NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi.

Though the current (ending 11 Dec.) proposal only implicitly mentions cruel and unusual punishment, it remains a strong subtheme. The proposal seeks to end the punishment and torture of witnesses. Though this basis for a resolution is concise, its justification leads to an interesting legal question.

From the resolution:
The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.
I hope that everyone realizes how barbaric torture and cruel and unusual punishment really is

IRL, the cruel and unusual designation is frequently used by opponents of capital punishment. They argue that, inherently, the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

The Peach Garden urges everyone to oppose the torture of witnesses. The Peach Garden, incidentally, opposes capital punishment. However, our Most Serene Republic seeks only to inform fellow UN voters, rather than dictate the policy of other nations. Know what you're voting for. A rewritten, better argued and less emotional resolution might be necessary to achieve passage.

I have to agree with you TPG. While the Empire of Pracus is most adamantly against torture, it does allow the death penalty and it allows punishments that suit the crime--some of which might be considered cruel and unusual by other nations. The current resolution does not adequately define the meaning of "cruel and unusual" and as a result, my nation has voted against it and encourages all others to do so as well.

We also enocourgage that the resolution be rewritten to include langauge to protect the death penalty in countries where it is legal and to define just what "punishments" for crimes it is talking about. An even better improvement would be to eliminate the "cruel and unusual" clause completely and simply focus on torture. Further, instead of calling them "witnesses," it might be better to broaden the term to include political opponets, rebels, and all others that the government might view as dentrimental to the public good.

The Emperor has chosen to interpret the "cruel and unusual" clause as permitting any form of punishment or torture as long as it is not applied with malice in the heart of the punisher or in a manner it is not normally applied in.

What of terrorist?
What of fallen tyrants?
What of those who are clearly guilty of crimes or war and crimes against humanity?

I don't think they should get the same interrogation process as a child who steals a candy bar.

Barbarians deserve barbaric punishment.

The UN and its delegates should learn their role.

Fellow UN delegates: When a nation is in a state of war, it is sometimes necessary to withdraw information-- no matter the cost. The United Socialist States of Communist Republic would like to maintain its stance that torture be used as part of an interrogation technique. However, it is believed by the USSCR that the captive cannot be killed while in custody. Any captive that dies due to circumstances of torture will be considered the same as killing the captive.

Yes, the only punishment that should exist is punishment that is cruel as well as punishement that is unusual. For example, for the cruel thing, I think we should hold criminals upside down until all the blood is in the head and the head bursts from the pressure. As for unusual, I like to tell them their parents are dead and then make them dance until the sun comes up.

I recommend torture to keep your citizens in line. It creates fear that disables all capability for uprising or escape.

A quote from the opening screen of Jennifer Government: NationStates

Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own political ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

If this resolution passes, then it really isn't up to me, is it! This resolution changes the basic premise of the game. Vote NO!!!

FredII

The Nation of Talecstan actually believes cruel and unusual punishment is the best solution to crime. Dictator Taylor Believes that our non existent crime is the non happenings of cruel and unusual punishments.

"Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine. "

The Republic of Ultrabation fails to see the implications this has on punishment and feels that this will help law enforcement agencies from becoming corrupt as well as protect citizens. This is A Good Thing(tm)

This resolution is FAR to subject to loose interpretation to have any significant value. There are many nations that have and continue to advocate punishments that other nations... with VERY diferent cultures, would find barbaric. This legislation can NOT pass without forcing many nations out of the UN.


Rokhan
UN Delegate for The Exclusive Capitalizt Zone

I am against torture, but if other contries use it carefuly, I am fine with that.

However, physical torture is now replaced with psychological torture. I think we should ban physical torture, but psychological torture, is much harder to prove and is much more efficiant.

My brethren and I believe that cruel and unusual torture is possibly the best and only method of keeping public peace and the status quo. We believe that once someone has commited a crime then they have waived their rights and should be treated like the scum they are. We most also agree with FredII that this proposal would go against that for which the game stands. what anarchy would insue should we loose our right to humiliate those who would wrong the decent citizen. Vote No.

After further review, The Republic of Ultrabation feels that this proposal is totally nonsensical. It shouldn't even be debated as it is currently written.

It's titled "End Barbaric Punishments". Legally, punishment is a penalty inflicted by a court of justice on a convicted offender as a just retribution. Hooray. But then it changes gears on you and proposes something very different from punishment, "My proposal is a simple one: To outlaw and prevent torturing of witnesses to receive information. " This is about interrogation, nothing to do with punishment.

I agree with the proposal, it is a good thing to not be forcefully interrogated, but this whole thing needs to be rewritten and properly debated (right now everyone seems to not have actually read the proposal, or failed to understand what it's proposing).

The Republic of Italian Forces have Voted Against the New Resolution.

Cruel and unusual punishment should be allowed to those who deserve it.

VOTE AGAINST!

My only difficulty with this resolution is that it specifically mentions that we are not allowed to bruise witnesses, etc. What if a police officer, in taking in a violent witness, accidentally bruises him or her? In that case, if a police officer is defending him/herself are they liable under the law?

I think I am leaving the UN. I'm getting awfully sick of voting on the same 5 items over and over again. So, I guess, goodbye guys. It was fun the first five times. (:

This is what it said when I resign. Quite fitting actually.

"You inform the United Nations that The Queendom of Oafish Downtrodden will no longer participate in its corrupt, hollow debates. From this moment forward, your nation is on its own."

My only difficulty with this resolution is that it specifically mentions that we are not allowed to bruise witnesses, etc. What if a police officer, in taking in a violent witness, accidentally bruises him or her? In that case, if a police officer is defending him/herself are they liable under the law?

The resolution only refers to questioning...It is fine to beat people while arresting them :P

The leaders G-Nomica deplore all forms of torture, and the only problem with this resolution in the eyes of the G-Nomican Government is that it only refers to the torture of witnesses. I have never heard of torture being used on witnesses, only on suspects or known criminals to extract information on further crimes. Information that may be needed to save lives in the future.

If this resolution passes we will still be able to torture terrorists, kidnappers and innocent citizens, just not witnesses...The resolution is practically redundant.

The resolution only refers to questioning...It is fine to beat people while arresting them :P

:? Wonderful, I feel so much better now. In that case, I don't care if it passes or fails. It really does nothing.

I submit that theproposed resolution is vague (What is barbaric? What is cruel? What is unusual? What are witnesses?) and full of loopholes, as pointed out by G-Nomica.

The resolution only refers to questioning...It is fine to beat people while arresting them :P

I further submit that in extreme cases when national security is at stake, it is sometimes necessary to extract information from known public enemies in the most efficient way possible. Our nation's motto states this succinctly: "Some ends justify any means."

I urge any nation that cares about the safety of its national security and thus its citizens to join me in voting NO.

Regards,
President Akron
Vissarion

:roll:

While Caras Galadon beleives there is NEVER an appropriate time to employ torture, we will vote no on the resolution. We beleive it's body text does not match its title. Furthermore its vaguness invites exploitation.

Like this, is castration included as cruel and unusual punishment? If so CG would have to rewrite its sex offender laws as 2nd offence is a castration and 3rd offence is a free sex-change in addition to any jial time incurred ((for women replace castration with sterilization...)) And executions are held in public. Is that cruel and unusual? It needs to be better defined needs to match.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

EDIT: I forgot to add my last row of rolly eye thingies...