NationStates Jolt Archive

Title: Death Penalty Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant

Considering that many persons of good conscience feel that certain crimes are so atrocious in nature that the use of lethal measures for punishment is unfortunate but appropriate in those cases, be it resolved:

The UN shall make no laws abridging a nation's right to create laws where the punishment is death.

What do the esteemed U.N. Representatives from the various nations of NationStates think of this one?

Ignoring the fact that I would like the UN to illegalise capital punishment, and the fact that enshrining in international law the government's right to kill people is hardly a move which improves human rights (classification is all wrong), this resolution is utterly pointless. It does nothing to change the current situation, which is that governments can do what they like with this issue, and you can't dictate future legislation because that would be interfering with game mechanics (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So the RP effect would be zilch.

We agree with the esteemed delegate from _Myopia_. This proposal is needless and toothless.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Ignoring the fact that I would like the UN to illegalise capital punishment, and the fact that enshrining in international law the government's right to kill people is hardly a move which improves human rights (classification is all wrong), this resolution is utterly pointless.

I thought the classification was wrong too, but I took my U.N. Delegate's word for it that it was appropriate. So what classification would you apply to this proposal?

It does nothing to change the current situation, which is that governments can do what they like with this issue, and you can't dictate future legislation because that would be interfering with game mechanics (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So the RP effect would be zilch.

Is changing the current situation always the goal?

I have noticed that since euthanasia was legalized while I was in the U.N., I have never gotten that 'Dying With Dignity' issue again. Is this just a coincidence? Also, my nation that was in the U.N. at the time prostitution was legalized has never gotten the prostitution issue. Perhaps this is another coincidence.

We agree with the esteemed delegate from _Myopia_. This proposal is needless and toothless.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Needless? Toothless? Hardly. This proposal would explicitly limit the power of the U.N., something which many think is much needed and past due. Limiting the power of the U.N. is quite a nice tooth.

'Rights and Duties' has already neatly delineated the UN's powers. The problem is that this resolution can and will be ignored. Someone at some point will propose to ban capital punishment and I doubt that it will be removed from the proposals list for being in breach of this proposal. Hence toothless.

The only way to stop nations proposing the abolition of death penalty would be to alter the game mechanics. There's no sign of that happening any time soon.

The power of the UN is as it is. One can hope that it is used wisely, but ultimately we are at the whim of delegates' endorsements and ultimately member states' votes. Sadly, they get it wrong. Frequently.

Incidentally, I have had to deal with both prostitution and euthanasia issues since the passing of the (appalling) respective resolutions.

best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

'Rights and Duties' has already neatly delineated the UN's powers. The problem is that this resolution can and will be ignored. Someone at some point will propose to ban capital punishment and I doubt that it will be removed from the proposals list for being in breach of this proposal. Hence toothless.

This resolution would not be ignored if people spoke out against any proposal that would effectively repeal it. I am fairly sure that one is not allowed to create resolutions that effectively repeal earlier resolutions, and if this were enforced by the Moderators (no offense, Modly ones), it would keep the member nations of the U.N. from being subjected to legislation that would abolish the death penalty.

The only way to stop nations proposing the abolition of death penalty would be to alter the game mechanics. There's no sign of that happening any time soon.

Actually, the way to stop such a proposal would be to pass this proposal and get the Mods to remove any later proposals from the list that violate it.

Sadly, they get it wrong. Frequently.

You have noticed that too? :wink:

Incidentally, I have had to deal with both prostitution and euthanasia issues since the passing of the (appalling) respective resolutions.

Hmmm...am I being given the short end of the issues stick here or something?

Good day to you, Mr. Randolph. I appreciate your discourse on this matter.

Does anyone else have any comments on this proposal?

I tend to agree with the esteemed and hard-workiong Ecopoeia on this one. It is a non-resolution rather than a resolution.

Add to that the fact that the title isn't catchy enough, doesn't save the trees/planet/little children, and has no feel-good factor - the great un-washed will never vote for it! 8)

How toothless is this, exactly?

The grammar resolution has kept many who would otherwise support a bill from approving it because it violates that resolution.

Why would this case be any different?

If Enodia or another mod were to post here and confirm that they would remove proposals banning capital punishment if this proposal were passed, then I remove that part of my objection.

Let's assume this proposal passes. New nations join the UN and are not subject to the conditions of this proposal. How do you stop them proposing to abolish capital punishment? You can't.

If the game mechanics issue were cleared up then I would consider voting for this proposal on the condition that an extra clause be inserted:

"The UN shall make no laws mandating the death penalty in any circumstance."

If we're enshrining the right for nations to keep the death penalty if they so choose, then we need to enshrine the right of other nations to abolish it if they so choose.

Would this be acceptable to you in the event of a moderator guarantee that future death penalty proposals will be removed?

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Greetings,

I am against a death penalty within my country. There is no crime and I couldn't dare think of frightening them with death - I don't want to kill my citizens. However, I respect sovereign affairs. Yet, I do not see in this resolution the property of 'to what crimes can the death penalty be used.' If it were purely domestic crimes, then I would vote on a resolution such as this if it mandated ""The UN shall make no laws mandating the death penalty in domestic, internal affairs of a nation." I do not think this proposal addresses international crime, which is a more sticky subject and something I believe the UN should be using its resources to investigate/solve.

I believe the UN should focus on more international affairs and only set standards on how to judge member states on such topics as civil rights and political freedoms, hereby letting other states who have an interest in maintaining ties with , i.e., nations supporting a myriad of civil rights, do so. It shouldn't control individual states affairs. It should perform a watchdog task on disputes in the global arena.

If the UN wants to be a leader it should lead by example and not lead by commands. Lead by example would be maintain the nation state it rights but protect it from other nation states. That, or make it clear to those applying for installation that you may need to seriously alter your nation's being.

Yours,

C Edward Adams
Commonwealth of Tarqys

"The UN shall make no laws mandating the death penalty in any circumstance."

If we're enshrining the right for nations to keep the death penalty if they so choose, then we need to enshrine the right of other nations to abolish it if they so choose.

Would this be acceptable to you in the event of a moderator guarantee that future death penalty proposals will be removed?


Excellent point. If my current proposal does not pass, I will gladly work with you to pass another resolution that includes both our clauses, or if the current one passes, I will be glad to help submit the proposal you have suggested to the U.N. I appreciate your further input and hope to work with you in getting your idea for a resolution passed.

Many thanks for your kind words.

Greetings,

I am against a death penalty within my country.

I too, am against the death penalty in my own country.

However, I respect sovereign affairs.

As do I, which is why I am trying to get legislation passed that limits the power of the U.N.

I do not think this proposal addresses international crime, which is a more sticky subject and something I believe the UN should be using its resources to investigate/solve. I believe the UN should focus on more international affairs and only set standards on how to judge member states on such topics as civil rights and political freedoms, hereby letting other states who have an interest in maintaining ties with , i.e., nations supporting a myriad of civil rights, do so. It shouldn't control individual states affairs. It should perform a watchdog task on disputes in the global arena.

I once again agree wholeheartedly.

If the UN wants to be a leader it should lead by example and not lead by commands. Lead by example would be maintain the nation state it rights but protect it from other nation states. That, or make it clear to those applying for installation that you may need to seriously alter your nation's being.

Amen.

Duplicate Post

Many thanks for your kind words.

You're quite welcome. As a Centrist, I rather like it when people find ways to limit the U.N. on both fronts. :wink:

Member of the Texas Representative Council

Soldier of the Texas Defense Forces (Ret.)

Texas Ambassador to Wysteria

Minister of U.N. Related Discussions for HotRodia

-Sam I Am

Leave this discussion to the nation themselves.

Because a certain nation may have religious beliefs that ban capitol punishment and if they are in the UN, than they cannot ban it. That is enough for a new crusade.

Besides, why are the cranberries always neglected?

Leave this discussion to the nation themselves.

I agree. This is precisely what I am trying to make sure happens.

Because a certain nation may have religious beliefs that ban capitol punishment and if they are in the UN, than they cannot ban it.

Sure they can. All the proposal says is that the U.N. cannot make laws that abridge a nations right to make laws where the punishment is death. It says nothing about mandating the policy of any individual state. Under this proposal, you are still allowed to abolish the death penalty in your nation if you so choose.

Besides, why are the cranberries always neglected?

