working on severe labor camps as a "humanitarian" alternitive. The criminal has a choice- they can accept their death sentence, or can pay their debt to society by working in one of these intensive, high security labor camps, where they will perform undesireable or dangerous tasks for the government as a way of paying for their continued upkeep, as well as the cost of their security. Slacking off, however, will not be tolerated- their death sentence will always be waiting. An effective incentive to work well.

Having made the abolition of slavery a matter of international law, humanity is ready to take the next big step and end state-sponsored murder. The death penalty is a relic from our barbaric past and ought to be abolished, so that future generations can live in an enlightened world.

Ursoria has never regretted its decision to abolish capital punishment. We can't teach our children respect for human life by killing people!!!

My view on the death penalty is a rather unconventional one, I've found. When I say that I support the death penalty, I generally get flamed, until I explain the reasoning; thus, I'll explain now, rather than get flamed.

My view on the death penalty is, that someone has committed a horrible crime. This person can feel two things at this point: either overwhelming regret and guilt, or not much regret or guilt. If the person is feeling overwhelming regret and guilt, they aren't going to get over it very soon. It'll haunt them for the rest of their life. And if they don't feel much regret or guilt, then they're insane. Either way, killing the perpetrator of a horrible crime is not revenge, but mercy, a way of putting him or her out of his or her misery.

I think this is something that individual nations should be allowed to decide for themselves; let's not have too much U.N. interference, shall we?

In The Rogue states of Rabid liberals, contrary to our name, we support a death sentences that fit the crime. Thus, a rapist who strangled his victims to death would him(or her)self be asphyxiated. I don't want the UN messing with this deterrent, personally.

We don't have the death penalty over here.
We've got what's called a 'Compulsory Post-Natal Abortion' system, in which people with 'criminal tendencies', or who are 'too damn bright for their own good' are quickly and efficiently discovered and are subjected to a fast and safe post-natal abortion.
Then their immediate families are 'sterilised' (subjected to an abortion) and their possesions are claimed by the state.

I like to kidnap those "too smart for their own good" and put them to work under me. Rebels have the best work ethic around, actually, because they care about what they stand for.

I firmly believe that those in the world who think of the United States as a terrorist entity are simply brainwashed by some form of propoganda.

Says the pot to the kettle.

Catholic Europe will not support the proposal to 'ban the death penalty'. We feel that the death penalty is not only a deterrant to would-be criminals but a justified punishment against the people who commit the most severe and evil of crimes.

Hey I can post here?! Im not in the UN, anyway we belive strongly in the death penalty, first of all its a detterrent, secondly its financlially sound.

Other measures we fully support:

severing of the hand for theft
torture for the sake of national secuirty (i.e.Terrorists)

I firmly believe that those in the world who think of the United States as a terrorist entity are simply brainwashed by some form of propoganda.

Says the pot to the kettle.

So you're another one of these misguided souls? Do you know what the word terrorism means? It is not as if you people have any sort of evidence- all you have is your rediculous anti-American agenda. "Oh, Bush is evil." "Oh, America wants to rule the world." The simple fact is that your countries are jealous of both the standard of living, and the economic strength of the US. It is a major case of penis envy.

I firmly believe that those in the world who think of the United States as a terrorist entity are simply brainwashed by some form of propoganda.

Says the pot to the kettle.

So you're another one of these misguided souls? Do you know what the word terrorism means? It is not as if you people have any sort of evidence- all you have is your rediculous anti-American agenda. "Oh, Bush is evil." "Oh, America wants to rule the world." The simple fact is that your countries are jealous of both the standard of living, and the economic strength of the US. It is a major case of penis envy.

*rolls eyes*

While I don't necessarily think that the US is a terrorist entity, and I really don't understand "says the pot to the kettle"....

"you people"? How ignorant of a phrase can you use? And there are quite a number of countries who have standards of living *better* than that of the United States. While I'm not sure if I can say the same for economic strength... to me economic strength means nothing (for now), because I do not understand it (until my first economics course), so I don't envy the economic strength of the US. Penis envy. Riiiiight.

As for Bush, while I don't think that he is "evil", I think that Tom Waits said it best, in his song "The Piano Has Been Drinking".

"The owner is a mental midget with the I.Q. of a fencepost" :D

People keeps saying "United States" "United States" but there are at least tens of dozens of "United States."

Ban the Death Penalty......

How about....whats the word i am thinking of...ohh yeah now i got it....how about NO!

You can always design your prisons where the prisoners willingly kill themselves after a month...

People keeps saying "United States" "United States" but there are at least tens of dozens of "United States."

