NationStates Jolt Archive

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!.

I've never said that and I don't follow your reasoning. In fact I think I've said before that even if it were painless, I would still object because the convict still dies.

One of the drugs used in lethal injection is known to cause severe pain, and is injected in last because of that. If the dosage is insufficient in the first two, it's possible that the victim may still be concious and feel the pain. So there are doubts as to how painless lethal injection actually is, and in any case, it's hardly carried out universally. Most countries with the death penalty still execute by hanging or firing squad.

it is an act of penalty therefore not an act of brutality

Just because it's punishment, it can't be considered brutal? I think you know well enough that's not true.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/85250/page=UN_proposal/start=0

Please approve the UN Proposal to Ban the Death Penalty!

Thank you.

(This is a world-wide campaign to reach quorum with this proposal)



(I never thought this one would end up at the top of the list hehe)

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.

Difference between Dictatorial and Democratic systems... A dictatorial sovereignty can act against the will of the people and therefore it is not "society" perpetrating the act, but the will of a single dictator.... In a democratic system the act is the will of the moral and ethical beliefs of the society in all. In a dictatorial system it generally ends up being applied based on ethnic group, religious affilliation or political beliefs; in a democratic system it is applied as punishment and penalty for the perpetration of a specific crime. In a dictatorial system it is applied by the will of a single dictator outside of justice.... within a democratic system it is applied by a representative peers of the convicted within the justice system.

As for "vengeance".... it is the purpose of justice to enact vengeance on wrongdoers for crimes committed...... "vengeance" is "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution." Vengeance is only wrong when enacted outside of the justice of the legal system, not in it.... If your justice system's purpose is not to enact retrobution and penalty upon the wrongdoer, then it is not justice.....

I'm on the fence with the death penalty issue. I'm not really sure whether I support it or not.

But, I do know this resolution would never work in real life. You can't really force this kind of law onto nations. Think about all the nations such as Saudi Arabia, who believe the death penalty is supported by islamic law.

Too many nations strongly support the death penalty, and a UN resolution wouldn't be able to stop it. You're a moron to think you can legislate morality. It should be up to the nations to decide how to punish their citizens.

The UN should deal with international issues, not issues within a nation. It seems the UN is trying to force beliefs on people, such as abortion and the death penalty. I happen to support a womans right to choose, but I do not support the UN forcing nations to have no say in their politics.

I'm on the fence with the death penalty issue. I'm not really sure whether I support it or not.

But, I do know this resolution would never work in real life. You can't really force this kind of law onto nations. Think about all the nations such as Saudi Arabia, who believe the death penalty is supported by islamic law.

Too many nations strongly support the death penalty, and a UN resolution wouldn't be able to stop it. You're a moron to think you can legislate morality. It should be up to the nations to decide how to punish their citizens.

The UN should deal with international issues, not issues within a nation. It seems the UN is trying to force beliefs on people, such as abortion and the death penalty. I happen to support a womans right to choose, but I do not support the UN forcing nations to have no say in their politics.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/85250/page=UN_proposal/start=0

Please approve the UN Proposal to Ban the Death Penalty!

Thank you.

(This is a world-wide campaign to reach quorum with this proposal)



(I never thought this one would end up at the top of the list hehe)

And has no chance of reaching quorum.

We'll see.. getting votes pretty quickly now.

I urge you all to support this proposal!
It's only 4 approvals away of reaching quorum, but the UN is updating soon, we must act fast to support justice and human rights.

Support for the death penalty seems to be support for revenge, and it serves no detterence whatsoever.

The statistics clearly show that in the US states without the death penalty not only have lower murder rates, but also the gap in those statistics seems to be widening (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169) One could extrapolate this then that for those countries allowing this penalty, removing it might in fact lower their murder rates.

Certainly I can see where the knowledge of the possibility of such a verdict can actually be incentive for a criminal to resist arrest harder thereby endangering the police and the general public as they attempt to escape at any cost.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the desire for revenge. And there are several people whom I would not shed a tear to see them executed. The Ted Bundy's of the world for example.

However the only way I think anyone could possibly support the ultimate penalty is if they have absoute certainty in the infallibility of their justice systems. Most, however, are very far from that standard no matter how hard they try or how well intentioned the officers of the court may be.

