NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry about the title, but that was all that would fit in the box on the proposal submission screen)

Abolition - Capital Punishment

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: _Myopia_

Description: The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Convinced that the killing of any human being is cruel, whether by an individual or a government,

Further convinced that the use of the death penalty is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,

Recognising that capital punishment may be necessary under situations of martial law,

1. Reaffirms its support for governments who protect their citizens by humane means from criminals found guilty of heinous crimes;
2. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation, subject to later clauses;
3. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the receiving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
4. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.
5. Authorises the use of capital punishment when deemed necessary by the authorities in a situation of officially declared martial law;
6. Prohibits the "outsourcing" of capital punishment to private individuals or organisations.

The resolution author wishes to thank the various nations who have contributed to the text.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 151 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Mar 12 2004


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Convinced that the state-sanctioned killing of a human being is cruel,

Further convinced that this is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,

1. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation;
2. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the recieving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
2. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.

Basing it on Sophista's guide written in the UN forum, I've put together this draft. Please, any constructive criticism would be helpful.

It may be worth, merely for the sake of making this proposition more widely attractive, including a clause permitting the use of capital punishment in situations of martial law. While we personally would not take advantage of this clause, it is likely it would afford this laudable bill a higher chance of being passed.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

It may be worth, merely for the sake of making this proposition more widely attractive, including a clause permitting the use of capital punishment in situations of martial law. While we personally would not take advantage of this clause, it is likely it would afford this laudable bill a higher chance of being passed.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

Could you persuade me with an argument for allowing this, given that other resolutions (such as the fair trial one) don't make any equivalent allowances? And an appropriate definition of martial law to prevent exploitation?

Under situations of grave military importance, it is imperative for a nation's survival to prevent certain crimes - notably espionage and treason - and the grave nature of such crimes is thought by some to justify grave punishment. Similarly, in some instances it may be necessary to hold military tribunals in situations where permanent imprisonment is impossible, or to impose draconian measures (for instance, the shooting of looters) in order to restore order in newly conquered territories.

I play devil's advocate here, and am not entirely comfortable with doing so. As mentioned beforehand, I seek this amendment principally to ensure the proposal's safe passage.

It is worth noting that in times of martial law, the treaties and accords a nation has signed are no longer binding. When martial law is declared, the government takes a back seat to the military, and since the military were not the signatories of said treaties, they are not bound to their rules.

This is one of the reasons that declarations of martial law are reserved for the most extreme of circumstances.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Thanks Rehochipe, I see your point.

It is worth noting that in times of martial law, the treaties and accords a nation has signed are no longer binding. When martial law is declared, the government takes a back seat to the military, and since the military were not the signatories of said treaties, they are not bound to their rules.

This is one of the reasons that declarations of martial law are reserved for the most extreme of circumstances.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

This means that any clause specifying that under martial law, the resolution does not apply, would be superfluous. However, should it be included anyway, in order as Rehochipe points out, to aid the passage of the proposal (since what Sophista pointed out may not be obvious to all)?

If it was to be included, how's this:

Recognising that capital punishment may be necessary under situations of martial law,

4. Authorises the use of capital punishment when deemed necessary by the authorities in a situation of officially declared martial law

Oh holy sh- uhh, feces.

Death is neither cruel nor unusual. We all must die sometime. If you're bad enough an actor, the state has the right to mandate you die early.

This is a bleeding heart pansy arsed proposition if I ever heard of one.

In my nation, only truly heinous crimes are punished by death anyways. If you think a hanging or a firing squad is "cruel" or "unusual" you should look at the crime scenes these people left behind them. You will learn an entirely new concept of both cruel and unusual.

Rabid animals are put down, as are rabid human beings. Any other option is an invitation to disaster.

My nation does not believe this subject comes under UN jurisdiction. Any criminal who has had a fair trial, and been found guilty by his peers by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence forgoes rights. If the crime is heinous enough, the right to life can be one of those rights.

I shall do everything in my power to block this or any similar legislation.

The International Declaration of Human Rights has the full support of the Democratic States of Zaxxsland and its 5 million inhabitants. It is imperative that it be passed for the good of all humanity. It will also help promote trust between countries that have a more liberal base and wish to support the rights of all humankind

The International Declaration of Human Rights has the full support of the Democratic States of Zaxxsland and its 5 million inhabitants. It is imperative that it be passed for the good of all humanity. It will also help promote trust between countries that have a more liberal base and wish to support the rights of all humankind

"imperative" he says.

I got a better idea. Abotions being legal, why don't you come up with some tests for fetuses? Any fetus likely to grow up to be a psychopathic pedophile is aborted. Any fetus who will prey on the elderly, can be aborted. Sexual predators of any type or flavor.

Geez. 'scuse me, I gotta get some fresh air.

Here's what our legal experts have come up with.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",
Good start, at least we're grounding this in something else.

Convinced that the state-sanctioned killing of a human being is cruel,
Might it be worth it to add here that the killing of a human being by anybody is cruel and unusual? I mean, if I hack you to death with a machete, then that's at the very least cruel (sadly not as unusual as perhaps it should be). So if it's cruel if done by one person, why does it cease to be cruel when done by the state, which merely exists to represent several persons?

Further convinced that this is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),
Nice. Although the language might count against the proposal when a moderate right-wing state comes to consider it, it's still a good idea to have it in, methinks.

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,
Bingo.

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,
More bingo.

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,
Defuses the national sovereignty argument, check.

1. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation;
Good.

2. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the recieving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
This bit's good.

2. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.
Nice little kicker.

One question though - how does this relate to organisations like the military? Are they still able to punish desertion by firing squad?

Load of bleeding heart bollocks it is.

Absolute bollocks,

I know of at lest 3 N.S. issues that allow nations to decide on the death penalty for criminals. So, now your saying its wrong,

Which would mean,

Nations could not kill drink drivers who kill (Okay, maybe that is a little extreme...)

Nations cannot sentance terrorists to death (F*ck off, I'll top them myself IF I must... I am not having people slay bus fulls of childeren on a religious differance held by their parents, hell no! They'll have something to fear from us, I will not give individual murders carte blanche to go do their "thing" with-out the gravest repercussions from the law! )

Nations cannot sentance religious wacko's who sacrifice people to death. (Damn right, nail the crazy psycho's!I don't want to be dragged off my lawn on a sunday arvo and stabbed to death on a altar under a dis-used parking lot!)

So now your saying its wrong, yet there has been such great precedent to nations handling this idea themselves without any restrictive U.N. laying down the law on how we deal with our justice system and those within.

Don't get me wrong, I am for human rights, duh, but this is just... so stupid!

I mean, when I try to express myself about how distasteful it is to me, I have no words.

The Rep of Komokom.

Kokokom,
It is pretty much taken as read that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. Its sole function is retributive.
It is not the state's function to act as moral arbiter or instrument of vengeance. Our refusal to sanction cold-blooded killing is precisely what makes us different from the criminals you speak of.

P.D.K Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

Kokokom,
It is pretty much taken as read that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. Its sole function is retributive.
It is not the state's function to act as moral arbiter or instrument of vengeance. Our refusal to sanction cold-blooded killing is precisely what makes us different from the criminals you speak of.

P.D.K Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

Yes, yes, I suppose your right, mind if I put this convenient ice pick through your skull? After all, with this proposal in the workings... what do I have to worry about? A life time in a humane prison, three nice meals a day? A nice cell? t.v. and all the books I can read, oh, yay, let me in there now! Please hold still!

(Lunge! Thrust and Poke! Not really, but see moi point?)

...

While I do in a way agree with your statement, what I am trying to say, with much difficulty.... damn medication, makes me feel all gluggy, is that our not sanctioning "cold-blooded killing" is exactly why we should leave the death penalty to the individual nation, I mean, if my nation refuses to sanction cold blooded murder, and twelve men and women, good and true, representatives of the people come in with a guilty verdict and a recommendation to our court to impose the death penalty for orchistrating the flight of some planes into some buildings... then if my country is for the death penalty, who is some out-sider to decide on this, life may be a fundamental right, but for example, when you run about calling people evil and slaying them, exactly what right o you have to it?

The Rep of Komokom.

P.S. Hey, if this passes, lets just skip to the chase, some one make a "One World Governmnet" proposal. Pfffrt.

Kokokom,
It is pretty much taken as read that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. Its sole function is retributive.
It is not the state's function to act as moral arbiter or instrument of vengeance. Our refusal to sanction cold-blooded killing is precisely what makes us different from the criminals you speak of.