Probably because the US is the biggest and baddest target. People like going after the big guy. Makes them feel important and empowered :D
Sometimes you need to pick and choose your battles.


And, for interest's sake, what are these other "tens of dozens of 'United States?'" At least 120 nations just like the good ol' U S of A? hmmmm

Killing those who kill others is just.

One who kills another (except in self-defense) has exchanged his humanity for barbarism. As he is no longer human, but a barbarian, killing him is perfectly acceptable, and in fact completely just if he has killed someone else.

If we don't kill where can we get the meat for our burgers

We don't have the death penalty over here.
We've got what's called a 'Compulsory Post-Natal Abortion' system, in which people with 'criminal tendencies', or who are 'too damn bright for their own good' are quickly and efficiently discovered and are subjected to a fast and safe post-natal abortion.
Then their immediate families are 'sterilised' (subjected to an abortion) and their possesions are claimed by the state.

This is even worse than death penalty, because people are murdered, before they even have comitted any crime.

Why do we kill people, who kill people, so we can show people that killing people is wrong?
That is not the reason to kill them.
If a person convicted of a serious crime is deemed unable to be a safe and productive citizen it is wrong to force the tax payers to pay for their housing. It is inhumane to leave such a person in a cage for the rest of their life. It is risky to leave such a person in a cage who might some day escape and cause more deaths. Killing such a person solves all of these problems.

I firmly believe that those in the world who think of the United States as a terrorist entity are simply brainwashed by some form of propoganda.

Says the pot to the kettle.

So you're another one of these misguided souls? Do you know what the word terrorism means? It is not as if you people have any sort of evidence- all you have is your rediculous anti-American agenda. "Oh, Bush is evil." "Oh, America wants to rule the world." The simple fact is that your countries are jealous of both the standard of living, and the economic strength of the US. It is a major case of penis envy.

And I suppose that you completely forgot the events of September, 11th. No, not the black eye that those 737's gave us, but the terrorists WE trained and supported to remove Chile's democraticaly elected, socialist leader. More than 3000 people were killed in that U.S. funded coup de tat.

Also, remember that we've done it countless times in other countries. So don't give me any of this "brainwashed" bullshit.

Why do we kill people, who kill people, so we can show people that killing people is wrong?

Perhaps to remove them from the gene pool

I kill convicted murderers by lining them up, once a year, and shooting them. This will make an example of them and showing murder will NOT be tolerated. Without strict rules people won't fear the government. If they dont fear me, at least a little bit, they cannot respect me. If the don't respect me how can you expect them to follow my laws? Or yours in your countries?

Uh...Er...Well said your homocidal maniac. Killing is wrong.

Uh...Er...Well said your homocidal maniac. Killing is wrong.

Learn to respect others opion

I respect your opinion. I never said it was wrong. My opinion is that you're a homocidal maniac ;)

We don't have the death penalty over here.
We've got what's called a 'Compulsory Post-Natal Abortion' system, in which people with 'criminal tendencies', or who are 'too damn bright for their own good' are quickly and efficiently discovered and are subjected to a fast and safe post-natal abortion.
Then their immediate families are 'sterilised' (subjected to an abortion) and their possesions are claimed by the state.

so basicly you ruin the live of the entire family for the fact that they may do a crime? isnt that less merciful and fair then ending someones life?

If that were true, no one would post in these topics.

Anyway, as a Catholic, and as leader of a country with major Catholic influences, I believe that the death penalty is definitely not the definitive punishment. However, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary if the criminal is a clear menace to society. Therefore, we have very tight restrictions on the death penalty, which are too numerous to be named here.

And to the ongoing US/terror/brainwashing debate: "Brainwashing," "propaganda," and "terrorism" are two words that are overused today; probably because their definitions are just vague enough that they can be applied to anyone or anything who is not viewed favorably by a particular person or group. The world has a long way to go before it reaches "Brave New World" status, and overhyping it won't prevent it. If anything, it'll push it in the opposite direction.

I see the death penalty as a waste. People who do wrong are suppose to LEARN from their mistake. if they don't then send them to life in jail and hopefully they will understand the wrong and maybe you can let them live the rest of their life, then like some others, if they never learn their lesson keep them in jail until they die. the only reason the death penalty should be used is when you are running our of money to feed everybody or if you are running out of jail space. also the death penalty won't always scare the criminals. now adays they don't give a flying rats ass if they die. they'll comit the crime anyways.

We see the death penalty as the ultimate punishment when in actuallity making someone live their entire life knowing what they have done is even worse.

If that were true, no one would post in these topics.

