NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote to end capital punishment with my proposed resolution!

What rational moral individual would want to ban THE most just punishment there is?

I can only conclude that you are irrational, immoral, or desire injustice. Either way, you are fundamentally evil.

The text of the Resolution:

WHEREAS, the death penalty has been proven to not be a determent; and,

WHEREAS, too many mistaken indentities in death penalty cases have been found which have resulted in the killing of innocent humans; and,

WHEREAS, the institution of the death penalty erodes the fabric of society.

NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the nations of the UN hereby abolish the death penalty in each and every member nation, making this world a more civilized place to live.

I can only conclude from your rather inane argument that you in fact have nothing to say about capital punishment except call others rude names. I hope all will see the types of nations that support capital punishment.

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just? I have not seen your past posts, and would very much want to see the reasons behind your assertions, as opposed to name-calling and assuming you are right, only you are right, and everyone who doesn not agree with you belongs in an asylum (personally, I think people that narrow minded to think like that belong there)

I agree with your resolution in principle and the value that it puts forth, though I think it should have been better written. I know how busy most people are though, so I understand...

I support your resolution, though in the future, please be sure to include arguments within your resolution for people to read.

Confederacy of the Isles UN Delegate
Hung Tony

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

I take it then you do not support the war in Iraq? We are not defending ourselves against anything there. But came there to kill.

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

News Flash, pal -- this isn't the 3rd century... unless you still agree with barbarian doctrine...

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

I take it then you do not support the war in Iraq? We are not defending ourselves against anything there. But came there to kill.

Correct.

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

News Flash, pal -- this isn't the 3rd century... unless you still agree with barbarian doctrine...

What's barbaric about treating people the way they deserve to be treated?

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

News Flash, pal -- this isn't the 3rd century... unless you still agree with barbarian doctrine...

Your agrument is not valid. Cause death, recieve death. The complexity of our society is unrelated.

Look--it's all quite simple.

Capital punishment is inherently just (as you will understand if you read some of my past posts). Therefore, anyone who opposes it is unjust and therefore evil.

Make sense yet?
right... killing people is inherently just?

If someone kills a person (except in self-defense), he deserves to be killed himself. That is just.

News Flash, pal -- this isn't the 3rd century... unless you still agree with barbarian doctrine...

Your agrument is not valid. Cause death, recieve death. The complexity of our society is unrelated.
unfortunately this is not as simple an issue as you think. For one, the incident rate of innocent men/women being convicted and sent to die is disturbingly high. So, they did not kill, and are being killed. Secondly, the majority of the world considers it a severe breach of civil rights. which is why the US was chastised heavily a few years ago and now has no influence anymore in convincing other to observe civil rights. How can we tell others to observe human rights when we don't ourselves (hypocritical). if you want to argue economics, it costs less to keep someone in prison for life than to put them to death, believe it or not. Try not to view the world as black and white. that is where biggotry, narrow-mindedness, and ignorance prevail

unfortunately this is not as simple an issue as you think. For one, the incident rate of innocent men/women being convicted and sent to die is disturbingly high. So, they did not kill, and are being killed.
That's irrelevant when arguing the PRINCIPLE of it.
Secondly, the majority of the world considers it a severe breach of civil rights.
Then apparently the rest of the world wouldn't know justice if it bit it on the ass.

How can we tell others to observe human rights when we don't ourselves (hypocritical).
But we do (as far as the death penalty is concerned...if you want to talk about other issues that's a different matter entirely).
Try not to view the world as black and white.
But the world IS black and white. I'm either alive or I'm not. It's either daytime where I am or it is not. Killers deserve to be killed or they do not. Justice is either desirable or it is not.

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?
yep

Ithuania,
You are in danger of sinking into a mire, your rantings have no argument apart from the child like "I am right so there!!" type of argument. If you have some factual evidence then put it before us so we can debate the pro's and con's of that evidence!

We of 'We are all Humanoids' are verging on the against capital punishment side of this debate, on the grounds that one innocent life taken by a state is one too many. However we also would deem this an unfit proposal were it to come before the UN as we see this as a subject for nations not the UN!