P.D.K Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

This is the core of your mistaken fallacies, oh great bleeding hearts. The very concept of civilization infers that the welfare of many comes before the welfare of an individual. That idea is central to the concept of self sacrifice, seen so often in military heros.

While you recognize that the nation is the representation of the will of many people, you then make your logic fly off at a tangent, and imply that the nation is some disembodied entity which is in opposition to the people's will. I insist that the nation IS the people's will, and that the people are indeed the moral arbiters of each and every individual's conduct.

As for the idea of deterrence, versus vengeance seeking, the point is moot. Death is the ultimate punishment for a truly heinous crime, and is appropriate. If the chance of being put to death deters some sociopaths from commiting a crime, fine. If not, then we will punish them when we catch them.

I really don't know which backwater you folks are living in, but in our little corner of the world, we have followed scientific advances. DNA evidence is pretty darn sure proof. When our police recover a little 8 year old girl who had been raped and strangled, the semen samples taken from her body proved conclusively that our secondary (not our primary) suspect had commited the crime. We were quite happy to drop this fellow from a scaffold, and humanely remove from him the guilt and responsibility of this horrendous crime.

As stated previously, we will oppose this, and any like proposal. May I suggest that you spend your wasted effort in making a more reasonable proposal, one which defines truly heinous crimes, and limits capital punishment to those cases?

I can ALMOST understand your concern. Newspapers have carried stories of people put to death simply for not agreeing with their government's position. That is unreasonable. If some activist really really really got on my nerves, I would never kill him. I would just send him to a work prison somewhere, til he decided to be more reasonable. Killing him would really be a waste of a fine education, and resources.

If you propose that we ensure we only use the death penalty on low life scummy animals, then I can agree with you. Outlawing the death penalty across the board, is simply stupid.

DNA evidence is pretty darn sure proof.

Sadly, a myth. DNA evidence is deeply flawed and comes up with an awful lot of false matches.

-DP-

Nations cannot sentance terrorists to death (F*ck off, I'll top them myself IF I must... I am not having people slay bus fulls of childeren on a religious differance held by their parents, hell no! They'll have something to fear from us, I will not give individual murders carte blanche to go do their "thing" with-out the gravest repercussions from the law! )
By executing terrorists you run the risk of turning them in to martyrs.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Damn server crashed and I lost my original message. Grr...

Anyway, in summary:

For me, the death penalty is abhorrent on moral and logical grounds. Morality I accept is subjective. Why logical grounds? Well, we say that the taking of another's life (without consent, so I exclude euthanasia here) is 'wrong'. Therefore, to respond to such an act by repeating it is illogical. The moral dimension is added because the state itself has an even greater responsibility than the individual to not do 'wrong'.

However, we have objected to pro-capital punishment proposals on the basis that we cannot accept such legislation in our nation. I wonder if this is a mirror image proposal, in which case I hesitate to support it.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

The forward thinking yet wary of change nation of Berkylvania, while passionately disagreeing with the barbaric and uncivilized institution of capital punishment, also realizes that this is not an issue that can be mandated through UN action. Every sovereign nation has an intrinsic right to establish it's own moral and legalistic code and then mete out what it deems to be fair punishment for transgressions against that code. While we feel that, for our society, captial punishment is simply out of the question, we cannot and will not make that judgement for other nations.

Every sovereign nation has an intrinsic right to establish it's own moral and legalistic code

Agreed. What it is the role of the UN to do is to ensure that all have equally protection under each nation's moral and legal codes, which - thanks to the Fair Trial resolutions, the Human Rights resolution and the Bill of Gay Rights - is well on the way to being the case.

We remain fundamentally opposed to the use of the death penalty, but recognise that the UN may be overstepping its authority in seeking to ban capital punishment in all nations.

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

Thanks for all your comments, sorry about the delay - server's not good.

DubyaShrubland, you say that these people's actions are cruel and unusual. As many others have pointed out, if it's wrong for a person to kill someone, it's wrong for the state to do so, and murder is always cruel, no matter who's doing it. With that in mind I'll add in something to the preamble comparing the wrongness of killing by the state and individuals, and perhaps an operative clause condemning those who commit heinous crimes such as rape or murder - what do people think of that?

To your later comments that as the collective will of society, government should exact retribution, I disagree. Whilst I agree that government, in a way, is the tool that society uses to express it's will, I cannot agree that the death penalty is morally right. In cases such as martial law, it might be the lesser of two evils, bringing stability and thus saving more lives, but otherwise it's just wrong. We can't fight crime by descending to the criminal's level, and I will continue with this attempt to ban the death penalty "across the board".

Thanks for your support Enodia, and the advice I followed (see above). As to the military, well the proposed Rehochipe clause would allow martial law authorities to use the death penalty, but I'm not sure about allowing the military to execute deserters etc - bit dubious. What do people think? Perhaps for volunteers but not conscripts, as a compromise?

Komokom, I respect that you feel that this should be down to individual nations given that there's a method to do it, but i can't agree. As I put in the proposal, basic human rights must come before national sovereignty. And I agree with The Black New World that executing terrorists can make them martyrs.

I wonder if this is a mirror image proposal, in which case I hesitate to support it.

Don't know quite what you mean. If you're asking whether I'm, responding to a proposal to force nations to use the death penalty, then no, I haven't seen any pro-death penalty proposals (but then i don't tend to check the list, as I'm not currently delegate)

To those who support the anti-death penalty principle but don't think it's the UN's place to enforce it, I respect your position, but I feel that it is.


So, with suggested add-ins and changes in red (on which I would like more specific feedback - what do people think of these ideas? should they remain?), this is what it looks like so far:

Abolition of Capital Punishment

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Convinced that the killing of any human being is cruel, whether by an individual or a government,

Further convinced that the use of the death penalty is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,

Recognising that capital punishment may be necessary under situations of martial law,

1. Reaffirms its support for governments who protect their citizens by humane means from criminals found guilty of heinous crimes;
2. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation, subject to later clauses;
3. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the recieving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
4. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.
5. Authorises the use of capital punishment when deemed necessary by the authorities in a situation of officially declared martial law;
6. some decision on whether to restrict the military's use of capital punishment.

The resolution author wishes to thank the various nations who have contributed to the text.

Ecopoeia wrote:
I wonder if this is a mirror image proposal, in which case I hesitate to support it.

MYOPIA: Don't know quite what you mean. If you're asking whether I'm, responding to a proposal to force nations to use the death penalty, then no, I haven't seen any pro-death penalty proposals (but then I don't tend to check the list, as I'm not currently delegate)

Apologies, I wasn't very clear. I have seen threads in the forum proposing a universal death penalty for certain crimes and I was averse (to say the least) to the idea of such legislation being forced on Ecopoeia. However, I'm trying to think of the opposing view where having the death penalty denied would also be unacceptable for some nations. Then again, I'd be glad to see this...I guess I'm nearly voting for you but not quite. Believe me, a lot of consideration and discussion is going into our final decision.

One worry - possibly unfounded - is that nations denied the possibility of employing state-administered execution may turn to private organisations to carry out their wishes instead. If this were the case then we (in the global sense) are no better off.

One enormous plus point for us is that any Ecopoeian found guilty of a formerly capital crime in another nation will not face the possibility of execution.

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

How about a clause is added ensuring that murder is banned for private companies as well as governments?

Yes, or state-licenced execution. Essentially, something that would preclude, erm, out-sourcing the death penalty would suffice.

I'm sure someone out there can provide the appropriate legalspeak for such a clause...

To those who support the anti-death penalty principle but don't think it's the UN's place to enforce it, I respect your position, but I feel that it is.

Having given the matter further thought - and with our revolutionary zeal renewed by a hasty nip in the Strangers' Bar - we regret our hastily taken earlier position and wish it to be known that we now stand in favour of a UN ban.

We concur with the view that killing by the state is no more moral than killing by individuals. We note, moreover, that none of the practical arguments advanced in favour of the death penalty - the deterrence effect, for example - hold water. Furthermore, it is not the place of the justice system to exact revenge, which seems to be the sole motive behind many calls for the death penalty.

We look forward to voting for this proposal if it makes quorum.

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

The always impassioned but surprisingly laid-back nation of Berkylvania acknowledges the coherent and intelligent arguments laid forth by the honorable speakers from all other nations on this topic. However, while we still condemn the practice of capital punishment and have no problems looking down our noses with a smug sense of self-righteousness at nations that advocate it, we can not help but reason that this is an issue that must be decided on a nation by nation basis.