I think it may be their extreme fruitiness. The U.N. discriminates against the fruity. :wink:

'Rights and Duties' has already neatly delineated the UN's powers. The problem is that this resolution can and will be ignored. Someone at some point will propose to ban capital punishment and I doubt that it will be removed from the proposals list for being in breach of this proposal. Hence toothless.
[quote]

Look at the current resolution on Education. If the typo had been found while it was a proposal Endoia would likely have killed the proposal and told the author that you can't submit a proposal to help just one nation -- the other typos are legal.

But that said, the current resolution IMHO totally ignores the Rights and Duties resolution. Why? Because the real reason the Rights and Duties resolution wasn't bumped out for being illegal was we said that it would not restrict future resolutions from doing whatever they want.

So you're right: Rights and Duties as well as this proposal on the Death Penalty can and will be ignored.

But here is where I disagree. I'd vote for this, though I personally and by coincidence my nation as well, hold nothing but contempt for capital punishment. It shouldn't be the business of socities to kill people (including animals) unless there is a clear and present danger to society.

But I also believe that my position is an opinon and one that is subject to the most important law of them all sovereignty. If I start telling other cultures how to value criminals, I should just put on a pair of jack boots and throw anybody who disagrees with me in a gas chamber.

Extreme? Certainly, but I think stressing the same point over and over again is not only a good idea, but necessary.

If new nations saw that the majority of the UN resolutions weren't about establishing the UN Committee of the Hour, but instead declarations reserving states rights, they might learn a thing or two about RESPECT.

[OOC: the real UN passes the same resolution over and over again ... but forutnately they are usually declarations or just statements. A classic example is the UN always telling the United States that it needs to end its embargo on Cuba. It doesn't FORCE the US to stop this practice, but it DEPLORES the US embargo. And it works, most nations think the US is entirely wrong on that issue.]



[quote="Ecopoeia"]
Incidentally, I have had to deal with both prostitution and euthanasia issues since the passing of the (appalling) respective resolutions.


You know ... I joined the UN during the debate on prostitution. I didn't really post to the forum until Joccia made it interesting, but before reading the forum, I was one of the sheep nations.

I looked at things like the euthanasia vote and thought, "Gee, this isn't a UN at all ... this is like some high school popularity contest. Oh well."

But you are right, these three (the current and the two above) resolutions are terrible.

10kMichael

Would you mind cleaning that quote function up Mikivity?

HotRodia, would you mind TGing Enodia to see what they think about the whole 'game mechanics' problem? I believe that, with the appropriate amendment made, Ecopoeia will lend its support to this proposal.

Though I do worry about an indefinite ban on such proposals - situations change, values mutate. Maybe a time limit?

Kind regards
Art Randolph

OCC: I'm moving house this weekend, so won't be able to contribute any more until Tuesday. Good luck in the meantime.

HotRodia, would you mind TGing Enodia to see what they think about the whole 'game mechanics' problem? I believe that, with the appropriate amendment made, Ecopoeia will lend its support to this proposal.

Though I do worry about an indefinite ban on such proposals - situations change, values mutate. Maybe a time limit?

Kind regards
Art Randolph

I'll TG him promptly. Hmm...a time limit seems fairly reasonable. The question is what the limit would be.

Honestly, the thing I worry about most is not the time, it's the overall character of the U.N., and the U.N. won't necessarily improve with time unless some new regulations about its use are instituted. (ie. mandatory participation in/viewing of debate threads on the proposal currently in question at that time before being allowed to vote) That could be another game mechanics problem though.

Duplicate Post

OK, time for one last post.

Rather than a time limit, how about a clause stating that the 'ban' may be reviewed under appropriate circumstances, blah, blah. Can't think of a precise clause at the moment but I hope you understand my meaning.

OK, time for one last post.

Rather than a time limit, how about a clause stating that the 'ban' may be reviewed under appropriate circumstances, blah, blah. Can't think of a precise clause at the moment but I hope you understand my meaning. The kind of timescales involved may well be beyond the lifespan of the game. The point is that a realistic UN should have such a provision.

OK, time for one last post.

Rather than a time limit, how about a clause stating that the 'ban' may be reviewed under appropriate circumstances, blah, blah. Can't think of a precise clause at the moment but I hope you understand my meaning.

That could certainly be more effective than a time limit in achieving our goal. Excellent suggestion.