NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of New Ithilien urges all UN delegates who care about human rights to approve our proposal to end capital punishment.

The text of the proposal follows:

End Capital Punishment
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

WHERAS the United Nations has a compelling interest in protecting human rights, an interest reflected in the many UN resolutions opposing and outlawing torture, slavery, and arbitrary imprisonemnt.

WHERAS the right to life is the foundation of all other rights

RECOGNISING that human institutions, such as governments and justice systems, are fallible and subject to error

AND THAT an error in a capital case is both final and fatal

WE RESOLVE THAT capital punishment and execution be outlawed in all UN member states

FURTHERMORE, that all prisoners in UN member-states currently awaiting execution have their sentances commuted to life-imprisonment

AND THAT no UN member-state shall extradite anyone to a foreign jurisidiction on a capital charge, unless said jurisdiction agrees that the death penalty will not be imposed.


For those concerned, the "right to life" mentioned above applies only to actually existing human beings (and, in nationstates recognising Artifical Intelligence, robots and AIs). It is not intended to take a position one way or the other on abortion.

We believe this proposal to be an admirable addition to the long list of UN resolutions condemning torture and slavery and promoting human rights throughout the world.

The Republic of Dovaan would never support such an outrageous proposal. We believe that capital punishment isn't only the best way to deal with serious crimes, but the fairest!

I'm curious, Dovaan, how do you define "fairest" in this situation?

After consultation with my dictionary, I've settled on the synonym "most just." However let's just accept that we won't change each others opinions. I've debated the death penalty extensively and it will do us no good to do so.

The gentleman from Donovaan is correct; no debate can convince one of the justice of the other's views.

The best way to go about regulating it is to allow each nation to determine for itself whether or not to execute convicts. It's worth noting, though, that in a well-designed justice system, those who would otherwise be condemned to die are locked up securely with minimal human contact - effectively dead to human society, though still able to be released.

After consultation with my dictionary, I've settled on the synonym "most just." However let's just accept that we won't change each others opinions. I've debated the death penalty extensively and it will do us no good to do so.
I wasn't trying to draw you into a debate, Dovaan, my apologies for implying as much. It was just a line I hadn't heard used before on your side of the issue and I was curious. Thanks for clearing it up.

The Empire has submitted a proposal to the UN about getting the capital punishment applied in all nations. We would never agree to such an outrageous propositon.

The Republic of Dovaan would never support such an outrageous proposal. We believe that capital punishment isn't only the best way to deal with serious crimes, but the fairest!
Not to mention the most funnest. Plus I make a fortune of the video tape sales.

Capital punishment... a controversial topic at best... and the interesting thing is that MY mind is being changed about it.

Debate at least makes you think about things... lol.

Anyway, I'm thinking that this proposal makes some good points. The only problem that I see is the maintanence of the prisoner... who pays to keep this guy alive? The taxpayer... and this often includes the family members of the victim (in cases of murder).

Baron Porkonia has implemented a system of forced labour camps. Instead of having the prisoners sit on their butts all day, they do productive work, and they don't drain the tax system.

I would never support a resolution that keeps justice from served.

Why is it some people whant to make a victim out of a crimminial, and talk about human rights for those who don't respect human rights themselves?

And as far as "human rights" is conserned, it's more humane to go ahead and execute someone then require them to live in a cell for the rest of thier lives. It's also more humaine for the actual victims of the crimminal in question, as they do not have to worry about the moster ever getting loose again. And it's better for the tax payers who would have to spend thier money on keeping a monster alive.

In short, crank up the chair, and get a rope. It's the best solution all around.

"Humane" has nothing to do with it. In this Confederacy, an individual who maliciously attacks another has, in violating another's human rights, has forfeited his own. It may be more humane to simply hang him, but it is more reversible to imprison him for life. Besides, capital punishment exists to provide vengeance and to eliminate the dangerous individuals.

But just as Microsoft Windows users may casually delete files, and then retrieve them if necessary from the Recycle Bin, so a government may remove a person from society and then, if he is found innocent, release him. It is worth noting that once dead, people tend to stay dead.

"It is worth noting that once dead, people tend to stay dead."

And that is the point. Yes it is about vengenace. And it's about justice as well. Keeping someone alive who has taken the life of an innocent victem or victems is unjust. Why should they get alife they have denied others? And why should society allow them a second chance. The victem does not get one.

In short, let em swing.

i agree with donovaan its an easier way to deal with them *evil grin appearsd* :twisted:

It is about vengeance or retribution, but it is also about deterring those who might break the laws. If every serious lawbreaker is excecuted, one will avoid going against the law.

This issue brings of the purpose for prisons. Are they a place one relocates criminals to keep them out of society, or is it a place one uses to rehabilitate them?

The Nation of LoreSong is divided on this issue. There is no question that the cost of maintaining criminals is exhorbitant, especially repeat offenders. And we do believe that some people are incurable. However, our concern lies with the accuracy of information provided at trials etc. There have been more than one instance in which the officials were fast to convict an innocent to bolster their political standing.

To wit - we feel that any law regarding the death penalty (pro or con) needs to address these issues before we could make an educated choice.

you're not letting countries handle sentencing anymore :? maybe we should let the U.N. hold the whole trial :roll:

"It is worth noting that once dead, people tend to stay dead."

And that is the point. Yes it is about vengenace. *snip*
As a self-proclaimed conservative, I'm sure you're familiar with the Bible. Perhaps it's a stereotype that conservatives base many of their views on the Bible, but it's one I intend to pursue here.
Does the good book not say "Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD"? If so, why should a society usurp a function reserved for the deity?

Nice try Enodia... NOT! The bible also says give cesars thing to ceaser and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Perhaps you should actually read the bible.

The Kingdom of The WhiteRose thinks that this proposal is silly.
how would you feel if your son was murdered, and the guy who did it sat in jail for 20 years and got parole? An eye for an eye, we say.

The Federation of Soltak cares little for civil rights, but this is not why it decries this proposal. The abolishment of capital punishment is a foolish and ignorant idea.

Not only does it cut back on the influx into prison, it acts as quite a determent. I counterpropose that public execution be mandatory and frequent.

By "exploiting" those who have been condemed your militaries can be tested by pseudo enemies. Using multiple, yet poorly trained convicts to military forces coud prove to give even the youngest of soldiers and Marines a great war time advantage. To help feed the training those conquered by military achievement could then be used as more training examples.

Cheap shot on an ex-nation, but Kalemshann's quotations from the Bible are nicely botched as per normal.

The quotation to which I refer (and which he conveniently only quotes half of to support his argument) runs "An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth, vengeance is mine saith the LORD and I shall repay". Perhaps he should give some thought to the fact that being a committed socialist and a committed and practicing Christian are not mutually exclusive ideals.

Should some of you feel my ealier post was to militaristic, those who commit great atrocities must still be punished. Working in a munitions factory or ore mine will allow them to pay back their debt to society, and deter future crime. Working people to death will serve as a warning to those who seek to hurt the commonwealth!

"Eye for eye" has been adapted from the original text. It is no longer a Christian ideal but a personal belief.

While 'working someone to death' is a lovely alternative, it is quite a lot more cruel then simply snapping one's neck or shooting one in the back of the head.

Again, civil rights are of little import, but labor camps are too expensive for my taste. Bullets are quite cheap, however.

Nice try Enodia... NOT! The bible also says give cesars thing to ceaser and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Perhaps you should actually read the bible.

Firstly, that quote is overused and misunderstood. (Ie with Ceaser, Jesus was referring to taxes).
Secondly, if we are looking at Christian ethics shouldn't we look to the New Testament as a guide to our moral judgement? Matthew 5:38,42...read it, this is the actual christian teaching on revenge that you are so keen to quote.

Who's an ex-nation? Anyway.... :roll: The bibel also supports war for a just cause. And if you read the bibel ENODIA since your fond of mis quoteing it, the jews during bibel times stoned people to death for thier crimes. As per GODS orders.

The Chancellor of the Federation of Soltak would move that the focus of the debate be moved from one's religion as it is wholly unimportant when deciding government policy. What's good for the country and what's good for one's religion often conflict, which is why my nation has abolished the position of spiritual advisor.

Who's an ex-nation? Anyway.... :roll: The bibel also supports war for a just cause. And if you read the bibel ENODIA since your fond of mis quoteing it, the jews during bibel times stoned people to death for thier crimes. As per GODS orders.
No and Yes.

