NationStates Jolt Archive

Universal Death Penalty Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Superpower07


Description: The Virtuous Republic of Superpower07 submits this proposal to the UN for its approval:

Universal Death Penalty Ban

WHERAS
1) In a forward-thinking and moving society such as ours, it is unnessecary to keep a punishment so deeply rooted alongside revenge and "an eye for an eye." As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind."

WHERAS
2) Numerous studies have been conducted by various studies proving its ineffectiveness. In places where the death penalty is not implemented, it has been found that the murder/homicide rate is lower.

WHERAS
3) It takes more money to execute a prisoner than simply incarerate them. Why not put taxpayer's dollars to some better use?

WHERAS
4) When the death penalty is ended, in the event justice tragically fails and someone is wrongly sent to jail, they will not be wrongly executed. In the time they are incarcerated (rather than just executing them), new evidence may be found proving their innocence.

WHERAS
5) With the banning of the death penalty, the most severe punishment will be multiple life sentences without the chance of parole.

Support the Universal Death Penalty Ban!!

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 28 2004

Yes I understand that there is another 'end death penalty' proposal however it hasn't been able to fill the required quota.

Double post

Yes, this seems to be quite a popular issue... Besides my own one which I'm waiting for a good time to re-submit, there are 3 others I know of.

Defaultia is completely for the death penalty for serious crimes such as rape and murder. The right to administer the death penalty is an important right for a nation. Therefore, if it becomes a resolution, I shall vote AGAINST and encourage others to do the same.

Defaultia is completely for the death penalty for serious crimes such as rape and murder

Defaultia, administering the death penalty for a murder embodies the same vengefullness perpetuated even to today in Hammurabi's Code. Now please read the following:

it is unnessecary to keep a punishment so deeply rooted alongside revenge and "an eye for an eye." As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind."

A common proposal. This one's fairly well written. Kudos.

In general, I don't agree with the application of the death penalty, but there are certain extreme cases where I believe that it should be available. Crimes against society as a whole -- the actions of the leaders of the Holocaust, for example.

As I see it, the duty of the UN in this matter is to ensure that the death penalty is not arbitrarily applied. So long as there is no random killing, I do not see sufficient cause to infringe on the sovereignty of nations so directly as this.

As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind."

One of a few cases where Gandhi was not entirely correct. This is a similar statement to the idea that "Killing can only lead to more killing." While, in a sense, the statement seems to make sense, it is obviously incorrect -- how did such large conflicts as World War I end if the statement is true? Clearly, killing can lead to things other than more killing.

Further, the concept of reciprocity is intended to deter people from certain actions. One could argue that the death penalty is essentially a small-scale version of mutually assured destruction theory; yes, you can kill people, but you yourself will be killed if you do.

Numerous studies have been conducted by various studies proving its ineffectiveness. In places where the death penalty is not implemented, it has been found that the murder/homicide rate is lower.

Those studies can't be relied on. There is hardly a control of variables in crime reduction. It can't be proven, as I see things, that the rise or fall of crime necessarily has anything to do with a death penalty or lack thereof.

It takes more money to execute a prisoner than simply incarerate them. Why not put taxpayer's dollars to some better use?

For those who refuse to believe this, it is somewhat true in the United States court system. Convicts who receive or may receive the death penalty are far more likely to appeal court decisions. If an appeal is granted, the trial is done over, which we can roughly estimate to double the cost of the trial. Sometimes more appeals follow. This poses a difficulty in that, in the eyes of many, it makes the death penalty fiscally ineffective. Reducing the costs of trial by tightening the appeals process, however, would increase the likelihood of erroneous execution and may also be unacceptable. That's one reason I argue for the limitation of capital punishment to some specific crimes.

With the banning of the death penalty, the most severe punishment will be multiple life sentences without the chance of parole.

Not really relevant, but I sometimes wonder: If we ban the death penalty in the real world, will there be debates about the inhumanity of life inprisonment in a few decades? I haven't heard of it happening in Europe just yet, but I'm waiting.

The following is what I *personaly* would change:
Only now i see this is written by someone far more experienced than me. so some of the points may be completely out of order here. still this is what i *think* is right.
DISCLAIMER: IM A NONE NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER AND MY SPELLING SUCKS. CORRECT IT YOURSELF OR HAVE IT CORRECTED BY A NATIVE SPEAKER


*Abolition of the deathpenalty*

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Superpower07


Description: The Virtuous Republic of Superpower07 submits this proposal to the UN for its approval:

*abolition of the death penalty*

*WHERAS
1) In a forward-thinking and moving society such as ours, it is unnessecary to keep a punishment so deeply rooted alongside revenge and "an eye for an eye." As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind." *

Realising that the capital punishment is unneccecairy

*NOTE: "a society such as ours" would refer to all UN members and would therefor be rather strange as this is not one society. quotes are cool, but not in resolutions*

*WHERAS
2) Numerous studies have been conducted by various studies proving its ineffectiveness. In places where the death penalty is not implemented, it has been found that the murder/homicide rate is lower. *

Bearing in mind that various studies show that the deathpenalty is ineffective

*NOTE: the rest of this clause just explains the clause. this is not needed in the resolution but in the debate about this resolution