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?

Please avoid the fallacy of equating all homicide to murder. Killing in self-defense is not murder; nor is execution.

Aside from the fact that murder is by definition illegal (and so if executions are legal then they logically cannot be murder), the connotation is not valid when it applies to executions. A murder is a homicide committed by a person against person. An execution is a killing of a barbarian.

The Republic of Cannaganja recognizes the rights of nations which choose to prohibit capital punnishment. However, our corrupt dictatorship takes pride in its number of beheadings. Cannaganja ranks a close second behind only Saudi Arabia, and has high hopes to overtake the long-held Saudi lead during the new year!

Ithuania,
You are in danger of sinking into a mire, your rantings have no argument apart from the child like "I am right so there!!" type of argument. If you have some factual evidence then put it before us so we can debate the pro's and con's of that evidence!

My argument is that execution is a just punishment for murderers, and that murderers deserve death. As of yet no one has bothered to counter that; rather, they have put forth irrelevant or illogical arguments as to why it is a bad idea, and I'm explaining why they're irrelevant or illogical.

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it. By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism (the preffered ideology of Babylon). This ideology has been deemed barbaric by historians and other intellectuals. Yet you are calling those who don't believe in "Eye-for-an-eye" as barbarians and those who do as being civilized?

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it. By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism (the preffered ideology of Babylon). This ideology has been deemed barbaric by historians and other intellectuals. Yet you are calling those who don't believe in "Eye-for-an-eye" as barbarians and those who do as being civilized?

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it.
No...there was homicide, yes, but murder is, by definition, an ILLEGAL act. If there is not a law against it, it is not murder.
By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism
The fact that it's just.

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it.
No...there was homicide, yes, but murder is, by definition, an ILLEGAL act. If there is not a law against it, it is not murder.
By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism
The fact that it's just.
Learn the difference between what are facts and what are opinions! "Eye-for-an-eye" being just is NOT a fact, which can be proved correct of incorrect. it is an OPINION. here, btw, is a definition of Opinion:
n 1: a personal belief that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?" [syn: sentiment, persuasion, view, thought]

Jeez louise. People who commit murder often do not think before they act, they get caught up in emotion. Crimes of passion are not deterred by any punishment.
If a human commits a murder on the basis of emotion, where reason is overpowered, he acts more like an animal than a human. But you still don't go around kicking animals just because they are there (if you do, you are nuts). If the perpetrator is so much like an animal that he can never learn reason, there are two options. Neutralize the threat he presents (imprison or cripple him perhaps) or destroy him.
If the crime is commited by way of reasoning, then the criminal's reasoning is clearly flawed. He is to be temporarily neutralized, because it is possible to rehabilitate him. These should not be executed.

Jeez louise. People who commit murder often do not think before they act, they get caught up in emotion. Crimes of passion are not deterred by any punishment.
If a human commits a murder on the basis of emotion, where reason is overpowered, he acts more like an animal than a human. But you still don't go around kicking animals just because they are there (if you do, you are nuts). If the perpetrator is so much like an animal that he can never learn reason, there are two options. Neutralize the threat he presents (imprison or cripple him perhaps) or destroy him.
If the crime is commited by way of reasoning, then the criminal's reasoning is clearly flawed. He is to be temporarily neutralized, because it is possible to rehabilitate him. These should not be executed.
well said

Capital punishment is a neccesity of all nations, when implemented properly. First, it is not a deterant, nor a punishment made to fit the crime. Both views miss the point entirely. It is done to simplt remove the offenders from society in the most efficient way possible. In many nations, it is fundamanetally flawed due to appeals process which may go on for years and cost the state an enormous amount of money. The appeals process is necceary there because of trial by jury. The people are capable of making grave mistakes, thuse, an appeal is an automatic thing. In the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence, crime is nearly unheard of, but it does occur. Everything from political activism and animal rights protests, to emotional offense (the crime of having emotion). When it does occur, a council of ministers, who have been trained in the practice of law for their entire lives, make up the jury. With a guilty conviction, incineration is immediately commenced. It is truly a very simple concept for societies such as mine.

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

I am not sure if I will support this resolution, but capitol punishment is in no way just as a fact. Let us break this down to the core of the argument:
Is the killing of another human being wrong?
The general consenus is yes.
Why?
There are many reasons, but the most used is that it infriges upon the sanctity of life, and the rights of everyone to be alive.
Should murderers be punished?
The general consenus is yes.
Why?
Reasons abound, but the primary ones are to discourage others from killing, and to make sure that the said person will not kill again.

The use of capital punishment, however you try to justify it, infringes upon the very rights you are trying to protect. Just because someone has done something wrong does not mean they are immediately non-human. Morally, there is no justification for capital punishment. It is hipocracy to the highest degree, the touting of the power of the state, and a "do what I say not what I do" mentality. It has its merits, but they do not outweigh its stupidity.

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it.
No...there was homicide, yes, but murder is, by definition, an ILLEGAL act. If there is not a law against it, it is not murder.
By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism
The fact that it's just.
Learn the difference between what are facts and what are opinions! "Eye-for-an-eye" being just is NOT a fact, which can be proved correct of incorrect.

And there is your error.

What rational moral individual would want to ban THE most just punishment there is?

I can only conclude that you are irrational, immoral, or desire injustice. Either way, you are fundamentally evil.

The justice system is not to create vendettas, but to do justice. It is the right for everyone to live, and even those who had violated that code and killed another person. If a justice system has killed the murderer in what they call "act of justice", then the justice system is just as low as the murderers. So with that, I could conclude the obvious: The justice system is a murderer.

We cannot allow this in any civilized society. I would ask for my delegate to support it.

And there is your error.


The master of debates obviously resides in this thread. /sarcasm

Any state must, as a matter of course, take responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This includes maintaining the safety of those citizens from each other.

Any state must also take responsibility for the decisions it makes about the treatment of citizens who wilfully step outside the law. Durtistan believes in the value of human rights, the value of the individual life and, ultimately, the fallibility of human nature. Our position on this issue is simple: the Death Penalty, as a deterrant and measure of last resort, has significantly lowered crime within our borders.

We do not take lightly the responsibility this puts on the Durtistan system of justice. We do not take lightly the decision to execute a criminal. We do, however, recognise that for some individuals no amount of education, understanding, rehabilitation and care will be sufficient to turn them into useful members of society. How much more barbaric is it to lock these people away in cages and let them moulder? Why should the law abiding citizens of Durtistan pay for the well being of a person who has willingly defied the law and committed crimes for which the maximum penalty is death?

It is true that no system of justice is perfect. Mistakes will be made, this is certain. But Member Nations have the right to determine for themselves whether this is a burden they are willing to shoulder and for that reason we cannot support the ban on capital punishment.

We are all Humanoids, also speak, we deem this debate outside the realm of the UN and one that should be decided by national government alone!

However, we are aware that there are those nations who would view this as avoiding a decision and so we will put our case.

The Killing of one Human by another is wrong.

The definition within a dictionary is written by those in power and is therefore irrelevant.

Upto this date death has always been permanent.

A mistake by an individual can be overcome with relative ease, a mistake by a nation requires an incredible amount of momentum to start its correction in motion.

Therefore, and for the reasons stated above, We are all Humanoids will not endorse a mandatory death penalty!
However if a SAFE way of establishing guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT comes to our attention we may reconsider our stance

Capital punishment is a nescessary evil for insane people who pose a permanent threat to society.


General Zircon, Desra

Capital punishment is overused.

That said, I do believe there are certain situations that call for it. For example, mass murderers, terrorists, murderers of children, and people who disagree with me should be executed. 'Tis the way of a corrupt dictatorship, you know. :twisted:

This proposal will be back...better than ever!