One of the fundamental criteria of how far a society has progressed is in how it treats those outside of it. Namely, how is the problem of crime handled. In an ideal society, of course there would be no crime. Unfortunately in the real world, this is rarely the case. If a society is still at a point of development where they are incapable or unwilling to remedy law breakers in humane and successful ways, it is not fair for us to impose such a law on them as it forces them to advance to a point of civilization they are clearly not ready for. Not only is it culturally insensitive, it is damaging to both the society and the world as a whole as you have effectively created a nation playing way above it's level.

Moreover, we cannot help but think of the outrage we should feel were this type of resolution turned against us and a position adopted that certain crimes, no matter what country they were committed in, must result in a death sentence. As we can imagine the shock and indignity such a proposal would inspire in us, we can, in a limited way, understand the anger of fellow UN members who see capital punishment as a perfectly natural means of crime control.

In summary, we feel that capital punishment is wrong and any progressive, modern society will eventually come to see this. However, to force a society to abide by this is an impossible and unwelcome assult on individual national rule and cannot be supported.

In the wake of such "interesting" resolutions passing as the Euthanasia resolution and the prostitution resolution, we must strongly take a stance against legislating morality, even when it means defending a practice we do not agree with and hold in nothing but contempt.

It is worth noting that in times of martial law, the treaties and accords a nation has signed are no longer binding. When martial law is declared, the government takes a back seat to the military, and since the military were not the signatories of said treaties, they are not bound to their rules.

This is one of the reasons that declarations of martial law are reserved for the most extreme of circumstances.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The imposition of martial law does not temporarily abrogate any previous treaties or accords a nation signs, nor should the government take a backseat to the military (else, one would have a military coup d'etat). What occurs is that all crimes within a given area are subject to military law rather than civilian criminal or civil law. In other words, suspects can be detained for longer periods than in ordinary times, by still regulated to statute, will be tried before military tribunals, and, if found guilty, will be punished according to military law. While civil authorities play a secondary role, the government maintains overall control of the nation, thus any treaties or other international agreements signed by said nation will remain valid.

We welcome Berkylvania's coherent, thoughtful and logical arguments against this proposal as a refreshing alternative to the bile-filled rants, berserk calls for vengeance and ludicrously exaggerated hypothetical situations that usually constitute arguments in favour of the death penalty.

However, we cannot agree with Berkylvania on some key points.

If a society is still at a point of development where they are incapable or unwilling to remedy law breakers in humane and successful ways, it is not fair for us to impose such a law on them as it forces them to advance to a point of civilization they are clearly not ready for. Not only is it culturally insensitive, it is damaging to both the society and the world as a whole.

We do not accept the model of societal development set out here by Berkylvania. There is no natural path of progress for all nations to follow; every nation takes its own route of progress.

This being the case, it does not make sense to talk about a society being "not ready" for a ban on capital punishment, as if we were talking about a teenager being "not ready" for adult responsibilities. Societies stumble along towards civilisation; sometimes they take the wrong route, and sometimes they stall altogether. We should not, therefore, be reluctant to give them a helping hand.

Moreover, we should not be afraid of being "culturally insensitive". Crimes cannot be permitted in the name of "cultural tolerance"; societies do progress and reach wisdom. Wise, well-thought-out views with the benefit of practical experience behind them are not morally or culturally equivalent to barbaric practices carried out in the name of prejudice, superstition or religion, regardless of what some postmodernists may think.

Moreover, we cannot help but think of the outrage we should feel were this type of resolution turned against us and a position adopted that certain crimes, no matter what country they were committed in, must result in a death sentence. As we can imagine the shock and indignity such a proposal would inspire in us, we can, in a limited way, understand the anger of fellow UN members who see capital punishment as a perfectly natural means of crime control.

Our esteemed comrades are comparing the two situations - a ban on capital punishment and the imposition of same - as if they were opposite propositions with equal weight.

But we are talking here about a concept and its absence, not a concept and its negative, and the two are philosophically different. It is significantly less intrusive to take away a practice than to impose one, and we feel that here that minor intrusion is justified in the name of human rights.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Wise, well-thought-out views with the benefit of practical experience behind them are not morally or culturally equivalent to barbaric practices carried out in the name of prejudice, superstition or religion, regardless of what some postmodernists may think.

Yes. You can't argue that mass human sacrifice was just a necessary step in the Aztecs' moral progression, or that we should respect female circumcision in East Africa so as not to be culturally insensitive. Moral relativism just doesn't work when weighed against such clear violations of basic human rights.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

The always open to change yet annoyingly empathic nation of Berkylvania sees the admirable points made by the fellow honorable representatives. However, we remain deeply troubled by the idea of mandating punishment methodologies.

To respectfully address the comments from the speaker from Rehochipe first, we are concerned primarily with the system of punishment for transgression again codified laws, not flagrant human rights violations. Female circumcision in East Africa is not a punishment for a crime and is therefore not a germane example in this case (and, if I may be so bold as to assert, is already outlawed under already existant legislation, which brings up a question of necessity in this particular resolutions as well). The same can be said for the Aztec civilization. While human sacrific may be abhorent to many nations, it is a mistake to compare it to capital punishment. As for your charge of moral relativisim, I would suggest that morals are indeed relative and must needs be when one is attempting to ensure a successful synergy between nations that have widely divergent cultural practices.

A developing civilization, if it is to grow and prosper in a strong and fundamentally balanced way, must be allowed to make certain mistakes on it's own. Legislating these evils out of existance does not solve the fundamental immaturity in the society that gives rise to them, it merely covers one particular visible harm. At the same time, it encourages the emergent society to see the larger world as totalitarian aggressors who want to turn all civilizations into exact carbon copies of their own which leads to resistance against further maturing processes and "helping hands" from more advanced nations.

The nature of punishment is fundamental to any civilized society and it's decisions regarding it are endemic to that society's future and it's place in a global theater. Each society must be allowed to make their own choice, otherwise we simply mask the central rot with a smooth exterior.


We acknowledge the representative from East Hackney's point that there is no one 'correct' method of societal development. However, we would like to point out that there seems to be certain landmark moments in any society's development. Most societies, once they begin to wrestle with the concept of rule under law, must ask themselves, "What happens if someone breaks the law?" The answers for this range from the draconian (any transgression is automatically met with death) to free range (do whatever you like, but expect it to be done to you as well). Most societies at one point or another contemplate capital punishment. Many eventually decide that it is, at best, a morally ambiguous form of punishment that makes the law almost as guilty as the law breaker and attempt to find other solutions. It was perhaps presumptuous of us to suggest that societies currently struggling with this question are "lesser" developed and for that hubris, we do apologize.

However, we still stand by our fundamental point which is that the struggle is almost as important as the decision and that no society can be "kid gloved" through it and expect to develop in a productive, enriching way. This is a fundamental question that must be debated, agonized over and then answered. To remove this basic right of a society for self-determination in this matter is to insult the society in question and display a sense of cultural imperialisim that we of Berkylvania find disturbing in the extreme.

Giving societies "helping hands" may be well intentioned, but it rarely works out for the best. History is littered with examples of cultures and people's wiped off of the face of the earth due to the honest good intentions of other, more developed peoples.

If you hem a child in with rules and regulations that he doesn't understand, he will grow up fragile and unable to deal with change. He is reliant on the rules and, if he's in a situation where the rules don't apply, he is lost. If, however, you provide certain basic limitations to the child but then allow them to make their own mistakes, no matter how painful they may be to watch, you teach the child to think, to reason. This makes them adaptable and capable of dealing with whatever situation arises.

Once again, a fundamental question (and a fundamental judgement) of any society is how it treats it's own prisoners. Those of us who have agonized over this question and come to our answers are tempted to feel superior to those who have not. However, we must allow those societies the right to reach their own conclusions. Otherwise, we are nothing more than petty dictators bent on dominating all cultures and fusing them into a single conglomerate society of our own vanity.

I must also ask for clarification regarding the argument supplied by East Hackney regarding baning capital punishment and mandating capital punishment. I am unclear as to how these two arguments are not opposite measures.

I sense that we are in broad agreement on the principles here. The difference is that we see banning capital punishment as one of the "certain basic limitations" that, as Berkylvania acknowledges, the UN has the right to impose on nations, whereas our esteemed comrades do not.

As regards our point on imposing and banning capital punishment not being opposites...we must respectfully request that the representative from Berkylvania waits until tomorrow for further explication. We are somewhat fatigued by today's lengthy debates and are struggling to find a precise example to illustrate our point [OOC: and a deadline is staring me right in the face, so I'm going to have to call a halt to NS activities for the time being].

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

DNA evidence is pretty darn sure proof.

Sadly, a myth. DNA evidence is deeply flawed and comes up with an awful lot of false matches.