*WHERAS
3) It takes more money to execute a prisoner than simply incarerate them. Why not put taxpayer's dollars to some better use? *

also realising that capital punishment is more expensive than lifelong inprisonment

*NOTE: popular language and rethorical questions do not belong in UN resolutions*

*WHERAS
4) When the death penalty is ended, in the event justice tragically fails and someone is wrongly sent to jail, they will not be wrongly executed. In the time they are incarcerated (rather than just executing them), new evidence
may be found proving their innocence. * MOVED TO OPERATIVES


*WHERAS
5) With the banning of the death penalty, the most severe punishment will be multiple life sentences without the chance of parole. *

Is torture banned by the UN? (i just ask, as a non member i dont know) who is the UN to decide what punishment is the moet severe?

*NOTE: you were lacking operative clauses

1) Stresses that the deathpenalty is irreversible and after sentising new evidence proving the innocence of the suspect may be found;

2) Calls upon all member states to abolish the deathpenalty
*NOTE: isnt this rather important in this resolution?*

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 28 2004

personaly i would abstain from voting on this one.

Another proposal to limit national sovereignty. We will not support this UN power grab either.

The Jovian Worlds feels that there is a fatal flaw (pardon the pun) in the application of the death penalty. If the state is found to be in error, it is impossible to correct the error. We believe that state sponsored murder in retaliation for crimes or perceived crimes is a slippery slope, granting a federal power too much control over an individual's destiny.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future Peoples of the Jovian Worlds

The Jovian Worlds feels that there is a fatal flaw (pardon the pun) in the application of the death penalty. If the state is found to be in error, it is impossible to correct the error. We believe that state sponsored murder in retaliation for crimes or perceived crimes is a slippery slope, granting a federal power too much control over an individual's destiny.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future Peoples of the Jovian Worlds

Murder is a legal term meaning unlawful homocide. The Death penalty is not murder.

However... the logic I see most fitting to argue against the death penalty (which I support) is as follows..

Death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Killing innocents falls into that category. Therefore if the state were to kill an innocent man via the death penalty... it would be guilty of the crime itself... and by rule of law... would itself have to be put up for the death penalty.

You can see the dangers....


However... it is the only way to gaurantee the end to recidivism .

lifelong improsonment is pretty effective too against recidivism

There is a lack of actual content to the proposal- it should specify more than simply the "death penality is banned."

Given that there are several issues that deal with capital punishment, isn't this a game mechanics resolution?

Another proposal to limit national sovereignty. We will not support this UN power grab either.

My point excactly. I am sick and tired of a few power hungrey mongrels continually trying to increase the U.N.'s power and decrease national sovreignty.

We have already banned the death penalty in the Roman Empire as we believe that the punishment qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment", and thus we wholeheartedly support this.

The Roycelandian Empire banned the Death Penalty in 1922, and has an unchangeable clause written into the Constitution preventing the Death Penalty from ever being re-established in the Empire.

Having said that, we'd be unlikely to support your proposal- not because there's anything wrong with it (it's very well written IMO), but because I almost never check the Proposals anymore. Why? Because 98% of them are crap, and the 2% that are any good will never get enough votes to reach quorum. Even if they do, there's still a high chance of it not being passed by a general vote of all UN Member Nations, since a lot of people like voting "No" just to be pains in the ass.

touchy subject this.

The DSH remains undecided on the subject of death penalty. It is permitted, but our judges have not sentanced anyone to death for the last 5 decades, so in practice is not used.

However, the DSH would prefer to decide the merits of retaining and banning the death penalty ourselves without being obliged to ban it from the UN. Thus I will not be asking my delegate to vote for this, and will be campaigning against it, should it reach quorum.

Bah! I assure you that executions cost me less than imprisonment... thus, it is possible for that to be the case.

Kazar-Tiyon, slayer of the hero Jha'al-ze, ancient force of evil and destruction.

We support the Death Penalty. It prevents any chance of recidivism.

If you ban the Death penalty... wouldn't abortion have to be banned as well ?

If you ban the Death penalty... wouldn't abortion have to be banned as well ?

Oh, come on, we know you take the hardline-authoritarian stance on abortion, but this suggests you haven't even listened to the other side of the argument, or are just wilfully deciding to forget. You should damn well know by now that a lot of us, for whatever reason, don't consider abortion to be killing a human, and thus it's completely irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.

If you ban the Death penalty... wouldn't abortion have to be banned as well ?

Oh, come on, we know you take the hardline-authoritarian stance on abortion, but this suggests you haven't even listened to the other side of the argument, or are just wilfully deciding to forget. You should damn well know by now that a lot of us, for whatever reason, don't consider abortion to be killing a human, and thus it's completely irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.

Actually I'm undecided on abortion. I do know it's a human though... has human dna, cell division, etc. That = Life.

Don't bother debating this thread anymore; my issue fell through . . . but if you wish to still debate I'll find my thread i made on the Death Penalty in the General Forum

Wait, Ghandi said that? You mean the guy who wrote Fiddler on the Roof was slightly less of a genius than I thought? :cry: