NationStates Jolt Archive

Is up for delegate voting NOW!


Equality in Justice

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice. Strength: Strong. Proposed by: Xanthalian Earth.

Description: The resolution is as simple as the standards which will be set if it passes. This resolution seeks to abolish the horrible inequality of many of today's justice systems. This resolution bans bias in conviction and sentencing of criminals, as defined by the following articles. "Court" is defined as any legal institution that prescribes punishment for crimes in a nation within this resolution.


Article I: At the time of the passing of this resolution, all U.N. nations will be required to bring their legal systems into compliance with the terms herein within 365 (NS Earth) days of it's passing.

Article II: All U.N. nations are hereby required to set a static punishment for each individual crime in their nation.

Article III: The punishments prescribed by the nation's government/legal system may be altered only for all of that nation's citizens, not for any one person or group of people.

Article IV: Failure of a court to prescribe equal standardized punishment to all perpetrators of a crime will result in the dismissal of the punishing party and the redefining of punishment for the punished to bring the punishment into compliance with the standard punishment.

Article V: Courts will be required to submit annual reports to their goverments and the U.N. proving that their crime conviction rates are not biased unfairly by race, species, gender, religious orientation, sexual orientation, political orientation, social status, or any other defining physical or psychological characteristic; UNLESS the charactaristic in question constitutes a crime in and of itself by law within the nation in which the accused is being prosecuted.

Mandatory sentences don't work. They tried it already in California.

Theoretically speaking, what if someone is like 10 when he commits a crime? Should he be treated the same as someone who's 30? Isn't that age-discrimination? What if someone is coerced into commiting a crime? Should he recieve the same punishment?

As much as I'd like complete objectivity, the law is too complex and our computing power isn't good enough to put this proposal into action.

But the current U.S. legal system is already like that, if you're guilty you're guilty, no matter what the circumstances. This resolution does ban age discrimination, but we see no problem with that. A ten year old that kills is the same as a seventy year old who kills.

But the current U.S. legal system is already like that, if you're guilty you're guilty, no matter what the circumstances. This resolution does ban age discrimination, but we see no problem with that. A ten year old that kills is the same as a seventy year old who kills.

First of all in the US legal system, circumstances are used to mitigate sentencing and to modify it depending on what the circumstances are.

Okay, even if you want to do that. What about a guy who kills somebody in self-defense? Should that be the same punishment as someone who kills for revenge? Or for money? Or in the heat of passion? Or what?

What about people who are mentally challenged?

What if you have somebody who pays some bum on the street to commit murder? Do you punish the hitman more or the person who hired him more?

Complete objectivity would be nice, but it's impossible. Sorry.

Perhaps killing in self defense is not a crime, or a crime in itself? That would allow for you to differ the punishment.

Mentally challenged people that kill should still be punished, we recommend a blanket rehabilitation policy.

It depends on how you define the punishment for actually killing and hiring to kill.

That's an opinion. It's very possible in this instance. Just put your bias aside.

Perhaps killing in self defense is not a crime, or a crime in itself? That would allow for you to differ the punishment.

Mentally challenged people that kill should still be punished, we recommend a blanket rehabilitation policy.

It depends on how you define the punishment for actually killing and hiring to kill.

That's an opinion. It's very possible in this instance. Just put your bias aside.

How is complete sentencing possible? The reason we have judges is so that they can take into account the whole situation.

Let me put it another way -- do you believe we should replace judges with computers?

Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't punish people; I'm just saying that we should take circumstances into account when punishing them.

That depends what the function of judges in your nation is. If they decide guilt or interact with the participants in the trial at all, then no. If they simply sentence the convicted, yes. Circumstances are irrelevant, a crime is a crime. It's been that way in the U.S. and almost every other civilized nation in the world for a long time.

That depends what the function of judges in your nation is. If they decide guilt or interact with the participants in the trial at all, then no. If they simply sentence the convicted, yes. Circumstances are irrelevant, a crime is a crime. It's been that way in the U.S. and almost every other civilized nation in the world for a long time.

You seriously need to study your history. A 10-year-old in the US will not get the same sentence as a 30-year-old for doing the same crime. A mentally retarded person will not get the same sentence as someone who knew what he was doing. A person who committed a crime in the heat of passion will not get the same sentence as one that did it in cold blood.

Yes, I am not debating that. I am simply saying that, by the letter and practice of the law, they have all committed a crime to be punished somehow. I see where you are coming from, and will add provisions for your points in the next version of the resolution if this one does not go through.

Yes, I am not debating that. I am simply saying that, by the letter and practice of the law, they have all committed a crime to be punished somehow. I see where you are coming from, and will add provisions for your points in the next version of the resolution if this one does not go through.

I agree that they should all be punished somehow.

But that's not what your resolution says. It says they should all be punished in the same way.

I know. And I stand by it. Like I said though, I see where you're coming from and will edit the resolution to consider your points in the next version if the current one fails to pass.