Anyway, as a Catholic, and as leader of a country with major Catholic influences, I believe that the death penalty is definitely not the definitive punishment. However, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary if the criminal is a clear menace to society. Therefore, we have very tight restrictions on the death penalty, which are too numerous to be named here.


How can you as a christian (Of what ever flavour) ever accept the death penalty? I understand that there are parts of the bible that it's ok to ignore (the sin of wearing an item of clothing made of two types of material for example) But how can you justify getting round the "Thou shall not kill" biggie?

Kev
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

If that were true, no one would post in these topics.

Anyway, as a Catholic, and as leader of a country with major Catholic influences, I believe that the death penalty is definitely not the definitive punishment. However, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary if the criminal is a clear menace to society. Therefore, we have very tight restrictions on the death penalty, which are too numerous to be named here.


How can you as a christian (Of what ever flavour) ever accept the death penalty? I understand that there are parts of the bible that it's ok to ignore (the sin of wearing an item of clothing made of two types of material for example) But how can you justify getting round the "Thou shall not kill" biggie?

Kev
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Are you serious? In the bible people routinely get stoned to death for petty crimes like eating fish on the wrong day.

If that were true, no one would post in these topics.

Anyway, as a Catholic, and as leader of a country with major Catholic influences, I believe that the death penalty is definitely not the definitive punishment. However, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary if the criminal is a clear menace to society. Therefore, we have very tight restrictions on the death penalty, which are too numerous to be named here.


How can you as a christian (Of what ever flavour) ever accept the death penalty? I understand that there are parts of the bible that it's ok to ignore (the sin of wearing an item of clothing made of two types of material for example) But how can you justify getting round the "Thou shall not kill" biggie?

Kev
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

If someone has committed a crime heinous enough to deserve death, then either they are already dead inside or will be killing themselves soon enough.

If a person convicted of a serious crime is deemed unable to be a safe and productive citizen it is wrong to force the tax payers to pay for their housing. It is inhumane to leave such a person in a cage for the rest of their life. It is risky to leave such a person in a cage who might some day escape and cause more deaths. Killing such a person solves all of these problems.

And to the ongoing US/terror/brainwashing debate: "Brainwashing," "propaganda," and "terrorism" are two words that are overused today; probably because their definitions are just vague enough that they can be applied to anyone or anything who is not viewed favorably by a particular person or group. The world has a long way to go before it reaches "Brave New World" status, and overhyping it won't prevent it. If anything, it'll push it in the opposite direction.
Its really rather simple.

If someone shoots down a civilian plane with a missile then you are a terrorist.
If someone shoots down a military plane with a missile then that is not terrorism but could be one of many different forms of combatant including freedom fighter.
You don't fight for freedom by purposely targetting innocent civilians for termination.

If someone walks into a movie theater and sets off a bomb for the purpose of killing civilians perhaps accidentally killing a military combatant or two in the hope of terrorizing the population to give in to his/hers groups demands or point of view then you are a terrorist.

If someone or group goes after a military target or terrorist group and civilians get hurt or die you aren't a terrorist. The difference is the target and the objective.

If you hid in a mosque shooting at military you might be a terrorist or you might just be freedom fighters depending on what your group has done in the past. However returning fire on those militants doesn't make you a terrorist even if it does do damage to the mosque. Its not your fault your enemy picked that location to hide in.

also the death penalty won't always scare the criminals. now adays they don't give a flying rats ass if they die. they'll comit the crime anyways.

Course, if they're that dangerous, they need to be executed for everyone's sake.

Carpage is a conservative nation, however we are also free thinkers. We do not have a death penalty and unless something drastic happens, we never will have one. There is too much room for error, and an innocent accused of a crime can always be recompensated and released. They can never be ressurected and restored.

We are against the death penalty. We fund groups who oppose the death penalty, however we are only responsible for ourselves and do not openly criticize the policies of other nations unless it interferes with our own sovereignty.

William Guerrero
Foreign Relations Dept. Aide
Carpage Inc.

If that were true, no one would post in these topics.

Anyway, as a Catholic, and as leader of a country with major Catholic influences, I believe that the death penalty is definitely not the definitive punishment. However, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary if the criminal is a clear menace to society. Therefore, we have very tight restrictions on the death penalty, which are too numerous to be named here.


How can you as a christian (Of what ever flavour) ever accept the death penalty? I understand that there are parts of the bible that it's ok to ignore (the sin of wearing an item of clothing made of two types of material for example) But how can you justify getting round the "Thou shall not kill" biggie?

Kev
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland
We can accept the penalty because we know that it is sometimes (but rarely) necessary. Would you've given the death penalty to Hitler if there was the possibility that he could escape and start another Reich?