NationStates Jolt Archive

As an alternative to the currently submitted proposal to ban capital punishment, the Grand Duchy of New Granada has proposed:
--
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

In recognition and abhorrence of the cruelty with which capital punishment is sometimes administered,

In recognition of the inviolable sovereign right of each nation to administer capital punishment in accordance with international law regarding standards of fair trial,

In recognition of the moral and ethical opposition by member nations to the administration of capital punishment,

IS RESOLVED:

1) That no nation shall employ undue cruelty in the administration of capital punishment.

2) That "undue cruelty" shall be defined for the purposes of international law as:
...............The intentional causing of pain, the willful protraction of agony
...............accompanying loss of life.

3) That any nation which elects to administer capital punishment shall abide by United Nations Guidelines for Capital Punishment.

4) That "United Nations Guidelines for Capital Punishment" shall be:
..........A. In terminating human life, an earnest effort shall be made
..............to destroy the brain, sever the brain from the nervous system
..............or cease the action of the heart at a minimum of pain to the
..............condemned.
..........B. That acceptable methods of termination shall be limited to:
..............a. Injection of chemicals which cease the function of the heart.
..............b. Swift destruction of the heart by means of a foreign object.
..............c. Swift destruction of the brain by means of a foreign object.
..............d. Swift severance of the brain from the nervous system.
..........C. That banned means of termination include:
..............a. Immolation
..............b. Asphyxiation
..............c. Suffocation
..............d. Infection with pathogen
..............e. Starvation
..............f. Application of electricity
..............g. Exposure to the elements
..............h. Exposure to heat or cold

5) That all nations enjoy the legal right to refuse extradition of any person to any nation which administers capital punishment.

6) That no nation shall extradite any person to any nation which administers capital punishment and is not a member of the United Nations.
--

In humble petition of your suffrages for this right and honourable resolution.

Ambassador Ohmer Loria Zamorra von Hadelstdalt
Grand Duchy of New Granada

Can you tell me where killing hardened criminals in response to their repeated breaking of laws is wrong? If our nation did not allow it's police to choot to kill as necessary, and did not allow the judicial branch to declare someone a useless waste of life, we wouldn't have such a good control of crime. Our people wholly appreciate every time we gun down a dissident who attempted to start an anti-voting rally, or any rally for that matter, and you say that we shouldn't?
We have a strong history of teaching the hard lessons of life as quickly as possible, and refuse to give it up just because some bleeding heart decided that filling someone's veins with rad scorpion venom is unnecesarially cruel.
Sponsored by VaultTech

I would imagine what you're describing is already banned under things like the fair trial resolution.

Can you tell me where killing hardened criminals in response to their repeated breaking of laws is wrong? If our nation did not allow it's police to choot to kill as necessary, and did not allow the judicial branch to declare someone a useless waste of life, we wouldn't have such a good control of crime. Our people wholly appreciate every time we gun down a dissident who attempted to start an anti-voting rally, or any rally for that matter, and you say that we shouldn't?
We have a strong history of teaching the hard lessons of life as quickly as possible, and refuse to give it up just because some bleeding heart decided that filling someone's veins with rad scorpion venom is unnecesarially cruel.
Sponsored by VaultTech
wouldnt that be classed as being an overoppressive dictatorship not allowing people to talk freely and gunning down anyone who voices their opinion and if you note my nation has a very good grip on crime and yet capital punishment has been abolished and the police dont carry guns

What about death by a firing squad?

As i read it:

Destruction of brain or heart by foreign object allows for firing squad, pile driver, spikes, etc.

Severance of brain from nervous system includes hanging by the neck (so as to break the neck, not strangle) and decapitation or shooting in the neck.

Edited to reflect submission.

I feel that as the edited proposal stands, I can actually agree with all parts except the right to deny extradition. If a nation can deny giving criminals back to the nation that they come from on the grounds that the nation they escaped might kill them for what they did. If they lived in a nation where capital punishment was acceptable, I would hope that it was made clear what punishments curtailed its use. I would suggest that instead, any nation within the UN that still uses capital punishment be required to inform it's citizenry of what crimes can be punished with capital punishment, and any nation outside of the UN that agrees to these terms also have criminals who have fled, or were taken, from the nation returned to them to face punishment.
Sponsored by VaultTech

I think that the compromise about extradition should appeal to the anti-death penalty nations while still permitting the use of the supreme sanction in a proscribed manner so as to reduce its cruelty.

And as for the clause regarding extradition to non-UN nations, no nation which abides by UN guidelines could in good conscience send a prisoner to a nation which did not.

The resolution is meant to increase worldwide human rights, not just those of UN nations, regardless of its game-wise effect.

They're criminals.

Some of them deserve to experience excruciating pain; therefore, any decent nation will sentence them to such.

Why the hell should I care whether a criminal has a pleasant experience or not?

I would contend that death is death, and that as a UN member you already operate under a ban on cruel punishments for prisoners as per the "Universal Bill of Rights" Article 5, passed 8 Aug. 2003.

We note with pleasure that lynching and stoning are still legal under these provisions. After all, by removing all possibility of punishment for crimes committed against a convict, the government is not executing them, and none of these so-called "human rights" provisions apply.

What you fancy UN people routinely refer to as "rights" are nothing more exciting than removals of consequences. And only negative consequences at that! In order for us to actually remove your right to an action, we would somehow have to make it impossible for you to perform that action in the first place. Punishments that the state carries out against you after you commit an action in no way prevent you from having done it - so your precious "rights" are still intact, whatever that's worth.

When the UN passes one of these "rights" provisions, they do not, in fact, allow anyone to do anything they couldn't already do. No rights are created, no rights are really strengthened. The only thing which changes is that acts that the government performs, the acts a government performs within its rights - are promised to be punished by UN sanctions. The UN can do that. They have that right. They can sanction anyone for any reason - or no reason at all. But it really annoys us to constantly hear about how the UN punishing people for their actions is somehow an extension of rights. It's not. It's an extension of punishments, the only difference is that its done by the whole UN and noone has to feel like their hands are dirty.

Very well, we accept your silly word game! The act of throwing a convict into the pit and allowing the crowd to tear them apart or pelt them with rubbish until death takes them or they make their escape is an act of catharthis for victims and a ray of hope for prisoners. It makes good entertainment and saves taxpayer money. And since it is all done and done with by the expedient of guarantees of allowing actions to go without negative consequences to the actor which you all seem to be so enamoured with, it still works.

The public hurling of a convict into the death pit is guaranteed by the rights of the audience, although for some bizzare reason publically hurling the convict into a pit full of juicermeks or rad scorpions is for some unknowable reason punishable by UN sanctions. You duplicitous whiners sicken me.

Don't make me come over there.

Assuming that you could reasonably guarantee that the spikes the criminal fell upon would destroy his brain or heart immediadely, you would be within your rights.

Scorpions would be an unduely cruel punishment, as would a slow death by pelting.

In order for us to actually remove your right to an action, we would somehow have to make it impossible for you to perform that action in the first place.

The nation of Rehochipe has observed your consistent, obnoxious and wilful refusal to properly understand the concept of a right with mounting annoyance, and would just like to assert the following before dismissing all further arguments by your nation as the work of an amoral troublemaker.

ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING IS NOT THE SAME THING AS HAVING A RIGHT TO DO IT.

Furthermore,

A RIGHT IS NOT FULFILLED SIMPLY BY THE ACT OF ITS EXERCISION. Just because I've exercised free speech doesn't mean I've been granted the right to it. If it results in me getting thrown in jail, that right has failed to obtain.

Rights are, to put it briefly, guarantees by governments of individual safety. They're a promise to allow something, to provide something, not to persecute something. If a government breaks that promise, it is clearly untrustworthy and shouldn't have issued the promise in the first place; if it does so intentionally, it is a liar and a cheat. When you commit to a right, you are committed to uphold that right, not just to avoid actively violating it. Turning a blind eye to murder in order to effectively allow a painful form of capital punishment doesn't wash your hands; recall Pilate. All of this is essential to the basic concept of a right.

The wording of UN resolutions assumes that member-nations have a basic grasp of elementary ethical concepts. We assume, in other words, that amoralists do not join the UN. Why? Because, aside from irritating us all no end, an amoralist has nothing to gain from joining the UN. We suggest you take your vile little excuse for a value-system and scarper.

Jeanne-Therese Palmaqut
Head of State

I would contend that the state does not have "rights" - it possesses powers. Rights are reserved for the people.

I would, however, also have to vote against this proposal on the grounds that it unnecessarily limits my nation's treaty options with foreign powers. In the first, the proposal applies a blanket ban on extradition -- it applies to all crimes, not just those which may be punished by death in the country where the crime took place; it does not allow nations to refuse extradition but rather requires them to. I don't see why my nation should not be able to establish its own procedures and treaties of extradition with other nations.

Note: This post has nothing to do with the proposal, which the Holy Empire of Gethamane has not given full consideration to, and therefore abstains from comment at this time.

The Holy Empire of Gethamane is appalled that a semantic argument could go on for so long. Seeing as either Representative involved could be correct depending on the specific definition, the argument seems pointless.

In the interest of preventing this irrational waving of phalluses from continuing, Gethamane presents the following:

Firstly, if a "right" is in fact only granted privileges by the government in question (which would fit with a particular definition), then how can a phrase "basic human rights" be used, as it is in the Universal Bill of Rights? In general, the nations that belong to the UN acknowledge that all sapient creatures have certain inalienable rights (which is the same thing as a "basic right" regardless of species).
Granted, that doesn't make the Representative of Rehochipe wrong, but rather it illustrates that in the UN, we tend to pass resolutions to prevent our member nations from violating basic rights instead of allowing any government to decide what rights are available for their citizens.

Furthermore, Hooglastahn's argument seems to come from a definition of "right" which is infrequently used. Note definition "d" below. Certain government structures grant a great deal of authority to their populace. In fact, certain governments are built upon a "might makes right" policy. What does that mean? Well, if physical power gives you authority, then by definition d, one could have the right to punch someone in the face. Not only the ability, but the right.

However, simply because it is a possible definition does not give the Representative of Hooglastahn reason to assume everyone will accept that definition.

I am not attempting to reiterate either parties' arguments, but merely presenting possibilities in which both parties could be correct. Refrain from flaming me for misconstruing your argument, as it was never my intent to construe it in the first place.

As a final word, this is likely the Holy Empire of Gethamane's final position on this particular matter.

Below are the common definitions for "right" which are applicable to this discussion.

2. That to which one has a just claim. Specifically:
(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.

(b) That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; legal power; authority; as, a sheriff has a right to arrest a criminal.

(c) That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a claim to possess or own; the interest or share which anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim; interest; ownership.

(d) Privilege or immunity granted by authority.

OOC: Frankly, I don't really care if you guys keep this up so long as it's (mostly) roleplaying. Gethamane, on the other hand, would most certain comment on the proceedings. Granted, you can't always prevent your personal feelings from getting caught up controversial discussions... but remember, it's a game. :D And my apologies for the length... I got carried away, I think :oops:

Hooglastahnian representitives probably feel that they were delving into the first definition of "right":

(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.

This is because in that morally destitute land they claim that anything you do is an extension of your natural rights. According to them, getting away with things is sufficient to justify the action in the first place.

Words fail... but these mad men have a "Not Giving Things Back Day" in which they celebrate the fact that they got away with stealing the entire country they live in by drinking themselves into near-coma and then lighting off explosives. Then on the other end of the year they have "Taking People's Stuff Day" in which they celebrate the fact that the nation's lands were originally stolen from various native peoples by having gigantic feasts and squabbling with their parents.

It seems implausible that any amount of argument will persuade the Hooglastahnian Ambassador that the fact that he has s tick in his hand does not automatically guaranty him the right to hit you with it. After all, by any of the non-subjective definitions of the word - he does.

