NationStates Jolt Archive

The following proposal has been submitted and will be available for Approval until Monday, June 14th 2004:



Ban of Death Penalty
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Human beings do not have the right to decide life or death of other human beings, no matter the circumstances. As such, the government of a nation should not have the right to forget all human rights and kill humans as punishment. Killing a criminal does not help anyone except for a short time of "enjoying" a perverse revenge for those involved. It shall thus be resolved that Death Penalties or punishments resulting in death as means of penalties in a UN nation's judical system, shall be banned from all UN Member nations.

Human Rights apply everytime, not just when it is convenient. Courts should be able to use different sorts of punishment for crimes that would otherwise result in a death sentence.


ModeratorEdit
Here is the current resolution:

"The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments."

- Amnesty International

The death penalty means the triumph of vengeance over justice and violates the first right of any human being, the right to life. Capital punishment has never prevented crime. It is an act of torture and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A society that imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence. Every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment.

We demand the universal abolition of the death penalty. In this respect, we call on citizens, states and international organizations to act so that:
• states ratify this UN Moratorium on an international and regional level.
• countries which have stopped executing people sentenced to death, remove the death penalty from their statute books.
• states which sentence to death persons who were juveniles at the time of the crime, end this blatant violation of the international law
• mentally disabled people cannot be sentenced to death
• no states having abolished or suspended executions extradite anyone to third countries still applying the death penalty, irrespective of guarantees that it would not be imposed.

Please approve this resolution to rid the world of the barbaric act of killing humans as punishment - which makes the governments of nations which utilize this form of penalty, murderers themselves.

No. The death penalty is a fair and just punishment for Rape and Murder.
-Capo

There's a popular saying which goes like this: "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." Consider that the death penalty is murder aswell, thus punishing murder with murder is a) not justifyable due to human rights and b) especially for religious nations this should be a sin (You are usually not allowed to kill - this is a priviledge of the deity).

Instead of punishing the criminal in this way, utilize crime prevention systems that make murder non-existant. Our own nation is a good example of non-existant crime.

Lets say you are married (maybe you are, maybe you are not, i don't know) to someone for ten years, and are still deeply in love with them. Then some sick bastard comes and rapes and murders your signifigant other, now, wouldnt you want the bastard to fry?
-Capo

No. Contrary to you, we do not seek the perverted "enjoyment" of seeing a human being die, no matter what he or she did, it does not give anyone the right to kill him or her.

I agree on some pppoints that death penalties should be ban but you have to think politically. People who purposely and brutaly take another person's life deserves to be punished. I feel that the way they'll understand the effect they had on taking another life is to not have theirs. so in some respect I think we should keep the capital punishment law but maybe raise the standards.

Liberals :roll:

It has been proven that there do happen misjudgements -which in the case of death penalties, is most unfortunate for the person receiving the punishment. No human is infallible, thus why no human has the right to sentence another human to death. There is no 100% sure way to find the truth in a trial, so uncertainty remains, which has in the past cost numerous innocent humans their lives.

No matter how big the crime, nothing does justify killing a human and "an eye for an eye" is barbaric and not modern. One would think, humanity has overcome this by now.

On a sidenote, we would like to mention that not many countries remain, which use death penalties as legal punishment, which is a good indication that mankind is learning from it's mistakes, albeit slowly and with blood-lust still being a driving factor in some societies, which is unacceptable.

One reason for so much crime in countries like the U.S. is the fact that the death penalty is frowned upon so. The crooks know that the worst that could happen to them is Jail so they have no reason to fear getting caught. It makes much more sense to deter criminals then to fill up our prisons and try to rehabilitate them all. Also when we think they have been rehabilitated they just go out and cause more havoc. I don't think that people should be put to death for stealing food or anything. But I do think that if they commit bad crimes including intentional murder they deserve to die. A life for a life.

Liberals :roll:

Conservatives :roll:

No, seriously, from previous debates on my own death penalty proposal, most, if not all, of the arguments pro are based on vengeance or the "life for a life" mindset - "Death is the only just punishment for murder", "the punishment must be severe to impress the gravity of the offence" (variation), and "say he kills your child, how would you feel having your tax dollars support the murderer in prison?".

And here's my answers:

1. Isn't it contradictory to say that killing people is wrong by killing people? What gives the state the right to kill? And how is unnecessary killing (capital punishment) just? Is everything somehow set right by executing the killer? No. Recividism rates for murder are also low, as are high-security prison escapes so the argument that "he might escape and repeat his crime" is completely invalid.

2. I wouldn't mind at all. Out of the tax money I pay, very little goes to prison upkeep, even less goes to upkeeping a specific prisoner, and I'd rather be feeding the murderer of a loved one than financing his own murder at the hands of the state. Keep the blood on your hands, not on mine.

The crooks know that the worst that could happen to them is Jail so they have no reason to fear getting caught.

Canada does not have capital punishment, and yet crime rates are relatively low. There is also no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.

Also when we think they have been rehabilitated they just go out and cause more havoc... But I do think that if they commit bad crimes including intentional murder they deserve to die. A life for a life.

Successful rehabilitation means that they DON'T repeat their crimes.

And isn't an execution just a legal way of commiting an intentional, premeditated, needless murder?

Execution is the legal way of the government to dispose of their "difficult" citizens. It is easier to just kill them instead of having to rehabilitate them. Gigatron does not have death penalty either and crime is non-existant. The argument that death penalty is a good deterrent, is invalid.

Execution is the legal way of the government to dispose of their "difficult" citizens. It is easier to just kill them instead of having to rehabilitate them. Gigatron does not have death penalty either and crime is non-existant. The argument that death penalty is a good deterrent, is invalid.

Wrong. Skeelzania has never, in our 120+ year history, embarked on a project of rehabilitation for our prisoners. You break the law, you are publically and physically humilated (flogging and removal of an ear being popular), "voluneteered" for our organ donation program, or simply shot, depending on the crime. This, combined with our superb tracking methods, have rendered our crime rate nonexistant.

I agree that succesful rehabilitation would mean that they wouldn't repeat their crimes but how can you be sure that they are fully rehabilitated?

And NO, execution isn't just a legal way of commiting a premeditated, needless murder. The court isn't planing on murdereing the criminal before they put them on trial and see all the evidence. In some cases there may be people that could be considered beyond rehabilitation in which case there would be no point in filling a jail cell with an evil murderer who deserves to die.

You use tyranny and terror to control your citizens. We would never drop to such levels to threaten such barbaric things on our citizens. We are shocked that you kick human rights out of the door with your punishments.

In some cases there may be people that could be considered beyond rehabilitation in which case there would be no point in filling a jail cell with an evil murderer who deserves to die.

I will use yet another famous quote here: "Can you give them life? Then do not be so quick to judge them." No human has the right to decide who may live and who may die. That murderers decide to kill someone, does not mean that the government has the right to kill the murderer. In some countries you can even be sentenced to death for far less serious things, such as being homosexual or of a different religious belief. Governments all over the world abuse their power to decide who dies and who lives - which is not what the government is there for.

"Can you give them life?

If we really wanted to, yes. Truly barbaric criminals are frequently recloned and sent to the gladitorial pits.

As for you being shocked over our efficient goverment, you can keep going on being shocked for all that bothers us. The people are a generally stupid lot, and require the Carrot and Stick to rule effectivly.

Your government is far from efficient. It is a perversion and does not follow most of the basic laws such as human rights or the Act to End Slavery.

Here's a short reminder for you from the Universal Bill of Rights:
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Keep that in mind when you spew out how you treat your citizens.

Skeelzania is not in The UN so the country is not bound by past resolutions.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Your government is far from efficient. It is a perversion and does not follow most of the basic laws such as human rights or the Act to End Slavery.

Here's a short reminder for you from the Universal Bill of Rights:
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Keep that in mind when you spew out how you treat your citizens.

I guess it was another post, but I stated earlier that Skeelzania is not in the UN, and thus not subject to any of your resolutions, including the one giving clones equal rights (we don't have slaves, simply clones).

Your claims that we are inefficent are laughable. Through our might we have brought order to a hundred stars, and wiped countless species from the face of the galaxy. An average Skeelzanian factory worker makes more a year than your upper class, and our industry pulls in more money than your goverment has in its entire budget.

So ask yourself, whose country is better: One where people have many freedoms but no money to enjoy, or one where freedoms are limited but money is plentiful?

So ask yourself, whose country is better: One where people have many freedoms but no money to enjoy, or one where freedoms are limited but money is plentiful?

The first one, but I prefer a country like The Gothic Glory of The Black New World; Civil Rights: Superb, Economy: Very Strong.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I'm not saying that the death penalty should be used against people for being homosexuals or for having different religious beliefs. Im saying that it should be used against people who commit killings in cold blood. The death penalty should only be used in cases such as murder and the like.

The Confederacy of Tiny Prussia allows it's twelve member states to decide whether or not to have the death penalty. Of the twelve two have outlawed it but they have the highest number of prisons and they are horrendously overcrowded. These two states also have the highest taxes and the majority of the tax dollars go towards criminal rehabilitation programs whereas much more vital areas recieve almost no funding. And crime is no lower than member states with the death penalty.

Of the other ten member states, the 7 or so that use the death penalty as a very extreme measure and last resort have some of the highest crime rates whereas the others who use it for nearly every murder and other serious crimes, have the lowest crime rates of the all.

Also: All twelve states of the Confederacy of Tiny Prussia use lethal injection as the only form of execution which is hardly inhumane at all.

I think the question of using capital punishment or not should be left to the sovereign nation state. It is a non-UN issue.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I think the question of using capital punishment or not should be left to the sovereign nation state. It is a non-UN issue.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Considering that death penalties infringe on the basic human rights, it is very much a UN issue. UN Member Nations should not have the freedom to disregard the Universal Bill of Rights as they please.

The UN should not be either banning or endorsing capital punishment, it's a National issue at best.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

Addition: This discussion is aimed at UN Member nations who have the capability of voting on this proposal or approving it. Non-UN Nations are not concerned and are thus not invited to participate in this discussion.

To Skeelzania: Your nation is too sci-fi for us to deal with. Good day :)

The Death Penalty should not be withdrawn. It is the highest punishment, for the highest crimes. It is deserved and neccesary for crime prevention

The Death Penalty should not be withdrawn. It is the highest punishment, for the highest crimes. It is deserved and neccesary for crime prevention
It has already been proved in this thread that it is not always necessary. Some nations have no death penalty and no crime, some have a strict death penalty and no crime.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Liberals :roll:

Waaaahahahaahahahahhahaaaahaaahaaaaaahaahhhaahahahahahahaha!

"I don't like them so I will call them liberals! I r teh win!!1"

Loser.

The death penalty is necessary. In all cases no, but in many yes. If proper scientific testing is done for DNA, foresic evidence, video, audio etc etc if and only if there is no doubt about the crime and who committed it and it is a capital crime such as murder then we say dig them a shallow grave, put a bullet in thier brain, cover them with lime, and throw some dirt and be done with it. Whether you like it or not, vengance is in human nature with the right circumstaces, the ability to kill in order to survive is also one as well. We hail the death penalty and would like to have it put on pay per view if it were left in our hands. Are we violence mongers? no. But if we are crossed in such a way that someone dear to us has been killed and or raped. you can bet your ass we are comin for ya! Screw the courts on this because they take too damn long. Once all evidence is presented and interpeted, then there is no need for further appeals. We see no point in waisting money on a rotten apple. Bad family, bad marriage, abused as a child, well that is unfortunate but tough shitsky! In the end we as humans have the ability of free will and should and do excercise it. No one makes us do anything! we choose one way or the other to do them. And yes for my vengence I would be put on trial as well and in the same situation but I can and will say so be it! I would be willing to gladly pay the price for justice. There is a saying from the movie "The Jack Bull" with John Cusack in which he says" Many want justice but few are willing to pay the price for it." excellent line. If it were my wife and I knew FOR SURE who did it? thier blood would be upon my hands no question about it. Extreme? yes. Savage? yes. But so is the world in which we live. Would it give me pleasure? absolutley not. But I would feel it were my duty in honor of my wife to do it and for me to be at peace knowing her death was avenged. Logical? no. Emotional? yes. Sometimes we cannot always live our lives in full logic for we are humans and not machines. If this gets put up for vote and gets close to passing then we and the U.N will part ways for this one issue alone is one that we cannot comprimise on or accept an anti stance against.

Lets say you are married (maybe you are, maybe you are not, i don't know) to someone for ten years, and are still deeply in love with them. Then some sick bastard comes and rapes and murders your signifigant other, now, wouldnt you want the bastard to fry?
-Capo

Frying the murderer won't bring anybody's wife back. The death penalty just brings the government down to the level of the killer. And it is absolutely inexcusable when the government executes an innocent person. It has happened quite a few times before, and as long as the death penalty is in place, it will happen again, and again, and nothing will bring those wrongly killed back. The alternative to death is much more reasonable... life (without parole if neccessary). There is nothing that will break a free person's spirit like shutting them in a concrete box until they die. And if new evidence turns up that proves they're innocent, something can actually be done about it. The death penalty is just another way for people to play God.

To Skeelzania: Your nation is too sci-fi for us to deal with. Good day :)

Good-day to you then as well. *steals a cow with his UFO*

The death penalty is banned in the European Union for a good reason. It's incredibly expensive (in the US: everyone who is sentenced to death has the automatic right to an appeal, and if I am not mistaken - the total costs are higher then a life sentence), and the percentage of innocents being executed is often dangerously high. I would rather see a killer having to wait 60 years in jail for his death, then for one innocent person to die for another mans crimes. Picture your own child being wrongly executed..

As for crime rates. Well, to quote prof. Gregory of Sint Johns; The death penalty does not deter crime, rather, it perniciously enhances and exacerbates the culture of violence and death through state murder. The death penalty is extraordinarily expensive, at the great loss and social expense of other much more effective and humane means of law enforcement and crime control.

Then if there is absolutly no doubt as to scientific proof or being caught red handed then dump the appeals process for those criminals! put a bullet in them and be done with it. Or at the very least put them to work for the states doing road work or construction. Teach them a trade and make them work the rest of thier lives for free. Also, if you look at the rap sheet on some of these "innocent" criminals they should have been locked up permanantly or put to death a long time ago.

The alternative punishments for capital crimes are of course up to each nation. This may very well be a lifetime of working for the state for free - if it does not end up in slavery. However, the purpose of this proposal is to ban punishments that result in death. We are glad that 60s America and Sellinia support this proposal and hope that other nations will agree with us that Human Rights must be upheld at all times, especially by the government!

We say no rights for those that would take away anothers right to live or be happy. WORK THEM UNTIL THEY DIE!

Two wrongs do not make a right, fighting Evil with Evil does not make it Good. If you take away the rights from someone - no matter for what reason - you lower yourself to the same level. We wonder how so many people in the world can claim to be religious and Christian, when most of them have forgotten what the very core of Christianity is - Forgiveness. There is too much hatred and too much blood-lust in the world. This proposal should help with lowering the readiness to violence worldwide as nations are no longer allowed to embrace violent and barbaric means of punishment as has been the case during the last millennia.

I believe in the death penalty personally, but I do not believe its a deterrent to crime. My country uses it as one by holding public executions. There is barely any violent crime in my nation, and it is done with out taking away civil rights from the rest of my citizens.

Also, this shouldn't even be a UN issue. It should be up to each individual country.

@Gigatron

" If you take away the rights from someone - no matter for what reason - you lower yourself to the same level"
We can not concur with this argumentation. There a different rights people in democratic countries have: freedom of speech, right to move (chose were you live), right to chose your job, right to live.
But those are NOT ABSOLUTE rights. People can loose them if they act in violation of the rights of others. For example: a prison term stripes the person of the right of movement and the right to chose a work, because he/she commited a crime. Even countries who don´t use the death penalty don´t protect the life absolutely. You are allowed to kill in self-defense. The death penalty is simply a form of punishment among others. Whether it is more cruel than life-time inprisonment without the opportunity of release can be disputed.
We want that all sovereign nation remain free to decide this issue by themselves.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

I'd like to quote the Universal Bill of Rights again for you:

Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights, Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights, Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights, Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights, The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Nowhere does it say that the UBR does apply to everyone but not to some. Article 5 clearly states that inhuman punishment is forbidden, which the death penalty clearly is. There is no way to not approve this proposal if you truly value the Universal Bill of Rights, which applies to everyone and at all times! These are the most basic laws which no other law can negate or weaken.

This is a criminal justice issue. Not a human rights issue. And it is not up to a few UN members to decide the law enforcement policies of all nations of the UN. It is the right of the nation itself. As long as the person to be executed is under the juristiction of the country ordering the execution, the UN should not intervene. If the person to be executed is not under the juristiction of the country ordering the execution then that is different.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights

Therefore if the right to a death penalty is specified in the bill of rights of a member nation then the UN can make no law outlawing the death penalty.

What do you say to that?

Every execution in every UN Member Nation, is a violation of the Universal Bill of Rights and thus the UN must act and haltthis brutal way of serving "justice" by banning the Death Penalty. There is no way around this and it is indeed a Human Rights Issue, considering that all nations who do execute their citizens, violate the basic human rights in the worst way possible. Trying to disguise that as "Right" and "Good" shows how little moral decency some nations here have.

Therefore if the right to a death penalty is specified in the bill of rights of a member nation then the UN can make no law outlawing the death penalty.

I highly doubt that any country has the "right to death penalty" in its constitution. It is not a right actually, so why would you have it in there anyway. It is a part of a countries judicla system which incidentally violates Human Rights and thus must be corrected.

@Gigatron,

well: lets go over the points.

Article 2: does of course not apply to people in prison. Their opportunity to use the media maybe restricted for security reasons for example.

Article 3: This right is restricted as well. Prisoners are not allowed to demonstrate. As a matter of fact: in the real world many democratic countries restrict the right to assemble "under the open sky" (in public places) and demand organizers to inform the local authorities which may reject the place of the demonstration if there is too much disturbance of the traffic. So: also here are restrictions

Article 4: the equal protection clause has too sides: simular or the better said: the same things have to be treated the same way. Different things have to be treated differently. Many people don´t know the second part. That´s why the mess up things if we come to issues like gay marriage or adoption. Different things (e.g. normal heterosexuality and homosexuality) don´t have to be treated the same way since they are different things.


"Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."
Article 5 DOES NOT mention capital punishment as cruel and inhumane. It only mentions torture (however without defining what torture is (and issue also disputed in the real world). What is cruel and inhuman punishment?? There is no definition. For example: many muslim countries practice scharia law: meaning: thieves loose their right hand as punishment or rapists are stoned to death. We may consider that cruel and inhumane, others may disagree. Also: their are also uncrueal ways to do the execution, like lethal injection.

The word cruel needs to be interpreted in the context: crime is cruel.
However: in legal terms there are cases were the criminal has the normal portion of guilt and wickedness or he acts cruel, which actually means he acted especially cruel.
This resolution is therefore clearly not banning capital punishment.
As a matter of fact you prove that yourself: If it would you wouldn´t push this proposal because it would have already been banned.
Capital punishment is and remains legal and for the sovereign nation state to decide whether it uses it - and in what cases - or not.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

P.S. We would like to draw your attention to our rewritten proposal: Ban killing of sich and old.

Are criminals not 'human beings'?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Literal New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

What I'm saying is that if a country wanted to they could have the right to sentence a convicted criminal to death in their constitution or bill of rights. And if they did this then UN nations would have no way of getting around article 10 and abolishing the death penalty. There are no rules as to what a country can put into their bill of rights and there are no ways that imposing UN states can go against the bill of rights set down by a nation. So if a resolution was somehow passed to ban the death penalty in all UN member nations, it would only apply to nations that don't already reserve the right to a death penalty.

@Giordano

"Are criminals not 'human beings'"
That´s not the point. The point is: are those rights absolute rights or not. And the answer is: they aren´t. Even the right to life is not an absolute right, even in coutries which do not use capital punishment you are ALLOWED to kill in safe defense.
Therefore the past resolutions are not banning or outlawing the death penalty.
The simple question is: is it justified to impose the death penalty as a form of punishment or not. We think: this issue should be left to every nation state.
It is not a human rights issue, it is a criminal justice issue.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

That human rights are being restricted left and right daily and everywhere, does not negate the fact that the death penalty is a violation of article 5 of the UBR. Since we cannot make a proposal for all at once, we've restricted our attention to this issue for now. A country may - for all we care - use whatever punishments they want, as long as they are not violating article 5 of the bill of rights. Quite simple.Since the death penalty is the onlypunishment violating article 5 of the UBR, this issue can be resolved by banning the death penalty altogether. One violation of human rights would be gone.

To Gigatron:

First of all their are quite a few punishments that would be categorized as a violation of article 5. It isn't clear whether or not the death penalty is one of those punishments but it doesn't matter. This is because you are ignoring article 10:

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members.

If a nation wanted to they could reserve the right to issue the death penalty in their constitution or bill of rights. In which case a UN resolution abolishing the death penalty would not affect that nation in the least.

@Gigatron,

your argumentation is cmpletly chaotic. It doesn´t make sense. If the death penalty violates article 5 - as you state- it would already have been banned and a further resolution would be unnecessary.
But that is simply untrue. The death penalty IS NOT a violation of article 5 as we explained in detail in the discussions here. `
Your attempt is therefore to change the bill of rights and declaring the death penalty illegal - which the bill of rights didn´t do.
We reject that.

We also want to state: it is not an human rights issue. Criminals are still humans, but they don´t have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.
Criminals, murders, rapists, other evil-doers and terrorists must be held accoutable to protect the society. And therefore they can not claim the same rights as law abiding citizens.
The beginns with the freedom of movement and ends with the right to life.
Those ARE NOT ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, they are garanteed for the law-abiding citizens. But who violates those rights has not the right to refere to them to his own protection.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

We shall remember your argumentation, however the proposal stands. We do not agree with you that a country has the right to undermine basic human rights with laws - they are after all a universal bill of rights, not just any rights, but the most basic human rights. I highly doubt you could change the bill of rights of your country and how do you rate a crime? When does a criminal forfeit all his rights? Does stealing something worth $1 make you a criminal that has no human rights anymore? How exactly do you include everything a human could do which might eventually result in the loss of the basic human rights?

Kerubia is against banning the capital punishment, because it would ban life in prison without parole, our favorite method of punishment for murderers.

There's no better way to execute a killer than to throw him in a cell and keep him there forcefully until nature (or whatever God[s] exist) say it's time for him or her to go. Think of all the time he or her would have to think about what they did . . . they'd go crazy! And if they saw nothing wrong with killing in the first place, the sheer boredom of knowing that their life will never change from the worthless prison existance they live in now would be a sufficient punishment.

If you're going to write a resolution to ban the death penalty, PLEASE exclude life in prison without parole! It's my nation's favorite way of toying with murderers!

When does a criminal forfeit all his rights?

In my nation, when someone takes the life of an innocent person, they have forfeited all their rights. I'd imagine it is the same way in many other nations too.

Also: their are also uncrueal ways to do the execution, like lethal injection.

Exactly! Like life in prison without parole! Nothin' cruel about that, is there? It's our favorite--for a reason!

This is supposed to be about whether or not the UN can abolish the death penalty. And it has been made perfectly clear that the UN cannot outlaw death as a punishment and expect it to apply to all of the UN member states.

the Hiio supports the ban

Tiny Prussia, it has not been made clear. What has been made clear is that the death penalty is a violation of the bill of rights, which was accepted by the overwhelming majority of UN Member nations a while ago. Nowhere does it say that the rights can be forfeit or limited with laws, thus they are universally applicable, just as their name suggests "Universal Bill of Rights". There is no "but" and no "not for him". You either accept that all humans have basic rights, despite their actions or you do not accept the bill of rights and thus act against UN Resolution and should leave the UN. Killing someone as punishment is NOT a neccessity. It is a crime that some countries decide to "grant" themselves as means to deprive a person of his/her basic rights as a human being.

Crime or not, if it is reserved in a bill of rights it cannot be overrided.

Well, I'm proud to say Trucidation does not have the death penalty!
No, we just round up all the violent criminals and use them as test subjects in nanotechnology research, surgical/genetic experimentation, and the ever-popular cosmetic toxicity testing (which may or may not involve razoring off eyelids).
It's not cruel and unusual punishment, it's science. SCIENCE!

Crime or not, if it is reserved in a bill of rights it cannot be overrided.

The Universal Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, not member nations' rights. The rights being protected are those of the people in UN member nations, and not of the nations themselves.

And "cruel and unusual punishment" is open for definition. It does not inherently exclude or include anything and its meaning isn't absolute. 500 years ago banning "cruel and unusual punishment" would probably mean that executioners could not longer smear blood onto the condemneds' genitals and sic dogs onto them.

On the other hand, the Rights and Duties of UN States says, "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law." If we outlaw the death penalty through a UN resolution, it's international law through the UN and national sovereignity is overruled.

National sovereignty is partly given up as member of the UN. Why do you think we do make resolutions here? If each country were totally sovereign here, nobody would have to obey the resolutions approved and agreed upon, which would make the UN totally worthless.

Also.. naturally DEATH is the most inhuman and cruel punishment imaginable.

A country does not have to give up soverignty by joining the UN. The UN is a group of nations trying to better the world by dealing with international issues, not by having the UN dictate laws and rules to the member nations. If you are in the UN it is because you believe in the laws and rules of the governing body, not because you are submissing to the majority's will or morals. Because you can quit so easily I would recommend attempting to overtake another nation's soverignty, lesswise you lose an otherwise valuable ally.

If you guys think that the death penalty is removing another persons human rights, than so is locking someone up in jail or prison, or forcing citizens to pay taxes, people don't want to pay taxes! Sometimes I think the death penalty is a repreve to some criminals.

I believe when someone deprives someone else of their rights, by invading privacy, inflicting harm upon someone or unjustly taking someone else's life, they forfeit their rights as citizens.

Szahrnevarbenarch does not support the death penalty, merely because it is more prudent to allow criminals to consider what they have done, causing great mental anguish, than to destroy them, allowing them to escape their pain. Criminals must be made to live with what they have done. In addition, when we kill the murderer, we become no better than him. In some cases, when the criminal is simply deranged, and feels no remorse, the death penalty may be a viable solution in ridding the world of a menace. However, in the majority of cases, death is merely an easy way out.

Wake up!! those of you who want to ban the death penalty. People are savage, people are animalistic or at the very least have the capability to be so. In our opinion, we should not hold ourselves so high and selfrighteous as to assume we are so damn well evolved because if you look around you you will see quite the opposite. Animals kill to protect, eat, and yes claim territory and so do humans. Yes we are intelligent but not nearly as advanced in our behaivior as you would expect. @ Gigatron, we never mentioned anything about religion which might I add, has absolutely nothing to do w/ this debate or politics in general so get off that religion crutch because it has no place for logical or intelligent debate here.

Any right defined in the Bill of Rights can be removed by the government through due process. That includes property, liberty or life.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

The reference to religion was made because especially religious people consider themselves "good" and should thus see the wrongness in killing other humans - be it a victim of a murderer or the murderer himself. Humans are not animals anymore since they have evolved to the state that they can chose to kill or to forgive.

No Human, even the worst kind, deserves the right to be punished through the death penality

The Republic of Westtle - Department of State

This is foolishness! be observant and watch people! and if you watch closely enough you will see that not much is different between us and apes other than we have less hair or if you like watch the news and see how "EVOLVED" we are. We are devolving in my eyes.

A country does not have to give up soverignty by joining the UN.
Yes it does.

The UN is a group of nations trying to better the world by dealing with international issues, not by having the UN dictate laws and rules to the member nations.
No it isn't, we can pass laws on whatever we want (except for GM stuff)

If you are in the UN it is because you believe in the laws and rules of the governing body, not because you are submissing to the majority's will or morals.
That might be why someone is in The UN but that's not how The UN works.

Because you can quit so easily I would recommend attempting to overtake another nation's soverignty, lesswise you lose an otherwise valuable ally.
Fair enough.

Recommended reading on the subject: The FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/faq.html#UN), Before you make a proposal... (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286), and What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia would like to note that it *does* reserve the right to execute prisoners of the State for crimes that threaten the welfare of the State, or for crimes that are considered morally repugnant (i.e., rape, murder, brutalization).

The death penalty prevents the worst dregs of human society from coming back to haunt it. It weeds the garden, so to speak.

The death penalty is absolutely necessary. If any nation chooses in and of itself to outlaw it, then all well and good. It should not be enforced by the UN.

Furthermore, most methods of execution are completely humane, especially in the Dominion. Much more humane than the "executions" a murderer commits.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

This is foolishness! be observant and watch people! and if you watch closely enough you will see that not much is different between us and apes other than we have less hair or if you like watch the news and see how "EVOLVED" we are. We are devolving in my eyes.

And I agree with you, but that doesn't mean we can't try to better ourselves.

And there's still no variation, everyone since my last post used the "eye for an eye" argument.

If our government desires to eliminate members of its populous, then it should allowed to do so.

In order to ensure complete obedience, a healthy fear of the consequences to ones actions must be instilled. No greater fear exists than that of death.

Gigatron- the world is dumber for having read your resolution. I award you no votes, and may God have mercy on your soul.

put a bullet in them and be done with it.What? And deny them the pleasure of spending the rest of their lives as the shower-buddy of some fat Texan called Buba? They're not getting off that easy :wink:

8) United Socialist States of Rubberduckistan has already abolished horrible and barbaric death penalty. Instead, we have the "Removal from the Genepool"-penalty. (Courtesy of Ministry of Euphemisms)

Premiere Rubberduck

Not only is the death penalty immoral and unethical to those who care about silly things like ethics :D But it is also wrong by logical reasons too. It is suimply stupid to put someone to death rather than try and help them first. You are merely adressing the tip of the iceberg, the rest being gnereal social and economic discontent.

I am a die-hard republican (no pun intended) 8), therefore, i myself have rasied the issue that the death penalty is much less expensive than some stupid therapy. Al contrar! By adressing the roots of the problem you are making a long term investment in the future and in society. This is the way to not only get rid of criminals (which is bad for buisness) but also remain firm by our common human principles :P

Any right defined in the Bill of Rights can be removed by the government through due process. That includes property, liberty or life.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

we are not discussing whether or not the death penalty is legal in the United States of America (it has already been enforced). Rather fool, we are discussing whether it <i>should</i> be legal in the US of A.

Pay attention :roll:

Wake up!! those of you who want to ban the death penalty. People are savage, people are animalistic or at the very least have the capability to be so. In our opinion, we should not hold ourselves so high and selfrighteous as to assume we are so damn well evolved because if you look around you you will see quite the opposite. Animals kill to protect, eat, and yes claim territory and so do humans. Yes we are intelligent but not nearly as advanced in our behaivior as you would expect. @ Gigatron, we never mentioned anything about religion which might I add, has absolutely nothing to do w/ this debate or politics in general so get off that religion crutch because it has no place for logical or intelligent debate here.

Yes, people are savage brutes that are merely the top of the Darwinian scale, however, luckily we are not composed entirely of people like you who have a complacency complex that will prevent you from advancing in life. Part of our precsious human nature is the fact that we <i>can</i> strive to break out of that circle of evolution, that we may be able to save ourselves and our fellow <i>human beings</i> Not only is our right to life sacred (not in the religous way) but it is also the duty of the fellow human beings around us to support that right, if only for their own benifit when their own right to life might come into question. Please try to think :D

Wake up!! those of you who want to ban the death penalty. People are savage, people are animalistic or at the very least have the capability to be so. In our opinion, we should not hold ourselves so high and selfrighteous as to assume we are so damn well evolved because if you look around you you will see quite the opposite. Animals kill to protect, eat, and yes claim territory and so do humans. Yes we are intelligent but not nearly as advanced in our behaivior as you would expect. @ Gigatron, we never mentioned anything about religion which might I add, has absolutely nothing to do w/ this debate or politics in general so get off that religion crutch because it has no place for logical or intelligent debate here.

Yes, people are savage brutes that are merely the top of the Darwinian scale, however, luckily we are not composed entirely of people like you who have a complacency complex that will prevent you from advancing in life. Part of our precsious human nature is the fact that we <i>can</i> strive to break out of that circle of evolution, that we may be able to save ourselves and our fellow <i>human beings</i> Not only is our right to life sacred (not in the religous way) but it is also the duty of the fellow human beings around us to support that right, if only for their own benifit when their own right to life might come into question. Please try to think :D

There's a popular saying which goes like this: "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." Consider that the death penalty is murder aswell, thus punishing murder with murder is a) not justifyable due to human rights and b) especially for religious nations this should be a sin (You are usually not allowed to kill - this is a priviledge of the deity).

Instead of punishing the criminal in this way, utilize crime prevention systems that make murder non-existant. Our own nation is a good example of non-existant crime.

Yeh the old 'eye for an eye' is just another disgusting example of how outdated judaism is. Read the old testament and see some of the sickening things that are said. Then read the new testament and see how Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness. Big difference between the two religions eh? Big difference between Israel today and teh rest of the world eh?

Yeh the old 'eye for an eye' is just another disgusting example of how outdated judaism is. Read the old testament and see some of the sickening things that are said. Then read the new testament and see how Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness. Big difference between the two religions eh? Big difference between Israel today and teh rest of the world eh?

Please keep religious opinions out of this. You can't base law on religion, and that's ignoring the fact that you're being blatantly anti-Semitic.

And, Indidivualistic Choice, the Bill of Rights being discussed here is the UN resolution called "Universal Bill of Rights", implemented 8 August 2003. Go look in "past UN resolutions". The United States of America doesn't exist here.

But who will ban the murderers killing people? Do they not take the power of god (or whatever) when they kill people. In Rubberduckistan we deal with the grassroots of the problem, and have death penalty. You know the rules, you live by the rules. You break the rules, you die by the rules.
The responsibility of the government is for the community as whole, and if someone starts killing or raping people, they set themselves outside and above the community.

we are not discussing whether or not the death penalty is legal in the United States of America (it has already been enforced). Rather fool, we are discussing whether it <i>should</i> be legal in the US of A.

Pay attention :roll:

How about you pay attention. Nobody's discussing this US of A you mention. Before you go off half-cocked calling people fools, might want to actually read what's being posted lest you yourself look foolish in your response.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

Please approve this resolution to rid the world of the barbaric act of killing humans as punishment - which makes the governments of nations which utilize this form of penalty, murderers themselves.

Yes, Hammurabi's Code is certainly outdated...

There's a popular saying which goes like this: "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." Consider that the death penalty is murder aswell, thus punishing murder with murder is a) not justifyable due to human rights and b) especially for religious nations this should be a sin (You are usually not allowed to kill - this is a priviledge of the deity).

Instead of punishing the criminal in this way, utilize crime prevention systems that make murder non-existant. Our own nation is a good example of non-existant crime.

As is mine.

Crime -- especially youth-related -- is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare.

Not to say my police force is tyrannical, beating people with doughnuts and coffee cups -- :D -- but it is efficient. Plus Kitsune Island's citizens realize the importance of listening to the law.

One reason for so much crime in countries like the U.S. is the fact that the death penalty is frowned upon so. The crooks know that the worst that could happen to them is Jail so they have no reason to fear getting caught. It makes much more sense to deter criminals then to fill up our prisons and try to rehabilitate them all. Also when we think they have been rehabilitated they just go out and cause more havoc. I don't think that people should be put to death for stealing food or anything. But I do think that if they commit bad crimes including intentional murder they deserve to die. A life for a life.

One other reason for so much frime in countries like the U.S. is that we have allowed our moral standards and our utter foundation to rot to the point the building is about to come crashing down. It also makes sense to encourage people to explore morality once again so they won't think it's acceptable to commit such crimes. As part of that moral, flag-waving Bibile-thumping über-fanatical-ultra-conservative stance, I can't condone murder for murder. Life in prison ought to be torture enough, considering the person is basically condemned to life behind concrete walls. That oughtta really impact the psyche.

The crooks know that the worst that could happen to them is Jail so they have no reason to fear getting caught.

Canada does not have capital punishment, and yet crime rates are relatively low. There is also no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.

Also when we think they have been rehabilitated they just go out and cause more havoc... But I do think that if they commit bad crimes including intentional murder they deserve to die. A life for a life.

Successful rehabilitation means that they DON'T repeat their crimes.

And isn't an execution just a legal way of commiting an intentional, premeditated, needless murder?

To partially play the part of Devil's advocate: Canada has also legalized many things a large number of people consider to be immoral. There is no evidence that isn't the cause of the "lower crime rate" -- perhaps the crime just isn't considered and counted as a crime anymore.

Considering that death penalties infringe on the basic human rights, it is very much a UN issue. UN Member Nations should not have the freedom to disregard the Universal Bill of Rights as they please.

*nod* Murder on either side of the law is a clear violation of civil rights.

Lets say you are married (maybe you are, maybe you are not, i don't know) to someone for ten years, and are still deeply in love with them. Then some sick bastard comes and rapes and murders your signifigant other, now, wouldnt you want the bastard to fry?
-Capo

Frying the murderer won't bring anybody's wife back. The death penalty just brings the government down to the level of the killer. And it is absolutely inexcusable when the government executes an innocent person. It has happened quite a few times before, and as long as the death penalty is in place, it will happen again, and again, and nothing will bring those wrongly killed back. The alternative to death is much more reasonable... life (without parole if neccessary). There is nothing that will break a free person's spirit like shutting them in a concrete box until they die. And if new evidence turns up that proves they're innocent, something can actually be done about it. The death penalty is just another way for people to play God.

Just like abortion and cloning (and in part, homosexuality), execution is humankind's way of believing that they don't need a God to take care of them; that they can get away with whatever they want. All that execution does is take one tragedy and from that clone a second.

We humbly request the delegate from Kitsune Island keep their ugly, fundamentalist Christian views out of this, and not bring into it the unfortunate subjects of abortion or homosexuality. If they persist in bringing said views into this, we motion they be labeled an asshat.

There are some issues the UN does not need to level international sovereignity on. This is one of them. If this proposal becomes a resolution, we will do everything we can to defeat it utterly.

I would also like to invite the delegate to ask the family of any murder victim in the Dominion whether they feel such a penalty should be repealed.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN

The death penalty is there for a reason, its there as a deterrant. All citizens of my country understand the consequence of taking one's life. If they decide to take a life in full knowledge of this death penalty, then that means they are willing to accept the consequences of their action. The death penalty serves as a last ditch attempt to save a victim's life, when the soon-to-be murderer remembers that he will have his own life taken from him if he commits the murder. Lee Kuan Yu supports the death penalty as a deterrant and a fair and just way to serve justice to the victim and his/her family.

The Death Penalty is not a deterrent and it does not remind any murderer that he will be killed himself. A life in prison without the chance to be pardoned, would be exactly as effective.

I agree that it is not a deterrent (not without public executions), but it is a punishment that fits the crime of hideous murder or rape. Like the D.C.
Sniper, who killed several people. He made people fear for their lives every time they went to pump gas. People in three states were scared for their lives for a couple months. No schools were had outside activities. The people wanted a death sentence. So that is what they got. The majority wants satisfaction, if you deny them that, then you are denying their right of freedom from fear. You can't give someone rights, if by giving them rights you deny a greater amount of people their rights.

If you want to avoid vigilante action then you have to do it in a control judical system.

If there is no death penelty jails become overcrowded and take resources away from other important things such as education. As you most likely know it takes space and money to take care of Murderers, rapests, and whatever else there is. with capital punishment there is enough space and resources to care for the less violent people.

Sorry for any bad spelling I am very tired.

"This school has been funded with the money we saved by executing a criminal." We think someone else posted earlier in this thread that the death penalty costs more than locking up criminals in prison for the rest of their lives. Besides, the number of executions does not in the slightest have much if any effect on the population of prisons. If your prisons are overcrowded if the 800 (or whatever number you like) executions a year in your entire nation, do not happen, then maybe you should build one more prison or reduce criminal activites in your country.

To the poster trying to make a point with examples from the united states of america, we would like to remind you that this is the NSUN forum. Please keep RL examples out of here.

If there is no death penelty jails become overcrowded and take resources away from other important things such as education. As you most likely know it takes space and money to take care of Murderers, rapests, and whatever else there is. with capital punishment there is enough space and resources to care for the less violent people.

Sorry for any bad spelling I am very tired.

You could instead try to figure out why people commit crimes, and look for solutions to that.
Instead of throwing people into jail for stealing food, make it so they don't have to steal.

Canada has also legalized many things a large number of people consider to be immoral.

These are extremely minor things, like marijuana possession, marijuana for medical use, gay marriage, and prostitution, though the last is only in BC I believe.

And I should have said murder rates, since a sentence that can't be imposed for armed robbery wouldn't deter an armed robber, but anyway. Canada has no death penalty, yet murder rates, which would otherwise be capital crimes, are far lower than that of a certain neighbour of ours - 1.8 per 100,000 up north vs. 5.7 per 100,000 in the United States, where most states still do have the death penalty.

You can't give someone rights, if by giving them rights you deny a greater amount of people their rights.

The death penalty is not about the convict's rights. It's about the state's rights, namely, that the State should not have the right to kill. The secondary concerns, for me at least, are that capital punishment compounds the original murder by itself being an act of murder, and also the very real concern that flaws in the judicial system, especially when confessions are obtained in dubious circumstances, often lead to innocent men being executed.

Ok, This Ambassadore is sick and tired of people throwing around words they do not understand.....

Issue...

Capital Punishment is murder..... it is punishing murder, by murder...

Definition of "murder".... "the unlawfull killing of one human being by another" (American Herritage Dictionary)

Ok... unlawfull....

"1. not lawfull, or illegal"
"2. Contrary to the accepted morality or conviction" (Same).

ok... Capital Punishment...

"The penalty of death for the commition of a crime."

Ok... penalty...

"A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense."

Ok, so Capital punishment is a penalty of death established by the law for the commission of an offense....

murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another.....

So, please explain to me how Capital Punishment is "murder"? Near as I can tell, you people have no clue of language usage... unless you think all killing is murder... in which case you need to lay off those mind-altering drugs you're on.

1)All life is precious and should never be squandered or trivialized. * Religious view: life is the first and greatest gift from God
* Scientific view: life is a phenomenon that resists the entropy that everything in existence is powerless to resist.

2)The life of a human is even more precious.
* Religious view: men were created in the image of God. God cannot hold a physical form, so humans must mimic him in more meaningful ways
* Scientific view: humans are the only form of life that understands the process of life

3)All life, no matter how low in quality, has an inherent value that cannot be lost until all energy that said living entity has has the potential to produce has produced.
* Religious view: all creatures were put on this earth for a purpose, to serve God in his plan.
* All life feeds into itself: plants feed animals, animals die and their remains leave minerals that feed the plants.

4)Capital punishment is the forced early termination of life without further use of said life being made.

5)An early termination of life will not allow for unforseen potential value to be fulfilled.

6)If a value is not fulfilled both God and science is hindered.

7)Capital punishment is a vindictive punishment, meant to appease society

8)So, if capital punishment is the appeasement of man at the sake of God and science it is, ethically, not permissible.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

I would first like to state that I can not and will not ever endorse a resolution that bans the death penalty. My reasons are as follows:

1. The issue of capital punishment is one of sovereignty, and not of the UN. Should a country decide that capital crimes deserve to be punished in such a manner, who are we to say that they dont? Can any of you honestly tell me that if your OWN loved ones were brutally murdered that you would not want the murdered to suffer the extreme justice of death for their actions?

2. Capital punishment is a deterrent to crime, but ONLY if it is effectively implemented. Those who are alleged to and successfully proven to have committed a capital offense should honestly not be allowed to remain in prison for 12+ years appealing the sentence. They are often using TAXPAYER money to do so, as most of them can not afford an attorney.

3. The availability of DNA evidence has successfully proven guilt and innocence many times over the short years it has been used in the legal system. In fact, I think that ALL felonious offenders should have their DNA on file with a National Crime Registry. In the interest of rehabilitation, I also feel that any non-violent felonious offender should be allowed to request removal from the registry if they can remain free of any prosecutorial action or suspicions for a period of 12 years.

4. We cant not let a shady past, that has sent so many innocent people to their graves to over-shadow the future of the penal code system. Yes, there were many cases where minorities were wrongfully accused and executed. But now that we have DNA and ever improving CSI techniques, such failures are less and less.

I firmly believe that a Universal Ethics code would be useful to rebuilding societies that have crumbled due to a loss of ethics. If we were to agree that a certain list of actions is "ethically wrong" to commit against another human, (stealing, murdering, lying, cheating, ect) and if we TAUGHT our children this code, then; regardless of religion, they would have a standard which can be understood and accepted.

Also....

Capital punishment doen't deter murderers and rapists. A rapist doesn't wake up in the morning and think to himself, "Well I was going to rape someone today but since I might get exocuted instead of life in prison I won't do it." A hitman doesn't respond to a hirer, "Sure I will kill him, but only if I get life in prison, not the death penalty."

And....

This is a basic human rights issue so it is a viable resolution.

And....

If vigilante action is taken, they can also find themselves in prison.

Finally....

With more murderers in prisons it might actually lower the prison population. :lol:

the DSH does not use the death penalty - there are greater punishments than death in the unlikely even a Hirotan is convicted of a crime which warrants it.

However, we appreciate not all nations have a similar outlook, and would not seek to impose such views on others.

No one sets out to commit a crime and get caught. Whatever the punishment, crime will still be around. We must accept this and realize that to fight fire with fire (i.e. allow the death penalty) is not a solution. The state should not have the power to kill it's citzens.

"2. Contrary to the accepted morality or conviction"

No, it's not the same as "unlawful", because of how subjective this 2nd definition is. Take this thread as an example, I believe capital punishment is immoral and, by that definition, illegal, but you obviously do not.

And, even going by your definitions, capital punishment would be murder in the European Union members, Canada, Alaska, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin, and Hawaii, among others, because those nations or states consider it illegal.

I'd like to point you to a website..
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/usa-summary-eng

Read the part about "Death Penalty" there. Maybe you'll get a better understanding why the death penalty is unacceptable here and in RL.
(Thats the only link to a RL site I will put up here).

And this quote:


"Abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights". UN Commission on Human Rights - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, unconditionally. It has the utmost sympathy for the victims of violent crime and their families, but believes that every death sentence is an affront to human dignity, and that every execution is a symptom of, rather than a solution to, a culture of violence. The death penalty extends the suffering of one family - that of the murder victim – to another, the loved ones of the condemned. It also carries with it the risk of irrevocable error. As the 14-member Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment unanimously concluded in 2002 after two years of study into the state's capital justice system, "no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever be devised or constructed that would work perfectly and guarantee absolutely that no innocent person is ever again sentenced to death".(6)

Today, 112 countries are abolitionist in law or practice, with a small group of countries, the USA among them, accounting for the vast majority of the world's annual judicial death toll. International human rights law and standards recognize the possibility of some countries retaining the death penalty, but seek progress towards the goal of abolition.

The case of Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman once again calls the USA's commitment to international standards of justice and decency into question. Some specific standards are relevant to this case. For example, the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, approved in 1984, guarantee "the right of anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of proceedings." In 1989, this safeguard was strengthened by a resolution calling on all UN member states to ensure that for capital defendants, legal representation was "above and beyond the protection afforded in non-capital cases".(7) A Tennessee Supreme Court Justice has pointed out that "none of the judges who have reviewed this case - has seriously disputed that Abdur'Rahman's trial counsel was woefully incompetent and demonstrably ineffective in representing Abdur'Rahman."(8)

The UN Safeguards also state: "Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts." There is residual doubt about Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman's guilt. Indeed, the prosecutor in Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman's case, in the same internal pre-trial memorandum in which he noted the existence of a potentially exculpatory forensic report, also wrote that the case was "not open and shut on the issue of guilt".

Several allegations of prosecutorial misconduct "have surfaced to plague this case"(9), including in relation to the above forensic report. The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors state: "Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system". The Guidelines also require prosecutors to avoid all forms of discrimination. In this case, as in so many others in the USA over the years, there is evidence that jury selection was tainted by racially discriminatory prosecutorial tactics.

Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman's jury was left unaware of his history of mental illness, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a possible result of his appalling childhood abuse and his abuse in prison. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated not only that "all safeguards and due process guarantees, both at pre-trial stages and during the actual trial, as provided for by several international instruments, must be fully respected in every case", but also that "all mitigating factors must be taken into account."(10)

In repeated resolutions, most recently that of 17 April 2003, the UN Commission on Human Rights has urged all retentionist states not to impose or carry out the death penalty against anyone "suffering from any form of mental disorder". In its April 2003 resolution, the Commission expressed concern that "several countries, in imposing the death penalty, do not take into account the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty." The USA is one such country. This is one such case.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510752003

And this page for more information on the Death Penalty Worldwide:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

If you support this resolution, please approve it here:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/90323/page=UN_proposal/start=5 !!

Thank you!

And please dont let this important addition to international human rights, slip off the page by not supporting it. Post here and please approve the proposal!

ok i'm too lazy to read the replies and i'm not in UN "yet"
But i do believe that human has no right in taking other people's lives except if it's really that IMPORTANT or CRUCIAL.
And for those criminals that have taken other people's lives or destroy their current social life should be banished forever from this world. Means that a special prison is created for them to live there for the rest of their lives. If you think this is too cruel, we could also make a program where those criminals that have become more "sane" will be given a special rehabilitation programme and a second chance in life. But for those who have gone through the second chance and repeat their mistake will be given death penalty straight away without any hesitation. :twisted:

It's still the end result of those arguing for Capital Punishment as "murder" as simply being unfounded in the language. And an invalid argument. Within a the scope of a nationstate in which the death penalty is imposed by law for the commission of a capital offence, it is the lawfull imposition of death. A lawful killing. The law is killing the convicted for breaking the law. murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another person. In Capital punishment the killing is done by law and by the state. Not by another person. You can validly argue that Capital Punishment is wrong in your view, but you cannot argue that it is "murder". Since the execution by which is defined by law.

