NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution ECP expands on existing UN resoultions "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "End Barbaric Punishments".

It is a selfish comfort to think that the wolrd which we live in is truly civilized. We take great strides to improving the quality of life, yet we do not hesitate to take it away. Capital Punishment, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong. Any nation as an entity does not have the right to take the life of any man. We discourage murder, yet we punish it with such. This is a hypocracy that has gone on long enough. Our hardest criminals belong in jail, not dead.

Another point. Is it worth it to risk one innocent life to execute 1 million guilty ones? The innocent should be projected at all costs. An innocent man sentenced to life in prison always has the possiblity of a pardon or re-trial. An innocent man exceuted is left dead. What credibility would a govenment then have after innocence was found, and another victim killed?

Everybody has the right to life, no matter how horific of a being they may be. Everybody also deserves hope, hope that someday, if they are innocent, they will be found that way and released.
------------------
I am asking for the support of any delegates who belieive capital punishment should be stopped.

I fully agree with the above statements.

Major Johnson,
Nibbleton

No, it is not worth the life of one innocent person.

But let me ask you this: Is it right to leave people like Manson or Saddam Hussein in prison, where they become almost cult figures? The worst offenders, the serial killers and mass murderers don't deserve a comfortable cell for decades on end.

Do we not owe it to the victims of the world's worst criminals to ensure that there is no possibility that these people ever return to society?

Anyways, that's my personal position. It's a divisive moral issue, and I don't have a clear enough opinion on it, I think. My opinion basically sums up to "Limit it to the worst of the lot". I applaud you for bringing the issue up for debate.

Capital punishment is no more murder than killing in self-defense is.

Killing != murder.

Executions are justice, not murder. Murderers deserve justice, and it is only just that one who takes the life of another human being without valid cause (self-defense) have his life be taken away from him.

You socialists love to talk about fairness; well, it doesn't get much more fair than this.

I do agree with most that has been said in support of banning the death penalty with exclusion to one item. I would not totally eliminate this form of punishment. There was concern voiced over the killing of a possible innocent man who may have been re-tried and if he was killed before this opportunity was afforded, then he would be left dead. This is very true. However, once this possibility was extended to the convicted and still after specific and tests such as DNA and others proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty, then I would still reserve the right to utilize such punishment.

General Manuel B. Viamonte

I do agree with most that has been said in support of banning the death penalty with exclusion to one item. I would not totally eliminate this form of punishment. There was concern voiced over the killing of a possible innocent man who may have been re-tried and if he was killed before this opportunity was afforded, then he would be left dead. This is very true. However, once this possibility was extended to the convicted and still after specific and tests such as DNA and others proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty, then I would still reserve the right to utilize such punishment.

General Manuel B. Viamonte

Capital punishment is no more murder than killing in self-defense is.

Killing != murder.

Executions are justice, not murder. Murderers deserve justice, and it is only just that one who takes the life of another human being without valid cause (self-defense) have his life be taken away from him.

You socialists love to talk about fairness; well, it doesn't get much more fair than this.

Okay, if someone is killed in an altercation with a cop then we kill the cop too, right? That's how your statement above follows.

Rape someone and get raped "legally" yourself?

Kidnap someone and get kidnapped yourself?

Doesn't happen, does it? What gives the State the right to make an exception for homicide?

Capitol punishment IS homicide, aka murder, no matter how "just" you deem it to be.

What's socialism got to do with anything? Alot, I guess, if life is as simple as black and white.

You socialists love to talk about fairness; well, it doesn't get much more fair than this.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a liberal.
"Eye for an eye" is not justice or fairness, it's revenge. If you shot the man who killed your wife you would still go down for murder. Capital punishment is no different.

Major Johnson,
Nibbleton

Capital punishment is no more murder than killing in self-defense is.

Killing != murder.

Executions are justice, not murder. Murderers deserve justice, and it is only just that one who takes the life of another human being without valid cause (self-defense) have his life be taken away from him.

You socialists love to talk about fairness; well, it doesn't get much more fair than this.

Okay, if someone is killed in an altercation with a cop then we kill the cop too, right? That's how your statement above follows.
Depends on whether or not the cop was acting in self-defense.

Rape someone and get raped "legally" yourself?
I don't see why not...it's only fair.

Kidnap someone and get kidnapped yourself?
Sure...I can't think of anything more just--can you?

homicide, aka murder
There's your problem--homicide is not necessarily murder, no matter how much you would like it to be so. Homicide is merely the killing of a human being (murderers aren't human beings anyway, but that's a different matter...actually, I guess it's not). If I kill someone in self-defense, I have committed homicide, but not murder.

Murder is by definition illegal; where capital punishment exists, I'm pretty damn sure that it's not illegal (otherwise it wouldn't happen). Not all killings are illegal.

Thats what you say until you become a victim. Capital Punishment should be legal, because nothing about it is Barbaric. It floods the prisons with people if some of the worst offenders are aloud to live. Plus, the possibility of parole after a few years puts not only your life, but my life in danger if a killer is let on to the streets.

Moreover, if a criminal is a criminal once, they are a criminal forever. Until this "Democracy" proves that it's rehab centers are worth going to, then the death penalty will be around for a long time.

Prove to me that rehabilitation has cured over half the people that attend it...no....just a fourth of the people who go to it.

-Unsalted side of Krakerville

hey, look up at the sky....see it?
It's my point, flying over your head.

Let's try again....

Rape someone and get raped "legally" yourself?

Kidnap someone and get kidnapped yourself?

Doesn't happen, does it? What gives the State the right to make an exception for homicide? <<<<<<<THERE IT IS!!

You're probrobly right, anyway. I mean, just think of all the (non)humans capitol punishment has saved us from...

Like Jesus Christ!

Resolution ECP expands on existing UN resoultions "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "End Barbaric Punishments".

It is a selfish comfort to think that the wolrd which we live in is truly civilized. We take great strides to improving the quality of life, yet we do not hesitate to take it away. Capital Punishment, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong. Any nation as an entity does not have the right to take the life of any man. We discourage murder, yet we punish it with such. This is a hypocracy that has gone on long enough. Our hardest criminals belong in jail, not dead.

To say that capital punishment "in any way, shape, or form" is wrong is a blanket statement. There are innocent people who are executed because of inadequacies in the justice system, true, but then you could make the argument to abolish any punishment because one could never be certain without a shadow of a doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. Furthermore, saying that a nation has no right to "take the life of any man" is only one philosophy, there are other nations (people in the case of NS) who feel capital punishment is a just system and can justify it Biblibally or by other means. To say that a nation cannot do something infringes on national sovereignty.

Another point. Is it worth it to risk one innocent life to execute 1 million guilty ones? The innocent should be projected at all costs. An innocent man sentenced to life in prison always has the possiblity of a pardon or re-trial. An innocent man exceuted is left dead. What credibility would a govenment then have after innocence was found, and another victim killed?

Again, this isn't an argument against capital punishment itself but the improper use of capital punishment. It's my belief that there are only certain cases where capital punishment should be used, and I feel a better proposal concerning capital punishment would be one that has stricter guidelines to prevent any screw-ups by a judicial system concerning the life of a person.

In a country where murder runs rampant, an example needs to be made. Once people see that acts of barbarism are not tolerated crime becomes less and less prevolent.

Capital Punishment is an efficient deterrent of crime. It's been proven that a dead criminal never commitied another crime.

Capital Punishment is an efficient deterrent of crime. It's been proven that a dead criminal never commited another crime.

I would have to agree that CAPITOL PUNISHMENT should be banned (if it already isn't).

This all reminds me of Huammurabi's Code of Law. Hammurabi's Code of Law is a surisingly gruesome code of laws. His way of seeing it was if you did anything bad you would get it back 3 times worse! For example, if you bit someone you would get your jaw ripped of. In a way this is just like capitol punishment.

But, in a way I ahve to disagree with this. Capitol Punishment is just a punishment where someone gets a taste of their own medicene. I'm sure if someome killed someone you loved yhou would want that person to die, weither if you think he should or not.

This is just my way of seeing it. Some people say I have a cruel and unusual mind, but, hey, that's just me. If you dissagree with me wire me a telegram.

Dylan Henrich
United States of Qucumber

Also, consider the following:

What was barbaric back when the founding fathers made the Constitution? If duels were "mans way" of ending problems, then what was barbaric and unreasonable? To them, hanging was a light punishment, however death by gunshot was an easier swifter way to end a life. Tearing off a limb or beheading someone was barbaric when the Constitution was written. Keep in mind that their minds all thought alike, so everyone knew that a duel was good, yet having no hand due to stealing was a meaner way of doing things. The "liberals" today see everything as being wrong, with the exception of free everything. Todays liberals are like yesterdays woodstocks: drugged up with no life but "free drugs and sex; whenever wherever." However, todays society is a bit skewed and corrupt. So, what is barbaric in one persons mind is fine to another is all I am trying to say.

-Krakerville

If were banning "Barbaric punishments" we sould include capital punishment for the unborn as well.

I agree with creator of this forum. Capital punishment is unjust and has never been a proven deterrent of crime.

Looking at the United States, two states, North Dakota and South Dakota. North Dakota does not have the death penalty, yet it has the lower crime rate, while South Dakota does have the death penalty, and it has the higher crime rate. These are states with similar cultures, so similar that at one point they used to be the same state. There has been no proven connection that the death penalty is a proven deterrent. Look at Europe and Canada vs. the US. The former two have no death penalty, and have a crime rate about 10 times lower than the US.

Death penalty cases are very expensive also, more expensive than housing an inmate for the rest of their lives. The average death penalty case prosecuted in the US costs $400,000. You can house an inmate for several lifetimes under that cost.

And of course there is the morality issue. Innocent men do die under the death penalty. Human error has always existed and will always exist. People make mistakes. The US has over 2000 people on death row, even if the US system is 99.9% accurate (which it is not, not even close), at least 2 innocent people will die.

Small number right? Who cares? You would if that innocent person were you or someone you loved and cared about. Death is too final, and it is the ultimate mistake. I surely would not want to be the one that has to tell a family that we executed their loved one by mistake.

Machines, DNA tests: all subject to error and human corruption. Prosecutors and witnesses can lie and exaggerate, in the heat of the moment events do tend to get exxaggerated. Video and audio tapes can be doctored. If it is created by human beings, it is not perfect.

In Illinois while George Ryan was Governor, he executed 12 people yet released 13 people from death row. He was part of the state senate that voted to reinstate the death penalty. Yet after becoming Governor he issued a moratorium on it in his words "How can I trust a system that is only right 50% of the time?". This is from Illinois, where more people were found innocent and released from death row than executed. Ryan discussed the issues of such power and responsibility, the moral weight.

I support longer prison sentences and hard labor. These are suitable punishments that are not so irreversible in the event that a mistake is made. You can compensate a person for the years they lost in prison, it is impossible to truly compensate a family for a life taken wrongly.

I support the ending of capital punishment; it is neither practical or moral. It is an old, barbaric and failed system that has done more harm than good. I do not support the majority that has done wrong within the system, but the minority that has been wronged by the system.

If the resolution is written well enough I will lobby for its passing. I will approve all proposals that ban capital punishment and will vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Emperor Elect of Anthonycha
Chang Buck Yunn

I agree with creator of this forum. Capital punishment is unjust and has never been a proven deterrent of crime.

Looking at the United States, two states, North Dakota and South Dakota. North Dakota does not have the death penalty, yet it has the lower crime rate, while South Dakota does have the death penalty, and it has the higher crime rate. These are states with similar cultures, so similar that at one point they used to be the same state. There has been no proven connection that the death penalty is a proven deterrent. Look at Europe and Canada vs. the US. The former two have no death penalty, and have a crime rate about 10 times lower than the US.

You still can't claim a correlation in this case, however. You have to take into account the history of the states following their separation, class differences and a whole lot of other things. To say that they were the same state at one time doesn't say much, they're not the same state anymore. Also, death penalty is a permanent deterrent to the person who committed the crime.

Most of you who want to get rid of capital punishment would probably want to execute someone who murdered your entire family. And, are you saying that child molestors and child murders should go to prison, where they can get three meals a day, a warm place to stay. All this should be given to child molestors, etc? What would you do if they raped and murdered your child? Let them live?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

For Christians looking at this thread (I am one), some of you would cite the 6th commandment, Thou Shalt not Kill, as your reason for being opposed to the death penalty. But when you look farther into the words of that commandment, you find this one hidden truth. When old copies of the Ten Commandments written in the original Hebrew have been found, the words of the 6th commandent are actually, in Hebrew, Thou Shalt not Murder. This does not apply to the death penalty. It says not kill, but murder. Thats why we are allowed to kill a cow to eat its meat, or kill a caterpillar out in your garden. Also, there are multiple occasions in the Bible where it says the government should "use the sword" for infamous crimes. This is why I support the death penalty.

Well put. The proper translation of that commandment is "Thou shalt not murder", applying to cases where a person lies in wait like a predator in order to take someone elses life. Note that this doesn't apply to manslaughter cases, and it only applies to individual persons, not the State or government.

Society should not have to pay for these guys' prison cells and food and cable TV and air conditioning for decades to come, nor should they be allowed to have visits from their families. The families of their victims will never be able to see their loved ones again.

While I do not agree compltely with the death penalty, I do not wish to have it baned. A human life is only worth what it produces in that life time. When another human takes the life of one or many other lives, that life has lost much of its value. This is a non-religious standpoint.

In a Christian Standpoint, one can simply look at the Ten Commandments and the punishment associated with them. I do not agree with these punishments, but many use religious beliefs to try to say the Death Penalty is wrong. If that is true, God has commited more errors than humans have since he has killed whole cities (Sodom anyone?) Islam itself states that you can either give the family a blood payment for the death, or demand the death of the person. And Judaism? Look what they are doing to the Palistinians.

However, the Death Penalty is wrong when its applied to much. Car accidents or 2nd Degree Murder doesnt call for it. The INTENTIONAL slaying of someone or mass groups of people call for it, however. I am certain that everyone agrees that Hitler needed to die or that Stalin should have been killed. I also think everyone agrees that some people die who do not deserve to die, while others live who deserve to die. Life aint fair, my friends, nor is it equal.

I'll agree with the topic creator that in most cases capital punishment is probably not justified. However, in particularly heinous crimes, such as serial killers, mass murderers, or torture killings, it is an appropriate punishment.

Despite what people say about rehabilitation, prisions are the exercise of force by society upon a person who refuses to obey societies rules. We force you into prison and force you to remain there. Capital punishment is the ultimate use of force against a person, taking away their life. A good example is the "Hi-Fi killings" from Utah in the 70's. The killers, during a robbery, forced people to drink Drano and kicked ball-point pens into the ears of people. People like that, or like the late Timothty McVeigh in my mind deserve the ultimate sacrifice.

It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's a punishment meant to exact revenge.

-Dave