I'm can't buy that argument, East Hackney. I would hesitate to execute a man who was convicted solely on DNA evidence, especially if the scientists were less than 95% certain. However, when good to mediocre police work points at perhaps a dozen suspects, and the scientists and technicians say that the DNA match for one of those suspects is greater than 95% certain, then we can virtually ignore the other suspects and concentrate on this one.

In my experience, I've found no reason to doubt science, and it's ability to narrow the field. It is still up to police work to make a case. DNA evidence certainly will not make up for shoddy police work. When evidence is brought forward to make me doubt DNA evidence, then perhaps I shall change my mind.

Til then, if my police commisioners tell me that they are more than half certain who commited a crime, and the scientists tell me that they have made more than 95% certain that the cops are right, we'll push for capital punishment. At which point, we STILL have to convince a jury of 12. For capital punishment, we must get a unanimous decision by that jury.

If ever I put to death an innocent man, after all the safeguards in place to prevent it happening, then I shall just have to face my maker on judgement day. (If I've offended any athiests, kindly go explore some anatomical impossiblities, thank you.)

_Myopia_ writes "With that in mind I'll add in something to the preamble comparing the wrongness of killing by the state and individuals, and perhaps an operative clause condemning those who commit heinous crimes such as rape or murder - what do people think of that? "

While I respect your effort to make the legislation more palatable, I really don't believe it is possible for my nation to endorse this proposition.

[OOC post:] DubyaShrubland: take a look at these links:
http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=987
http://www.scientific.org/archive/Sutton%20Press%20Release.htm
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~mueller/error%20rates.html#anchor46893

It's not a question of tiny possibilities of error, like one in a million...we're talking here about major flaws in DNA testing. And that's discounting the possibility of human error introducing even more flaws, which is worryingly common. I did locate a much better link summarising these points, which I now can't find again. Typical. I will be able to find it again at work tomorrow and will post it then.

Here in Bahgum, we feel that death is too final a punishment, and that evildoers should suffer for as long as possible to help them focus on the error of their ways.
We favour banishing our extreme criminals too a little known particulary nasty region, known only as 'down South'. Mass murderers have been known to break down in tears at he very mention of this sanction.
Besides keeping prisoners alive means we can use them for useful industrious activities, whilst showing our populace that the suffering endured is too great a price to pay. Death can be an easy way out (for some), whilst an inventive punishment timetable is much harder to accept and come to terms with for a criminal.

In support of Bahgum's approach, we'd like to drop in an excerpt from Holocaust survivor Primo Levi's For Adolf Eichmann:

Oh son of death, we do not wish your death.
May you live longer than anyone ever lived.
May you live sleepless five million nights,
And may you be visited each night by the suffering of everyone who saw,
Shutting behind him, the door that blocked the way back,
Saw it grow dark around him, the air fill with death.

I must also ask for clarification regarding the argument supplied by East Hackney regarding baning capital punishment and mandating capital punishment. I am unclear as to how these two arguments are not opposite measures.

[OOC: right, deadline despatched, back into the fray]

All we were trying to point out is that an absence of something is not the same as an opposite. It's a fairly minor point, so we don't want to get too distracted by it, but banning and mandating capital punishment are no more opposites than hot and cold are - one is the absence of the other. So the two cases are not equivalent and we should not see the moral outrage that would be caused by banning capital punishment as being equally justified as that which would be caused by banning mandating capital punishment.

Consider the case of outlawing smoking against making it compulsory. The first is a minor infringement of personal rights which could be (since our dear leader is a heavy smoker, we're not going to say "is") justified in terms of the wider public good. Making smoking compulsory, however, is unquestionably a major infringement of personal rights. And the two situations are in no way opposite.

But hey, if that doesn't explain our point, forget about it - it's not that important...

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

We support the draft proposal as written.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

The Holy Republic of Maybabwa supports The International Declaration of Human Rights and views all forms of capital punishment immoral and wrong.

Lord May I
Holy Republic of Maybabwa

First, I'd like to thank East Hackney and particularly Berkylvania for their intelligent and illuminating discussion on this thorny topic. I was already aware of East Hackney's ability to rise above their usual alcohol-soaked tomfoolery; however, Berkylvania's voice is heard too rarely on this forum for my liking and I'm glad their contributions have increased recently.

To Bahgum and Rehochipe, I understand the point you make. However, I belive that the ultimate goal of any sentence handed to the perpetrator of a crime is their acknowlegement of the crime and, accordingly, their repentance. The punishment is viable but not paramount.

DubyaShrubland - I'm glad you're posting here, us 'bleeding hearts' need to have the opposing perspective you represent thrust in our faces. I am curious about one statement you make:

(If I've offended any athiests, kindly go explore some anatomical impossiblities, thank you.)

Do you have an interesting case to make against atheism, or is this code for an insult? If the latter, I do not wish to offend those who hold religious convictions and nor do I expect to have my own humanist view denigrated in this manner.

Personally, I believe that human rights issues like this transcend national sovereignty. As such, I'm very close to approving the proposal. I would like to see some more anti-proposal views though.

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

(If I've offended any athiests, kindly go explore some anatomical impossiblities, thank you.)

We can reassure DubyaShrubland that atheists are not easily offended by contradictory opinions, since they tend to set great store by rational argument based on facts and hence are willing to change their views when faced with a change in the facts or a convincing argument.
It tends to be those who cling to centuries-old superstitions in defiance of all evidence who are most offended - and become most offensive - when someone dares to suggest that they are wrong.

The ever learning yet old beyond it's years nation of Berkylvania thanks the representative of East Hackney for his clarification and sees now the validity of his argument. We are tempted to debate that, in the particular case of capital punishment and the world-wide regulation thereof, that it is perhaps not as expressly laid out as in the speaker's notable example, but we have not had our morning coffee yet and therefore suspect that we may be guilty of just being peevish.

However, we have debated this topic greatly in our internal sessions. As a majority of our nation follows Quaker religious practices, we are naturally opposed to any and all forms of violence, including the death penalty. In balance of that, though, we additionally believe that all peoples and, by extensions, all nations must find thier own moral path. While we would urge nations strenuously to do away with capital punishments, offering whatever help or arguments we can to try and persuade them, we cannot bring ourselves in good concience to actually dictate such restrictions on them. As the honored representative of East Hackney pointed out, I believe we share common ground on this issue and it is simply a matter of how far we believe UN powers should (and do) extend. While the nation of Berkylvania can not bring itself to support this resolution, we certainly sympathize and understand those nations that do.

We also feel that it is pertinant to mention we are troubled in the extreme by the comments regarding the disposition of prisoners in the nation of Baghum. While crime is a terrible thing, vengence is no better, leading only to a continuing cycle of retribution for viscious wrongs. While punishment and correction are sometimes tragically unavoidable given human nature, it should never be forgotten that such punishment is a condemnation of society as a whole for failing both the victim and the perpetrator. The Mikado-esque solution achieved in this nation concerns us deeply and we urge the nation of Baghum to examine their motives. Remember, it is a very fine line between correction and vengence. You cross that line at the peril of your moral authority.

Thanks to all who have lent their support and advice so far. Berkylvania, I respect your well-thought out position and side with East Hackney, that we broadly agree but I feel that stopping the state killing citizens is one of those limitations.

Thanks for Hoblingland's information, making it necessary to include the clause about martial law.

DubyaShrubland, please don't insult people's (non)religious beliefs, especially when we're dealing with something totally unrelated.

I apologise for not being able to post much - the server's being really buggy at the times I'm able to log in, and I have piling workloads too, so submitting this may be put on hold for a week or two.

I'd appreciate more feedback on the proposed additions and changes, especially 6 - whether or not to ban the use by the military in peace time against its own soldiers - and 7 - is it clear and watertight enough? Here's the text again, with changes in red (i'll also add this to the original post, so that the current version is always posted there - alongside the original so that newcomers can see what we've been talking about):

Abolition of Capital Punishment

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Convinced that the killing of any human being is cruel, whether by an individual or a government,

Further convinced that the use of the death penalty is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,

Recognising that capital punishment may be necessary under situations of martial law,

1. Reaffirms its support for governments who protect their citizens by humane means from criminals found guilty of heinous crimes;
2. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation, subject to later clauses;
3. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the recieving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
4. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.
5. Authorises the use of capital punishment when deemed necessary by the authorities in a situation of officially declared martial law;
6. some decision on whether to restrict the military's use of capital punishment.
7. Prohibits the "outsourcing" of capital punishment to private individuals or organisations.

The resolution author wishes to thank the various nations who have contributed to the text.

