NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: This is the proposal in its final, submitted form as of 31 May.

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

Convinced that the death penalty thus amounts to state-sanctioned murder, and,

Believing that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane, and,

Fully aware that several nations consider capital punishment a deterrent tool against crime, however,

Observing that viable alternatives to capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, exist, and,

Whereas no judicial process can be perfect, and,

Alarmed that death row acquittals have occurred, and at the probability that innocent people have thus been executed, and,

Further alarmed by the fact that, once carried out, an execution is irreversible even should evidence later be uncovered proving the innocence of a convict, therefore,

Be it hereby resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution,

1) All persons convicted of a capital crime shall immediately have their executions stayed and their sentences immediately commuted, according to individual judiciary decisions by member nations.

2) All member nations shall immediately adopt legislation abolishing the use of capital punishment in perpetuity.

3) All member nations shall recognise capital punishment as a form of cruel and unusual punishment under The Universal Bill Of Rights, and thus illegal.

4) Member nations will condemn capital punishment and encourage its abolition in non-UN member nations.

5) The UN shall support any nation refusing extradition of a criminal to another nation in which s/he may be subject to the death penalty upon conviction.

Thanks to _Myopia_ and West Phalia for valuable contributions to this proposal.


Credit to West Phalia, as I took from the expired proposal "Death Penalty Abolishment Act" for 4)

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - DRAFT 2A

Convinced that the death penalty amounts to state-sanctioned murder, and,

Believing that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane, and,

Fully aware that several nations consider capital punishment a deterrent tool against crime, however,

Observing that viable alternatives to capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, exist, and,

Believing that no judicial process can be perfect, and,

Alarmed that death row acquittals have occurred, and at the probability that innocent people have thus been executed, and,

Further alarmed by the fact that, once carried out, an execution is irreversible even should evidence later be uncovered proving the innocence of a convict, therefore,

Be it hereby resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution,

1) All persons convicted of a capital crime shall immediately have their executions stayed and their sentences immediately commuted, according to individual judiciary decisions by member nations.

2) All member nations shall, as soon as possible, adopt legislation abolishing the use of capital punishment in perpetuity.

3) All member nations shall recognise capital punishment as a form of cruel and unusual punishment under The Universal Bill Of Rights, and thus illegal.

4) Member nations will condemn capital punishment and encourage its abolition in non-UN member nations.

Comments?

i dont know what to say about what you just said

Let individual nations handle their crime as they see fit. In todays world, with DNA testing and the ability of physical proof to be more readily available, there are few instances where the wrong person may be sentenced to death as long as particular guidleines are outlined to lead to conviction beyond doubt. instead of banning outright the death penalty, perhaps it would be best to outline a stringent set of circumstances that would be acceptably applied when a death penalty case is to be tried.

Individual nations will operate on different moral levels. Let them use the death penalty or not, but place strict guidelines that will dictate what beyond reasonable doubt is.

This isn't always the case, unfortunately. Not all nations possess the technology or money to carry out DNA testing, and there can be judicial barriers to overcome when attempting to overturn a conviction through DNA evidence, such as evidence admissibility rules, and the difficulty in obtaining a re-trial in the first place.

Sometimes, especially in the case of murder trials, verdicts, especially in trials by jury, can be biased due to media coverage.

To do as you suggest would be difficult because it isn't easy to define something like "doubt". How much doubt is reasonable? How do you define it? Innocent men will always be convicted, and guilty men will always be acquitted, no matter what tweaks you apply. And there would be all kinds of loopholes too.

Several dictatorships also have very enthusiastic attitudes towards executing people, especially political dissidents, under the charge of treason. While we definitely do not want to interfere with their internal affairs, we feel that this is abuse of state power to lend a sheen of legitimacy to cold-blooded murder.

However, the primary focus of the proposal is in the first four lines - the humanitarian aspect, with the danger of taking innocent lives as the secondary concern.

DNA is all too easily contaminated to be the "be all and end all" of a court case. The Council of Enn believes that this is a fine proposal, but does not expect it to become resolution.

Credit to West Phalia, as I took from the expired proposal "Death Penalty Abolishment Act" for 4)

I missed that one. Pity, if its as well written as this one.

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - DRAFT 2A

Well, it sounds warm and fluffy already, should it hit the general floor, it should get the sheep vote. :wink:

Convinced that the death penalty amounts to state-sanctioned murder, and,

Sorry, but I'm not, just my opinion.

Believing that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane, and,

Hmmm, so if I go out and kill a couple people in a shooting spree, I deserve to live the remainder of my life in a nice humane prison in nice humane conditions as set out in proposals past. I have to disagree on that I am afraid.

Fully aware that several nations consider capital punishment a deterrent tool against crime, however,

Sadly I suppose I agree. I also think of it as society saying to those who get it, "take that you scum". But thats just me.

Observing that viable alternatives to capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, exist, and,

Yes, and it'll be great to know if a person or group slaughter my family and are captured, they will have such a nice, humane punishment.

Believing that no judicial process can be perfect, and,

True, but no criminal found guilty can ever truely be re-habilitated.

Alarmed that death row acquittals have occurred, and at the probability that innocent people have thus been executed, and,

Too bad, but its in the past, and I am not willling to leave convicted felons of horrific crimes even a miniscule chance to offend on such levels again. Call it cold, but if they do it, they can expect it back.

Further alarmed by the fact that, once carried out, an execution is irreversible even should evidence later be uncovered proving the innocence of a convict, therefore,

Hmmm, "d'uh!" :wink: But seriously, on another note, this is quite a well written proposal, for some one whose only done three posts, its amazingly, well, good.

Be it hereby resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution,

Though I personally, hope it will not be so, due to my opinions on the matter of the subject.

1) All persons convicted of a capital crime shall immediately have their executions stayed and their sentences immediately commuted, according to individual judiciary decisions by member nations.

Heh heh heh, A nice rude surprise to any nation who either kills'em or free'em, heh heh heh :wink:

2) All member nations shall, as soon as possible, adopt legislation abolishing the use of capital punishment in perpetuity.

Slight snag, "as soon as possible" is too vague and subjective, I think hammering out a time limit of sorts may be best here.

3) All member nations shall recognise capital punishment as a form of cruel and unusual punishment under The Universal Bill Of Rights, and thus illegal.

Hmmm. I don't know if I am too happy with that myself, but go on. This is basically I admit the key clause here that definately makes your words here set in very big stone law. :)

4) Member nations will condemn capital punishment and encourage its abolition in non-UN member nations.

Encourage. Hmmm, I wish we knew how, apart from saying please... :wink:

Comments?

Yes, in conclusion: Brilliantly written, well, pretty darn'd good at least a refreshing change from our usual suffering. :wink:

But I would personally vote no, I am for capital punishment. Oh, and there are several N.S. issues which deal with capital punishment, so really there is a precedent for nations doing it their own way long before now.

Nice, but its just not my bag baby.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Capital punishment is something that the UN should not make legislation on. If one UN nation wants to keep murderers alive for life, that's their perogative; if another nation wants to host gladitorial combat for their murderers, and then gun down the survivors, they should be allowed to, despite how horrible it is. Simply put, once you have infringed upon the rights of others to a certain point, you have given up your civil rights, and can be punished as the state sees fit.
Sponsored by VaultTech

Actually there are differing view even among the families/friends of murder victims. Some like the idea of revenge and feel it gives them closure, others don't want to put another family into the same suffering they're experiencing. So that point is debatable, though it's obvious the discrepancy in crime and punishment there. But it does have the same effect. And rehabilitation isn't the problem, since they're being locked up until they die naturally.

And there is also precedent for the UN legislating on what nations can and can't do to their convicts. The Universal Bill of Rights says "no cruel or unusual punishment" which rules out gladiatorial contests, pulling out their eyeballs and kicking them to death, branding the word "CRIMINAL" on their behinds, or feeding them to beavers. How different is that from saying "from now on, you can't kill them"?

Oh well, if it doesn't make it through, guess I'll turn my proposal-writing skills to getting free alcohol on the UN premises ;)

Oh well, if it doesn't make it through, guess I'll turn my proposal-writing skills to getting free alcohol on the UN premises :wink:

Ha, just go to the Strangers Bar thread, read it through, and wait, sooner or later the booze abounds in random waves of generousity and showing others that your tab is bigger then theirs. That or getting people you don't like very very drunk till they do something silly which you catch on camera... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hmmm... an interesting thought to be sure, and it does make one feel warm and fuzzy. I am of the opinion warm and fuzzy does not alway make for good politics. My other problem is I am not sure that spendings one entire life behind bars is more humane than a death penalty. Why should a society be forced to upkeep such vile criminals in perpetuity? The drain they become on a society that way seems almost as bad an alternative as well. Maybe our efforts in this area would be better served by creating a scientific research group to find technological alternatives for rehabilitation. I think it would be best to push for a day where life in prison or ending a persons life are looked back on as archaic as a castle dungeon.

Be assured such a solution may not be easily available or even possible at all. I do believe it would be worth the effort though if we could reach the intended goal.

Prisoners generally do not live in squalid conditions, they usually have access to the outside world, recreational activities, and what my Minister of Justice, at least, assures me is decent food, though he's been kind of shifty lately and I'm thinking of firing him. It's not as if they're put into a tiny cell with seven other murderers and a communal chamber pot. Well, maybe in some, much more evil nations.