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it. By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism (the preffered ideology of Babylon). This ideology has been deemed barbaric by historians and other intellectuals. Yet you are calling those who don't believe in "Eye-for-an-eye" as barbarians and those who do as being civilized?

Actually based on the Prisoner's Dilemma model, the best overall strategy for any player to use is to cooperate on the first move, then simply do what your opponent did last move next move. This is basically an eye-for-an-eye strategy and can be proven to be good mathematically.

That said, I do NOT oppose the death penalty on principle. I'm rather iffy on the whole matter, it's one of the few major issues I don't have an opinion on. I do have policy objections to the death penalty, but no principle objections. I personally believe that we should scale it down considerably though I would oppose an outright ban.

deth to all who brakes the law :twisted:

murder is by definition illegal.
umm... I believe there was murder before there were actual laws against it. By the way, what is with the fascintion w/ your "eye-for-an-eye" idealism (the preffered ideology of Babylon). This ideology has been deemed barbaric by historians and other intellectuals. Yet you are calling those who don't believe in "Eye-for-an-eye" as barbarians and those who do as being civilized?

So the opinion of historians and intellectuals is absolute truth? You'll believe anything that a so-called intellectual superior will say?

I personally believe that anyone who murders some in a premeditated fashion, and anyone who kills with a clear, sober mind deserves the death penalty. They should be put on a ten year wait-unless there are at least three eyewitnesses. In that case, they should be given one year. Then, put a bullet in their head.
Like others have said, capital punishment should be, as its name says punishment. It should not be to deter.
Is it any better to let someone rot away in prison for the remainder of their life?

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?

Please avoid the fallacy of equating all homicide to murder. Killing in self-defense is not murder; nor is execution.

Aside from the fact that murder is by definition illegal (and so if executions are legal then they logically cannot be murder), the connotation is not valid when it applies to executions. A murder is a homicide committed by a person against person. An execution is a killing of a barbarian.

It should not be up to the government and the laws of a country to determine who lives and who dies. Barbarian or not, an execution is the killing of a human being; nothing less, nothing more. The legality of executions does not in any way undermine the immorality of taking another's life.

It is ironic that you can conclude anyone that disagrees with the capital punishment is immoral, because capital punishment, itself, is immoral. You can't justify the killing of another person. Something is immoral or it is moral, no matter what the circumstances [ie self defense, murder]. You say that everything can be defined in terms of good or bad, but here you are trying to define certain types of killing as serving justice or injustice.

It is ironic that you can conclude anyone that disagrees with the capital punishment is immoral, because capital punishment, itself, is immoral.
I can (and have) made a logical argument that's not, which you have yet to counter with anything besides, "but it's immoral, because I say it is!". You can't justify the killing of another person.
Wrong again. Initiatory violence is immoral and unjustified. Killing in self-defense is not initiating violence, nor is killing in the service of justice (like all moral countries do with murderers).

It is ironic that you can conclude anyone that disagrees with the capital punishment is immoral, because capital punishment, itself, is immoral.
I can (and have) made a logical argument that's not, which you have yet to counter with anything besides, "but it's immoral, because I say it is!". You can't justify the killing of another person.
Wrong again. Initiatory violence is immoral and unjustified. Killing in self-defense is not initiating violence, nor is killing in the service of justice (like all moral countries do with murderers).

Your logical argument is basically "kill them because it's moral." Whatever happened to defining things one way or another. Killing is either moral or immoral, regardless of its circumstances. Regardless of whether it is in self-defense or premediated. It's immoral because it is not up to the government, or any other institution, to determine whether someone is worthy of life of not.

Any person with a sane, clear, sober mind who commits pre-meditated murder has forfeited their right as a human being to live by taking the life of another human being.
It doesn't sound pretty, and it isn't a nice thing, but it's better than letting someone waste away in a cell for the rest of their life.

Government is not about morality. Government is about doing what's necessary to protect the flock from the wolves among them. (Let's make it a flock of goats, they're smart.)

What do you do with a man who has proved that he cannot live in society without maliciously killing another? You have to remove him. Your choices are to lock him up, kill him, or destroy his self. The last one is unnecessarily cruel, and (in the US, at least) is banned under the Eighth Amendment. Locking someone up means you're responsible for taking care of them for the rest of their lives. Killing them means that any mistake you make in convicting the wrong person is permanent.

Due to the fact that the death penalty in the US is not applied in a just manner (too many people deliberately screwed by the system), I would argue for a heavy moratorium on application of the death penalty and clearing Death Row, putting people whose names were there into the regular prison system. I do not, however, endorse banning it completely. The theory of capital punishment is as fundamentally sound as the theory of life imprisonment, possibly more so.

The text of the Resolution:

WHEREAS, the death penalty has been proven to not be a determent; and,




I don't personally believe that the death penality is an effective determent; I don't think criminals think, "gee, i shouldn't commit this crime because i might get death instead of a life sentence" and i don't think these criminals even consider getting caught, I still think your resolution is garbage.

Government is not about morality. Government is about doing what's necessary to protect the flock from the wolves among them. (Let's make it a flock of goats, they're smart.)

What do you do with a man who has proved that he cannot live in society without maliciously killing another? You have to remove him. Your choices are to lock him up, kill him, or destroy his self. The last one is unnecessarily cruel, and (in the US, at least) is banned under the Eighth Amendment. Locking someone up means you're responsible for taking care of them for the rest of their lives. Killing them means that any mistake you make in convicting the wrong person is permanent.

Due to the fact that the death penalty in the US is not applied in a just manner (too many people deliberately screwed by the system), I would argue for a heavy moratorium on application of the death penalty and clearing Death Row, putting people whose names were there into the regular prison system. I do not, however, endorse banning it completely. The theory of capital punishment is as fundamentally sound as the theory of life imprisonment, possibly more so.

Well said.

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?

Hostage takers and the like hold people against their will; so do you mean to say that we can not inprison criminals because it means holding them against their will. Does inprisonment itself not violate the aforementioned concept? Some civil rights must be given up for the best interests of society.

does anyone here think its a little strange to commit the same crime you want to outlaw?

Hostage takers and the like hold people against their will; so do you mean to say that we can not inprison criminals because it means holding them against their will. Does inprisonment itself not violate the aforementioned concept? Some civil rights must be given up for the best interests of society.

This is a very interesting point. I still however disagree with it. Though it is true you take people rights away in order to regulate society, the true question is whether it is a fair punishment in proportion to the crime committed, and whether it is necessary to use a solution as harsh as the one suggested to preserve society. Capitol punishment fails to meet the second test. Many countries around the world prove that capitol punishment does not make a country safer, or work better than a less harsh sentence.

Any person with a sane, clear, sober mind who commits pre-meditated murder has forfeited their right as a human being to live by taking the life of another human being.
It doesn't sound pretty, and it isn't a nice thing, but it's better than letting someone waste away in a cell for the rest of their life.

Wrong. Not only is it unnecessarily cruel and unnecessary, it is NOT better than allowing someone to "waste away" in their cell. For one thing, criminals in some situations can be rehabilitated back into society after a certain amount of time, it is not necessary for them to spend their entire life in a cell. What about falsely accused persons? Countless people have been charged with crimes they did not commit. Often the mistake is not found for years, but when it is, the death penalty would have already killed them, insead of wasting a few years of their life. Better than allowing them waste away the rest of their life in a cell? Ask the criminals. I think the answer you get will be more or less unanimous on their preference.

Rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting society--that's not the point. The point is justice. You have yet to explain how a killer deserves anything less than death himself.

Because it causes more suffering. Simply, anything which causes more suffering is unjust. My basic law of morality.

It is hypocritical in the extreme. Murder does not make someone sub-human, less innocent, but human. You are not justified in sinking to their level. The death penalty is institutionalised murder: we take the values of the terrorist, the ganster, the murderer, and we write it down in our laws.

The Proposal has been posted once again. If it fails to get the necessary 137 votes, I would be more than happy to entertain suggestions for revisions.

Government is not about morality. Government is about doing what's necessary to protect the flock from the wolves among them. (Let's make it a flock of goats, they're smart.)

What do you do with a man who has proved that he cannot live in society without maliciously killing another? You have to remove him. Your choices are to lock him up, kill him, or destroy his self. The last one is unnecessarily cruel, and (in the US, at least) is banned under the Eighth Amendment. Locking someone up means you're responsible for taking care of them for the rest of their lives. Killing them means that any mistake you make in convicting the wrong person is permanent.

Due to the fact that the death penalty in the US is not applied in a just manner (too many people deliberately screwed by the system), I would argue for a heavy moratorium on application of the death penalty and clearing Death Row, putting people whose names were there into the regular prison system. I do not, however, endorse banning it completely. The theory of capital punishment is as fundamentally sound as the theory of life imprisonment, possibly more so.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your premises.

A government is about protecting rights, which means that it must operate morally (or legally, if you perfer to look at it that way). In modern society, more often than not, the government IS the wolf among the flock of goats. As the last hundred years have made painfully clear, a government that operates under the premises that the ends justify the means will ensure a society that rapidly descends into tyranny.

Because it causes more suffering. Simply, anything which causes more suffering is unjust. My basic law of morality.

It is hypocritical in the extreme. Murder does not make someone sub-human, less innocent, but human. You are not justified in sinking to their level. The death penalty is institutionalised murder: we take the values of the terrorist, the ganster, the murderer, and we write it down in our laws.

If your basic law of morality is to remove suffering, then would you endorse the model of the world presented in Huxley's Brave New World? Dopamine is the best cure for suffering, after all.

My basic law of morality is the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is sovereign over his life and his property. He may do whatever he wishes with it so long as he does not impair the right of others to do the same (i.e. through force or fraud). That is the ideal of liberty.

Rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting society--that's not the point. The point is justice. You have yet to explain how a killer deserves anything less than death himself.

I have yet to explain it because whether or not a killers deserves death is completely irrelevant. In some mystical moral sense you may believe that someone deserves death because they have killed (which by the way in an unconsistent ideology akin to saying that since we eat bacon, we should be fed to pigs, or that drug dealer should have to become a drug victim). But just because you believe they should die doesn't give you the right to kill them yourself. You cannot commit the same wrong and claim that somehow that's okay, because you say it is. Your defintion of justice is therefore revenge at best, and the psycotic whims of the state at worst. Furthermore, the onus of proving that a killer does or does not deserve death rests in the hand of those who want to kill him, not those who do not. Your claim is like saying "you have yet to prove that bbq sauce does not deserve to be outlawed, therefore it should be".

Whilst Renard is - morally - opposed to captial punishment it shall oppose this resolution at every step on the grounds that:
It is a national issue to be decided by national governments
It is currently "cutting off sex offenders' ability to re-offend"

Because it causes more suffering. Simply, anything which causes more suffering is unjust. My basic law of morality.

It is hypocritical in the extreme. Murder does not make someone sub-human, less innocent, but human. You are not justified in sinking to their level. The death penalty is institutionalised murder: we take the values of the terrorist, the ganster, the murderer, and we write it down in our laws.

Causes more suffering? Does not the victim suffer when they are raped and tortured to death? Does not the family of the victim suffer when their loved one is brutily taken from them? Why should the murderer be given a chance at rehabilitation when their victim will never again walk upon this earth? Does the killer really deserve such a kindness after what they have done? Capital punishment is not sinking to their level but, giving them the just reward most fitting to the crime.

It is ironic that you can conclude anyone that disagrees with the capital punishment is immoral, because capital punishment, itself, is immoral.
I can (and have) made a logical argument that's not, which you have yet to counter with anything besides, "but it's immoral, because I say it is!". You can't justify the killing of another person.
Wrong again. Initiatory violence is immoral and unjustified. Killing in self-defense is not initiating violence, nor is killing in the service of justice (like all moral countries do with murderers).

Your logical argument is basically "kill them because it's moral." Whatever happened to defining things one way or another. Killing is either moral or immoral, regardless of its circumstances. Regardless of whether it is in self-defense or premediated. It's immoral because it is not up to the government, or any other institution, to determine whether someone is worthy of life of not.

So you're saying that killing is immoral regardless of circumstances, so it's just as immoral to set off a bomb in a bus station as it is to weed your garden? Face it, alterrnate circumstances always change the morality of a response.

Because it causes more suffering. Simply, anything which causes more suffering is unjust. My basic law of morality.

It is hypocritical in the extreme. Murder does not make someone sub-human, less innocent, but human. You are not justified in sinking to their level. The death penalty is institutionalised murder: we take the values of the terrorist, the ganster, the murderer, and we write it down in our laws.

Causes more suffering? Does not the victim suffer when they are raped and tortured to death? Does not the family of the victim suffer when their loved one is brutily taken from them? Why should the murderer be given a chance at rehabilitation when their victim will never again walk upon this earth? Does the killer really deserve such a kindness after what they have done? Capital punishment is not sinking to their level but, giving them the just reward most fitting to the crime.

"Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation—the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose were not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains, which the British ministry has been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?"

"They tell us, sir that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?"

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!”—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Not that that has any relevance, I just love these aggressive rhetorical questions. I use them in my speeches all the time.

What ever happened to national sovereignty? If my nation were to join the UN, I would have to legalize gay marraige (my country uses civil unions); I would even have to develope the hydrogen fuel cell for cars, to improve the environment. My people ride llamas to work! This is unfair. Now someone wants to tell me that I can't even execute people any more. This isn't how the UN works in the real world. UN resolutions do not breach national sovereignty, they do not take precedence over the laws of individual member states. See if I ever join your "UN".

What ever happened to national sovereignty? If my nation were to join the UN, I would have to legalize gay marraige (my country uses civil unions); I would even have to develope the hydrogen fuel cell for cars, to improve the environment. My people ride llamas to work! This is unfair. Now someone wants to tell me that I can't even execute people any more. This isn't how the UN works in the real world. UN resolutions do not breach national sovereignty, they do not take precedence over the laws of individual member states. See if I ever join your "UN".

National sovereignty is rooted in individual sovereignty. Therefore, nations have the right to nullify only those UN laws that infringe on individual liberty. Otherwise, the national laws themselves are illegitimate and should be replaced by UN laws.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt believes this should be a state matter. We will not support a ban on capital punishment because we feel that the only way for someone to be punished for the taking of a life is by the taking if their own life. If they were allowed to live out their lives in prison, it would be decades of tax money going to feed them, as well as taking up the already limited space in Schweinfurt's prisons.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt believes this should be a state matter. We will not support a ban on capital punishment because we feel that the only way for someone to be punished for the taking of a life is by the taking if their own life. If they were allowed to live out their lives in prison, it would be decades of tax money going to feed them, as well as taking up the already limited space in Schweinfurt's prisons.

We've been throught this already...Those arguments have already been refuted.

The United Socialist States of Russu oppose capital punishment and support this proposal.

The nation of Chikyota supports this proposal, both because of the listed reasons as well as because executions actually cost more than life imprisonment.

The Democratic Republic of Meyoria can not endorse this proposal and will actively campaign to discourage the region of Highbury from voting for this ill conceived proposal.

Meyoria makes use of death penalty not just for murder but also for drunk driving, rape, and a number of acts that willfully endanger the lives of other with deliberate disregard. Such people have no place in an ordered society as they willfully and knowingly endanger the lives and well beings of others.

The Imperial Govt of Brightburg will not endose this bill, it is not up to the UN to tell my Govt to do with my Criminals.


puting them to death makes sure they never kill nor rape again.


Janos I Holy Roman Emperor of the Lands of Brightonburg

Causes more suffering? Does not the victim suffer when they are raped and tortured to death? Does not the family of the victim suffer when their loved one is brutily taken from them? Why should the murderer be given a chance at rehabilitation when their victim will never again walk upon this earth? Does the killer really deserve such a kindness after what they have done? Capital punishment is not sinking to their level but, giving them the just reward most fitting to the crime.
Yes. The victim and the victim's family suffer. Execution would make the offender and the offender's family suffer.
They should be given a chance to rehabilitate because they are human. Because killing them would create more suffering. Because they can be made into productive and moral people again.
Kindness? Not really. Just simple sense. And why is it not sinking to their level? What is the difference? Does it make it right for a vigilante group to lynch someone because they think it's justice.

Anything which causes more suffering than it has to is unjust.

See, I don't think that's what you understand--some people DESERVE to suffer, and so making them suffer is perfectly just. Murderers and rapists deserve to suffer. Torture is a perfectly acceptable punishment for them--again, in principle. I recognize that there are practical problems with ensuring that you have the correct person, but in principle it is perfectly just to torture and execute murderers, or torture and rape rapists, etc.

Causes more suffering? Does not the victim suffer when they are raped and tortured to death? Does not the family of the victim suffer when their loved one is brutily taken from them? Why should the murderer be given a chance at rehabilitation when their victim will never again walk upon this earth? Does the killer really deserve such a kindness after what they have done? Capital punishment is not sinking to their level but, giving them the just reward most fitting to the crime.
Yes. The victim and the victim's family suffer. Execution would make the offender and the offender's family suffer.
They should be given a chance to rehabilitate because they are human. Because killing them would create more suffering. Because they can be made into productive and moral people again.
Kindness? Not really. Just simple sense. And why is it not sinking to their level? What is the difference? Does it make it right for a vigilante group to lynch someone because they think it's justice.

Anything which causes more suffering than it has to is unjust.

So then you do support the "Dopamine-Cures-Everything" Brave New World model of good government?

Both Joshu and P4lladia agree with getting rid of capital punishment. You should work to have a society where such things aren't a concern.

How many people actually know what the word WHERAS or however you spell it actually means?

This nation will, if this law is enforced, put to death 500 crimminals in a blatant and aimed act of blantant disregard for UN authority over our soveriegn state.

The nation of Bariloche completely agrees with the banning of the capital punishment, criminals should be put in corectional detention institutes, in case of people who has no desire nor is able to understand their wrong, they are at detention for life. Reincidence is punished by Life sentence in all cases in which the original punishment for the second offence is five years or more (OOC: you got busted and away for 3 months, you got out and commited grand larceny, then you are in for life), as well as murder one, rape, kidnapping and other irremediable acts.

The United Socialist States of Russu (USSR) agree with the nation Bariloche on this issue.

Forced labor is the standard punishment for most felons in the Global Market. They not only contribute back to society, but it also helps in rehabilitation. While we do not oppose the death penalty on principle, it is rarely, if ever used, in our country because of the practical problems of it.

Xawadiland believes that capital punishment should exist, but only for serial killers. Nothing less. Also, it must be absolutely certain that the convicted person(s) did commit the murders. Any doubt whatsoever, and the punishment cannot go ahead.

Xawadiland believes that capital punishment should exist, but only for serial killers. Nothing less. Also, it must be absolutely certain that the convicted person(s) did commit the murders. Any doubt whatsoever, and the punishment cannot go ahead.

That's another problem, in science and law the reasoning is:

p -> q
If Bob killed Tom, his fingerprints would be on the gun.

If q, then p
If Bob's fingerprings are on the gun, then he killed Tom (logical fallacy)

That's faulty reasoning, which means that it is impossible ever to prove something 100%. The more q's (evidence) you have, the closer it gets to 100%, but it can never truly be 100%. That's why juries say "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "beyond all doubt".

Which is why, in practice, the death penalty is incredibly problematic.

To be honest, the Xawadiland government wouldn't shed any tears over this, as there would be very few executions if it was passed. We accept your argument as logical, and take back the point we expressed earlier. there really isn't much point if you can never prove somebody 100% guilty.