And let's look at it's implication as such. Almost every nation, including the "enlightned" non-death penalty states, still impose a death penalty for treason against the state. It is also imposed in most states of the union, and in Tekania for one type of murder only, FIRST DEGREE (planned and premeditated) murder. Since the imposition by law, is that the penalty of the crime is death, the person, by law, is accepting of the penalty of death, in that they had planned out the commission of the offense PRIOR to it's actual enactment. Such a person is deserving of the punishment imposed by law upon, regardless of said punishment, in that they are, by law, supposed to be accountable and aware of the penalty for not obeying the law. The right to "life" is connected directly to the rights of "liberty" and the "persuit of happiness". By law, in the disobedience to the rights of others, the state is capable of removing the second two rights as imposition of penalty (prison time). The state also has the right to impose a penalty upon the first as well (death penalty). Your argument rests upon the philosophical reasoning that the state does not have that right.... however, such reasoning goes against the very definition of the state and it's purpose in society (to maintain order, and protect rights).

Furthermore, arguments of it being not as economically sound are mute. The state imposes the penalty by the will of the people. The defined morality of the people it represents. It's irregardless of which costs less, the moral definition of the people, and the responsibility of the state is to impose such penalty in the execution of the criminal.

Last of all, for your philosophy to be consistent, life imprisonment should also be "unethical" and illegal, since, if the state does not possess the right to impose a penalty upon the criminal's right to life, they also lack the right to impose a penalty upon the criminal's right to liberty. And no one should be jailed, all criminals should be left to run free. The definition of the imposition of a penalty, is the forced surrender, by law, of a persons rights to the state. In the commission of their acts, they have given up their rights to liberty, persueing happiness, and in some cases life, as defined in law, by state, on behalf of the people it represents.

In the end, the very purportment of "Capital Punishment" as "murder" fails support by both language, and the definition of the purpose and place of government in society. To argue such is unwinable in debate by the rules of debate.

Yeh the old 'eye for an eye' is just another disgusting example of how outdated judaism is. Read the old testament and see some of the sickening things that are said. Then read the new testament and see how Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness. Big difference between the two religions eh? Big difference between Israel today and teh rest of the world eh?

Please keep religious opinions out of this. You can't base law on religion, and that's ignoring the fact that you're being blatantly anti-Semitic.

And, Indidivualistic Choice, the Bill of Rights being discussed here is the UN resolution called "Universal Bill of Rights", implemented 8 August 2003. Go look in "past UN resolutions". The United States of America doesn't exist here.


blatantly anti-semitic?

ahh dontcha just love it when the jews use that as an excuse to deflect critiscm?

I fully support The execution of felons for their crimes such as rape and murder for many reasons.

First off we believe that those who Kill Rape or cuase Considerable unrepairable mental and Physical damage should be delt with acordingly with exicution. If humans do not have the right to choose anothers life or death then why did the Abortion Resolution Pass? If humans dont have the right to choose some ones life or death then why did the Resolution to allow people to kill themselves pass? It is also much less costly to execute a Muderer than to pay for his life Sentence or Banishment. To remove the death Penalty would be Costly and deny Justice to those who deserve it.

If we cant apply Death penalty nor Life imprisonment then what should we all do?
we cant let all those Murderers and rapist wandering around in front of our house nor the around our nation? Or you could find another way to held them tightly so that they wont commit crimes anymore (like banishing the m from EARTH?!)?

If we cant apply Death penalty nor Life imprisonment then what should we all do?
we cant let all those Murderers and rapist wandering around in front of our house nor the around our nation? Or you could find another way to held them tightly so that they wont commit crimes anymore (like banishing the m from EARTH?!)?

My point is, is that a state, not exercizing the right to penalize the right to life of another person, in their lawful execution for commission of a capital offense against the people or state, then it is just that, the decision not to exercize that right.... which is fully allowed in the scope of government. However, the state still has the RIGHT as such, even if it has choosen that such right is not to be exercized. Another state in which said right is exercized, exercizes it by right of law.

My counter argument is not consistency in the execution of penalties upon those who have, in the commission of breaching the law given up certain rights, but in discrepency in the logic by which the imposers are reaching for in their argument. I do not think criminals should be set free, the state, to enforce law, has the right to terminate a persons right to liberty. However, I also recognize that the state, in cases, has the right to terminate the right to life of a criminal, for commission of certain very heinous crimes.

My esteemed collegue brought up some very valid points as well. If the state does not have the right to terminate the right to life of a criminal who has committed a heinous crime in which they have terminated the right to life of others, or have committed a heinous crime against the state (treason); then the state also lacks the right to terminate the life of an unborn infant bassed upon the whim of someone else choice, nor to terminate the right to life of a sick person suffering on a table based upon the whim of decision of another person. So if the right of the mother to abort her baby is to be protected by U.N. mandate, and the right of the family to end the life of a suffering relative is also protected by U.N. mandate, then the right of the state to terminate the perpetrator of a capital offense, consistantly should also be protected.

"2. Contrary to the accepted morality or conviction"

No, it's not the same as "unlawful", because of how subjective this 2nd definition is. Take this thread as an example, I believe capital punishment is immoral and, by that definition, illegal, but you obviously do not.

And, even going by your definitions, capital punishment would be murder in the European Union members, Canada, Alaska, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin, and Hawaii, among others, because those nations or states consider it illegal.

No, those states consider it wrong, and as such do not exercize the rights of the state to penalize the life (in death) of the convicted. It's not "illegal" as in forbidden by law, it's simply not imposed as a penalty (BIG DIFFERENCE). Also, consistently, if the penalty were imposed, then it would be lawful, as it would then be imposed and defined within the scope of the crimes as the penalty of said crimes within the code of law of said states. The act of their banning was not to pass law saying that the penalty is now illegal, it was to strike that penalty from the law, instead replacing it with the exercizing of the states right to impose a penalty upon the convict's right to liberty.

[OOC] To deal in real life, the USA is a very different concept then the EU, Canada, and pretty much every other type of nation in the real world. It's a union of 50 independent, sovereign states. So laws change from one to the other drastically, alot of legal holdings exist at the level of state. As a rule, the Federal gov't is incapable of banning executions within states, short of adding an amendment as such to the governing constitution of the entirety of the union. The federal law can only be imposed upon the federal legal system, but not the state. The state operates within the scope of it's own seperate state legal code, and under it's own state consitution. Amnesty International has a tough time in the U.S. they are not fighting a single governing body, they are fighting 37 seperate governing bodies simultaneously.... each of the 36 states that impose the penalty in each of their state legal codes, and within the imposition of the penalty by the federal government within the US code. However, they fail, in they generally lack the understanding of legal code in the U.S. they assult it as a single entity, fighting a one front war, not realizing their actually fighting a 37 front war. If they really wanted to win in the end, they would work on each state independantly first, then go to the federal.... In their current state, they most likely will never win over the U.S. as a whole.... [OOC]

If there was a judical system that was absolutely free of error, then the ultimate consequence of death of imposing capital punishment, may be acceptable to some degree. However, even considering that it has been said multiple times why the state must not be allowed to kill as punishment, there is no judical system that can pride itself with being free of error. Human beings have the tendency to make errors, thus any judgement in trials that result in a death sentence, may be erronous, as has been the case many times in the past (especially in the US of A). As long as trialsare unfair to a large degree, based on race, sexual orientation and other factors, no ultimate judgement is acceptable. You cannot bring the dead back to life, so unless you can say with 100% certainty and proof, that your judical system is uncapable of doing mistakes, you should not support the "lawful" killing of people.

The death penalty has so far also included the killing of children or people who were children or mentally sick at the time they commited a crime that resulted in death sentence. The "lawful" killing of children or humans that may not have been aware of the consequences of their actions, is heinous aswell.

(OOC: That the US still has the death penalty in most of its states is an afront against human rights. By retaining capital punishment, the US are in a minority with countries who kill their citizens for crimes like being of a certain sexual orientation or following a different religion than the "state religion". That the US of all countries, embraces their "right" to kill their own citizens as adamantly asit does, is a shame for this country and shows that the government of the US is only interested in keeping its population in a state of fear and perpetual violence. The vast majority of countries in the world have long abolished the death penaltyand it had - if any - only positive effects on the crime rate and the furtherment of human rights in these countries.)

No, those states consider it wrong, and as such do not exercize the rights of the state to penalize the life (in death) of the convicted. It's not "illegal" as in forbidden by law, it's simply not imposed as a penalty (BIG DIFFERENCE). Also, consistently, if the penalty were imposed, then it would be lawful, as it would then be imposed and defined within the scope of the crimes as the penalty of said crimes within the code of law of said states.

Okay, you may be right with the American states, since I know some of them do have the death penalty, but it is simply not enforced.

But I know for sure in Canada that up here, the death penalty isn't just not imposed, it was removed from law by Parliament in 1976, so any death sentence in Canada is unlawful, and if it were carried out, the executioner, among others, would probably be on trial for murder.

And as of 1998, the death penalty was completely abolished - treason and mutiny ceased to be capital crimes.

Canada also does function as a federation, like the United States, by the way, it's just that the US states act a lot more autonomously. In the EU, abolishing the death penalty is a condition for membership, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

(edit) Just to add on, I don't dispute that the state has the right to take a life. But they should not have that right.

blatantly anti-semitic?

ahh dontcha just love it when the jews use that as an excuse to deflect critiscm?

I'm not Jewish, I'm an atheist. But I also don't like it when you disrespect a person's religion without a real reason to, which is what you did.

In the EU, abolishing the death penalty is a condition for membership, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right, it is a requirement to abolish the death penalty, to be allowed to join the EU. This is due to the European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol No. 6:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/maps-dp-echr.html

I am thankful that we do not impose such brutal punishments anymore. The abolishment of the death penalty in Europe is thus welcome by me and I will resist any motion to reinstate it.

The death penalty is made for a reason and serves a good purpose. Although they do use it a lot more than needed I think we should keep it. This is an incentive for people not to commit costly crimes. I am all for it, and I dont think it will dissappear anyways whether or not we have this poll.

Executing someone in a legal way is not murder. Killing someone during a war is not murder. It is killing. Not murder.

If there was a judical system that was absolutely free of error, then the ultimate consequence of death of imposing capital punishment, may be acceptable to some degree. However, even considering that it has been said multiple times why the state must not be allowed to kill as punishment, there is no judical system that can pride itself with being free of error. Human beings have the tendency to make errors, thus any judgement in trials that result in a death sentence, may be erronous, as has been the case many times in the past (especially in the US of A). As long as trialsare unfair to a large degree, based on race, sexual orientation and other factors, no ultimate judgement is acceptable. You cannot bring the dead back to life, so unless you can say with 100% certainty and proof, that your judical system is uncapable of doing mistakes, you should not support the "lawful" killing of people.

The death penalty has so far also included the killing of children or people who were children or mentally sick at the time they commited a crime that resulted in death sentence. The "lawful" killing of children or humans that may not have been aware of the consequences of their actions, is heinous aswell.

(OOC: That the US still has the death penalty in most of its states is an afront against human rights. By retaining capital punishment, the US are in a minority with countries who kill their citizens for crimes like being of a certain sexual orientation or following a different religion than the "state religion". That the US of all countries, embraces their "right" to kill their own citizens as adamantly asit does, is a shame for this country and shows that the government of the US is only interested in keeping its population in a state of fear and perpetual violence. The vast majority of countries in the world have long abolished the death penaltyand it had - if any - only positive effects on the crime rate and the furtherment of human rights in these countries.)

If you are selected by a panel of your peers and find you guilty, and you didn't commit the crime, then some higher power doesn't like you and is punishing you for something else you did.

If you are selected by a panel of your peers and find you guilty, and you didn't commit the crime, then some higher power doesn't like you and is punishing you for something else you did.

... sorry to say it, but thats a pile of utter bullshit.

No, those states consider it wrong, and as such do not exercize the rights of the state to penalize the life (in death) of the convicted. It's not "illegal" as in forbidden by law, it's simply not imposed as a penalty (BIG DIFFERENCE). Also, consistently, if the penalty were imposed, then it would be lawful, as it would then be imposed and defined within the scope of the crimes as the penalty of said crimes within the code of law of said states.

Okay, you may be right with the American states, since I know some of them do have the death penalty, but it is simply not enforced.

But I know for sure in Canada that up here, the death penalty isn't just not imposed, it was removed from law by Parliament in 1976, so any death sentence in Canada is unlawful, and if it were carried out, the executioner, among others, would probably be on trial for murder.

Keyword removed. The death penalty is not lawful or unlawful. It's not imposed as law. It's not defined by law anymore, instead, as I said, replaced with the imposition of the a penalty upon the right to liberty of the person. You merely just proved my point.

And as of 1998, the death penalty was completely abolished - treason and mutiny ceased to be capital crimes.

Canada also does function as a federation, like the United States, by the way, it's just that the US states act a lot more autonomously. In the EU, abolishing the death penalty is a condition for membership, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

(edit) Just to add on, I don't dispute that the state has the right to take a life. But they should not have that right.

My intial argument was based on using the term "murder" in description of Capital Punishment, and I agreed it's ok to argue it's improperness, but not to argue against the language you're using.

The USA does not act as a federation, but rather as a confederated union. Within the scope of the US system, the states have powers over her people that the federal gov't does not. A confederation consists of independant sovereign states bound into a union. Hense why the U.S is made of states. Canada, and AUS operating similarly at it's base.... That's the difference, the provinces exist by province of the federal system, whereas in the US it is reversed, the federal system exists at the province of the states.(Note Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution). Passage of an amendment to force the abolition of the Death Penalty would also be more imposible then working on each states legal code. For an amendment to be ratified, it has to be proposed and passed by 2/3 of congress, and then ratified by 3/4 (37) of the states (note 36 states HAVE the penalty imposed, only 14 do not... so I guess you could see where such an amendment would make it at the present). Of course that is all pointless in the scope of this...

To reinterate, my initial argument was directed towards people utilizing the word "murder" in description of Capital Punishment as an arguement against it, and the invalidity of that argument as governed by the language used, and purpose of the state.

Canada simply does not have the death penalty, as the penaty is removed from law, and replaced with a penalty upon liberty... it's not illegal... simply because it's not in law.... in fact the statement "the death penalty is illegal" is what would be reffered to as an oxymoron, a contradictory statement... since a penalty by definition is the imposition or removal of rights or properties imposed by law upon one convicted of an offense... Canada could have a death penalty, if they imposed it. They do not, they have removed it. It's irregardless, they still have the right as such as a state, but have decided to not exercize it.

The USA does not act as a federation, but rather as a confederated union. Within the scope of the US system, the states have powers over her people that the federal gov't does not. A confederation consists of independant sovereign states bound into a union.

You are aware that there does exist the "federal death penalty" in the US of A? At least the Bush administration is issueing death penalties rather often lately, although they have no right to do so.

Furthermore, the aim of this proposal is to rid the world of the death penalty in all UN member nations. The right to liberty is restricted to the degree that humans can be put in jail for commiting crimes. The right to Life is not restricted and cannot be restricted. Jail is not a final judgement. Humans can be released from jail, if found to be innocent afterwards. With the death penalty, you run the risk of killing innocents, which has happened often in the US of A, more reason to get rid of it.

Canada simply does not have the death penalty, as the penaty is removed from law, and replaced with a penalty upon liberty... it's not illegal... simply because it's not in law.

No, you're still missing what I said - since the death penalty is no longer a prescribed punishment in the law, any death sentence is unlawful and any execution becomes an unlawful, intentional killing - the definition of murder. Therefore, the death penalty is outlawed, because it is no longer sanctioned by the law.

Even if you say excluding it from law doesn't make it illegal, any judge would throw out your argument because the clear intent of the legislation which removed the death penalty from law was to ban it.

And after some checking, I can tell you the European Union makes explicitly outlawing the death penalty a requirement for membership. Repeat - If you want to join the EU, you must make the death penalty illegal.

What you're referring to is when the death sentence still exists as a possible, lawful, punishment, but is just never given out. This is the case in some USA states.

(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html - list of countries with various status of death penalty.)

Furthermore, the aim of this proposal is to rid the world of the death penalty in all UN member nations. The right to liberty is restricted to the degree that humans can be put in jail for commiting crimes. The right to Life is not restricted and cannot be restricted. Jail is not a final judgement. Humans can be released from jail, if found to be innocent afterwards. With the death penalty, you run the risk of killing innocents, which has happened often in the US of A, more reason to get rid of it.