For nations who thoroughly investigate their capital crimes, the costs of investigation, trial, and the inevitable appeals as well as the execution itself match, if not exceed, the cost of keeping a prisoner in maximum security for 40 years. Society would be paying to execute them in any case.

If there is enough agreement on this, we may also be open to amending the proposal to give a prisoner the option to opt for death, since it would not violate the core idea of the proposal - the prisoner would be effectively commiting suicide, rather than being executed by the state.

EDIT: oops! This is _Myopia_, I keep forgetting when I'm logged in as my puppet

I recently attempted to pass an abolition of the death penalty, but it crashed and burned with a fairly measly 33 approvals, despite an extensive forum review and a fairly large amount of support in the forum thread. You're welcome to steal any ideas you like from it:

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

That was a good one.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Yeah, I remember there was quite vociferous support on the forums. Sadly, it didn't translate into delegate approvals. Anyway, good luck to the author of the latest attempt, you will have my vote, barring any major changes that I dislike to your text.

you asked how one defines doubt. Dictionary.com defines it as such:
A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical

now then, as for saying that capital punishment is murder, murder is defined as:
To kill brutally or inhumanly

I do not at all see modern execution techniques as being inhumane or brutal in any way.

This is just another in a long list of bad proposals. Nice thoughts, but not nice to push on another person.

I'm all about putting the murders to death. Thier victims didn't get to have big trials by jury, but they do. That's more than humane enough.

As for innocent people being put to death, as Arcon Imperium, this is very rare now.

Definitely a well written proposal.

you asked how one defines doubt. Dictionary.com defines it as such:
A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical

now then, as for saying that capital punishment is murder, murder is defined as:
To kill brutally or inhumanly

Clearly if we define subjective terms using more subjective terms, they become less subjective? I believe the question of defining doubt wasn't so much as to the definition of the word, but as to the legislative quantification of it -- at what point, with what element of a trial, does the doubt become significant enough to warrant consideration? Many court systems follow the tenet that all defendants must be proven guilty "beyond a doubt" or released -- how, then, could we establish for them a system where capital punishment is allowed under particular circumstances when there is "less doubt?"

I'd also question that definition of murder; by that, so long as I kill someone with a smile, it doesn't matter who I am or why I kill them, just that they didn't die with pain.

Getting on to somewhat more relevant points, while I disagree with the general application of the death penalty, I believe that there are certain extreme circumstances and crimes where it may be applied. I am not convinced that the United Nations should completely ban the practice.

As one of our find Bishops had posted earlier in regards to this subject... we no longer use capital punishment. Instead, we excile the criminals to international waters while they are protected in a full suit of medieval armour incase of a shark attack. Our recidivism rate for the most heinous of crimes is 0% now.

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Intollerance for all Psychotropics

My personal definition is the deliberate taking of a human/sentinent (Somewhere, I rememeber one nation rp-ing as being composed entirely of aliens, so...) life. It also depends on what dictionary you use, my Oxford says "the unlawful, intentional killing of a person". Clearly there's some debate over even the definition of murder. Maybe a list of definitions is in order... but even so, killing someone has to be the ultimate in brutality. The pain doesn't end with the victim, it also extends to the victim's loved ones. In the case of a murderer, one or more families have already been traumatised, why subject yet another to the same tragedy?

In any case to rebutt some points made by Aeolian:

"As for innocent people being put to death, as Arcon Imperium, this is very rare now."

One innocent person put to death is one innocent too many. The idea of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution is based on the concept of "better to let a thousand guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail." This has been sanctioned by the UN in a past resolution, "Fair Trial" if I remember correctly.

"I do not at all see modern execution techniques as being inhumane or brutal in any way."

Excluding the subjective belief that killing the person alone would qualify as inhumane, the brutality of modern techniques is still questionable. In fact there is only one "modern" technique, that being lethal injection.

Doubts have been raised as to whether the cocktail of drugs used in lethal injection is actually painless as is claimed, though this obviously is difficult to test. ("Okay, one more thing before we execute you, we need you to tell us if it hurts. Okay? Here we go then... Okay, does it hurt?... Hello?... Hello??... Agh, not again...")

--
ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - DRAFT 2B

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

Convinced that the death penalty thus amounts to state-sanctioned murder, and,

Believing that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane, and,

Fully aware that several nations consider capital punishment a deterrent tool against crime, however,

Observing that viable alternatives to capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, exist, and,

Whereas no judicial process can be perfect, and,

Alarmed that death row acquittals have occurred, and at the probability that innocent people have thus been executed, and,

Further alarmed by the fact that, once carried out, an execution is irreversible even should evidence later be uncovered proving the innocence of a convict, therefore,

Be it hereby resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution,

1) All persons convicted of a capital crime shall immediately have their executions stayed and their sentences immediately commuted, according to individual judiciary decisions by member nations.

2) All member nations shall immediately adopt legislation abolishing the use of capital punishment in perpetuity.

3) All member nations shall recognise capital punishment as a form of cruel and unusual punishment under The Universal Bill Of Rights, and thus illegal.

4) Member nations will condemn capital punishment and encourage its abolition in non-UN member nations.

5) The UN shall support any nation refusing extradition of a criminal to another nation in which s/he may be subject to the death penalty upon conviction.

Thanks to Myopia and West Phalia for valuable contributions to this proposal.
---

And although I'm not in favour of it because of the potential for abuse (governments staunchly in favour of the death penalty could pressure a convict to opt for execution), if there is a lot of support for it the opt-out clause would read:

6) Those sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole may choose to be executed instead, in which case he will be assumed to have committed suicide.

Thanks for the credit at the bottom, just a minor nag, though - there are underscores on either side of the nation name: _Myopia_ not Myopia.

That last one, I would leave it out, and if anyone complains, point out that individual nations could pass laws saying that prisons can allow certain prisoners to commit suicide without fear of being charged with negligence and can provide them with the means to do so. That way, the state is not killing people, they're killing themselves. Alternatively, nations could change euthanasia legislation so that anybody capable of choosing can choose euthanasia, whatever their state of health. Either way, it's not execution, and it's fully voluntary.

In Hooglastahn we don't even have prisons, we just shoot people we don't like. That or call blood hunts on people granting everyone the reasonable expectation that they can kill that person without fear of retribution.

Since all you can have is Rights (that which you can do) and Expectations (that which you have reason to believe will be a consequence of your actions), it is easy to see that noone has a right to not be killed. You have a Right to Live only until someone else exercises their Right to Stab Your Face So Bad Your Daddy Gets an Extra Mouth, which they of course also have.

Exercising your rights to live by itself generates no expectations of imminent death, but exercising your rights to commit capital offenses surely does. It's not that you don't have the Right to live - everyone can do that, so obviously you can live. It's that the State also has the right to kill you at any time for any reason or for no reason at all - because they totally have weapons and can do that at any time.

What's at stake here is not rights - but expectations. If this resolution passes, the governments will still have the right to execute people because they can still do that. However, they will then have the expectations of UN Sanctions imposed on them for trying. This cycle of punishment is inherently futile - naturally the United Nations would then get the expectation of resentful nations lashing back at them, which would in turn cause UN supporter nations to lash back - and so on and so forth.

The cycle of expectations of revenge must end, and the only logical place for it to end is at death without expectations of negative consequences. Which is why Hooglastahn kills those who commit capital offenses, and why it has a lot of capital offenses on the books.

Don't make me come over there.

Fools. All of you. Burn the lot of 'em, that's what I say. Who the hell wants to spend time, money and effort rehabilitating these criminals when a bullet is so much more cost effective? Do the crime, serve the time: in hell. They knew exactly what they were doing, and if they chose to abuse the rights of good, honest citizens, why should they have rights themselves? And with DNA evidence these days, it's hardly likely that there will be many miscarriages of justice! Why waste your time on these sorry individuals? Simply stick a bullet in their head and be done with them! Oh, and don't forget to charge the family of the deceased for the bulllet!

Well, I didn't really get that, but to me it appears that Hooglastahn has legalized murder, therefore it would not affect them since it isn't a crime in the first place.

Any UN member not wanting to comply can simply leave. There's a big "resign" button, press it and you can do whatever you want. It would also have to pass a resolution vote, so a majority would need to be in favour of it anyway.

And the honourable all seeing monkey has missed a point - DNA evidence cannot be used in all cases and there can be reasons for the presence of a person's DNA at a murder scene. Say a man stabs his girlfriend in his own house. His DNA would be everywhere, but investigators wouldn't be able to use that against him because his DNA is obviously going to be found where he lives. His DNA would be all over her body, but they're a couple, of course he's going to be touching her body! The knife would have his fingerprints and his DNA, but that wouldn't mean he stabbed her - it's a knife that belongs to him, and was kept in his home.

And I haven't even gone into how easily DNA evidence can be contaminated. DNA is fallible.

Who needs Jurys?... if you don't like them, kill them.

No moral nation wishes to abolish the death penalty.

Death is the only just punishment for those who have taken the lives of another without just cause.

No moral nation wishes to abolish the death penalty.

Death is the only just punishment for those who have taken the lives of another without just cause.

G Bugles - would you care to support this sweeping statement with some slightly firmer reasoning? "Morality" isn't much of an argument on which to base international law, especially when it's unclear whose morality you're referring to.

Yes killing a man for killing a man.

Personally we don’t think it makes sense.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The only logical use of criminal justice is to encourage proper behavior in the future. After all, only the results of actions matter, and the government's actions can only make sense in both the long term and the full spectrum of society.

So however much it feels good to kill a murderer, it only makes sense to do so if it actually reduces murders in the future. Unfortunately perhaps, the statistics don't support the notion that people will commit less serious crimes if confronted with the prospect of death when they get caught. In practice, harsh punishments seem to lead to higher levels of unrest, more habitual criminals, and in extreme cases - civil war (qv. when China's Emperor passed an edict that made being late on a construction project a capital crime, heavy rains washed out the country side and road crews over threw the government).

The only crimes which we are aware of which people actually consider the magnitude of the potential punishment is grand theft. If you steal a million bottle caps, and then go to prison for five years, you could be said to have worked for 5 years of hard labor for two hundred thousand bottle caps a year. If you go to prison for 10 years for the same crime, you are making a hundred thousand bottle caps every year - and so on.

Other crimes, people commit if they are emotionally unstable, or if they honestly believe they won't get caught, or whatever. So long as the punishment is undesirable - it doesn't really seem to matter what it is, provided that the criminal isn't directly benefitting from the crime.

So once you eliminate inheritance, and thus any financial incentive for murder is gone, then any undesirable punishment will have precisely the same effect. But it actually has to be able to get worse, otherwise criminals will be unwilling to surrender. Once it is clear that you are going to kill a criminal, and thus that they have "nothing to lose" - they'll fight with the police. The end result will be the same for the criminal - they'll be dead. But you'll lose police officers that way, which means that it's worse for society over all.

An eye for an eye may be "just", but in the long run it doesn't make things better. The purpose of the government and its laws is to improve the lot of the citizens within its borders - not to be just, not even to be fair. It doesn't matter how unjust the laws happen to be so long as they get the job done.

And statistics show quite clearly that mercy and rehabilitation work and draconian measures don't from that standpoint.

Good night, everyone.

I'll oppose any effort to eradicate capital punishment. I WOULD support efforts to limit the use of capital punishment.

A proposition that capital punishment is only to be considered for truly heinous crimes might find favor with my nation. Executions for political reasons would thus be outlawed, along with the possibility of executions for petty reasons such as adultery, homosexuality, or even shoplifting.

A unified world standard for when capital punishment is or is not permissible would have a much greater chance of passing, than some liberal idea that capital punishment must ALWAYS be unjust.

Hey guys, this is the real world. In the real world, there are certain persons unworthy of breathing nature's air.

I'll oppose any effort to eradicate capital punishment. I WOULD support efforts to limit the use of capital punishment.

A proposition that capital punishment is only to be considered for truly heinous crimes might find favor with my nation. Executions for political reasons would thus be outlawed, along with the possibility of executions for petty reasons such as adultery, homosexuality, or even shoplifting.

A unified world standard for when capital punishment is or is not permissible would have a much greater chance of passing, than some liberal idea that capital punishment must ALWAYS be unjust.

Hey guys, this is the real world. In the real world, there are certain persons unworthy of breathing nature's air.

I'll oppose any effort to eradicate capital punishment. I WOULD support efforts to limit the use of capital punishment.

A proposition that capital punishment is only to be considered for truly heinous crimes might find favor with my nation. Executions for political reasons would thus be outlawed, along with the possibility of executions for petty reasons such as adultery, homosexuality, or even shoplifting.

A unified world standard for when capital punishment is or is not permissible would have a much greater chance of passing, than some liberal idea that capital punishment must ALWAYS be unjust.

Hey guys, this is the real world. In the real world, there are certain persons unworthy of breathing nature's air.

The only logical use of criminal justice is to encourage proper behavior in the future. After all, only the results of actions matter, and the government's actions can only make sense in both the long term and the full spectrum of society....An eye for an eye may be "just", but in the long run it doesn't make things better. The purpose of the government and its laws is to improve the lot of the citizens within its borders - not to be just, not even to be fair. It doesn't matter how unjust the laws happen to be so long as they get the job done.

And statistics show quite clearly that mercy and rehabilitation work and draconian measures don't from that standpoint.

*the delegate from East Hackney breaches all UN etiquette and embarrasses himself to boot by giving Kappastan a five-minute standing ovation*

We do not execute criminals. They may get a life sentence cleaning the mastodon pens, which is not a popular job.

Some close relatives of victims will likely long for retribution. To assure they do not take the law into their own hands we provide stocks and pillories so that they may physically abuse the felon before he is sent to the pens.

After all, only the results of actions matter

This is why you are wrong.

The results of an action are NOT the only thing that matters.

If anything, the only thing that matters is whether or not the act was morally justified, regardless of its results.

What's right > what produces a desirable result.

Stop being a damned pragmatist, and introduce some principle into your life.

The results of an action are NOT the only thing that matters.

OK. Then naturally we must say that actions justify themselves. If you want to justify capital punishment on those grounds, then you are saying that Killing People Justifies Itself. That is to say, killing people is good. Last time I checked, murder was by definition not universalizable.

That is, if the act of killing was good, we should all do it - and if everybody killed somebody else we'd all be dead. So that can't be right, can it?

If anything, the only thing that matters is whether or not the act was morally justified, regardless of its results.

In that case, we are in quite a bind on the matter of punishment. Punishing people in any way, by definition, involves the hurting of other people. And hurting other people, when taken in a vacuum, is not morally justified. Whether by incarceration, corporal injury, or even lethal force - all forms of punishment are on shaky moral territory without the context of the result.

What's right > what produces a desirable result.

What's right is not hurting people, physically or emmotionally. Now, the result derived from not hurting people at all would probably not be to your liking, nor to ours.

Legal punishment is by definition justified by results, not by the actions themselves. This is because the actions themselves are actions we normally classify as "kidnapping", "theft", and in some places - more extreme crimes yet. Legal punishment cannot be justified by the actions themselves, because if we did so the crimes we are supposedly punishing would be themselves justified and undeserving of punishment.

Stop being a damned pragmatist, and introduce some principle into your life.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals, but even it does not justify the use of capital punishment under normal conditions.

Good night, everyone.

The results of an action are NOT the only thing that matters.

OK. Then naturally we must say that actions justify themselves. If you want to justify capital punishment on those grounds, then you are saying that Killing People Justifies Itself. That is to say, killing people is good. Last time I checked, murder was by definition not universalizable.

That is, if the act of killing was good, we should all do it - and if everybody killed somebody else we'd all be dead. So that can't be right, can it?
Stop equating killing with murder. It's absurd.

Killing in self defense is not murder, nor is killing one who has taken the life of another without just cause.

If anything, the only thing that matters is whether or not the act was morally justified, regardless of its results.

In that case, we are in quite a bind on the matter of punishment. Punishing people in any way, by definition, involves the hurting of other people. And hurting other people, when taken in a vacuum, is not morally justified. Whether by incarceration, corporal injury, or even lethal force - all forms of punishment are on shaky moral territory without the context of the result.
Hurting those who have caused harm to others without just cause is very much morally justified.

What's right > what produces a desirable result.

What's right is not hurting people, physically or emmotionally. Now, the result derived from not hurting people at all would probably not be to your liking, nor to ours.

Legal punishment is by definition justified by results, not by the actions themselves. This is because the actions themselves are actions we normally classify as "kidnapping", "theft", and in some places - more extreme crimes yet. Legal punishment cannot be justified by the actions themselves, because if we did so the crimes we are supposedly punishing would be themselves justified and undeserving of punishment.
No...certain actions are violations of the rights of others and are inherently deserving of punishment.

Stop being a damned pragmatist, and introduce some principle into your life.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals, but even it does not justify the use of capital punishment under normal conditions.
.

Pragmatism isn't a "moral code" at all...it's just pragmatism.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals,

You go too far, pinko.

Consistency in action is a moral code, whether you like it or not. The State is the strongest force within a nation, so naturally it can expect to be able to kill without serious reprecussions. A common murderer, however much stronger they may be than their victims, is thankfully weaker than the State, and should logically expect that the State will kill them in revenge for their actions.

That's consistency, Mr. Pragmatist. Killing can be done within ability (rights), provided that the consequences are deemed acceptable (expectation). Thus, since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral.

Don't make me come over there.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals,

You go too far, pinko.

Consistency in action is a moral code, whether you like it or not. The State is the strongest force within a nation, so naturally it can expect to be able to kill without serious reprecussions. A common murderer, however much stronger they may be than their victims, is thankfully weaker than the State, and should logically expect that the State will kill them in revenge for their actions.

That's consistency, Mr. Pragmatist. Killing can be done within ability (rights), provided that the consequences are deemed acceptable (expectation). Thus, since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral.

Don't make me come over there.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals,

You go too far, pinko.

Consistency in action is a moral code, whether you like it or not. The State is the strongest force within a nation, so naturally it can expect to be able to kill without serious reprecussions. A common murderer, however much stronger they may be than their victims, is thankfully weaker than the State, and should logically expect that the State will kill them in revenge for their actions.