As long as there is no chance for a convicted murderer to return to the street, then society is protected as the law is intended to do. But also this provides the possibility of redress should it turn out that a judicial error has been made.

-Z-

On that note.. quorum has been reached, my world-wide campaign of telegramming every UN Delegate of over 2500 regions was successful. I hope the world has progressed past its middle-age where "an eye for an eye" was modern. Today we have a better understanding and higher value for human life and even those who might deserve death in your eyes, can be rehabilitated in most cases. As long as you cant give people life, don't be so quick to demand their death.


Thank you everyone who supported the proposal! Now get the votes in to get this Ban of the Death Penalty through the rough waters of blood-lusty conservatism and vengeance.

Success! It's at quorum!

After much thought KNS has decided to support your ban. We have put all criminals to hard labor for life dedicated to working for our society.

The death penalty is just for the highest cases (murder,genocide,terrorism,etc) used in discretion this is an effective and neccessary punishment to rid the world of these things. You kill someone...then it will come back to you.....You killed people...now its your turn. It also stands as a warning to others of the sort.

Support for the death penalty seems to be support for revenge, and it serves no detterence whatsoever.

*Some may feel this way but you've missed some very good arguments FOR a death penalty.*

The statistics clearly show that in the US states without the death penalty not only have lower murder rates, but also the gap in those statistics seems to be widening (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169) One could extrapolate this then that for those countries allowing this penalty, removing it might in fact lower their murder rates.

*There are more reasons for murder than the state having a death penalty or not. Curious, how would you explain Michigan or on the reverse, South Dakota? Even if removing the death penalty would lower the murder rate, many things in life are difficult when doing the right thing!*

Certainly I can see where the knowledge of the possibility of such a verdict can actually be incentive for a criminal to resist arrest harder thereby endangering the police and the general public as they attempt to escape at any cost.

*By that reasoning, lets not have any penalties!*

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the desire for revenge. And there are several people whom I would not shed a tear to see them executed. The Ted Bundy's of the world for example.

However the only way I think anyone could possibly support the ultimate penalty is if they have absoute certainty in the infallibility of their justice systems. Most, however, are very far from that standard no matter how hard they try or how well intentioned the officers of the court may be.

As long as there is no chance for a convicted murderer to return to the street, then society is protected as the law is intended to do. But also this provides the possibility of redress should it turn out that a judicial error has been made.

*Since we are as infallible as you say, there exists a possibility to escape and kill again!*

-Z-

Thank you everyone who supported the proposal! Now get the votes in to get this Ban of the Death Penalty through the rough waters of blood-lusty conservatism and vengeance.

Do you really believe conservatives are blood-lusty?
Do you really believe they like to carry out the death penalty?

There are many things in life we dont like but you still need to do them!

Success! It's at quorum!

Last post on this from me...

I'm curiuos about two things: :?:

1) How many of you against the death penalty are for abortion?

2) What have you done for "victims rights"?

Actually, the criminal should suffer because they suffer a short while whilst losing their life, then whatever the heck happens to them we don't know...I propose that a new order be brought forward: For any murder of a victim who is under the age of 50, the criminal should spend equal time to the rest of the natural life the victim would have had (excluding disease, cancer, etc), in jail. If someone over 50 is murdered, then the criminal should remain in jail for however long the victim had lived their own life for.

E.g.
Victim=6 years old
Cost=Very young, much more life ahead
Criminal's punishment=Spends about 70-80 years in jail (the criminal probably will not survive past those years).

E.g.2
Victim=98 years old
Cost=They were very old and living well (or perhaps not, their health condition may have been deteriorating), and they were an asset to any family they had, a legacy.
Criminal's punishment=Spends about 98 years in jail (the criminal might be about 130-150 years old by the end of this time...)

Or if someone was 50 years old when killed, the criminal would spend 50 years in jail.

This makes the criminal realise what they have done by the rest of their life wasted. No revenge. Just a lesson in compassion - the criminals would need to learn what it will be like for the rest of life for friends/loved ones of the victim, so the criminal spends life in jail. So, whenever a murder is done by a criminal, life in jail.

The death penalty is too small...it seems rather the easy way out.

Well, that is what the spiritual clergy and the population of Eukaryote have come to (the new version of the justice system I proposed), especially after extensive surveys which resulted in some of the surveyors getting punched in the face for being annoying by asking the same person the same survey several times from different viewpoints...(we warned the surveyors...just tick boxes...).