Berkylvania, I think you'll find that our minister for vengeance (and making sure children eat their greens) will disagree. A public show of vengeance in action acts as a great deterrence, whilst keeping the vast majority of our law abiding populace happy in the knowledge that serious criminals are not having an easy time.

The open bordered yet fiercely ethnocentric nation of Berkylvania understands your point, honorable speaker of Bahgum, and when the revolution comes and you are forced to run from your nation, we will be happy to offer you a place to flee to. However, you will have to bring your own towels as we are currently experiencing a shortage.

:shock: I do believe that you may have a point. I do not believe that any human should be killed under any cercumstance. But i do believe that those people should spend long, long years in prison

I really need some feedback on those red bits, please

I like the red bits. I know I’m not being helpful...

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

lol. Any ideas on 6? Should the military still be able to shoot deserters? Perhaps only if they volunteered for the military in the first place?

lol. Any ideas on 6? Should the military still be able to shoot deserters? Perhaps only if they volunteered for the military in the first place?
I don’t think so but I guess they should be punished. They did break an agreement. I think if you’re going to say they can be killed you will have to include something about conscientious objectors.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm inclined to agree that no death penalty means no death penalty, for soldiers too. I'll scratch 6 then, so that the military, as part of the nation, is covered by 2.

I'm inclined to agree that no death penalty means no death penalty, for soldiers too. I'll scratch 6 then, so that the military, as part of the nation, is covered by 2.

Thank you for considering and implementing my input. Sadly not enough proposal authors do.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

That's ok. After seeing what happened with the Euthanasia resolution when Grande refused to listen to the input offered by myself and others, I'm determined to listen as much as I can.

What do people think of the current draft? It's in the original post in the quote box.

It's more of a punishment to keep the evil alive than to kill them. Vicious animals are put to sleep because their behavior is not so much their fault as their upbringing. with humans, that excuse really doesn't cut it, and id rather see my murderer stuck in a jail cell for 60 years watching my homemovies, on nothing more than cruusts and water, than getting the easy way out of lethal injection. besides, if the wrong guy is captured, he only goes partly insane from his imprisonment, and the real killer eventually is caught and served the same penalty.

From this link: http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=987

“What I saw in the Houston lab was incompetence,” Thompson said. “The analysts presented themselves as scientists, but they don’t fundamentally understand what they are doing. They make up for their incompetence with bias – distorting ambiguous findings to fit the prosecutor’s theories. Prosecutors thought the lab was doing fine because they kept getting what they wanted.”

This link does not support a distrust of science, but points out that incompetent technicians MUST BE MONITORED, and made accountable for the reliability of thier lab methods and results.

I will point out that with drugtesting, a positive result can be challenged, becuase samples are divided into two batches, one of which can be sent to an independent lab for verification. This is common procedure for urine samples taken in the work place.

I would suggest that police labs be subject to the same sort of procedure. Each and every test used to convict a suspect be duplicated by an independent lab, perhaps at a university, more likely at a commercial firm.


Those nations who offer punishments that are worse than death, are perhaps flirting with "cruel and unusual" punishments themselves. What sort of prisons are your running, that a hardened criminal fears them more than death? Are your wardens and guard just psychopaths who have found an outlet for thier own murderous personalities? What sort of punishments take place down there, guys?

BTW, perhaps those of you who deny the existence of any deity would explain something to me. On what grounds can you hold that a single life is precious? I mean, hey, if we are born to die, with nothing to come afterwards, why bother to protect lives at all? What is it that makes individual lives precious to you? Especially the life of a psychopath? You lose me when you seperate the importance of capital punishment from any faith in any deity whatsoever. Humanist? What does that mean, exactly, in relation to capital punishment.

[quote=_Myopia_]lol. Any ideas on 6? Should the military still be able to shoot deserters? Perhaps only if they volunteered for the military in the first place?
I don’t think so but I guess they should be punished. They did break an agreement. I think if you’re going to say they can be killed you will have to include something about conscientious objectors.]

Deserters can only be killed while at war while in the war. Its a control thing. Its the only measure a lone officer has to take when his troops don't want to follow orders while in combat.

After a long and unfortuneate anarchy, during which time Vivelo ceased to exist due to our former emperor going insane in the forum, I, the foreign affairs minister of the New Republic of Vivelo (ignore the II), am proud to see that the UN has reformed its murder-permitting ways. When last I was here, all the proposals were either in favor of abortion or euthanasia, or were being shot down. Now I see a long debate going in the favor of abolition of the death penalty. I am glad to see it. I have no complaints about the proposal. God bless.

Well, if this isn't a proposal against my nation's right to govern and control its people in whatever way it sees fit, what is! Capital punishment is my nation's national pasttime! I think there are enough morally deprived nations that this would never go through!

One thing I have not seen brought up here is whether those who would get the death penalty would be get life in prison instead. If this is the case, would it not put a huge strain on the economy of the nation to keep so many people in prison for so long? And if they were to be released... has anyone seen the percentage of people who commit violent crimes after being released from prison after committing one? The number is surprisingly high. I can't seem to remember it but I believe that it was over 50%. This would raise the issue of possibly putting people who have proven that they can use violence back into the society. The moral questions coming from this are to be considered. If we do put people in prison for life, has anyone thought of the moral consequences of that? To be locked in a place for up to 60 years, having your entire life regulated with little rights if any at all? Would not it be better to die than this? If the term be life in prison, I would propose that prisoners be given the option, possibly at any time in their term, of voluntarily accepting the death penalty, so as not to force them to live out their lives in prison if they don't wish to. If the person is able to go free instead of life behind bars, might you be able to add a clause in there that also provides for increased rehabilitation, and possibly a system to "test" whether or not the person still proves a threat to society. This way, both the liberals are happy (people don't die if they don't want to) and conservatives can be happy (they can be made sure that the person is either behind bars for life or is rehabilitated so he now benefits society). Thank you for your time.
-And just remember, there is always more... Booyah For All!

Just to put in my two cents. Society will not stand for certain people to not be punished by death even if they are innocent. Ex: Oklahoma City bomber(i dont mean that he was innocent), and for those of you who saw Passions of the Christ, Jesus, even though he had not done anything wrong. :shock:

One thing I have not seen brought up here is whether those who would get the death penalty would be get life in prison instead. If this is the case, would it not put a huge strain on the economy of the nation to keep so many people in prison for so long? And if they were to be released... has anyone seen the percentage of people who commit violent crimes after being released from prison after committing one? The number is surprisingly high. I can't seem to remember it but I believe that it was over 50%. This would raise the issue of possibly putting people who have proven that they can use violence back into the society. The moral questions coming from this are to be considered. If we do put people in prison for life, has anyone thought of the moral consequences of that? To be locked in a place for up to 60 years, having your entire life regulated with little rights if any at all? Would not it be better to die than this? If the term be life in prison, I would propose that prisoners be given the option, possibly at any time in their term, of voluntarily accepting the death penalty, so as not to force them to live out their lives in prison if they don't wish to. If the person is able to go free instead of life behind bars, might you be able to add a clause in there that also provides for increased rehabilitation, and possibly a system to "test" whether or not the person still proves a threat to society. This way, both the liberals are happy (people don't die if they don't want to) and conservatives can be happy (they can be made sure that the person is either behind bars for life or is rehabilitated so he now benefits society). Thank you for your time.
-And just remember, there is always more... Booyah For All!

What to do once we have banned the death penalty is up to individual nations - I'm not going to dictate that, because laws about punishments that do not break fundamental human rights are not really something that can be forced on a nation.

If you really wanted, you could RP a law in your nation that prison warders could give prisoners something with which to commit suicide eg. a large bottle of pills that would cause an overdose. _Myopia_ does not use the death penalty, and we have an extensive rehabilitation system for all criminals, and we needed no UN resolution to do this.

and for those of you who saw Passions of the Christ, Jesus, even though he had not done anything wrong.

Historically, it's probable that the Roman authorities decided to execute Jesus regardless of the opinion of the crowds and Jewish authorities - to them, he was a dangerous troublemaker who could have sparked rebellion. Any blame placed on the Jews and the will of the crowds is most likely the result of historical innaccuracies in the Bible and now the film based on it.

BTW, perhaps those of you who deny the existence of any deity would explain something to me. On what grounds can you hold that a single life is precious? I mean, hey, if we are born to die, with nothing to come afterwards, why bother to protect lives at all? What is it that makes individual lives precious to you? Especially the life of a psychopath? You lose me when you seperate the importance of capital punishment from any faith in any deity whatsoever. Humanist? What does that mean, exactly, in relation to capital punishment.

I'm an agnostic deist, I believe that there's probably no god, but if there is/was, it simply created the universe and hasn't intervened since then - i.e. I reject the concept of a classical god which is omnipotent, all-loving, omniscient and interventionist.

Every human life is important because every human life is a spark of intelligence and sentience in a universe filled with non-living material and living things that aren't sentient but are simply slaves to their genes and instincts. As far as we know, we are the only species that has developed a brain capable of overpowering the vicious will of our genes to become something more, and as such each of our living intelligences is valuable. In fact, with no afterlife (or probably no afterlife, personally I'm unsure), it's even more important to protect human life, because once you kill someone, that's it, one more flame of humanity and intelligence has been permanently extinguished.

Does that answer your question?

Deserters can only be killed while at war while in the war. Its a control thing. Its the only measure a lone officer has to take when his troops don't want to follow orders while in combat.

Does clause 5 cover this? A soldier at war is effectively under martial law, officially declared when war is declared, and thus should be covered by that part. Or does it need another clause to make sure of this?

Just to put in my two cents. Society will not stand for certain people to not be punished by death even if they are innocent. Ex: Oklahoma City bomber(i dont mean that he was innocent), and for those of you who saw Passions of the Christ, Jesus, even though he had not done anything wrong. :shock:
I see your point, and not having any connection to the Oklahoma City bombing (not a citizen of the US, didn't lose any relatives in it etc) , then I might be wrong, but I'll have my say anyway.
Here in Australia, we haven't had something of that scale - and touch wood we never will - but the majority of public opinion (as I recall) was that people like the Snowtown Killers, Ivan Milat, Martin Bryant and Leonard Fraser were animals, certainly. However, in the "cold light of dawn", all bar those intimately connected to the crimes seem to have given up calling for capital punishment to be re-instituted.

Note to any non-Australians: I can do my best at explaining the significance of those names if need be.

Note to any Australians: I will regret for the rest of my life not catching an earlier bus into town to see some of Fraser's trial one day last year. By the time I got to the courts, they'd called a recess. Yes, you guessed it, that was the day they found Natasha Ryan. I would've given anything to be in the courtroom when Rutledge (who I've met once or twice, good bloke) informed His Honour that "Natasha Ryan is alive".

I thank Myopia for their replies to DubyaShrubland & Booyah For All. It's saved me on an essay or two. I would like to make the point that a humanist/agnostic/atheist needs no sense of spirituality or religion in order to have a conscience or an ethical standpoint. I think that's something in our favour - the morality is there without needing to feel like we ought to be humane because of a greater being prompting us in that direction. Mind you, 'conscience' is as good as spirituality given our level of understanding of the mind at the moment. Ahh, the joy of semantics.

In response to Ukroatia: society not standing for anything less than death in certain circumstances...well, that's why I feel that the public shouldn't always be listened, because sometimes they're wrong. Now, where was that can of worms? Argh! Come back, you little wrigglers...

The public are not only usually wrong, they tend to be fickle. After high-profile, emotionally charged murder cases (I'm thinking of Soam here, but there are plenty of other examples) all you need is a couple of bilious articles in the tabloids and suddenly there'll be a Public Outcry and a Demand To Bring Back Hanging.
That said, usually the majority will support the status quo - to the point where if you ban capital punishment, advocacy of it falls. When capital punishment was banned in the UK and in Germany, majority opinion was in favour of it; within two decades of it being banned majority opinion was against. In general, popular support is the worst possible justification.

Right with you, Rehochipe. All this highlights the problem of governance for me. I want my public to be able to make the right decisions for themselves, not have me tell them they can't have capital punishment, etc. It's my main problem with communism and libertarianism - human nature is too fickle and perverse to allow for purely ideological forms of government (or non-government in the libertarian ideal). Of course, my other argument against (economic) libertarianism is that the market doesn't know its arse from its elbow.

Bumping this in the hope that the proposal is debated thoroughly.

Thanks Ecopoeia.

Again, I'm sorry that I haven't been very active on this thread. The server is completely screwed at the only times I can get on (took me 4/5 tries to even view this thread today), and I have deadlines for several large pieces of work this week and on monday. If I don't reply to comments, sorry, but keep the feedback coming on those points in red - especially 6, is it watertight, does it need better phrasing? - and on monday I'll switch to final draft, then submit a couple of days later. Any ideas on what time of week is best, given that it needs to garner lots of votes at both the proposal and resolution stage?

I'd advise telegramming Frisbeeteria, they planned the Rights & Duties resolution pretty carefully to maximise their chances.

Thanks, will do.

Bump

I still need feedback on the red bits. Frisbeeteria says submission on Monday or Tuesday before 6pm GMT (1 pm EST?) is best, so I'll be doing that next week.

I support this completely. When will the vote be?

There should be an amendment to the UN constitution to revoke the outllawing of the Death Penalty. It is my belief that the Death Penalty may not be necessary in all cases, but is still an invaluable instrument in eliminating crime from all nations. It's symbol alone deters most people from commiting crimes. If we use the Death Penalty more often instead of losing money on penitentiaries, we can accomplish much more this way than if we continue to use these archaic punitive measures. The death penalty is our only way out.




- Bureaucrat of The Dominion of Shane the Inquisitor

There should be an amendment to the UN constitution to revoke the outllawing of the Death Penalty. It is my belief that the Death Penalty may not be necessary in all cases, but is still an invaluable instrument in eliminating crime from all nations. It's symbol alone deters most people from commiting crimes. If we use the Death Penalty more often instead of losing money on penitentiaries, we can accomplish much more this way than if we continue to use these archaic punitive measures. The death penalty is our only way out.




- Bureaucrat of The Dominion of Shane the Inquisitor

There should be an amendment to the UN constitution to revoke the outllawing of the Death Penalty. It is my belief that the Death Penalty may not be necessary in all cases, but is still an invaluable instrument in eliminating crime from all nations. It's symbol alone deters most people from commiting crimes. If we use the Death Penalty more often instead of losing money on penitentiaries, we can accomplish much more this way than if we continue to use these archaic punitive measures. The death penalty is our only way out.




- Bureaucrat of The Dominion of Shane the Inquisitor

The ever changing and always growing nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully point out that there isn't a single scientific study done that supports the assumption that a society with captial punishment is "safer" than a society without. Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be the case. Symbolically, the death penalty does nothing to dissuade the potential felon from committing their crime (particularly in the case of crimes of passion or accidents) as, obviously, most criminals do not think they will be caught or even consider the consequences of their actions if they are. All it does is convince the average, law abiding citizen that they are little more than number signs in the eyes of their supposedly protective government which may lead to a further breakdown of society.

We are also a little distressed that you advocate so greatly for treating the human life so lightly. All human life, even that which has transgressed against our temporal laws, has inherant value which should be honored, nurtured and respected. If you are in a situation where you are finding many different occasions where the ending of human life is "more cost effective" than the retempering of it, we humbly suggest that perhaps your society has failed is citizens and that you are doing nothing more than shooting rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Our primary concern with this draft is its premise, that there is an intrinsic wrong committed when a sovereign nation rescinds the right to exist from its subjects.


It is the stance of the Grand Duchy that this draft constitutes an intolerable and unconscionable affront to the soveriengty of all UN members.



Ambassador Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

If we use the Death Penalty more often instead of losing money on penitentiaries, we can accomplish much more this way than if we continue to use these archaic punitive measures.

We would like to point out that the cost of executing a criminal is usually as high if not higher than the cost of his life imprisonment, unless the judicial process involved is perfunctory and the means of execution barbaric.

We'd also like to express our support of the arguments of the ever-sagacious yet rarely arrogant nation of Berkylvania.

P.D.K. Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

The cost of holes, gallows and bullets are miniscule in comparison to the cost required building and operating prisons.

If a sovereign nation wishes to rescind the right to exist rather than merely the right to determine one's living conditions, it is not the UN's business to meddle.


Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

The cost of holes, gallows and bullets are miniscule in comparison to the cost required building and operating prisons.

If a sovereign nation wishes to rescind the right to exist rather than merely the right to determine one's living conditions, it is not the UN's business to meddle.


Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

I couldn't agree more. How crime & punishment is handled by a government should be decided by said government. Other countries should not have the power to decide for them. Because honestly if the reverse proposal was put to a vote making it mandatory to have executions I believe that the non-execution NationStates would lose and then they'd either have to follow the law of the U.N. or leave the U.N.

The cost of holes, gallows and bullets are miniscule in comparison to the cost required building and operating prisons.

If a sovereign nation wishes to rescind the right to exist rather than merely the right to determine one's living conditions, it is not the UN's business to meddle.


Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

I couldn't agree more. How crime & punishment is handled by a government should be decided by said government. Other countries should not have the power to decide for them. Because honestly if the reverse proposal was put to a vote making it mandatory to have executions I believe that the non-execution NationStates would lose and then they'd either have to follow the law of the U.N. or leave the U.N.

The cost of holes, gallows and bullets are miniscule in comparison to the cost required building and operating prisons.

If a sovereign nation wishes to rescind the right to exist rather than merely the right to determine one's living conditions, it is not the UN's business to meddle.


Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

The theoretically in agreement yet moralistically opposed nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully disagree with the speaker from New Granada. The methods of execution you listed are inhumane to say the least and, therefore, I believe, currently outlawed under the current UN legalistic structure. I may be wrong on this. Additionally, I believe a fair trial resolution was passed recently, thus allowing death penalties to incur not only cost of captivity but also huge legal bills for multiple appeals. My understanding may again be incorrect on this. If so, I respectfully withdraw my comments. If, however, memory serves, once the final bill is tallied, it is indeed much more expensive to humanely execute a prisoner than keep them imprissoned for life.

We do agree with your second point, however, although we are quickly changing our minds.

In our nation, capital punishment is used only in cases of heinous criminal acts (acts of espionage, treason, and capital murder) DNA tests must be performed in order to convict a person of capital murder. Many times, these tests have shown that the wrong person had been arrested.

We also concur with neighbor nations that this proposed resolution would completely underhand our militaries' ability to prosecute military criminals. As a small nation, we can not afford to run prison camps while fighting a war. We must have the right to execute prisoners of war if necessary. (traitors and problematic prisoners)

We feel that we have good reason to use capital punishment and feel that this is one issue that should be decided on a nation by nation basis. The Republic of Ickus cannot, in good conscience, endorse this resolution.

I would like to say that my nation is all for this proposed abolition of capital punishment. I feel that it is as the article states a complete breach of the universal bill of rights whiah had only been passed last August. if a human has taken another humans life then how can it be seen to be right to take his although he has taken an as seen innocent persons life is it right that we should steep so low as to take his or hers aswell. Even if they have removed a life should ewe commit the same crime and remove another. Although to then keep this human alive would sustain a large amount of money in food and clothing. In the case of martial law i belive that this punishment is used far too often and such that it is used for even the simplist of crimes such as desertion and such. Form looking at the article as it stands i see no problems but i shall recall any if after closer inspection i find somthing i feel could be bettered. Thank you for your time please contact me at my nations telegram.

The leader of the free land of Lomebrimir

I would like to say that my nation is all for this proposed abolition of capital punishment. I feel that it is as the article states a complete breach of the universal bill of rights whiah had only been passed last August. if a human has taken another humans life then how can it be seen to be right to take his although he has taken an as seen innocent persons life is it right that we should steep so low as to take his or hers aswell. Even if they have removed a life should ewe commit the same crime and remove another. Although to then keep this human alive would sustain a large amount of money in food and clothing. In the case of martial law i belive that this punishment is used far too often and such that it is used for even the simplist of crimes such as desertion and such. Form looking at the article as it stands i see no problems but i shall recall any if after closer inspection i find somthing i feel could be bettered. Thank you for your time please contact me at my nations telegram.

The leader of the free land of Lomebrimir

Uhm, errr, excuse me Mr. Ickus, sir. I believe that you may have mis-spoken?

Civilized nations would hope that you do not execute POW's. One must remember that a captured soldier is a law abiding citizen of his OWN country, who has enlisted or been drafte by his government. Your quarrel is with that government, not it's citizens. Executing citizen soldiers who have been ordered to assualt you is rather, barbaric to say the least.

I read your post twice, and I believe that you mean spies, traitors and such when you say prisoners of war?

Please tell me it is so?

Executing citizen soldiers who have been ordered to assualt you is rather, barbaric to say the least.

Not to mention illegal under the Wolfish Convention on POW. Everyone, please check the list of passed UN resolutions on the UN page!

To Ickus' other point, as has already been pointed out, DNA testing is by no means infallible.

Because honestly if the reverse proposal was put to a vote making it mandatory to have executions I believe that the non-execution NationStates would lose and then they'd either have to follow the law of the U.N. or leave the U.N.

That won't happen. The sheep vote for feel-good proposals, and us "commie liberal scum" have the UN in a "stranglehold" apparently.

If a sovereign nation wishes to rescind the right to exist rather than merely the right to determine one's living conditions, it is not the UN's business to meddle.

Well, IMHO, it is. Nobody should be able to "rescind the right to exist", be they government , individual, or private organisation.

There should be an amendment to the UN constitution to revoke the outllawing of the Death Penalty. It is my belief that the Death Penalty may not be necessary in all cases, but is still an invaluable instrument in eliminating crime from all nations. It's symbol alone deters most people from commiting crimes. If we use the Death Penalty more often instead of losing money on penitentiaries, we can accomplish much more this way than if we continue to use these archaic punitive measures. The death penalty is our only way out.

1) There is no UN constitution
2) There is no ban on capital punishment currently on the UN lawbooks, that's what this is trying to change
3) How inhumane

Double post.

Additionally, I believe a fair trial resolution was passed recently, thus allowing death penalties to incur not only cost of captivity but also huge legal bills for multiple appeals. My understanding may again be incorrect on this. If so, I respectfully withdraw my comments. If, however, memory serves, once the final bill is tallied, it is indeed much more expensive to humanely execute a prisoner than keep them imprissoned for life.



From the Due Process resolution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
In the Grand Duchy, a grand jury legally consists of one prosecutor.

Also, pursuant to the Barbaric Punishment resolution, criminals are shot in the head or hanged so as to break their necks immediately.

Also, in accordance with the fair trial resolution, jurors are not rewarded based on the guilt or aquittal in their verdicts.
Evidence is gathered by prosecutors and a defense agent and presented to a jury of social peers.
Criminals are permitted to confront their accusers. Trials are very speedy and very efficient.

All crimes are essetially acts of terrorism against the body politic, which exists as a sovereign entity due to the maintenance of its laws.

Also, attempts to injure or cast aspersions upon the person of the Grand Duke, his policies, opinions, or decisions are acts of terror against the state, which is the bedrock of all laws, and therefore an attack on national sovereignty.

These acts of terrorism entail the revocation of rights of existance.
This is the only conceivable deterrant, as torture is banned, to other potential terrorists.

Ambassador Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt

We routinely oppose such intrusions into areas of traditional national control, but are so strongly opposed to the barnaric practice that we would vote for the peoposal.

Besides, the last bit about "outsourcing" is wonderful! So timely.

The Kingdom of Phillipsania must respectfully not endorse this proposal. Each to his crime, and each to his punishment. Phillipsania has many capital punishments on the books which, thankfully, are used only in certain circumstances. If you are found guilty, the Nobility receives the sword, commoners the gallows. However, we further affirm that such an encroachment on national sovereignty is grossly out of the question. The existence of punishment must remain. "Barbarity" is an unfair word at the least, we find death by electricity or injection far worse.

The Right Honorable James Waite
Lord Chief Justice of the Bench
Estates General of the Kingdom of Phillipsania and Her Possessions.

Thanks Collaboration for your support. That last clause was a suggestion from another nation that I incorporated. Do you think it's watertight enough? Or could it be better expressed?

If you are found guilty, the Nobility receives the sword, commoners the gallows.

How appalling. Human rights such as those I am trying to deal with must take precedence over national sovereignty, so I have to disagree with your stance.

The Citizens of Psychotropics have voted to keep the Death Penalty, and for good reason. There is no such thing as a "repeat offender" who has had the Death Penalty properly applied. The rights of the innocent victims far outweighs the rights of a criminal predator.... it is also in our founding document , the Most Holy Covenant of Psychotropics.

Article 1, section 1 of the Covenant of Psychotropics states:
"All citizens of Psychotropics have the freedom of life. Only by severe criminal behavour on the part of a citizen to either another citizen or the state, may this right be revoked"

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Punishment, Church of Psychotropics

I'd support this draft if it becomes a resolution

How appalling. Human rights such as those I am trying to deal with must take precedence over national sovereignty, so I have to disagree with your stance.

This is a clear attack on popular, national sovereigty.
First you declare punishing criminals 'barbaric,' what next?
Will military service be considered 'barbaric' ?
Will national defense eventually become 'barbaric'?

If passed, many nations would resort to banishment as punishmet (into certain death in jungles, deserts, or international waters.)

Is the aim of your cabal next to outlaw the revocation of citizenship for UN member nations?

The punishment of death is national defense insofar as it deters crimes which threaten the nation.

This draft resolution is an intolerable attack on the national defense of each UN member nation.