That's consistency, Mr. Pragmatist. Killing can be done within ability (rights), provided that the consequences are deemed acceptable (expectation). Thus, since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral.

Don't make me come over there.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals,

You go too far, pinko.

Consistency in action is a moral code, whether you like it or not. The State is the strongest force within a nation, so naturally it can expect to be able to kill without serious reprecussions. A common murderer, however much stronger they may be than their victims, is thankfully weaker than the State, and should logically expect that the State will kill them in revenge for their actions.

That's consistency, Mr. Pragmatist. Killing can be done within ability (rights), provided that the consequences are deemed acceptable (expectation). Thus, since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral.

Don't make me come over there.

Pragmatism is the only consistent moral code which actually justifies the use of force against criminals,

You go too far, pinko.

Consistency in action is a moral code, whether you like it or not. The State is the strongest force within a nation, so naturally it can expect to be able to kill without serious reprecussions. A common murderer, however much stronger they may be than their victims, is thankfully weaker than the State, and should logically expect that the State will kill them in revenge for their actions.

That's consistency, Mr. Pragmatist. Killing can be done within ability (rights), provided that the consequences are deemed acceptable (expectation). Thus, since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral.

Don't make me come over there.

That's one of those close topics.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Could mods clean up some of those multi-posts? Thanks.

"since the State has both the power (the rights), and the ability to get away with it (expectation), the State's sponsoring of execution is entirely consistent, and thus entirely moral."

So if a chemical company bribes the entire government to get away for killing 5,000 people in a factory accident that leaked, say, lead into the water supply, that would be completely moral?...

And props for the excellent speech by Kappastan.

I have a feeling that Kappastan should meet Berkylvania. Outstanding speeches, my friend.

G Bugles, state-sanctioned killing is arguably worse than murder. It is performed in the name of everyone in the nation concerned. It puts blood on all our hands (assuming that the citizens of the nation have a stake - all bets are off in a dictatorship). On a moral and logical basis, if killing is wrong, then, uh, killing is wrong. The exceptions I apply to this are in situations where someone's death will avert the deaths of others. WWII is perhaps a case in point (though the dropping of the bomb...), along with a number of more intimate circumstances, for example self-defence.

Hooglastahn, you've been peddling the same tiresome rhetoric for too long. The ability to do something is not a right. Natural rights do not exist; a right is something that an entity or entities confer on themselves and others. Your logic isn't far off from being something along the lines of:

Given that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the speed of light is represented by the symbol c, we can therefore state that all citizens of the nation Kappastan have blue eyes.

In other words, your comments are nonsense on stilts.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

If there are no further suggestions or objections, draft 2B will be submitted as the final proposal in about 24 hours' time.

Thanks Kappastan. Brilliant.

Another point I'd like to make. Ignoring my objections to the concept that all murderers deserve to die, what gives anyone else the right to kill them?

Surely a moral government should take the moral high ground and say "we represent society, society is (morally) better than you, so although your actions might warrant death [depending on your point of view], we are not going to be so barbaric as to kill you".

Good luck.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

if killing is wrong, then, uh, killing is wrong.

But that's just it. NOT ALL KILLING IS WRONG.

Killing in self defense != wrong
Killing someone who has killed another for reasons other than self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence != wrong

Frodo: "It is a pity Bilbo did not slay Gollum when he had thr chance."

Gandalf: "Pity? But it was pity that stayed his hand.
Think, Frodo: There are many who live that deserve death.
Yet many who die deserve life; can you give it to them?
Then be not so hasty to hand out death as a punishment.
Not even the wise can foresee all ends."

Rather than abolish capital punishment, embrace guidelines such as those outlined in our proposal, Capital Punishment Guidelines.



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.


Note the clauses regarding extradition, a hopeful palliative to those nations which oppose the supreme sanction.

The point of this proposal is not that capital punishment is cruel to the person being executed. The point is that it is wrong, illogical, and should not be condoned.

The proposal has been submitted, however the last "t" got cut off so it's officially called "Abolition of Capital Punishmen" :)

I will be sending out telegrams tomorrow to those delegates who have endorsed previous anti-death penalty proposals but have not endorsed this one. It's quite a sizable list. Hopefully I can get enough momentum going.

Killing someone who has killed another for reasons other than self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence != wrong

So if Bob shoots Phill for no good reason, then that's presumably wrong.

If I shoot him because I found out about it, by your definition that isn't wrong, because he's killed outside of your criteria, and now my killing of him is not wrong.

But despite the fact that what I did by your definitions wasn't wrong, now anyone can kill me and it won't be wrong either. I just killed outside of self defense and not as part of a duly-passed sentence. It wasn't wrong, but I've still got the "murderer" tag on my head anyway, so anyone can shoot me for no reason at all and be morally in the clear (although then they would have caught the "free to be morally killed" disease - which like Herpes apparently never goes away).

This is, to say the very least, a major problem with your definitions. And the fact is, any kind of definitions you wrote up for when the act of killing was justified from the perspective of the act itself is going to necessarily have problems like that. I'm sure you could derive a set of restrictions on killing which would be harder to find loopholes in than that - but they are always going to be there.

No, acts do not justify themselves. And acts aren't any different based on the past context - only the future context. Killing someone who's running down the street with a Sodium Cyanide bomb is justified, because not killing him jeopardizes the lives of others. Killing someone who is languishing in prison for the rest of their natural lives is not justified because nothing is at stake.

The past is imutable, and taking revenge for it is ultimately simply allowing those bygone horrors to repeat themselves over and over again. That might be "justice", but it is also "useless". And that is something no government can afford.

Good night, everyone.

Killing someone who has killed another for reasons other than self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence != wrong

So if Bob shoots Phill for no good reason, then that's presumably wrong.

Right.

If I shoot him because I found out about it, by your definition that isn't wrong, because he's killed outside of your criteria, and now my killing of him is not wrong.
No, it is wrong--you are not killing in self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence.

That might be "justice",
And justice is all that matters.

I agree with you and completely support the proposal. Go for it

Although I do not condone the untimely death of any living being, I must also admit that society should come to terms with the fact that there are individuals out there that are purely a detriment to the human race. If these individuals are accused of commiting a crime that warrants capital punishment, there should be more extensive investigations to collect and test forensic evidence so the results are incontrovertable. Appeals should only be considered on the solid basis of contradicting forensic evidence and not to prolong the length of time until execution.

In the long run, it should save on the costs of keeping them in jail for "consecutive life terms". This in turn saves our tax payers money, or the money may be used towards other social issues.

(Hey, wouldn't this be a form of population control also? There are people out there who complain of the population growing too fast..... Well, let's get rid of the bad ones! If there weren't so many people in this world, maybe these criminals could have received the individualized attention they needed in the first place & they wouldn't have committed these crimes!) :shock:

Around 40 delegates who approved previous anti-death penalty resolutions have been contacted and asked for their support, hopefully without irritating too many people or giving me carpal tunnel.

If you support this proposal, please ask your delegate if you're not one yourself to approve it.

Okay, about the costs. Although costs will vary depending on how old the prisoner was and how long the prisoner eventually lives, generally, it's cheaper to house and feed a person under maximum security conditions for about 50 years than it is to undergo a lengthy appeal process which those condemed to death almost always pursue, because it is their only hope.

At the same time, let's remember that we are not against the death penalty because it is more expensive. It is because it does not make sense to emphasise that murder is wrong by killing a killer. And because capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent to murder. And because we believe that since there is no reason for capital punishment to continue, we should stop killing people. No matter how heinous their crimes are, we can only make things worse by executing them.

-multipost-

-multipost-

At the same time, let's remember that we are not against the death penalty because it is more expensive. It is because it does not make sense to emphasise that murder is wrong by killing a killer.
Why not? Killing a killer is not murder; it is merely killing a killer.

And because capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent to murder.

The questionable truth of that assertion aside, that's incredibly irrelvant. Death is a just punishment for the particular murderer in question. That alone is exactly why it must be imposed on murderers--because it is just.

"Why not? Killing a killer is not murder; it is merely killing a killer."

This sets up a chain of logic that can only result in the death of all but one person.

"Death is a just punishment"

We disagree on what is 'just', I'm afraid. I repeat:

State-sanctioned killing is arguably worse than murder. It is performed in the name of everyone in the nation concerned. It puts blood on all our hands.

DP

Lol, this issue is behond the mandate of the UN. It directly interfeers with a nation's choice to govern within its own nation. UN proposals should affect international problems. Also, I say make the death penalty for any federal offense. No more criminals, no more money wasted on housing and feeding them. They know the law, if they can't handle it, get out. And if they decide to do whatever they damn-well please, fine. They dont get to live in our country, and we're not going to dump our criminals into another country. The protical is inevitable.

"Why not? Killing a killer is not murder; it is merely killing a killer."

This sets up a chain of logic that can only result in the death of all but one person.
OK, I left out a word. Killing a killer is not necessarily murder.

"Death is a just punishment"

We disagree on what is 'just', I'm afraid.

Then you hold incorrect ideas.
State-sanctioned killing is arguably worse than murder. It is performed in the name of everyone in the nation concerned. It puts blood on all our hands.

So? What's wrong with having the blood of a subhuman barbarian on your hands?

So? What's wrong with having the blood of a subhuman barbarian on your hands?

We have a fundamental difference of opinion, I'm afraid. We do not regard anyone, no matter what their crime is, as a "subhuman barbarian". And if you think that killing is a subhuman act, why do you still condone it?

Awesome 2 the MAX is completely right. we should be more conserned with international issues and leave moral issues up to the individual nations.

But I've also decided to put in my opinion.

A person being murded is a trully sad thing. I know that I'd be upset if someone murdered me, wouldn't you? But if I were to stop him as he attempted to kill me, and killed him, would this not be self-defense?

Afterall, he was going to kill me.

Yet, if he was to actually kill me, why should he ge to live?

I had no jury saying that I had done something wrong(which I wouldn't have).

Yet he is a proven murder, and he gets to live to the rest of his days.

That's not fair at all.

"It doesn't matter how unjust the laws happen to be so long as they get the job done."

Unjust laws?

An Unjust Justice System?

Seems like a perfectly horrible idea to me.

As for the job getting done, kill 'em. No one feels sorry for the guy attempting murder who gets killed in self-defense, so why should we pity him when he's successful? If anything, we should be more upset.

Yet we somehow find our hearts to be big enough to reward his being able to successfully murder.

:cry: Ok I don't know how else to say this. I beleive in the death penalty. Not out of vengence or punishment,but out of pragmatism. If a member of a soceity rountinly kills other members of said society. than that person must be removed from soceity. (I apollogize for my poor spelling) Life imprissoment is a burden upon those who work and are productive. Some aspects of life are hard to think about . I can't write anymore about this

Let me repeat that life without parole and an execution carry almost the same burden on the taxpayer, and that capital cases become protracted appeal-fests much more often than life-without-parole cases, so on average, life without parole costs LESS than execution.

And I'd like Aeolian to explain how being imprisoned until you die is a reward, and tell me why we should prove that murder is wrong by killing someone. In the real world, self-defence is a valid defence in a murder trial that can lead to a lesser sentence or acquittal. And while you say that he gets to live out the rest of his days, you're forgetting that he's living the rest of his days in jail.

*ooc*
Also, awesome 2 the max is advocating execution for all federal crimes. Maybe you don't know this and meant something else, but in the USA at least, that would be executing every bank robber, counterfeiter (which would include anyone found with a photo of money), drug user, fraudster, illegal immigrant, or even a pickpocket who stole from someone while in a federal building.

No, it does not carry the same weight.

A person who comits murder and is given life in prison, the taxpayer has to pay the entire cost for the rest of the murderers life. You have to feed him, you have to allow basic necesities. Water for bathing or drinking. Electricity for lights and security. Payed guards. The possibility of escape which may endanger the life of said guards or other members within prison whose crimes are not greater than that of murder or even rape.

Execution. The cost? A society's morality. The overriding principal that life is precious no matter what the crime.

The cost to keep a condemned murderer alive is weighed in the dollar value of seeing to his needs for living. Food, medical, any chosen entertainments, library facilities, weight rooms, etc. Also the cost to taxpayers who have to pay more money each time the murderer wishes to appeal the courts decision.

Execution is only weighed in peoples conscious. The dollar amount does not equal out to the amount if he/she is given life.

Personally I think anyone that wishes to keep a murderer alive always uses the same arguements and I highly don't agree with them. Their arguements are always, what if he/she was really innocent. If they were really innocent, then it should have been clear when they were in the court room and the jury found them guilty, "beyond a reasonable doubt." Since a quorum (all) jury members must be in agreement that the punishment fits the crime. If this is the case, i'd maybe allow one appeal. But if they couldn't prove their innocence after that, off with their head.

I'm all for the death penalty, and capital punishment.

Ramatis will never abolish capital punishment. We dont just use it as a punishment for murder, but also for crimes involving the sexual abuse of children, espionage & treason. There is no appeal as we ensure convictions are beyond doubt using the latest DNA technology.

All executions are public & televised. Our Lady High Executioner is quite a celeb.


http://pages.zdnet.com/aesculapia/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/beheading.jpg

The overriding principal that life is precious no matter what the crime.
(snip)
I'm all for the death penalty, and capital punishment.

I think you've contradicted yourself there. If life is precious why are you killing another person?

And you don't seem to have heard me when I said that:


...life without parole and an execution carry almost the same burden on the taxpayer, and capital cases become protracted appeal-fests much more often than life-without-parole cases, so on average, life without parole costs LESS than execution.

OK, I left out a word. Killing a killer is not necessarily murder.


Technically, you are correct because murder has to be an unlawful killing, assuming don't mean going up to someone on the street who has just shot someone and stabbing him in the heart.

But an execution is still killing for no reason. Is there a good reason to kill him? You don't bring the victim(s) back to life, and it doesn't save any lives. It isn't self-defence, and to us at least, it isn't justice at all.


Then you hold incorrect ideas.


I am of the opinion that you are the one who holds incorrect ideas, and that you have little respect for other points of view besides your own.

But an execution is still killing for no reason. Is there a good reason to kill him? You don't bring the victim(s) back to life, and it doesn't save any lives. It isn't self-defence, and to us at least, it isn't justice at all.


I've been reading this because it is something I feel strongly about. However, I have not joined in yet because my beliefs on capital punishment are based on some religious beliefs that others do not hold. That being said, I decided I would like to express my views on this and I hope no body will be overly offended by it. This is just my opinion:

There is a growing notion in the world today that it is adding a crime to a crime to take the life of those who deliberately murder - a cruel retaliation which cannot benefit the murdered person and likewise the murderer can reap no benefits therefrom. The taking of a life of the murderer was never intended to be a benefit to the murdered person or even a benefit to humanity. It was intended to be a benefit to the murderer himself. There are sins which cannot be forgiven, except by the guilty person paying a price by the shedding of his blood. Capital punishment was to benefit the guilty to obtain a better resurrection. Thus it was done, not in anger or for "justice", but out of love for the eternal welfare of the murderer's soul.

Like I said, not everyone is going to agree with that. Have at it...

But that's just it. NOT ALL KILLING IS WRONG.

Killing in self defense != wrong
Killing someone who has killed another for reasons other than self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence != wrong
No, it is wrong--you are not killing in self-defense or as part of a duly-passed sentence.

I'm not sure if you are serious, or just being deliberately contradictory.

You said that killing someone who killed another outside of self defense and not part of a duly-passed sentence is not wrong. Then you said that killing someone itself not part of self defense or a duly-passed sentence is wrong.

These two statements are not the same. It is very easy to imagine killing someone who killed without either killer doing it as part of a sentence or as self-defense. In such a circumstance, your statements label this act of killing as both wrong and not wrong. If you are going to say tht things are WRONG or NOT WRONG to the point that you are willing to kill other people - you had better get your story straight.

Or to put it another way, there is absolutely nothing magical about the legal process. The fact that Lawyers have agreed to do something does not in any way shape or form make a wrong action right or a right action wrong. Your flip-flopping about "duly passed sentences" is nonsensical at best.

Lawyers and Judges are just people - like any others. Their job is to apply the Laws of the land as best they can, but there is no flaming sword of purity that gives them instructions on how to do things. Anything that a Lawyer does which is NOT WRONG is by definition NOT WRONG for some random person - because a Lawyer is some random person. A duly-passed sentence is by very definition simply the act that a normal person should do given the same circumstances. It's just presented before Lawyers and Judges in order to hash out exactly what the circumstances are and what should be done about them.

The State isn't some actual entity making these decisions, some people are making these decsions on behalf of the State. So if your ethical system lets the State do things, it has to let people do the same - because the State is actually just an ideal and real people are really doing absolutely anything you ascribe to the State.

Good night, everyone.

-MP-

But an execution is still killing for no reason. Is there a good reason to kill him? You don't bring the victim(s) back to life, and it doesn't save any lives. It isn't self-defence, and to us at least, it isn't justice at all.


I've been reading this because it is something I feel strongly about. However, I have not joined in yet because my beliefs on capital punishment are based on some religious beliefs that others do not hold. That being said, I decided I would like to express my views on this and I hope no body will be overly offended by it. This is just my opinion:

There is a growing notion in the world today that it is adding a crime to a crime to take the life of those who deliberately murder - a cruel retaliation which cannot benefit the murdered person and likewise the murderer can reap no benefits therefrom. The taking of a life of the murderer was never intended to be a benefit to the murdered person or even a benefit to humanity. It was intended to be a benefit to the murderer himself. There are sins which cannot be forgiven, except by the guilty person paying a price by the shedding of his blood. Capital punishment was to benefit the guilty to obtain a better resurrection. Thus it was done, not in anger or for "justice", but out of love for the eternal welfare of the murderer's soul.

Like I said, not everyone is going to agree with that. Have at it...

That sounds like the way we "liberated" Vietnamese villages by burning them to the ground. Spare me your good wishes.

I would have to very strongly state that the U.N. Should not even be touching this issue. The legalizing or illegalizing of Capital Punishment is somthing each nation should decide for themselves.

The proposal has been re-submitted as "Capital Punishment Abolition"

Kind of a glut in proposals to end the death penalty at the moment, but I wanted to get it in over a weekend so there's more chance of it getting noticed...

DP

This proposal has just been re-submitted and will be constantly re-submitted. About 100 different delegates have endorsed the proposal since the first time it was submitted, and I'm confident it can eventually reach resolution status.

But if they couldn't prove their innocence after that, off with their head.

I'm all for the death penalty, and capital punishment.

It sounds as if you're arguing from a U.S. perspective. However, in the U.S. you are *innocent until proven guilty*. Not guilty until proven innocent. Though it is debatable as to whether this is carried out in practice.

We the Confederacy of Polish Warriors feel strongly in favor of the death penalty! why should child molesters, rapists and murderers who have either been caught red handed or found guilty through dna testing (and re-testing to make sure of no contamination) be allowed to continue to terrorize innocent civilians?! I'm sorry but if someone raped my wife or child and or killed them, I would want them executed immediatly (by my own hands), thrown into a shallow grave,sprinkled with lime, and buried. One bullet would not be expensive, save us tax dollars on feeding the subhuman, and the potential if and when released: from repeat offending. Bottom line: rotten apples are not kept in the basket to hopefully re ripen they are tossed because once rotten always rotten. :!:

We also vehemently reject this and any other anti-capital punishment resolution or legislation!

The urge for revenge is not a worthy quality; it lowers humanity. We will support all efforts to ban the death penalty, but consider it unlikely to take effect in the UN.

Ultimate revenge does not lower a human being at all what's low is having to live with the fact that some sh**bag gets life in prison for murdering someone dear to you(wife, child, mom, dad). And the real pisser, knowing that your tax dollars go to feed the subhuman for life to watch t.v., get educated, work out etc etc.

Um. Have you any idea whatsoever what life in a high-security prison is like?

UUMM...... no however I do know that ending any possibility that the subhuman will do it again is the best way to go. If they do go to prison for a long time and are let out, how much resentment do you think they will have? not a good thing to a person with a shoddy perspective of the world.

I can see the polish warrior's point, but the only ethical time to ending a life is when saving a life.
Also, by taking enjoyment from the death of a murderer, one becomes equal with the murderer.

I can see the polish warrior's point, but the only ethical time to ending a life is when saving a life.
Also, by taking enjoyment from the death of a murderer, one becomes equal with the murderer.

I can see the polish warrior's point, but the only ethical time to ending a life is when saving a life.
Also, by taking enjoyment from the death of a murderer, one becomes equal with the murderer.

I guess I'm a bit of an "old testament" monger eye for an eye tooth for a tooth fight fire with fire and yes I know the quote an eye for an eye makes a man blind or something to that effect. I do not care about "lowering" myself to the subhuman level if and only if it is grossly warranted. Seriously if it were to happen to someone whom I love and I know who did it. then I would surley smite them with my own hand! fu** the consequences! so be it. There is a movie called the Jack Bull (a modern western with John Cusack the guy from high Fidelity) where he says one of the most brilliant lines of script in my eyes anyway: " A lot of people want justice...few are willing to pay the price for it." I believe in that quote full heartedly. I know taking another human life in essance is wrong yet there are certain times in life when vengenance is pure and worthwile. Screw the courts for feeding the bastard till he dies of old age and wasting our tax dollars to "rehabilitate" them. We as humans have free will, a complex mind and way of communication. I do not care if they had some screwed up family life or a mental problem. They should be stricken from the earth. Am I god ...? Hell no but I am a human being who will not tolerate animalistic behaivior! (coming down from his soap box) sorry I just can't see turning the other cheek or trying to make a rotten apple sweet again. You have one chance in life to take action and develope character, overcome obsticles,be the best person you can be. If sowing terror on innocent people is all you can muster than be gone I say.

I guess I'm a bit of an "old testament" monger eye for an eye tooth for a tooth fight fire with fire and yes I know the quote an eye for an eye makes a man blind or something to that effect. I do not care about "lowering" myself to the subhuman level if and only if it is grossly warranted. Seriously if it were to happen to someone whom I love and I know who did it. then I would surley smite them with my own hand! fu** the consequences! so be it. There is a movie called the Jack Bull (a modern western with John Cusack the guy from high Fidelity) where he says one of the most brilliant lines of script in my eyes anyway: " A lot of people want justice...few are willing to pay the price for it." I believe in that quote full heartedly. I know taking another human life in essance is wrong yet there are certain times in life when vengenance is pure and worthwile. Screw the courts for feeding the bastard till he dies of old age and wasting our tax dollars to "rehabilitate" them. We as humans have free will, a complex mind and way of communication. I do not care if they had some screwed up family life or a mental problem. They should be stricken from the earth. Am I god ...? Hell no but I am a human being who will not tolerate animalistic behaivior! (coming down from his soap box) sorry I just can't see turning the other cheek or trying to make a rotten apple sweet again. You have one chance in life to take action and develope character, overcome obsticles,be the best person you can be. If sowing terror on innocent people is all you can muster than be gone I say.

I know taking another human life in essance is wrong yet there are certain times in life when vengenance is pure and worthwile. Screw the courts for feeding the bastard till he dies of old age and wasting our tax dollars to "rehabilitate" them.

With the death penalty, your tax dollars are also wasted by the endless appeals that death row inmates invariably invoke.

If sowing terror on innocent people is all you can muster than be gone I say.

Murder is rarely committed out of pure desire to terrorise people or out of pure malice. It's usually a crime of passion, or there is a personal reason behind it. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of murder victims have a pre-existing relationship with their murderer. Even terrorists commit murder out of a desire to further and bring attention to their cause (Basque seperatists or the IRA), or due to hatred of a government(s) (Al-Qaeda).

Ah but that is where our courts fail us. If and only if there is no unreasonable doubt of who or what is responsible for the crime being capital murder, rape , and child molestation, then they must be speedily destroyed. I find these appeals stupid only when the criminal is obviously guilty. I agree w/ you that this is wasteful also. so why not speedily execute the sick bastard if there is absolutley no doubt due to him or her being caught "redhanded" or scientific DNA testing. And give the testing three trials in the same control environment to eliminate any possiblity of contamination. Yes that will cost money, but not nearly as much as going through the ridiculous sharade of appeals and "life in prison". People need to be made aware that our society will not tolerate excuses! take responsibility for your own actions, and if not when evidence is unmistakeabley against you then die that much quicker. Quick and decisive action is what is needed only when laborous preperation has been performed. ie dna testing, prints,pictures, video, audio tape etc etc...

Yeah, I guess crack or a pair of shoes is really a "personal" reason. But I see your point as to "passion crimes"I included myself in reaping what I sow for my revenge if you read closley. Example: If my wife were to be brutally raped and killed (don't even wanna think about that) but if she was, and I knew w/o a doubt as to who was responsible... I would not hesitate to waste that fool's life. In a heartbeat. Ok so I go to trial I'm obviously guitly of murder in a fit of "passion" or whatever. Then so be it. do I deserve to be given quarter by the jury or the judge? I guess not. However, I'm honestly willing to say that I would accept whatever punishment the law would bring down on me.
I guess to me what would life be worth if someone you loved ie a wife or a child were to be brutally senslessly (sp) killed those people would be my life. therefore destroying this assailant by my own hand would be good enough for me. Yeah that's hardcore but I stand by my convictions and I know I would be willing to do it. I hope the hell I'm never in that position however.

Yeah, I guess crack or a pair of shoes is really a "personal" reason.

The intention of the criminal in this case is (armed) robbery, not murder. That doesn't lessen the gravity of the crime, but there was never an INTENT to kill.

And murderers will still suffer consequences. They spend the rest of their life in prison. How is that a slap-on-the-wrist?

As always, the debate on the issue always is taken away from the argument that that killing a person, no matter what he's done, is wrong. And by executing a killer, the state only compounds the crime. The victim is dead, what use in killing the culprit too? As you said so yourself, if you were to avenge your loved one by killing their killer, you'd be on trial for murder. How is that different from the state doing the same?

I've telegrammed the delegates who have previously endorsed it, about 84 in all. If all of them re-endorse, there's a good chance of picking up the rest of the endorsements in the final day.

This proposal will be constantly re-submitted if I don't make quorum this round, so please, keep renewing your support.

The current run expires 20 May 2004.

Observing that viable alternatives to capital punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, exist, and,

Believing that no judicial process can be perfect, and,

Alarmed that death row acquittals have occurred, and at the probability that innocent people have thus been executed, and,

Further alarmed by the fact that, once carried out, an execution is irreversible even should evidence later be uncovered proving the innocence of a convict,



I have an almost full alternative to capital punishment. Putting people into an induced coma is perfectly fine. This is effectivley controlled death i.e. you can wake them up. They could be kept like this untill their natural death, therefore presenting no threat to society. If their innocence was proved however they could be woken up and paid compensation, partially funded by those who incriminated them, and partially funded by the government. I believe this solves the problem of capital punishment being irreversable, and that a prisoner can escape et cetera.

I have an almost full alternative to capital punishment. Putting people into an induced coma is perfectly fine. This is effectivley controlled death i.e. you can wake them up. They could be kept like this untill their natural death, therefore presenting no threat to society. If their innocence was proved however they could be woken up and paid compensation, partially funded by those who incriminated them, and partially funded by the government. I believe this solves the problem of capital punishment being irreversable, and that a prisoner can escape et cetera.

It is, however, effectively killing the person, because they will not experience the world again - and therefore the ethical problem is not solved. Having said that, this is the lesser of two evils and this legislation would not stop your nation imposing such a punishment.

you guys are retarded. would you want some one who rapes 10 year olds alive and have a chance to come back in to the public and do it again?

1. Rape, child molest, pedophilia, and other things you could charge such a person with are not generally capital offences.

2. Okay, say he commits murder on top of rape. Life without parole means he doesn't get out of prison, EVER, unless he escapes, which is difficult. But let's say he does escape. Where does he go to hide? His escape would be a huge media event, the public would see his face constantly on the news, so in an urban area he's instantly recognisable. Hard to hide when everyone knows your face. If he hides in the countryside, how is he going to repeat his crime when there's no one around to rape? And at the same time, the entire country's law enforcement is out to get you.

Re-submitted again. With the new endorsements from last round now there are 98 who have endorsed before. Once again, I'm asking all those delegates to renew their support and help get this to resolution status.

This is a well-written proposal and Suna Kaya gives it total approval. Whether or not it is implemented is up to UN member nations to decide.

It is the personal preference of Suna Kaya that this proposal becomes an actual proposal and passes.

Edit: how do you endorse a proposal?

You need to be a delegate. I think if you're one you will get little "endorse" buttons on the proposal view pages.

It's back again for another round. We gained 19 delegates last round, so now it's up to 107, unfortunately, despite messages, many delegates aren't re-endorsing. So, please endorse it.

Believing that no judicial process can be perfect, and,

True, but no criminal found guilty can ever truely be re-habilitated.

- The Rep of Komokom.[/quote]

I must disagree, Many Ex-Felons, Including murderers, have been rehabilitated. Have you never seen or read Les Miserables ?
It takes a profound change in ones life, but it has, and is, being done.

Having said this, I also do believe the death penalty is warranted for mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, and those similar "Class X Felons". Those that take pleasure in killing and or scaring multiple people for life are a great danger, and should not be allowed to exist in civilized society. Charles Manson, is such an example.

The Garda Islands is strongly against Capital Punishment.

We feel that it is ironic and, more importantly, morally wrong.

It is beyond belief that some governments punish killers with death. How can you justify saying "Look here, don't kill people, it's bad" and then go ahead and kill them?

How do you propose to finance this legislation, if the Delegates approve it? The cost of prisons, food, clothing, healthcare, dentalcare, etc. is unbelieveably expensive.

Don't get me wrong, I would never want a single person put to death if they are innocent or without overwhealming proof of guilt.

With that said, the ability to execute a convicted murderer is not "cruel and unusual". Lethal injection provides for a painless loss of life, which is usually more than the person gave the one they killed.

Personally, if the UN Delegates passed this and the Assembly passed it, I would quickly remove my nation from the United Nations. Thus allowing my nation to continue to utilize this form of punishment.

Respectfully,

President - Incorporated States of Republican Ideology

How do you propose to finance this legislation, if the Delegates approve it? The cost of prisons, food, clothing, healthcare, dentalcare, etc. is unbelieveably expensive.


So are the legal costs of pursuing death penalty cases to the degree of certainty that we both want. This normally involves exhaustive appeals. Not to say that for life-without-parole, standards for conviction are less stringent, but usually, those sentenced to death pursue every possible appeal, wasting court time and taxpayer money with the repeated DNA, blood, etc. tests, which aren't cheap. Even though they know they are guilty, since it's an all-or-nothing situation they take any chance they can get, however slight, to save their life.

The same does not usually happen for life-without-parole, as the guilty are more likely to just accept their fate, and only those who maintain their innocence appeal.

In many cases the costs of the death penalty are greater than those of caring for a prisoner in maximum security for life. And if you cut these costs, you risk sending an innocent man to death row, which you yourself say you don't want - in fact, who wants that?

In any case, we believe that even if executions were much cheaper than imprisonment, it would be worth it if only for the sake of decency or humanity.


With that said, the ability to execute a convicted murderer is not "cruel and unusual". Lethal injection provides for a painless loss of life, which is usually more than the person gave the one they killed.


Painless or not, killing is still killing and it is cruel.

Also, due to the expense involved, lethal injection is hardly universal and even so, there are scientific doubts as to how painless it actually is. The final drug used in lethal injection is potassium chloride, and it's the last one because it causes severe pain. If the dosages of the first two drugs (as used in the United States) are too low or if the convict has some kind of resistance to them (either of which can easily happen) they won't be unconscious when the KCl2 goes in.

i feel dat u haf to pay a life for a life....it alos helps to clear the prison too....so are planning to gif life imprisonment for all murderers???or release them??? dey do harm to society and hence muz be removed.

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

The Empire of Kerubia will not support this resolution, as it will ban too many forms of punishment, including life in prison without parole (which is a death penalty).

http://www.freewebs.com/golaniv/kerubseal.gif

:evil: WTF! If an individual kills another then that individual deserves to die, with the exception of self defense and accidents. Why keep prisoners? So that people have to pay more taxes? What if one of those prisoners got out? Do you really want them walking the streets? I say we dispose of those who have commited vicious and malicious murders. There is absolutely no point in keeping them around.

Don't ban capital punishment. When soembody commits a crime they should know the consequences of their actions. (note i am not including insanity, which is BS, so anyway) By knowing this when you murder someone you have concluded that you want to kill that person and that you are subject to the penalties theiren. Lifelong imprisonment is nothing. Short term is worse. "Oh no I have to eat free food, sleep on a bed, watch cable TV[which I, a law abiding citizen do not have] and recieve free medical services!" Of cours ethats not entirely true, but it wastes law-abiders tax dollars on local idiots that go around killing people. If we gotta do somethin' just educate the children that murder is bad, etc. Thay need a break from algebra anyway. Capital punishment is not murder. It is a neat-and clean little way of saying: "D'ya wish ya raped and killed that poor little girl now?!" No gushing blood, nuthin'. Just a little needle, and bad guy goes sleepy-weepy. Unless you behead yours. It a national issue, so back off you little socialist peoples, and let me Liberatarion Dictate my own nation.

Dictator LG

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia
The Empire of Kerubia will not support this resolution, as it will ban too many forms of punishment, including life in prison without parole (which is a death penalty).


Life without parole is not a death penalty, simply because no death is involved. The criminal is simply permanently removed from society, and they still are (normally) able to communicate with the outside world, improve themselves, etc. As opposed to an actual death penalty, where the prisoner is killed without remorse, because it's (wrongly) thought to be justice. The only form of punishment that becomes banned is execution.


"If we gotta do somethin' just educate the children that murder is bad"


As pointed out before, for the government to say that murder is bad by committing murder is not just ironic, but hypocritical. That's not a good example to set, is it?

And how is a ban on capital punishment socialist in any way? This is a human rights and civil rights issue, not an economic one.


What if one of those prisoners got out? Do you really want them walking the streets?


Firstly, most murders are one-off things, aimed at a specific target. The rate of recidivism (repetition of crime) among murderers is low. Secondly,


But let's say he does escape. Where does he go to hide? His escape would be a huge media event, the public would see his face constantly on the news, so in an urban area he's instantly recognisable. Hard to hide when everyone knows your face. If he hides in the countryside, how is he going to repeat his crime when there's no one around to rape? And at the same time, the entire country's law enforcement is out to get you.


An escaped prisoner would hardly be "walking the streets".

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

Life without parole is not a death penalty, simply because no death is involved. The criminal is simply permanently removed from society, and they still are (normally) able to communicate with the outside world, improve themselves, etc. As opposed to an actual death penalty, where the prisoner is killed without remorse, because it's (wrongly) thought to be justice. The only form of punishment that becomes banned is execution.

Believe what you will, but locking someone up until they die sounds like a death penalty to me. It's a very effective one, at that. The criminal has plenty of time to improve himself, like you said, but he's still dead. The effects on the mind that goes through this type of punishment . . . I shudder simply thinking about them. This is why Life without Parole is the most common death penalty in my nation.

Murderers and destroyers are the only ones that will be murdered and destroyed, even if it has to be done by the non-murderers and destroyers.

Very well, I accept your view, but by definition imprisonment, even for life, is not capital punishment, because capital punishment and death penalty both mean execution. That is also the definition used in this proposal, so I hope your concern is satisfied.

What I don't agree with is your portrayal of imprisonment as being as good as death. When a person goes to prison for 2 months, when they get out again, were they temporarily dead for 2 months? Okay, maybe that's not what you meant. More likely you were saying that since they're locked up for life, their life is effectively over, so life without parole is equivalent to the death penalty, correct?

Well, there are some huge differences. In an execution, a murder is committed, though some prefer not to see it that way, it is still an intentional, premeditated killing of a person. The government should not have the right to kill.

To the prisoner, it is a big difference too. In prison, you can still make friends. You can still read books, you can still see, feel, hear, and touch. You can still talk to your loved ones, your family and friends, and they can still talk to you. It's hardly comfortable, and it's no holiday, but you can still live. With an execution, it all ends, forever and irrevocably. There is no reprieve, even if, as in cases too numerous to be comfortable with, evidence is encountered later.

For a real-life example, a group of Northwestern University students managed to prove the innocence of Anthony Porter, who was on death row in Illinois. After cases of people being tortured into confessions and racial biases surfaced, Illinois commuted the sentences of all its death row inmates. The article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/

The (RL) United States has a very highly regarded justice system, and if it is this fallible, surely many of our own justice systems have similar fallibilities, and surely many innocent people have been executed.