Where it gets tricky, of course, is in the definition of "natural". We prefer to think of one's natural claims to be on things like food, shelter, healthcare, protection, education, and other necessities for a life that has purpose and is reasonably content. Unfortunately, the Hooglastahnians seem to believe that one has a natural claim to (and only to) whatever it was that one was going to do.

That's a subjective view point. A horrible one, to be sure, but subjective nonetheless. They are essentially impervious to reason on the subject because it is a discussion without reason in the first place. There are correct answers to these problems - and they definately are not the anarchic depravity of Hooglastahn. But if one can honestly look at one's own plate of nachos and a hungry man and voluntarily choose to eat all of the nachos one's self without sharing them - then any amount of imploring to the "better side" is so much wasted breath.

Good night, everyone.

OK, now what?

What do you sickening Communists have against Not Giving Things Back Day?

Don't make me come over there.

It seems that our Kappastani friend is determined to hold on to the antiquated notion that conquest is not a part of the natural evolution of any nation. Except for the few, rare nations still primarily in the hands of its original human inhabitants, every country was formed by conquest or colonization. Being the victors in such a situation does not make one worthy of contempt, nor does celebrating the fact that you are the victors. How many nations have holidays that are little more than concealed, jinogistic propoganda exercises? At least Hooglastahn is honest about it.

Once again we also see the issue of "natural rights" being raised. If a nation was colonized long ago, do the displaced and marginalized original inhabitants now have a "right" to have it returned? Don't be naive, of course they don't. It is an unpleasant fact of life that the weak have only whatever "rights" the strong see fit to give them. These can be granted out of a sense of pity, enlightened self-interest, or to bargain with others.

The point is, that this august body has decided to recognize the basic fact that many nations will enact the ultimate penalty upon lawbreakers and wishes to ensure a set of standards apply. That is all well and good, but I fail to see how enacting these standards will help in any way. I believe that if one is confident in one's judicial system, then one is entitled to any punishment one can devise, so long as one is assured of the convicted person's guilt.

I know, I know, we hardly seem the ones to throw stones, what with our problems of late with criminals and rebels. And yet, as soon as we instituted public floggings and threw some new, state of the art equipment to our overworked police department, the crime rate began to drop.

Think that over before you agree to curtail what some would state are the "rights" of a nation to punish lawbreakers as it sees fit.

David Xanatos - CEO and President for Life of Xanatotia.
"I've -always- wanted to say that."

bumped for resubmission

I would contend that the state does not have "rights" - it possesses powers. Rights are reserved for the people.


A fair statement here, but we should all be mindful that the more rights granted, the less power remains at the state's disposal.

Not particularily in this case, however. The resolution appears to be a reasonable compromise, and as such we will vote in favor of it, should it get the neccessary endorsement for a general vote.


The Holy Empire of Gethamane is appalled that a semantic argument could go on for so long.


:cry: but semantics are the soul of diplomacy...

bumped for resubmission

The Armed Republc of Best and Brightest supports this resolution, especially since the status of firing squads has been affirmed. But if other states may refuse to extradite prisoners to the Armed Republic to stand trial for capital offenses, what procedure will be followed to ensure they do stand trial?

Perhaps shooting them before they have a chance to escape to another nation would suffice.

ok now I'm confused.

I thought this proposal was about stopping excessive cruety when executing criminals. not the definitions of "rights" and "Privilages"

By saying the UN has the right to stop excessivily violent methods of killing someone, anyone from the member nations can appeal to the UN and the UN, by power given by this resolution, can send in their peacekeeprs or whatever to stop the offending nation. In my nation, the methods of excecuting criminals is only limited by their crime. A Pyromanic convicted for setting fire and with malice and forthought, killed alot of people with that fire can be burned at the stake, if his crime is found to be horrible enought to warrent that punnishment.

However, our courts does not assign a death by papercuts sentence to someone who laundered money.

The right to punish criminals is, IMHO, a National concern. however, on the few instances where the crime reaches across the boarders, then guidlines are needed.

for international crimes or any trial involving the World Court, I am in support of this.