The Bible itself doesn't support war for a just cause. The Israelites fought a bunch of wars under God's guidance, but at no point does the Bible actually say "these are the circumstances under which a war is just". The concept of "justa causa" is a theological construct by one of the early saints, possibly St Augustine. Not that it makes it invalid, merely extra-Biblical.
Now, the Jews may well have stoned people to death for their crimes. However, I refer you to Christ's injunction of "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone". If we accept that Christ's law supersedes the Old Testament where a conflict exists (as it does here), which is something we're bound to do since we're dealing in Christianity rather than Judaism, then what business does society have in casting the first stone or flicking the first switch on the electric chair?

You see, the Bible is a darn good authority on a lot of things. The catch is that when you try to apply it to the legal system, you have to do a lot of exegesis to get anywhere.

Ummm LOL

Ummm LOL
Thus speaks the wonders of Calemshann. Nice to know that you won't be arguing that against me for a while.

Poor Enodia. Did you sue your parents for abusing you? Poor thing yoou should.

Who's an ex-nation? Anyway.... :roll: The bibel also supports war for a just cause. And if you read the bibel ENODIA since your fond of mis quoteing it, the jews during bibel times stoned people to death for thier crimes. As per GODS orders.
This is a minor hobby of mine, apart from the politics.

The Old Testament does discuss guidelines for optional wars of conquest, as well as for the wars the Israelites were commanded to wage against the seven nations of Cana'an.

During the time of the Bible, yes, the Israelites (they weren't Jews until Israel and Judah split, and Israel destroyed) did indeed execute a few people. However, once the court system was fully established, with the Knesset (that the modern Israeli parliament is named after), nobody was executed - in part, because of the brutal cross-examinations required, meant to pound the truth out of witnesses, possibly to the point at which they revealed falsifications or suchlike and their testimony could be discarded for purposes of a court case. In a case like that, someone whodunit but for whom the witnesses were only 99.999% reliable, he would probably be imprisoned.

The morality of the Knesset was, at least nominally, Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent be killed unjustly.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Aquinas, that was the fella. Don't you just hate it when you forget the name of someone just when you need it?

To those before, who replied to my comment that dead people stay dead:

Therein lies the problem. There is no fundamental wrong in executing the guilty, don't get me wrong. But there is a fundamental wrong in executing the innocent. Because no court system can be perfect, the risk of convicting and sentencing an innocent man, and carrying out that sentence despite appeals, is greater than zero.

Besides, as some nations have experienced, justice is not delivered impartially - membership in certain ethnic groups seemed to be cause for undue harshness.

Fallen Eden's point is a very valid one, however I would expand "membership in certain ethnic groups" to include membership in certain political groups as well. In the real world, refer to the anti-communist hysteria in Iraq following the seizure of power by the Ba'ath party and also the "disappearances" of people in almost all of Latin/South America (Chile being the state which comes to mind most readily).

:) So the UN is not to extradite to states where the death penalty will be applied. So how then do you deal with the convicted cannibal mass murderer that has escaped to your country?
Against it myself but if it is done a la Saudi (the victims family decide the penalty) we offer individual moral and religious freedoms.
Prefer the idea of them making a contribution. Is the UN happy with chain gangs and hard labour or do we let them have satellite TV, gyms and free education?

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We believe that the death penalty is a viable, and in some crimes, the only sufficent punishment that can be administered. To ban the death penalty is an injustice to victims.

To ban the death penalty is an injustice to victims.
When serving justice we should not be catering for the needs of the victims after a crime, we should be looking at the crime itself.

Kill all violent criminals, sex offenders and anyone else who commits a heinous crime.

Capital Punishment is a good thing.

:twisted:

It is arrogant and eroneous to presume your nation will always convict only the guilty. No nation has yet managed to attain such perfection in judgment.

While seconding Eden's argument, we simply add that if you execute, you will inevitably execute the innocent.

Executing the innocent cannot lower the crime rate or provide retribution.

When serving justice we should not be catering for the needs of the victims after a crime, we should be looking at the crime itself.

We should, actually be doing both, but that does not mean that weak punishments should be implemented.