Ambassador Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

This is a clear attack on popular, national sovereigty.
First you declare punishing criminals 'barbaric,' what next?
Will military service be considered 'barbaric' ?
Will national defense eventually become 'barbaric'?


I agree fully with the Ambassador from New Granada. Where would this all end? Our government wishes to maintain the death penalty as a detterant, and that is our perrogative. Any other nation which calls it "barbaric" has no right to pass judgement.

Humbly,
Lord Alan Winchester
Prime Minister of the Third Estate
Estates General of the Kingdom of Phillipsania

Although we believe heavily in civil rights, Arkanstan will remain in favor of capital punishment. As long as its done in a humane way (injection for nstance) Some crimes are so heinous, so unspeakable, that there i almost no choice. And besides, people put in for life for killing somebody can get parolled or amnesty. Do you think this should happen? Life in prison is to good for many of these people.

Lethal injection is not humane. As practiced by certain liberty-deficient 'real' world nations, the prisoner is paralysed with the first injection, then the lethal injection is administered. It acts in much the same way as an acid and is most likely agonising. The victim shows no pain because they are paralysed.

Thanks for the support for the 'outsourcing' clause (blushes, tries to hide satisfied expression).

Why can't people see that the wholesale killing of dissidents can be good, if properly administered. I'm not saying that undue cruelty and death penalties from suspicion are good, but I am saying that giving the police and judicial branches the right to decide when a person is no longer worth more than the benefits to be derived from killing them and harvesting their organs and meat.
Sponsored by VaultTech

Irrespective of considering the value of murderers, rapists, etc., I find your use of the word dissidents highly alarming, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Why can't people see that the wholesale killing of dissidents can be good, if properly administered. I'm not saying that undue cruelty and death penalties from suspicion are good, but I am saying that giving the police and judicial branches the right to decide when a person is no longer worth more than the benefits to be derived from killing them and harvesting their organs and meat.
Sponsored by VaultTech

The amazingly astonished and somewhat agape nation of Berkylvania wonders, with horrified fascination, exactly how "deciding when a person is no longer owrth more than the benefits to be derived from kill them and harvesting their organs and meat" can ever be thought of as good? Surely all this represents is a wholesale breakdown of society where the only way to maintain law an order is by holding the whole citizenry hostage.

While we of Berkylvania have already outlawed the death penalty in our nation, we must admit that it is for religious reasons and that may contribute to our passionate disapproval. We do feel, however, that there is enough social and biological evidence to indicate that, from a purely rational perspective, not only is the death penalty not a deterrant, not cost effective (as for bullets in the head and falling on swords...well, Barbarian is as Barbarian does and we'll be sure to warn our touring citizens of your rather backward and draconian policies) and simply not good policy.

We are also concerned that a fellow NationState is considering feeding it's own citizens...er, well, it's other citizens. Have we learned nothing from Mad Cow Disease? When a prionic infection begins to take hold in your nation, I sincerely hope the "Global Response to Epidemics" resolution has passed in some form, so that we can contain the species-killing infection you are potentiallly breeding.

We, as a governmental body, are not in the habit of practicing vengence which is all the death penalty is. It is not justice in the sense that it can return the victim to the state they were in before the crime occured. If another nation has perfected resurrection technology, we'd be very interested in seeing it, though. All it does is demean the survivors by turning us into little more than wolves braying for blood in the hopes that somehow it'll wash away the pain. It does not. It simply turns the nation into the criminal.

With all that said, though, we of Berkylvania can still not support this resolution, as much as we would dearly like to, as we do feel that it infringes upon national rights. Additionally, we are worried that, if such a resolution did pass, it's "spirit" would not be upheld by nations content to wallow in base barbarisim and it's conventions would quickly be undermined with no real stoppage of this hideously inhumane action. The only way to convince a nation to outlaw capital punishment is, it seems, for them to finally become disgusted by bathing in the blood of their own failures out of some misguided sense of "fair play" and tyrannical "Eye for Eye Justice."

Ok, sorry I haven't been so active (again), but last night it actually wouldn't let me into the thread. In accordance with Frisbeeteria's advice (needs to be in before 6pm GMT tuesday), the proposal will be submitted as is (since nobody has suggested improvements to the red bits) in a couple of minutes.

This is a clear attack on popular, national sovereigty.
First you declare punishing criminals 'barbaric,' what next?
Will military service be considered 'barbaric' ?
Will national defense eventually become 'barbaric'?

If passed, many nations would resort to banishment as punishmet (into certain death in jungles, deserts, or international waters.)

Is the aim of your cabal next to outlaw the revocation of citizenship for UN member nations?

The punishment of death is national defense insofar as it deters crimes which threaten the nation.

This draft resolution is an intolerable attack on the national defense of each UN member nation.


Ambassador Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

There's a difference between the abolition of the death penalty and that of national defence - the former is a gross violation of human rights, and serves no real practical purpose (its usefulness as a deterrent has been disproven time and time again), and we're not banning all punishments, just a certain group. A closer analogy would be the banning of certain weapons designed merely to kill people indiscriminately - which we've already done, with resolutions against biological weaponry. In my view, capital punishment covers any punishment intended specifically to result in the death of the subject, so they couldn't resort to that kinda thing.

I am part of no cabal, unless by "your cabal" you mean people with the same views as me, and this is not part of a plan to destroy national sovereignty - this proposal is just an idea I had, to deal with an issue I feel strongly about. A person locked in prison for a life sentence without parole poses virtually the same threat to the safety of a nation as a dead person, so i don't see how this would affect your ability to defend your nation.

Ok submitted it (title wouldn't fit so changed to Abolition - Capital Punishment). Front page will have the final version in a moment, with spelling correction on "recieving" to "receiving". Delegates, please approve, and everyone, please tell delegates to approve!

i disagree because i believe it is solely upon the idividual states and so on to set up thier own system of punishment. my country does support the death penalty but that is because i believe in hamarabi's "eye for an eye" code. if this does make it to the voting table i can assure you that it will be a hard fought topic nad i will work to make this a dead topic.

"An eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind" or something like that.

Anyway, 13 approvals so far, and BUMP to raise awareness.

Didn't go too well, I see:

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


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: _Myopia_
Description: The United Nations,

Guided by Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights (passed Friday August 8 2003), which states that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Convinced that the killing of any human being is cruel, whether by an individual or a government,

Further convinced that the use of the death penalty is a barbaric practice which degrades the society that permits it (in this case, the international community),

Recognising the fallibility of any human justice system,

Deeply disturbed by the very real possibility of an innocent person wrongly being found guilty for a crime which carries the death penalty,

Believing that such basic individual rights must take precedence over national sovereignty,

Recognising that capital punishment may be necessary under situations of martial law,

1. Reaffirms its support for governments who protect their citizens by humane means from criminals found guilty of heinous crimes;
2. Prohibits the use of the death penalty as a punishment for any crime by a UN member nation, subject to later clauses;
3. Prohibits the extradition of any suspected criminal to the nation where s/he is to stand trial without a firm assurance from the receiving nation that capital punishment will not be used should the prisoner be found guilty;
4. Encourages non-UN member nations also to abandon the use of the death penalty.
5. Authorises the use of capital punishment when deemed necessary by the authorities in a situation of officially declared martial law;
6. Prohibits the "outsourcing" of capital punishment to private individuals or organisations.

The resolution author wishes to thank the various nations who have contributed to the text.

Approvals: 33 (Wilkshire, The Long Islands, Alalalalalah, Spoffin, Taraguy, Blackbird, Tezkah, The Bruce, Xenazwolia, New Ithilien, My name was taken, Markodonia, Tactical Grace, WarDogs, Count Grishnack, Mosonia, Hattia, The Logarchy, Brad-dur, The Axelands, Wolfs Elite Dragoons, Landreth, Scylding, Atlantic Quays, DHomme, Lomebrimir, Great Carthage, The United Molenhoeks, Crotchzania, The Bureau, Zachnia, Froggertopia, Hilary Duffistan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 117 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Mar 12 2004

How much support would there be for a re-submission? How could it be improved?

We asked our delegate in the ACA to endorse the proposal but they declined on the basis that they don't like to vote for proposals that may contradict issues. I understand their position, though do not agree.

Having said that, 33 approvals is surprisingly low. It makes you wonder what the delegates are doing when they're quite happy to let garbage like the recent 'Trees are nice' (or whatever it was called) proposal through.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

So, any suggestions that might make it more successful on a repeat run? (obviously, I'm not talking about delegates who fundamentally oppose the concept, I mean minor tweaks that might improve above a mere 33 votes - come to think of it, you're right, that is pathetic!)