I am torn between the two arguments there are several reasons reasons for the death penalty to be good or bad. The problem with life without parole is: A homless person who is desperate enough could kill someone and get caught intentionally and go to jail for life where they get food shelter friends and all the neccesities of life which is better than living on the streets. Now a problem with the death penalty is if the person is found guilty and isn't then they die undeservingly. As for the media problem in my country on high profile cases there is no media coverage and the jury is not allowed to speak to the outside world because that would taint they're judgement. Of course there are problems with this too because the jury will start to get annoyed by being hidden away with no one to talk to and so might decide quickly just to get it over with. In my country people who are charged with heinous crimes such as murder and pedaphilia and the like if they are found guilty by a jury of they're piers then they may make a personnal appeal to me and I decide if they should be executed or life imprisenment or if they should be pardoned. I will not support this proposition but I acknowledge that it raises an interesting point and I might rethink my justice system.

How can you people honestly think that the death penalty is not a good idea?! If absolutley no doubt exists as to the perpetraitor of the crime than you believe it is humane to turn the other cheek?! HELL NAW! We the people of The Confederation of Polish Warriors believe that if the accused is found guilty by overwhelming, indisputable evidence than dig a shallow grave,put a bullet in between the eyes, sprinkle some lime, throw dirt on dirt and be done with it. If someone killed a person that was dear to us and we knew who did it w/o a doubt; we certaintly would not wait for the courts to bring justice. We would take it upon ourselves to right the wrong done to us with our bare hands if need be. "Many people want justice; few are willing to pay the price for it."

Polish Warriors has a good point and I agree indesputable evedence against a crimanal for a horrendous act of savagery should be punished through execution. But the whole point is what if there seems to be overwhelming evedence but then new evidence appears and it is found that the police manufactured evidence or some other such thing comes up and the person is found to be innocent then you've killed a man for no reason making yourselves as bad as the killers. But there is also a problem with life imprisonment I believe it is in humane to imprison someone for life because it is then proved that they are evil so the guards will treat them badly and they will be raped by other inmates (Possibly I'm not saying this happens to all inmates) for your entire life thats not exactly a humane place to put someone.

I believe it is in humane to imprison someone for life because it is then proved that they are evil so the guards will treat them badly and they will be raped by other inmates (Possibly I'm not saying this happens to all inmates) for your entire life thats not exactly a humane place to put someone.

Surely the solution to this is to enforce rules governing guards' and prisoners' conduct? And you're worried about inhumane prison conditions but are willing to sanction state-sponsored killings?

If someone killed a person that was dear to us and we knew who did it w/o a doubt; we certaintly would not wait for the courts to bring justice.


And vigilante action just works so well, eh? (sarcasm)

The law is there to prevent just that - people taking it upon themselves to exact "justice". You can be really certain of a man's guilt - that doesn't mean he's guilty. You can be really certain the Earth is held up on the backs of 50 elephants, that doesn't make it so.

"Certainties" of the victims' loved ones are often coloured by desire for revenge and because that's who the police tell them is the killer.

And anyway, what justice is there in death and murder?

"Many people want justice; few are willing to pay the price for it."

There shouldn't be any price for justice, because justice is repaying a debt (evening it out by dealing out suitable punishment), not creating one. Okay, that was a little obscure, but I stand by my belief. There is no justice in killing anyone, not even a guilty man.

I've usually heard three arguments FOR capitol punishment:

1) The criminal act is so heinous the only suitable Punishment is death.
2) The criminal is so reprehensible he Deserves to die.
3) The execution of the perpetrator will act as a Deterrent to anyone else considering the same act.

I say that while each of these arguments has merits, there is one point that's not brought up that is the main point. Let me illustrate:

When I empty the garbage in my house, and dispose of it, I don't do it to punish the garbage for being garbage. I don't do it because the garbage deserves to be thrown out. I don't do it as a deterrent to keep other garbage from becoming garbage.

I do it so that the house doesn't start stinking.

There are some crimes that are so reprehensible the mere act shows the perpetrator is human garbage, and in order to keep our world from being stained and stunk up by these wastes of space, they need to be thrown out.

It is up to each nation to decide which acts show up these pieces of trash, after all one man's garbage is another man's long lost treasure. However, the UN should not come along and mandate that we can't throw out our trash if we want to.

This should be a national issue, for each nation to decide for themselves. If some folks want to try to rehabilitate their trash, or put it all off in one room of the house in perpetual storage, that's ok too. It's a choice. Don't remove our choice.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs

Your analogy is wrong, because it implies that there are no consequences in emptying the garbage. In any case we object to your characterization of criminals as garbage.

No one deserves to be "thrown out", no matter what they've done. Besides, you're contradicting your analogy, because what you say you don't do is exactly what you're doing.

How can you say that "in order to keep our world from being stained and stunk up by these wastes of space, they need to be thrown out" right after saying that you don't think that they deserve to be "thrown out"? If you throw out something that doesn't deserve to be thrown out, you've just set up a massive self-contradiction.

Let me point out another way you contradict yourself - you are anti-abortion because you believe in the right to life, correct? How can you be against "killing" a fetus, which isn't even alive yet, and still be in favour of killing criminals who are most definitely alive? Seeing as you believe that fetuses are alive, how can you say that abortion is murder, but capital punishment isn't?


There are some crimes that are so reprehensible the mere act shows the perpetrator is human garbage, and in order to keep our world from being stained and stunk up by these wastes of space, they need to be thrown out.


If killing is reprehensible, aren't executions reprehensible too? And by killing a person, even if he is a murderer, don't we all become "human garbage" too? And I'm sure quite a few people would be happy to make the case that the human species is staining and stinking up the planet and wasting space. Should we all commit mass suicide?

Also, we believe that capital punishment is an important international human rights issue, and thus comes under the auspices of the UN.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island supports such a resolution, provided that there is totally no doubt of a man or woman's guilt over the matter, especially as proven through DNA testing.

From the desk of the royal family of Riversland

Riversland is against to capital punishment. It is hard to unkill people who where innocent of a crime. As well the cost of appeals against the death sentence far exceeds the cost the cost of life imprisonment

No one deserves to be "thrown out", no matter what they've done.

Funny, because the killer seems to throw out the victims.

Besides, you're contradicting your analogy, because what you say you don't do is exactly what you're doing.
Could you explain what this means?

How can you say that "in order to keep our world from being stained and stunk up by these wastes of space, they need to be thrown out" right after saying that you don't think that they deserve to be "thrown out"?
He didn't say that he didn't think they deserve to be thrown out.

If you throw out something that doesn't deserve to be thrown out, you've just set up a massive self-contradiction.
I just adressed that, so I'll refrain from redundance.

Let me point out another way you contradict yourself - you are anti-abortion because you believe in the right to life, correct? How can you be against "killing" a fetus, which isn't even alive yet, and still be in favour of killing criminals who are most definitely alive? Seeing as you believe that fetuses are alive, how can you say that abortion is murder, but capital punishment isn't?
A baby, or fetus, has had no chance to live. It's completely innocent.
A murder has had a chance and has ruined things, and ended others' lives.
There's a difference. Killing an innocent baby, and killing an adult found guilty of murder in a court of law aren't the same thing. But abortion isn't the issue here, so drop it.

There are some crimes that are so reprehensible the mere act shows the perpetrator is human garbage, and in order to keep our world from being stained and stunk up by these wastes of space, they need to be thrown out.


If killing is reprehensible, aren't executions reprehensible too?
He didn't say killing was reprehensible, but that murder was. If I kill in self-defense, am I a murderer? I don't think so. There's a difference.

And by killing a person, even if he is a murderer, don't we all become "human garbage" too?
Here we see you saying that murder and killing are the same, again. I didn't want to bring this up, but isn't being against the death penalty, but for abortion a contradiction? Let's avoid the abortion argument, let's just say that you're trying to feel high and mighty, when you're what you despise.

And I'm sure quite a few people would be happy to make the case that the human species is staining and stinking up the planet and wasting space. Should we all commit mass suicide?
Sure.... You go first...

Also, we believe that capital punishment is an important international human rights issue, and thus comes under the auspices of the UN.
Who's we? I don't. This isn't human rights to me, it's criminal justice.
Justice, what a word.

"When I empty the garbage in my house, and dispose of it, I don't do it to punish the garbage for being garbage. I don't do it because the garbage deserves to be thrown out. I don't do it as a deterrent to keep other garbage from becoming garbage."

That's what I was referring to.

And yes, killing in self-defense is still murder, but it is justifiable. That's not the case with an execution. When you kill in self-defence, you gain your life. When you kill a guy running down a crowded street with a lit stick of dynamite, you gain several lives. When you execute a murderer, you gain nothing.

"I didn't want to bring this up, but isn't being against the death penalty, but for abortion a contradiction?"

I'm posting my argument on this in the appropriate thread, so go over and read that. But to put it simply, you can't kill something which isn't legally alive yet, and life begins at birth.

Yes, the killer throws out the victims. But, going by my previous argument, by throwing out the killer also, what is gained? You can't bring back the victims by executing the killer.

Bump after re-submit