With today's technology, we can be sure that the person is guilty or not. So, that is no longer an aurgument against the dealth penalty. Next? :idea: :!:

KNS lets the murders go free to kill again & again. It's called population control. :twisted:

The Dominion of Necros-Vacuia has a barcode and ID database of every citizen, the marks of which extend to their very genetic structure. We can be absolutely sure of who committed a crime before we impose execution, and always are.

Perhaps the delegates favoring a ban on the death penalty should spend less time listening to Anmesty International's whiny, foolish, delusional idealism and more time in the criminal justice system before they go trying to make proposals like this.

We urge all UN member nations to let this proposal expire naturally, as do all proposals based in such grounds as this "pure and utter bullshit", to use the words of the delegate from Gigatron against them.

--Ellion Kev, Necros-Vacuia Ambassador to the UN.

With today's technology, we can be sure that the person is guilty or not. So, that is no longer an aurgument against the dealth penalty. Next?

That's simply not true. You are talking rubbish, and simply highlighting your lack of knowledge on the subject. There are always going to be cases where someone found guilty is eventually proven innocent, regardless of how successful we foolishly claim the process actually is.

Best example I can find is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3413829.stm) where up to 5000 cases are to be reviewed of parents accused of killing their young. This proves injustices do occur, and occur often.

Hmm how should we find a resolution to this proposal? Death penalty is wrong but it's also a necessity in our ever growing population. Religion ban death penalty but Law and Justice allow the goverment to give out death penalty. If death penalty is banned then what should we do the those criminals who lurking around looking for their next prey? I did mention about life imprisontment but one of the nation leaders said that he disagreed since it's almost the same thing as giving them death penalty.

In conclusion, we should discuss about what to do with the criminals whom have commited UNFORGIVEN crime first before discussing about banning of death penalty.

We can be absolutely sure of who committed a crime before we impose execution, and always are.

But that doesn't change the fact that the state should not have the right to kill with impunity. Guilt, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Criminals have rights, and no matter what, they are still people.

If death penalty is banned then what should we do the those criminals who lurking around looking for their next prey?

Uhh, what?? Murderers do not go killing people for fun. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but almost all those are psychotic serial killers, who would not be put to death - they would be put into a hospital for the criminally insane.

And have you not heard of this new revolutionary concept in punition? It's called a prison. You lock criminals away in it for a specified period of time, during which you rehabilitate them to become useful members of society. You can also use it instead of the death penalty! It's called a "life sentence"!

example where the death penalty has been worked against....

The Universal Bill of Rights - Fri Aug 8 2003

"All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." The death penalty violates this fundamental right, In our opinion.

My apologies for joining this debate late, however since my government has strong views in this subject I am obligated to make a few comments.

The death penalty is the punishment of a crime and whilst Telidia are firmly in agreement that criminals must be punished, we feel it also important to understand how the crime happened in the first place. What were the conditions for it and psychological reasons behind it?

For some time now the Telidian government has followed a policy of understanding why crimes happen in the first place in the hopes of preventing similar crimes from happening in the future. Sentencing an individual to death helps little to this understanding or prevention process, whereas custodial sentences at least allow for this opportunity.

Furthermore we have always felt that a nation’s laws should not be contradictory, and certainly making it illegal for an individual to commit murder and then allowing the state to sanction it is contradictory at best.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

The USA does not act as a federation, but rather as a confederated union. Within the scope of the US system, the states have powers over her people that the federal gov't does not. A confederation consists of independant sovereign states bound into a union.

You are aware that there does exist the "federal death penalty" in the US of A? At least the Bush administration is issueing death penalties rather often lately, although they have no right to do so.

Furthermore, the aim of this proposal is to rid the world of the death penalty in all UN member nations. The right to liberty is restricted to the degree that humans can be put in jail for commiting crimes. The right to Life is not restricted and cannot be restricted. Jail is not a final judgement. Humans can be released from jail, if found to be innocent afterwards. With the death penalty, you run the risk of killing innocents, which has happened often in the US of A, more reason to get rid of it.

Yes, I am aware of the "Federal Death Penalty", though I see no bearing on which that has as an arguement. Does the presence of said federally imposed penalty have impact upon the states jurisdiction? No it does not, it's only imposed in federal jurisdiction. You could remove it from the federal code, but it would have no bearing or impact upon the state code.

The Bush administration does has not issued any death penalties, the executive branch does not have any part it that, they can stay executions, but that's about it. The penalty is imposed by the courts.

As for the "often" that's deceptive. The judiciary is quite capable of running at greater then 99% efficency, most of the problems creep up in liberalism.... Virginia, which is one of the most conservative death penalty states has the second highest execution rate, but no error rate at present (when I say error rate, I mean in actual execution). However a full 18% of the cases where the death penalty is imposed, the conviction is either lessened or overturned by the appeals court... however in the more liberal California, such is not the case..... I've always been one to go for the root cause of a problem, sure, you might not be executing innocents, but you are still penalizing innocents, since the removal as such does absolutely nothing to resolve the problem (which is a faulty court system that is incapable to catch its own errors.).

The USA does not act as a federation, but rather as a confederated union. Within the scope of the US system, the states have powers over her people that the federal gov't does not. A confederation consists of independant sovereign states bound into a union.

You are aware that there does exist the "federal death penalty" in the US of A? At least the Bush administration is issueing death penalties rather often lately, although they have no right to do so.

Furthermore, the aim of this proposal is to rid the world of the death penalty in all UN member nations. The right to liberty is restricted to the degree that humans can be put in jail for commiting crimes. The right to Life is not restricted and cannot be restricted. Jail is not a final judgement. Humans can be released from jail, if found to be innocent afterwards. With the death penalty, you run the risk of killing innocents, which has happened often in the US of A, more reason to get rid of it.

Yes, I am aware of the "Federal Death Penalty", though I see no bearing on which that has as an arguement. Does the presence of said federally imposed penalty have impact upon the states jurisdiction? No it does not, it's only imposed in federal jurisdiction. You could remove it from the federal code, but it would have no bearing or impact upon the state code.

The Bush administration does has not issued any death penalties, the executive branch does not have any part it that, they can stay executions, but that's about it. The penalty is imposed by the courts.

As for the "often" that's deceptive. The judiciary is quite capable of running at greater then 99% efficency, most of the problems creep up in liberalism.... Virginia, which is one of the most conservative death penalty states has the second highest execution rate, but no error rate at present (when I say error rate, I mean in actual execution). However a full 18% of the cases where the death penalty is imposed, the conviction is either lessened or overturned by the appeals court... however in the more liberal California, such is not the case..... I've always been one to go for the root cause of a problem, sure, you might not be executing innocents, but you are still penalizing innocents, since the removal as such does absolutely nothing to resolve the problem (which is a faulty court system that is incapable to catch its own errors.).

We can be absolutely sure of who committed a crime before we impose execution, and always are.

But that doesn't change the fact that the state should not have the right to kill with impunity. Guilt, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Criminals have rights, and no matter what, they are still people.

If death penalty is banned then what should we do the those criminals who lurking around looking for their next prey?

Uhh, what?? Murderers do not go killing people for fun. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but almost all those are psychotic serial killers, who would not be put to death - they would be put into a hospital for the criminally insane.

And have you not heard of this new revolutionary concept in punition? It's called a prison. You lock criminals away in it for a specified period of time, during which you rehabilitate them to become useful members of society. You can also use it instead of the death penalty! It's called a "life sentence"!

Prison has never been proven to rehabilitate anyone, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Some try harder to not get caught because of the three strike clause.

I believe that most murderers or killings are out of neccessity, but that doesn't mean they should go unpunished.

You can't use Canada as an example of anything, there aren't as many built up cities in Canada as there are in the US. And Canada is the biggest liberal country in the world beside Pakistan. If you listened to your citizens, you would know whether or not they wanted the death penalty. What most of you don't realize is, the people decide the sentence in all death sentence cases. You don't have to illegalize it. Let the people decide.

The people dont decide on the highest level of punishment available for the worst possible crimes. The highest punishment is the death penalty in most US of A states, which enables the people to hand out this punishment. If the death penalty was outlawed everywhere, it would not be a valid form of punishment and thus people could not hand it out.

Death penalty is good. It reduces the costs of feeding these animals.

The proposal has been resubmitted for another round:

UN Resolution to Ban the Death Penalty requires approval by UN Delegates of all Regions:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/92993/page=UN_proposal/start=70

Description: I. Be it enacted a UN resolution to ban capital punishment and commute all death sentences to life in prison without possibility of parole.

II. Parole is the release of a prisoner before the conclusion of their sentence, but under supervision of a law officer.

III. The UN resolution hereby submitted by Gigatron for consideration by all UN member nations, will ban capital punishment. This ban will take effect immediately upon approval by the majority of UN member nations after the approval period has ended at which time execution will cease to be an available sentence for the commission of any crime and all current death row inmates will have their sentences commuted to life in prison without possibility of parole. The Justice Department or similar governmental body of each UN member nation will be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this resolution.

The people dont decide on the highest level of punishment available for the worst possible crimes. The highest punishment is the death penalty in most US of A states, which enables the people to hand out this punishment. If the death penalty was outlawed everywhere, it would not be a valid form of punishment and thus people could not hand it out.

I disagree... they most certainly do in any free state. They might not in other states, but those states are not free. (I do not consider socialism freedom since it's very primise is the squalshing of individual rights in regard to the overal society).

My personal opinion still stands that the state most certainly has the right to suspend the rights of a person (including their right to life) as penalty.

All opinions that all criminals can be rehabilitated, by personal experience, I consider an utter load of dingo's kidneys. No matter how well the system is built, how pretty it looks, nor how much money is thrown in it, criminals cannot be "rehabilitated" unless they are willing.

I could care less of the cost, my job is to enforce the law as it is determined, and to enforce penalties as they are written, by the will, morals and ethics of my people.

As for humane treatment of prisoners, Tekania determines that this is merely making sure that those in confinement are provided with the bare necessities for them to survive, no more, no less. We also practice corporal punishment still (public canings of thieves).

We consider the execution method we use, nitrogen asphixiation, as humane, as it ends the condemned person's life in a most quick and painless method as possible with no suffering.

We only impose the death penalty on those convicted of treason or who have committed first degree murder( planned and premediated, and not heat of passion). Those who have meditated, planned and carried out the murder of another person are thus deserving and accepting of their punishment... and surrendered their right to life by default in the commission of their planned act... It is humane to remove the person from his burden upon the rights of others. We do not consider this act any different then death in the battlefield, or self-defense by the nation as a whole.....

The people dont decide on the highest level of punishment available for the worst possible crimes. The highest punishment is the death penalty in most US of A states, which enables the people to hand out this punishment. If the death penalty was outlawed everywhere, it would not be a valid form of punishment and thus people could not hand it out.

I disagree... they most certainly do in any free state. They might not in other states, but those states are not free. (I do not consider socialism freedom since it's very primise is the squalshing of individual rights in regard to the overal society).

My personal opinion still stands that the state most certainly has the right to suspend the rights of a person (including their right to life) as penalty.

All opinions that all criminals can be rehabilitated, by personal experience, I consider an utter load of dingo's kidneys. No matter how well the system is built, how pretty it looks, nor how much money is thrown in it, criminals cannot be "rehabilitated" unless they are willing.

I could care less of the cost, my job is to enforce the law as it is determined, and to enforce penalties as they are written, by the will, morals and ethics of my people.

As for humane treatment of prisoners, Tekania determines that this is merely making sure that those in confinement are provided with the bare necessities for them to survive, no more, no less. We also practice corporal punishment still (public canings of thieves).

We consider the execution method we use, nitrogen asphixiation, as humane, as it ends the condemned person's life in a most quick and painless method as possible with no suffering.

We only impose the death penalty on those convicted of treason or who have committed first degree murder( planned and premediated, and not heat of passion). Those who have meditated, planned and carried out the murder of another person are thus deserving and accepting of their punishment... and surrendered their right to life by default in the commission of their planned act... It is humane to remove the person from his burden upon the rights of others. We do not consider this act any different then death in the battlefield, or self-defense by the nation as a whole.....

All opinions that all criminals can be rehabilitated, by personal experience, I consider an utter load of dingo's kidneys. No matter how well the system is built, how pretty it looks, nor how much money is thrown in it, criminals cannot be "rehabilitated" unless they are willing.

No matter how well the syste mis built, how pretty it looks nor how much money is thrown in it, innocents who are sentenced to death by mistake and killed by the state, can never be brought back to life. By increasing the suffering twice - first the victim of the murderer does not come back to life by killing the murderer - the feeling of releief for the victims family is almost always not there after the murderer has been executed. Instead, 2 families suffer - the family of the victim and the family of the murderer, who may have lost a loved one.

Prison has never been proven to rehabilitate anyone, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Some try harder to not get caught because of the three strike clause.

So you're saying all criminals always repeat their crimes, and that every kid who shoplifts will become a career criminal? Prisons can't rehabilitate everyone, but it does help many learn skills and come out with at least the means to make a living.

I also have no idea what the three-strike clause is, so please explain.

And Canada is the biggest liberal country in the world...

Which is what makes us such a cool place to live. And how is Pakistan liberal? They seem pretty conservative to me. Always angry and annoyed.

You don't have to illegalize (sic) it. Let the people decide.

You do realise that death penalties are handed out by the judiciary, and not the people? And that the "people" in Russia were the ones who set up communism? And that the "people" in Germany voted Adolf Hitler into power? And that the "people" in the US Confederacy thought slavery was good? Some things, especially civil rights, cannot always be left to the tyranny of the majority.

All opinions that all criminals can be rehabilitated, by personal experience, I consider an utter load of dingo's kidneys. No matter how well the system is built, how pretty it looks, nor how much money is thrown in it, criminals cannot be "rehabilitated" unless they are willing.

No matter how well the syste mis built, how pretty it looks nor how much money is thrown in it, innocents who are sentenced to death by mistake and killed by the state, can never be brought back to life. By increasing the suffering twice - first the victim of the murderer does not come back to life by killing the murderer - the feeling of releief for the victims family is almost always not there after the murderer has been executed. Instead, 2 families suffer - the family of the victim and the family of the murderer, who may have lost a loved one.

Yes... so you only put the guilty to death. When the court system, and legal power is operated properly it's effectiveness is virtually 100%. That's what the appeals process is for, that's why state heads have the power of stays, clemency and commutation. Regardless of errors at conviction, a properly run legal system will catch it's mistakes at appeals so that the execution is not carried out. An error caught by the system is not an error at all, since the system worked.

And that the "people" in Germany voted Adolf Hitler into power?

I'd like to add to this that the German people of that time were blinded by propaganda in times of economic disasters and the gradual collapse of the "Weimar Republic". Propaganda nowadays being even more refined and diverse and I see tendencies of US citizens following their President blindly and unquestioningly, despite the glaring atrocities he commits. This is a very dangerous trend and I hope that the US will get out of it before it is too late.

Yes... so you only put the guilty to death. When the court system, and legal power is operated properly it's effectiveness is virtually 100%. That's what the appeals process is for, that's why state heads have the power of stays, clemency and commutation. Regardless of errors at conviction, a properly run legal system will catch it's mistakes at appeals so that the execution is not carried out. An error caught by the system is not an error at all, since the system worked.

To point at the US system, it is rather erronous. Even if a judical system has the slightest error which can cost an innocent his/her life by the state, it is an undeniable crime if the state executes this innocent citizen. Naturally all judical systems made up of humans are erronous, so the death penalty should not be legal anywhere.

Here I'll quote Amnesty International:

Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty
1. Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries

Over half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

Amnesty International's latest information shows that:


80 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes
15 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes
23 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions

making a total of 118 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

78 other countries and territories retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller.

2. Progress Towards Worldwide Abolition

Three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty for all crimes in the past decade. Over 35 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (examples include Angola, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa), the Americas (Canada, Paraguay), Asia and the Pacific (Bhutan, Hong Kong, Nepal, Samoa, Turkmenistan) and Europe and the South Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine).


3. Moves to Reintroduce the Death Penalty

Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced. Since 1985, over 50 countries
have abolished the death penalty in law or, having previously abolished it for ordinary
crimes, have gone on to abolish it for all crimes. During the same period only four
abolitionist countries reintroduced the death penalty. One of them - Nepal - has since
abolished the death penalty again; one, the Philippines, resumed executions but has
since suspended them. There have been no executions in the other two (Gambia, Papua New Guinea).

4. Death Sentences and Executions

During 2003, at least 1,146 prisoners were executed in 28 countries and at least 2,756 people were sentenced to death in 63 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures are certainly higher.

In 2003, 84 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Viet Nam. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 726 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher: a senior Chinese legislator suggested in March 2004 that China executes "nearly 10,000" people each year. At least 108 executions were carried out in Iran. Sixty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 64 people were executed in Viet Nam.

5. Use of the Death Penalty Against Child Offenders

International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than 110 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least some offences have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, have continued to execute child offenders.

Eight countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the USA and Yemen. China, Pakistan and Yemen have raised the minimum age to 18in law, and Iran is in the process of doing so. The country which has carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders is the USA (19 since 1990).

Amnesty International recorded two executions of child offenders in 2003, one in China and one in the USA. Two executions have been recorded in Iran in 2004.


6. The Deterrence Argument

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded that "it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment".

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, Oxford University Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

7. Effect of Abolition on Crime Rates

Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated that "The fact that the statistics... continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, Oxford University Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214)

Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2002, 26 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975.


8. International Agreements to Abolish the Death Penalty

One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not having the death penalty. Four such treaties now exist:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has now been ratified by 52 states. Nine other states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date.
The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by eight states and signed by one other in the Americas.
Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which has now been ratified by 44 European states and signed by one other.
Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which has now been ratified by 24 European states and signed by 18 others.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception. Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the total abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances with no exceptions permitted.

9. Execution of the Innocent

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Since 1973, 113 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

The then Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA resumed executions in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.

In January 2003 Governor Ryan pardoned four death row prisoners and commuted all 167 other death sentences in Illinois.


10. The Death Penalty in the USA

65 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2003, bringing the year-end total to 885 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. The 900th execution was carried out on 3 March 2004.
Over 3,500 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2004.
38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law. The death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law.

Last updated: 9 June 2004

To tekania: I have said before that some of the nation leader object of giving those criminals a life imprisonment penalty. Besides, prison doesnt always work. Some criminal went in and out of prison for a lifetime like prison is the only home they have.

anyway shouldnt we fix our nation environment first before thinking abiut death penalty? besides nowadays, death penalty are rarely used anymore and criminal started because of their growing environment, they could be compelled to do so ( to survive or to attract their parent of their misbehaviour) and others do it because of the persuasion of their friends.
Phycotic people become insane because of their environment too, E.G: child abuse, seeing traumatic scene.

The people of Thejust decided of their own free will to support the use of lethal capital punishment and took it upon themselves to act on their belief in this method of punishment by electing officials running the issue as a cornerstone of their campaigns.

The right of the state to institute laws reflecting the beliefs of it's people should not be taken away in cases where semantics are as easily debatable as with lethal capital punishment. To some, death is the cruelest punishment that there is, but in my view and the view of many others, it is far crueler to be forced to live with the knowledge that your freedoms have come to an end and that you will never again see anything but the same walls.

This is especially true if you have a deep sense of guilt for what you've done. Releasing a person due to the fact that they ARE sorry for what they done is not always a viable option, as it can lead to psychological disorders, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which may lead to further violent acts.

Is it not far more cruel to be a deeply grieving 20 year old person handed the torture of knowing that you have 60 to 80 years of nothing but a life of imprisonment than to know that you did a horrendous thing and that you're being punished by death? I ask you to answer this question and one other. What kind of life is a life without the ability to step out and go for a long walk, or to choose what you eat and drink, or even to choose when you sleep?

Using lethal injection. Does the convict feel pain? If so, I'm Pro With Capital Punishment.

The people of Greedy Pig Needs more organs. :)

What kind of life is a life without the ability to step out and go for a long walk, or to choose what you eat and drink, or even to choose when you sleep?

How do you rate life? Is Death so much better than Life? Is being executed by the state, even if you might be innocent and falsely convicted, better than living a life in prison, knowing that you cannot again commit murder or the like? The possibilities for error in every human judicla system seem to be totally forgotten , which has cost many innocents their lives! It could be you who is convicted of a crime that you did not commit and be sentenced to death due to an error in the judical system of some form (please see the section about "Execution of the Innocent" in my post above).

What kind of life is a life without the ability to step out and go for a long walk, or to choose what you eat and drink, or even to choose when you sleep?

How do you rate life? Is Death so much better than Life? Is being executed by the state, even if you might be innocent and falsely convicted, better than living a life in prison, knowing that you cannot again commit murder or the like? The possibilities for error in every human judicla system seem to be totally forgotten , which has cost many innocents their lives! It could be you who is convicted of a crime that you did not commit and be sentenced to death due to an error in the judical system of some form (please see the section about "Execution of the Innocent" in my post above).

First off, you continue to ignore the point that with enough stoplights on the way to an execution, the odds of sending an innocent to death are infinitesimal. A properly organized judicial system can do wonders for freeing the innocent.

Life itself is pointless without quality of life. If a person is put in a situation where they have nothing to do but to sit and contemplate the fact that they no longer have freedom then imprisonment becomes crueler than execution could ever be. The kind of pain that counts is psychological pain. Physical pain can never compare to the kind of trauma the mind can inflict on itself in the proper situation. By condemning lethal capital punishment you would force someone to experience suffering beyond what a needle from the administering of a lethal injection or the feeling as a gas chamber takes you away could ever cause.

I believe that the Death penilty should be used toward mass murderers. Why should they get away with it ?????

First off, you continue to ignore the point that with enough stoplights on the way to an execution, the odds of sending an innocent to death are infinitesimal. A properly organized judicial system can do wonders for freeing the innocent.

Life itself is pointless without quality of life. If a person is put in a situation where they have nothing to do but to sit and contemplate the fact that they no longer have freedom then imprisonment becomes crueler than execution could ever be. The kind of pain that counts is psychological pain. Physical pain can never compare to the kind of trauma the mind can inflict on itself in the proper situation. By condemning lethal capital punishment you would force someone to experience suffering beyond what a needle from the administering of a lethal injection or the feeling as a gas chamber takes you away could ever cause.

If mankind was infallible, then I would agree wit hyou. Alas, existing evidence proves (see my post from Amnesty International above) that no judical system, not even one as refined and safe as the system of the US of A, is infallible.

The quality of life in a prison is in most western civilizations, already better than the quality of life for people who live in poverty or have no home. Your logic thus dictates that these people must be killed to spare them their life, which is - considering the quality of their life - worse than life in a modern, western prison. Then again, how do you rate the quality of life? Quality of life is totally subjective. For someone who has never had warm water or electricity, flowing warm water and electricity could mean a significant increase in life quality. It could also mean no increase at all because that person might not know what to do with this. What do you base your "life quality" on and how do you standardize life quality? Does the (possibly temporal) restriction in a person's freedom, mean that quality of life immediately drops to the lowest level?

Does sickness to the degree that a human can (possibly temporary) not decide over him/herself, warrant killing this human to spare him/her the horrible experience of their life, without control over it? I am curious what you base your "quality of life" on - please go into great details and do not forget to include absolutely all life styles possible.

First off, you continue to ignore the point that with enough stoplights on the way to an execution, the odds of sending an innocent to death are infinitesimal. A properly organized judicial system can do wonders for freeing the innocent.

Well, if you're so sure that judicial systems can be perfect, name a real-life one which has never convicted an innocent person. Every system is fallible, because every system is designed by humans, and humans are fallible.

Life itself is pointless without quality of life.

Prison life is not generally the "living hell" many people make it out to be. It's no picnic, obviously, but the conditions are hardly inhumane, and the prisoner, whether he's there for life or not, can still have a fulfilling life behind bars. He can still have contact with loved ones, read, exercise. Sure he may not have his freedom, but he still has his life.

Like always the UN is trying to make decisions for everybody!! The death penalty is a must in detering violent criminals!! In my country we give the death row inmate a list of 10 ways he can die, and he has to choose one!! Thats a little fair aint it :twisted: :evil:

i give my support against the death penalty.



Crystal Core

In addition to the Adolf Hitler being voted into power by the people; you must remember that the Germans at that time were still reeling from thier economic losses of WWI. many had no work, or food then comes this guy promising them jobs and a regained sense of thier own national identity call it pride if you will. He never let the mass populace know about what was happening to the jews! If he did; do you really think the entire nation of Germany would have allowed it? Please.. also @kelssik very well done w/ the humans being falliable argument that in our eyes completely refutes every argument agaist the death penalty. The U.S.'s problems w/ crime do not lie in our eyes with the death penalty, but the lack of true freedom in our everyday lives. don't smoke here or there, only 21 to drink alcohol yet at 18 you can die for your country. etc etc we are repressed compared to some other european nations and that we believe is what causes people to lash out in rebellion/crime. We love our country undoubtably but we do see how we are told what to do even if it is only to hurt ourselves and that we believe is wrong.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/27978/page=UN_proposal/start=40

The proposal still requires a lot of approvals!!

Much better link:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Ban%20of%20death%20penalty

i do no support the death penality if they commit a crime to mea death is the easy way out let them suffer in the prisions

I have approved the proposal, for many of the reasons already stated, and for another:

The death penalty causes immense psychological harm to those who have to carry it out.


However, this resolution doesn't look like passing, as it treads upon the freedom of individual states to decide their own laws. It may be necessary for a "compromise" proposal to take a smaller step in that direction. Measures could include: refusal to allow extradition to countries where the person could face the death penalty (this happens in real life), and maybe a right of final appeal to an international court of justice where the accused believes and has some evidence that s/he has been condemned unfairly?

DP

What kind of life is a life without the ability to step out and go for a long walk, or to choose what you eat and drink, or even to choose when you sleep?

How do you rate life? Is Death so much better than Life? Is being executed by the state, even if you might be innocent and falsely convicted, better than living a life in prison, knowing that you cannot again commit murder or the like? The possibilities for error in every human judicla system seem to be totally forgotten , which has cost many innocents their lives! It could be you who is convicted of a crime that you did not commit and be sentenced to death due to an error in the judical system of some form (please see the section about "Execution of the Innocent" in my post above).

First off, you continue to ignore the point that with enough stoplights on the way to an execution, the odds of sending an innocent to death are infinitesimal. A properly organized judicial system can do wonders for freeing the innocent.

Life itself is pointless without quality of life. If a person is put in a situation where they have nothing to do but to sit and contemplate the fact that they no longer have freedom then imprisonment becomes crueler than execution could ever be. The kind of pain that counts is psychological pain. Physical pain can never compare to the kind of trauma the mind can inflict on itself in the proper situation. By condemning lethal capital punishment you would force someone to experience suffering beyond what a needle from the administering of a lethal injection or the feeling as a gas chamber takes you away could ever cause.

At least allowing someone to live leaves the possibility of them finding some quality in life. Killing them permanently denies that. It also puts the executed's blood not only on the hands of the executioner and the state but also every citizen of that nation. The state is there to serve and represent the people. It's actions reflect on us as individuals.

If the quality of life is too miserable for the prisoner too contemplate, then why not legalise suicide and euthanasia? I include the latter because it may be that the prisoner is unable (mentally, physically or emotionally) to kill themselves and may require assistance. Obviously, attempts should be made to dissuade them but ulimately they should be allowed that choice, I feel.

Of course, none of the above means a jot to anyone who supports capital punishment on the grounds of retribution and 'eye for eye' justice. I know I have no chance of changing your minds.

i think there sould be one if the people can get any thing from there parnter and they have to rap little girl that is bad :evil: :tantrum:

What kind of life is a life without the ability to step out and go for a long walk, or to choose what you eat and drink, or even to choose when you sleep?

How do you rate life? Is Death so much better than Life? Is being executed by the state, even if you might be innocent and falsely convicted, better than living a life in prison, knowing that you cannot again commit murder or the like? The possibilities for error in every human judicla system seem to be totally forgotten , which has cost many innocents their lives! It could be you who is convicted of a crime that you did not commit and be sentenced to death due to an error in the judical system of some form (please see the section about "Execution of the Innocent" in my post above).

First off, you continue to ignore the point that with enough stoplights on the way to an execution, the odds of sending an innocent to death are infinitesimal. A properly organized judicial system can do wonders for freeing the innocent.

Life itself is pointless without quality of life. If a person is put in a situation where they have nothing to do but to sit and contemplate the fact that they no longer have freedom then imprisonment becomes crueler than execution could ever be. The kind of pain that counts is psychological pain. Physical pain can never compare to the kind of trauma the mind can inflict on itself in the proper situation. By condemning lethal capital punishment you would force someone to experience suffering beyond what a needle from the administering of a lethal injection or the feeling as a gas chamber takes you away could ever cause.

At least allowing someone to live leaves the possibility of them finding some quality in life. Killing them permanently denies that. It also puts the executed's blood not only on the hands of the executioner and the state but also every citizen of that nation. The state is there to serve and represent the people. It's actions reflect on us as individuals.

If the quality of life is too miserable for the prisoner too contemplate, then why not legalise suicide and euthanasia? I include the latter because it may be that the prisoner is unable (mentally, physically or emotionally) to kill themselves and may require assistance. Obviously, attempts should be made to dissuade them but ulimately they should be allowed that choice, I feel.

Of course, none of the above means a jot to anyone who supports capital punishment on the grounds of retribution and 'eye for eye' justice. I know I have no chance of changing your minds.

In Thejust, suicide and euthanasia are legal. As I stated, the people of Thejust decided their stance on lethal capital punishment, the government didn't decide for them.

I don't support using this punishment for things such as burglary or for other non-violent offenses, but for violent offenses I believe in removing those who would injure or kill others from society, and for many with a "criminal mentality," death is far far better than life imprisonment.

if this ever passes into the proposal stage then I'm leaving nationstates. I'm sick of you people trying to take away rights that should be decided by the individual nation.

I am equally as sick by nations who think that killing their citizens in any form is a right and can override international human rights!

yet I'm sure you endorsed forcing euthenasia down everyone's throats?

yet I'm sure you endorsed forcing euthenasia down everyone's throats?

Shows what you know.... :roll:

There is a big difference between state endorsed murder and the voluntary termination of life by the induvidual who is suffering.

That is not fair! it should be our choice whether we kill people for things or not :twisted: but we find it is easier to make them work on our uranium mines :twisted:

some people demand that we kill all old and terminally ill people.

I hope you are not excempt from this "law" then.

Some more food for thought:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012000?open&of=ENG-392

Capital punishment is horrible and wrong on so many levels. There is almost never any kind of excuse to kill a human being, no matter who they are or what they've done. To start with there is the obvious fact that it's contradictory to use killing as a deterrent for killing.

So often you hear people say that they 'deserved' to die. Well perhaps they did, but who are we to judge who deserves to live and who to die? And by killing somebody what are you satisfying but a bloodthirsty urge for revenge? Killing the criminal won't cure the victim, so what's the point in a punishment like that, which it is proven does not act as a deterrent and is a needless waste of life. In Britain they banned capital punishment for a 5 year trial period, and there was no rise in crime so the change became permanent.

Another thing people often say is 'How would you feel if your child or your wife or someone you loved was murdered? Wouldn't you want the murderer to die?' Well, I don't know, thankfully i've never been in that situation. I hope I wouldn't be so primitive and bloodthirsty but who knows what they would do or how they would feel if it came to it? However, I don't think that is relevent because if you base the punishment for a crime on the victim's feelings then it stops being a rational issue and becomes only about revenge. Punishment should be objective, and I don't think somebody in such a rage of passion and grief, who's loved one has just been murdered, is in any position to be objective.

I know most of this has already been said by somebody else but oh well. Those are just a few of the reasons why capital punishment makes me sick.

The country I ´m coming from in the RW has banned the death penalty many decades ago. However I would see the death penalty justified in extreme cases like mass murder, serial killer, genocide and terrorism (who after all commit mass murder).
This issue should be decided by the individual nations and not the UN whether in wants to use the death penalty or not and it what cases it wants to use it. Most countries of the RW still have the death penalty.
Every nation has the right to decide by itself whether to impose it and execute it. It is a non-UN issue.

The power of the UN on its member nations is unrestricted. Anything can be an UN issue if it affects human rights or something UN resolutions can affect given by the game mechanics. Thus I respectfully disagree with your claim that this is a Non-UN issue.

To address your actual post:

"An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges." A.I. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012000?open&of=ENG-392)

@Gigatron,

"In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges."
That is no argument against the death penalty. That would be an argument for a reform of the judicial system. By the way: your argument would be more true when a jury decides about the faith of a defendant. They might be impressed by lawyers and their presentation.
But professional judges aren´t. They can do an excellent job.
Due to judicial oversight and the possibility to get a revision (to cheque for legal mistakes) it is possible to enshure a fair trial.
The fact that criminals are getting different punishments for simular crimes is caused by the fact that their guilt may differ. There are first offenders, second offenders, serial offenders, e.g. It is clear that a person who committed a crime before should and ougth to be punished harder than a first offender. Also what crime he committted before should matter.
Secondly the individual guilt plays a role in the cases: meaning the motivations of the criminal. Depending on that the punishment differs..
By the way: since we are from the same country I can tell you that there are also differences in our present system. The penalty for murder is currently a life-time prison sentence with the possibilty for an release on parol after 15 years. However: if the court finds a special severe guilt that means a minimum of ten years extra before the criminal can even ask for release. I could imagine the following changes: in cases with a special severity of guilt: death penalty - for the rest life-time prison sentence with no possiblity for a release.

I, General Matthew Ward, Commander in Chief of the Redleningrad Defence Force, as well as Preisdent of the United Socialist States of Redleningrad, while not a memember of the UN, do hearby declare the following Presidential Order.

Presidental Order 0002-A
Banishment of Execution by the State

It is hearby declared that the use of execution for means of justice is hearby bannished. The State has no business in taking life from another. However, those found guilty of rape and/or murder will be scentence to 1 life scentence per count. Also, the Military has the right do as it sees fit in counts of War Crimes.

End
Presidential Order 0002-A
Banishment of Execution by the State

General Matthew Ward
Presidental, Redleningrad
CINCRDF

some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared

This is indeed proof of a judical system rrequiring reform, which dictates that the judical system is unfair and erronous and thus death penalty is given out despite prisoners being innocent. That you think that the right to revision means the neccessary change of punishment or form of trial, is wrong and shows how little of the corruption and fallability of the world-wide judical systems you know of.

Our RL countries are irrelevant for the discussion. I dont discuss this as a German citizen, rather as the leader of the nation Gigatron. Please dont mix the two positions.

Dear General Matthew Ward,

we welcome your decision to follow the majority of civilized countries in the world, who decided that the death penalty is illegal and a breach of world-wide human rights. Your courageous move of publicly announcing your honourable decision, is most appreciated.

Thank you in the name of all free people of the world,

CPU MotherCore
Gigatron

@Gigatron,

We, the republic of Kybernetia, reject your position. Our legal system works perfectly. If other countries have problems with their they have to fix it. That is a problem regardless of the death penalty.
That is no argument against the death penalty in general. In is an argument for improving the judical system in countries who have to.
The UN may pass a resolution to enshure a better quality of the legal systems, but it has no right to infringe in the national decision about what punishments should be given.

The Death Penalty is without doubt a breach of international human rights. The UN has every right to infringe on whatever it wants if it is possible within the game mechanics of the game.You have no authority to limit the UN in its might to overrule your tyrannical views and enforce that human rights are being obeyed worldwide by everyone, lest we all lower ourselves to the level of animals.

Btw I hate the unreliable server of nationstates. If it werent a free service i'd bitch endlessly about sites not loading every time i try to make a post.. grrrrr

I am equally as sick by nations who think that killing their citizens in any form is a right and can override international human rights!

Oh, this is a riot... "can overide international human rights".... We're not reffering to the arbitrary slaughter of citizens by petty dictators, we're reffering to removing the perpetrators of heinous crimes against the citizenry.... Unlike the international scum, we're not a believer of "absolute" human rights, but believe in the principle that a person's rights end where another's begin. Someone who has commited acts, by force, to end the life of another have simply given up any human rights they HAD possessed.... The internional scene has already proved that the majority does not believe in justice... We in Tekania, however, believe in justice. (there can be no justice, where the penalty does not fit the crime). We believe in certain aspects of "prisoners rights" but in our opinion the international comunity has taken the "prisoners rights" view to an extreamist region that has led to utter lawlessness, and cannot be allowed to perpetuate... It's better to end the life of one murderer, then to allow him the oportunity to murder even more people.... This is done in the light of protection of our citizenry at large, and our citizens confined for lesser offenses, they too need to have their life protected from these monsters... As for Amnesty International, they are an idealist group, built upon lies and deceit... I could care less about "reports" from them, nor do I care for their "ideal", they are wrong. You are wrong. The statistics don't look at the reality.... States with higher murder rates, also have heaftier gun control laws, the murder's get their guns from neighboring states with little gun control and kill in the state with more, because the people are unable to protect themselves. Nearly 1/2 the killings in lesser gun-control states are actions of self-defense. I'm my concerned with my people's personal liberties, and their freedom to grow, then the life of a monsterous murder... People like you better get your priorities straight if your real intent is to make this world a better place....

Ban the Death Penalty? How can you even consider it? Each country deserves the right to punish criminals as they see fit! Sometimes, death is mercy compared to what could be done instead... :twisted:

i support the death penalty

Sometimes, death is mercy compared to what could be done instead... :twisted:

Uh, actually, there's a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It's in the Universal Bill of Rights. Go look it up in the past UN resolutions. I think your argument was just invalidated.

Our legal system works perfectly

That is not only impossible, but it is most likely based on a recursive assessment - the person is guilty because the legal system found him guilty, and because the legal system found him guilty, he is guilty. Therefore, since everyone who is guilty was found guilty, and everyone who is not guilty was found not guilty, the legal system is perfect.

As I've said before - every system is fallible, because every system is designed by humans, who are fallible.

And Tekania, since you believe in vengeance and punishment over compassion and rehabilitation, I don't think anyone is going to be able to change your views. And once again in reply to your statement "It's better to end the life of one murderer, then to allow him the oportunity to murder even more people.", the recividism rate for murder is very low compared to other crimes, like robbery and sexual offences.

Does a ban on capital punishment exclude life in prison without parole?

Throwing someone in a cell forever until they die is certainly a death penalty, and life in prison without parole is our favored method of getting rid of criminals.

I might actually support this proposal if we're still allowed to put them in a cell for the rest of their life.

You are allowed to. After all, prisoners who are in prison can be found to be innocent afterwards - if they are innocent. If they are dead, then its too late.

My country has a system of eye for an eye. To every extent!

Dear leaders,

As the newly elected UN Delegate for the region of Hamble, I wish my support of the Death Penalty to be noted. I personally feel; and it should be personally, as this is a matter of conscience, that the death penalty is a just and fair punishment for criminals. However, it also acts as an effective deterrent to any would be murderers, gangsters and other unwanted members of society. Therefore, the death penalty should be sufficently unpleasant enough to thoroughly deter this people from commiting crimes against people or property.

Proposal 1: The execution should be carried out using good old fashioned hanging, nothing is more environmentally friendly than a good bit of rope and wood for the gallows, all renewable materials of course!

Proposal 2: Executions should be carried out in public for the most despicable crimes, by charging for admission, capital punishment could actually pay for itself or even make a profit!

Proposal 3: As my nation and my region operate under the British Legal system, a High Court Judge should be the only official to pass the death sentence. This is comparable to a Supreme Court Judge under the American Legal system.

Many thanks for your time in reading my post.

Yours Sincerely
Grand Duke Albert Hanover

@Kelssek,

according to your logic we couldn´t punish anyone.
We reject that.

We are using the death penalty just in VERY FEW CASES like mass murder, serial killings and terrorism. It is just a tiny number of cases.
In all of those cases the guilt has been proven and it is undoubtably.

We want to keep the deaht penalty as a deterrent and as punishment for the worst people.
Terrorists, mass murderers and serial killers as well as dictators (like in the RW Saddam) deserve death :twisted:

Don´t stop us from doing that :evil:

It is our national right to do so.
Take care of your own business.

What would you say if we supported a resolution focing all countries to impose the death penalty????? :twisted:

We are not going to do so since we believe it is the right of EVERY SOVEREIGN NATION STATE to decide it by itself. It is a NATIONAL ISSUE.

Dear world leader wannabes, I would like to express my ambivalence, because I do not completely and thoroughly oppose or support it. I would however like to express my views.
+I believe that the Death penalty is quite severe, because during times such as these were tensions are high, and capricious people are acting quite irrationally, many innocents are sentenced to death, and that is my reason for opposing it.
+I also support it, because these days jails are becoming more and more conventional and homely for the prisoners. In some, the convicted have gyms, decent free meals, and commodious cells. This is ridiculous because they should be punished. Also I doubt that anyone can deny that they too would want the murderer, rapist, or whatever who has destroyed something of inestimable value in your life to be put to death.

Thank you all for reading and taking into account my opinions.

Why should the tax payers be forced to pay even more taxes to support the need of new prisions. Why should they be forced to pay more taxes to simply keep a person in jail for life?

If a man is condemmed to prision for his entire life then why should he be a burden apon the whole nation?

The Penalty of Death is a human characteristic of fixing things, that is why it has always been in our history since the dawn of time.

What I'm saying here it this... if a man is going to spend his life doing nothing but sleeping and eating in a small room with bars, why should we TORTURE him by doing this? End is life, he had the ability to determine what was right and what was wrong and he made that choice.

Dear leaders,

As the newly elected UN Delegate for the region of Hamble, I wish my support of the Death Penalty to be noted. I personally feel; and it should be personally, as this is a matter of conscience, that the death penalty is a just and fair punishment for criminals. However, it also acts as an effective deterrent to any would be murderers, gangsters and other unwanted members of society. Therefore, the death penalty should be sufficently unpleasant enough to thoroughly deter this people from commiting crimes against people or property.

Proposal 1: The execution should be carried out using good old fashioned hanging, nothing is more environmentally friendly than a good bit of rope and wood for the gallows, all renewable materials of course!

Proposal 2: Executions should be carried out in public for the most despicable crimes, by charging for admission, capital punishment could actually pay for itself or even make a profit!

Proposal 3: As my nation and my region operate under the British Legal system, a High Court Judge should be the only official to pass the death sentence. This is comparable to a Supreme Court Judge under the American Legal system.

Many thanks for your time in reading my post.

Yours Sincerely
Grand Duke Albert Hanover
Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 , concluded: "...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.

The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

Self-defence may be used to justify in some cases the taking of life by state officials, for example when a country is locked in warfare (international or civil) or when law enforcement officials must act immediately to save their own lives or those of others. Even in such situations the use of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted legal safeguards to inhibit abuse. This use of force is aimed at countering the immediate damage resulting from force used by others.

However the death penalty is not an act of self-defence against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could be dealt with equally well by less harsh means.

Why should the tax payers be forced to pay even more taxes to support the need of new prisions. Why should they be forced to pay more taxes to simply keep a person in jail for life?

If a man is condemmed to prision for his entire life then why should he be a burden apon the whole nation?

The Penalty of Death is a human characteristic of fixing things, that is why it has always been in our history since the dawn of time.

What I'm saying here it this... if a man is going to spend his life doing nothing but sleeping and eating in a small room with bars, why should we TORTURE him by doing this? End is life, he had the ability to determine what was right and what was wrong and he made that choice.
As long as a prisoner remains alive he or she can hope for rehabilitation or for exoneration in the case of a prisoner who is subsequently found to be innocent. Execution removes the possibility of compensation for judicial error or rehabilitation of the offender.

The death penalty is a unique form of punishment entailing conditions not present in imprisonment: the cruelty of the execution itself, and the cruelty of being forced to wait on death row -- often for many years -- contemplating one's intended execution.



The Death Penalty is Expensive.

Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.

A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment.
In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.
Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child
Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.


"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

Capital Punishment is not justifiable.

Perhaps it would be better to think that taxpayers aren't paying for a prisoner to live in jail, rather for their own safety and protection from the prisoner.

It could be considered that the death penalty is a way of avoiding just punishment. Many people believe that a better punishment is to be deprived of freedom than to die.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.
Can you back these claims up with facts?

Dead men cannot commit rape or murder.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.
Can you back these claims up with facts?
Its the reason the death penalty costs so much. The cost for the electricity to electrocute someone dosen't cost millions of dollars, and neither does the drug cocktail.

See, as you say in New York the cost of an execution is about three times that of life imprisonment. New York hasn't executed anyone sicne 1976. It is life imprisonment with tons of extra appeals. Those appeals and endless loops jack up the costs.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.
Can you back these claims up with facts?
Its the reason the death penalty costs so much. The cost for the electricity to electrocute someone dosen't cost millions of dollars, and neither does the drug cocktail.

See, as you say in New York the cost of an execution is about three times that of life imprisonment. New York hasn't executed anyone sicne 1976. It is life imprisonment with tons of extra appeals. Those appeals and endless loops jack up the costs.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/65492/page=UN_proposal/start=35

The Ban of Death Penalty Proposal has been renewed.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.

Exhaustive appeal is necessary if you want to be sure about guilt before killing someone. Those sentenced to death, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, also will tend to use every avenue of appeal, regardless of their case's merit. That is why capital punishment done properly is so expensive. If you shortcut the process, you risk executing the innocent.

With a life term, this is not so bad. A prisoner who maintains his innocence doesn't have to fight against time to prove his innocence, and so you have less of an appeal flood.

Dead men cannot commit rape or murder.

Neither can those in jail... the difference is in not putting blood on the hands of society. Rape is also not a capital or maximum-punishment crime for most of us.

Just as in medicine, prevention is better than cure, with crime, attacking the causes of crime, like poverty, social inequality and unemployment, works much better than trying to deter it with harsh punishment.

Capital punishment is only so expensive in the USA because of the way its applied. In a lot of states, you can go through dozens of appeals before you actually get executed, and a lot of the time the death penalty is essentially life in prison. If it was made efficient (not like the USA's judicial system), it would cost less than life in prison.

Exhaustive appeal is necessary if you want to be sure about guilt before killing someone. Those sentenced to death, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, also will tend to use every avenue of appeal, regardless of their case's merit. That is why capital punishment done properly is so expensive. If you shortcut the process, you risk executing the innocent.

With a life term, this is not so bad. A prisoner who maintains his innocence doesn't have to fight against time to prove his innocence, and so you have less of an appeal flood.
A lot of people don't want to execute everyone though. We don't need fifty trials and appeals to make sure that Osama or the Beltway sniper is guilty.

A lot of people don't want to execute everyone though. We don't need fifty trials and appeals to make sure that Osama or the Beltway sniper is guilty.

You cant make judical systems that differentiate. A fair system is builton the base that everyone is equal before the law, this includes terrorists and murderers as having a chance to prove their innocence - even if they have no chance to succeed, not every murder is obviously a crime born out of hate. If you make differences betwee npeople, then you dont need law at all.

dadgaf9
You cant make judical systems that differentiate. A fair system is builton the base that everyone is equal before the law, this includes terrorists and murderers as having a chance to prove their innocence - even if they have no chance to succeed, not every murder is obviously a crime born out of hate. If you make differences betwee npeople, then you dont need law at all.
And they should be able to prove their innocence. If, however, they are proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, then there's no need to have dozens of extra, useless judicial proceedings. Some modifications could be made so that the death penalty would not have its curent faults. Trying to pass a resolution that would ban it always is ignoring that possibility.

dadgaf9
You cant make judical systems that differentiate. A fair system is builton the base that everyone is equal before the law, this includes terrorists and murderers as having a chance to prove their innocence - even if they have no chance to succeed, not every murder is obviously a crime born out of hate. If you make differences betwee npeople, then you dont need law at all.
And they should be able to prove their innocence. If, however, they are proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, then there's no need to have dozens of extra, useless judicial proceedings. Some modifications could be made so that the death penalty would not have its curent faults. Trying to pass a resolution that would ban it always is ignoring that possibility.
How do you determine when there is "no shadow of a doubt"?? Can you honestly say that humans can determine that? Opening up a judical system to these kind of "possibilities" opens up gates for unfair treatment. This is unaceptable, not to forget that death penalty is violating human rights as it is. Never will a judical system made and comprised of humans be infallible. That is reserved for God alone.

dadgaf9
You cant make judical systems that differentiate. A fair system is builton the base that everyone is equal before the law, this includes terrorists and murderers as having a chance to prove their innocence - even if they have no chance to succeed, not every murder is obviously a crime born out of hate. If you make differences betwee npeople, then you dont need law at all.
And they should be able to prove their innocence. If, however, they are proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, then there's no need to have dozens of extra, useless judicial proceedings. Some modifications could be made so that the death penalty would not have its curent faults. Trying to pass a resolution that would ban it always is ignoring that possibility.
How do you determine when there is "no shadow of a doubt"?? Can you honestly say that humans can determine that? Opening up a judical system to these kind of "possibilities" opens up gates for unfair treatment. This is unaceptable, not to forget that death penalty is violating human rights as it is. Never will a judical system made and comprised of humans be infallible. That is reserved for God alone.
Yes, I do think humans can do that.

I'm not talking about giving OJ Simpson the death penalty because he was found guilty in a highly disputed case. Mass murderers like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Osama Bin Laden are the ones I'm talking about in particular.

With today's technology, we can be sure that the person is guilty or not. So, that is no longer an aurgument against the dealth penalty. Next?

That's simply not true. You are talking rubbish, and simply highlighting your lack of knowledge on the subject. There are always going to be cases where someone found guilty is eventually proven innocent, regardless of how successful we foolishly claim the process actually is.

Best example I can find is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3413829.stm) where up to 5000 cases are to be reviewed of parents accused of killing their young. This proves injustices do occur, and occur often.

It's you talking the rubbish and your ignorance on the subject! :roll: In this case that YOU point out, they were only accused, not even tried in court! Even if they were tried, they probably wouldnt have received the death penalty. What does this have to do with the dealth penalty?

Also, banning the dealth penalty wont stop accusations. Of course, next you'll want to ban those?

As far as technology, it will prove someone commited a murder and tried to hide the fact - that is my point!
:!:

If the Death Penalty is already violating that "Human Rights" amendment or whatever it is that keeps being brought up, this resolution is not needed, as it can not be done already.

Fact is that it is being done, despite the violations, since some countries consdier it their right to decide whether or not to use the death penalty. A specific moratorium regarding this issue is neccessary to make it crystal clear that the international community will not tolerate the use of this form of punishment.

As far as technology, it will prove someone commited a murder and tried to hide the fact - that is my point!

You wildly overestimate both technology and the resources, especially in the form of money, available to both law enforcement and judicial systems. Or you've been watching too much CSI.

Take DNA testing for example. It's expensive, easily contaminated, and not applicable in all cases. For example, if a man stabs his wife to death in his own home, then rapes her. How do you prove that with DNA evidence? You'll find the guy's DNA all over the corpse, and all over the crime scene, but he lives there, so that doesn't mean a thing. You'll find the guy's semen in the victim, but she's his wife, so that doesn't mean rape. DNA can also degrade very quickly, so it can't always be used. And there can be an reasonable explanation for how the DNA got there, even if the circumstances might be incriminating.

DNA can sometimes prove a criminal's identity, but not always, and it's often only circumstantial evidence.

-dp-

-tp-

Dead men cannot commit rape or murder.

Neither can those in jail... the difference is in not putting blood on the hands of society. Rape is also not a capital or maximum-punishment crime for most of us.

Just as in medicine, prevention is better than cure, with crime, attacking the causes of crime, like poverty, social inequality and unemployment, works much better than trying to deter it with harsh punishment.

Absolutely wrong.

Criminals in jail can escape; maybe not as often to cause duress, but the point still remains, if you are dead, you cannot kill. It is a proven fact.

Criminals who have decided to take a life, without reason, have done so on their own accord. They themselves decided to step outside the law, and they must be punished for it. Rewarding them with a life-long vacation is not a viable option.

I am rather confused by your statement of "not putting blood on the hands of society', while infact it is the criminals you are trying to protect have already done so.

I ask you a question, Kelssek, would you approve of a murderer who has sat through classes on how to control his anger and urge to kill to babysit your children?

For your children's sake, I hope not.

Dead men cannot commit rape or murder.

Neither can those in jail... the difference is in not putting blood on the hands of society. Rape is also not a capital or maximum-punishment crime for most of us.

Just as in medicine, prevention is better than cure, with crime, attacking the causes of crime, like poverty, social inequality and unemployment, works much better than trying to deter it with harsh punishment.

Absolutely wrong.

Criminals in jail can escape; maybe not as often to cause duress, but the point still remains, if you are dead, you cannot kill. It is a proven fact.

Criminals who have decided to take a life, without reason, have done so on their own accord. They themselves decided to step outside the law, and they must be punished for it. Rewarding them with a life-long vacation is not a viable option.

I am rather confused by your statement of "not putting blood on the hands of society', while infact it is the criminals you are trying to protect have already done so.

I ask you a question, Kelssek, would you approve of a murderer who has sat through classes on how to control his anger and urge to kill to babysit your children?

For your children's sake, I hope not.
Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who were innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.

It is also impossible to determine whether those executed would actually have repeated the crimes of which they were convicted. Execution entails taking the lives of prisoners to prevent hypothetical future crimes many of which would never have been committed anyway. It negates the the principle of rehabilitation of offenders.

There are those who argue that imprisonment alone has not prevented individuals who have been imprisoned from offending again once set free. The answer is to review the parole procedures in place with a view to preventing relapses into crime. The answer is certainly not to increase the number of executions.

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.

As long as a prisoner remains alive he or she can hope for rehabilitation or for exoneration in the case of a prisoner who is subsequently found to be innocent. Execution removes the possibility of compensation for judicial error or rehabilitation of the offender.

The death penalty is a unique form of punishment entailing conditions not present in imprisonment: the cruelty of the execution itself, and the cruelty of being forced to wait on death row -- often for many years -- contemplating one's intended execution.

haven't read through all the post so forgive me if this has been stated before, but the death penalty might be required by the religious laws of some faiths. To try to enforce a ban on this would be an infringement of the religious freedom of peoples of these faiths.

haven't read through all the post so forgive me if this has been stated before, but the death penalty might be required by the religious laws of some faiths. To try to enforce a ban on this would be an infringement of the religious freedom of peoples of these faiths.
Even Religions are not allowed to violate human rights that all UN Nations pledged to abide by when the Universal Bill of Human Rights was passed. No religion has the right to violate these laws for any reason.

@Gigatron,

I´m in favour of freedom :wink: . I believe in the RIGHT of any UN-member to decide about its internal affairs by itself. That includes the judicial system.

@Gigatron,

I´m in favour of freedom :wink: . I believe in the RIGHT of any UN-member to decide about its internal affairs by itself. That includes the judicial system.
That is correct - up to the point where it violates Human Rights.

The death penalty isn´t a violation of human rights. Who kills forfeits his right to life.

Eye for an eye punishment is all well and good, but where does it end? There are fates WORSE than death. Rapists... do we punish them by raping them too? A man finds pleasure in torturing but not killing his victims... we we torture him too? Do we steal from thieves? What about assault? If somebody breaks the leg of another person, do we then proceed to break his leg too? Ah yes, THOSE are immoral punishments :roll:. Killing is wrong no matter what your reason. Who is to say that the murderer didn't think that his victim 'deserved' his/her 'punishment'? That is afterall the reasoning behind the explanations for acts of murder used by the governments in question.

As a nation without crime, or indeed prisons, Mattikistan has no need of such a penalty. And as a nation of people with any sort of morals, we banned capital punishment long ago. We urge other nations to do the same.

A murderer is still a human and therefore should have access to equal human rights. There is no way in which you can 'forfeit' them, every human is entitled to various rights and one of those should be that they will not be murdered by the state.

I ask you a question, Kelssek, would you approve of a murderer who has sat through classes on how to control his anger and urge to kill to babysit your children?

For your children's sake, I hope not.

I don't have children. But if the murderer was a friend of mine or a relative I trusted, why not? Anyway, your analogy is pretty unfair because I'm sure you wouldn't let any random stranger babysit your kids, even if he produces one of those police documents to certify that he has never committed a crime.

If you really believe that lust for revenge has a place in the judicial system, you are as unfit for political office as the politician you named yourself after, and it's not surprising, I guess, since George W Bush executed more people as Texas governor than anyone else in the history of the US.

I´m in favour of freedom . I believe in the RIGHT of any UN-member to decide about its internal affairs by itself. That includes the judicial system.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with sovereignity. Don't play the "freedom" bluff here.

And, it's a hazy line to say the least. The resolution "Rights and Duties of UN States" clearly says all members' sovereignity is subject to "international law", meaning UN resolutions. And there's been precedent for UN intervention in the judicial system of its members - the Universal Bill of Rights, specifically the bit that says everyone must be presumed innocent until proven guilty comes to mind.

And if we've decided to ban slavery through UN resolution because the majority agrees that it's a barbaric practice, how come trying to do the same thing with the death penalty is a violation of your "freedom"? Because, by the strictest interpretation, that right never really existed and is subject to any resolution which can pass.

dp

You´re wrong. You can forfeit rights. When you commit a crime like stealing you forfeit the right of freedom of movement and the freedom to choose your work - which is after are also protected rights.
And if you commit murderer forfeits the right to life.

We are not forcing states to impose the death penalty.
We are only using it in extreme cases. But we want to maintain the right of any sovereign state to impose it against the worst criminals who threaten our people.

We have started a massive world-wide campaign to get this proposal to quorum. All Delegates of nations active within the last 24 hours, up to the letter K, have received a telegram asking for approval of this proposal.

We hope the hours of work it took to send all these telegrams, one by one, will help, getting the remaining 100 or so required approvals.

You´re wrong. You can forfeit rights. When you commit a crime like stealing you forfeit the right of freedom of movement and the freedom to choose your work - which is after are also protected rights. And if you commit murderer forfeits the right to life.

Yes, you can be deprived of your rights, but only under due process of law, and even convicts retain most of their rights. But this is not really about rights, this is about cruelty, and what we can consider acceptable. The death penalty is cruel, barbaric and unacceptable, and the state must not have the right to kill.

But we want to maintain the right of any sovereign state to impose it against the worst criminals who threaten our people.

That would be more convincing if your sovereignity actually existed, but it doesn't, a harsh reality I'm sure the 40-hour work week brought home to you. If the majority decides so, your sovereignity is worth as much as dust. You don't have that right.

Please approve this resolution to rid the world of the barbaric act of killing humans as punishment - which makes the governments of nations which utilize this form of penalty, murderers themselves.

So, how will you stop countries that are not member of the UN?

So, how will you stop countries that are not member of the UN?

We can't and there's no way to, but no UN resolution has any effect on non-member nations anyway, so this point is moot.

As far as technology, it will prove someone commited a murder and tried to hide the fact - that is my point!

You wildly overestimate both technology and the resources, especially in the form of money, available to both law enforcement and judicial systems. Or you've been watching too much CSI.

Take DNA testing for example. It's expensive, easily contaminated, and not applicable in all cases. For example, if a man stabs his wife to death in his own home, then rapes her. How do you prove that with DNA evidence? You'll find the guy's DNA all over the corpse, and all over the crime scene, but he lives there, so that doesn't mean a thing. You'll find the guy's semen in the victim, but she's his wife, so that doesn't mean rape. DNA can also degrade very quickly, so it can't always be used. And there can be an reasonable explanation for how the DNA got there, even if the circumstances might be incriminating.

DNA can sometimes prove a criminal's identity, but not always, and it's often only circumstantial evidence.

DNA costs have & will continue to come down. Also, it will continue to improve. It WILL continue to be used by law enforecement. As far as your scenario, big deal, there are always exceptions. In that case, the man wouldnt get the death penalty then.
My point is that we should not outlaw the death penalty, rather we should use it where the person is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The problem is not with the law but with the application of it.

Execution is the legal way of the government to dispose of their "difficult" citizens. It is easier to just kill them instead of having to rehabilitate them. Gigatron does not have death penalty either and crime is non-existant. The argument that death penalty is a good deterrent, is invalid. :?:

1) I dont recall seeing an actaul question asking about a death penalty in nation states. Perhaps I missed it?

2) You on have 36 million citizens. How much crime can you have? Especially with 96% tax rates which you can spend on the police force. :idea:

My point is that we should not outlaw the death penalty, rather we should use it where the person is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Firstly, how do you define reasonable doubt? This is a subjective interpretation on top of the fact that "reasonable doubt" is already subjective itself.

Secondly, you seem to have two levels of guilt - guilty, and very guilty. This is a shades of grey thing being applied to a black-and-white issue of guilt, and it just doesn't work, because an accused is either guilty, or not guilty. You can't put a man in jail and say "We're not going to execute him, but we're going to keep him in jail because we're sure he's guilty, but not VERY sure.", because if you have any doubts at all as to his guilt, he has to go free.

The crooks know that the worst that could happen to them is Jail so they have no reason to fear getting caught.

Canada does not have capital punishment, and yet crime rates are relatively low. There is also no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.

Also when we think they have been rehabilitated they just go out and cause more havoc... But I do think that if they commit bad crimes including intentional murder they deserve to die. A life for a life.

Successful rehabilitation means that they DON'T repeat their crimes.

And isn't an execution just a legal way of commiting an intentional, premeditated, needless murder?

:idea: Definition of Murder:

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Notice it speaks to the law. It cant be called murder if it is legal. Besides it is an act of penalty therefore not an act of brutality unlike what the murdered did. :!:

if you kill a person because they killed then therefore you are no better then him!

Notice it speaks to the law. It cant be called murder if it is legal. Besides it is an act of penalty therefore not an act of brutality unlike what the murdered (sic) did.

Then I supposed you'd oppose the death penalty if the person in question gave his victim a painless death?

And I don't want to have to rehash the argument again, but the death penalty is considered murder in countries which have banned it, both from a legal and moral point of view.

My point is that we should not outlaw the death penalty, rather we should use it where the person is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Firstly, how do you define reasonable doubt? This is a subjective interpretation on top of the fact that "reasonable doubt" is already subjective itself.

Secondly, you seem to have two levels of guilt - guilty, and very guilty. This is a shades of grey thing being applied to a black-and-white issue of guilt, and it just doesn't work, because an accused is either guilty, or not guilty. You can't put a man in jail and say "We're not going to execute him, but we're going to keep him in jail because we're sure he's guilty, but not VERY sure.", because if you have any doubts at all as to his guilt, he has to go free.

1) Reasonable doubt is defined by the judge and jury of our peers. Sure it is subjective but so is most things in life. Just because it is subjective doesnt mean it should not occur. :roll:

2) No, you misread me. I just have one level of guilt. Either he did it or not. If he did it - he deserves his just reward. :?

My point is that we should not outlaw the death penalty, rather we should use it where the person is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Firstly, how do you define reasonable doubt? This is a subjective interpretation on top of the fact that "reasonable doubt" is already subjective itself.

Secondly, you seem to have two levels of guilt - guilty, and very guilty. This is a shades of grey thing being applied to a black-and-white issue of guilt, and it just doesn't work, because an accused is either guilty, or not guilty. You can't put a man in jail and say "We're not going to execute him, but we're going to keep him in jail because we're sure he's guilty, but not VERY sure.", because if you have any doubts at all as to his guilt, he has to go free.

1) Reasonable doubt is defined by the judge and jury of our peers. Sure it is subjective but so is most things in life. Just because it is subjective doesnt mean it should not occur. :roll:

2) No, you misread me. I just have one level of guilt. Either he did it or not. If he did it - he deserves his just reward. :?

Notice it speaks to the law. It cant be called murder if it is legal. Besides it is an act of penalty therefore not an act of brutality unlike what the murdered (sic) did.

Then I supposed you'd oppose the death penalty if the person in question gave his victim a painless death?

And I don't want to have to rehash the argument again, but the death penalty is considered murder in countries which have banned it, both from a legal and moral point of view.

By that reasoning, you would be FOR the death penalty if we executed the guilty painlessly! Uh, wait a minute, we already do that in the name of humanity! :roll:

And who cares about other nations? There are plenty who have the death penalty as well.

if you kill a person because they killed then therefore you are no better then him!

If you dont provide just punishment, you offer deservice to society.
In you statement - Who is "you"? Society is an entity that is charged with carrying out the penalty for crimes. You cant compare a person to society. And dont forget the fact that the person commited murder. Society does not commit murder - see my last post. :arrow:

Reasonable doubt is defined by the judge and jury of our peers. Sure it is subjective but so is most things in life. Just because it is subjective doesnt mean it should not occur

We already have two layers of subjectivity and you add another layer. Cack.

In the end, "reasonable doubt" is an arbitrary decision and it can vary from case to case. I'm not saying that because of this judicial systems should be dismantled, I'm pointing out that you must always keep in mind that all systems are by nature flawed.

The fact that Illinois was forced to suspend all executions because several men on its death row were found to be innocent speaks volumes - the United States has one of the best judicial systems in the RW, and if it can fail, what about those with more grevious flaws?

I just have one level of guilt. Either he did it or not. If he did it - he deserves his just reward.

So why do you also say:

My point is that we should not outlaw the death penalty, rather we should use it where the person is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The problem is not with the law but with the application of it.

Maybe I'm misreading here, and I'm sorry if I am, since it is quite ambiguous, but the other possible interpretation is "We should make the death penalty mandatory for anyone found guilty of murder" and I don't think you're saying that.

If you don't provide just punishment, you offer deservice (sic) to society.

I agree with you on that, but in my opinion, the death penalty is unjust and killing in the name of society adds further disservice on top of it.

I don't care if the death penalty is legal or not, and thus technically making it not murder. In my view, it qualifies as murder and should be outlawed, as many nations already have done.

A premeditated, needless killing devoid of even a hint of benefit to anyone - to me, that should be murder.

You cant compare a person to society. And dont forget the fact that the person commited murder. Society does not commit murder - see my last post. :arrow:

Yes it does. Or what else would you call state sponsored genocide? I'm thinking Hitler, Pol pot and the hundred of other dictators.

A democratic society that allows the death penalty is no better than them, IMO.