Banning the death penalty? And with all the right-wingers on this site, the motion will pass! I'm leaving the UN, this is ridiculous...the death penalty should be left up to indivicual countries!

Don't leave the UN if this resolution passes, as you're still allowed one form of Capital Punishment even if this passes--life in prison without parole. A lot of people don't realise it's a death penalty, (and a VERY effective one at that) so it'll still be allowed.

Think of this, you can sentence a person to die by forcing them to live in a cell for the rest of their life, you don't have to actually kill the person (just keep him in the cell until he dies), if you discover he's innocent you can let him go, and it pleases all the lefties in your nation while at the same time ensuring the offender will never do another crime.

Simply put, life in prison without parole is the perfect death penalty nowadays. No wonder it's my nations favorite.

But if we ban the death penalty, won't that also ban the right to put a person in jail for life? Or say a person is sick and sentenced to a moldy jail cell for 50 years, is that not the death penalty? Now obviously, the said criminal was not killed out right by the government or the people supporting the government for that matter, but rather extenuating circumstances. For that matter, any criminal who was killed or died while in prison could be said to have been given a death sentence. Admittedly, the death was an unfortunate side affect of the person's incarceration, but are you to punish the government for such an unfortunate occurance? No, rather it would be written off as an unforeseen accident which couldn't possibly been avoided. So then do we ban incarceration as a way to completely protect the innocent government from any negative repercussions of its punishing its criminals? I should hope not. I believe that this resolution, though, perhaps, with good intentions, is too vague in what it defines as the death penalty to be completely accepted by the ENTIRE UN. Define, please, exactly what captial punishment is before you consign us all to the whims of a nebulous law.

Read the definition of death penalty in an English dictionary. It is the execution for a crime.

I'm against the death penalty!

I'm against the death penalty too, but I'm also against the U.N. violating national sovereignty. (I know, I know, I played the old "national sovereignty" card.)

Right now the majority of voters is against the ban. If it stays like this, it will be a sad day for mankind and the triumph of conservatism.

Right now the majority of voters is against the ban. If it stays like this, it will be a sad day for mankind and the triumph of conservatism.

It will be a sad day for the triumph of conservatism? *giggles*

I am with Gigatron 100% on this UN issue, the death penalty should be banned. It will be banned in the region of ishwanzia.

I say nay to banning the death penalty. For one thing, it clears up prisons. That sounds mean and I know it is, but it's the truth. I think murderers deserve the death penalty. It might contradict the whole right to life thing, but the death penalty makes sense. Why should the punnishment be less than the crime? The only thing wrong with the death penalty would be if nobody knew about it. But of course that's not the case.

To quote Stephistan from her 'Ban Death Penalty' thread:

Yes, Ban it folks.. and here are just a few reasons why!
BAN THIS! (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html)
If you like.. I have more reasons!

TVRS07 finds it to be quite excellent that this proposal passed. We believe that the death penalty is only a tool for revenge and we will not stoop to this level.

OOC: BTW Steph, I used that same exact flash cartoon (Mark Fiore is the greatest!) to help write my persuasive essay for English on banning the death penalty

OOC:

Whilst I personally have no objection in banning the death penalty I am voting against this resolution on the basis that we already have a daily issue for this. I really feel that if a daily issue exists for a topic there is no reason for the UN to legislate, it is in effect a local issue. To make matters worse, any nation can simply overturn a resolution such as this by clicking a button and this makes a mockery of the NSUN which, is one of the reasons some nations have no respect for the body.

In addition, if we continue to legislate on daily issues we erode the very fabric by which we define our nations. The daily issues is the method by which we steer our nations towards our own political ideologies and is one of the fundamental aspects of the game. By continuing on this path, the NS world will become a very dull place, mostly because every nation will be more or less the same and personally I feel the diversity of ideologies is what makes NS a great game.

If we adopt this policy, I feel it will become a great deal clearer what is a local issue compared to an international one and will also ensure that we do not have contradictions in local and international law as is currently the case.

I urge other nations to follow this example and make it clear that by voting against this resolution, we are ensuring the long term playability and enjoyment of NS.

Im totally against banning the death penalty and voted that way. If someone can go out of their way purposely to murder another living human being, be it one or a serial crime, then there is only one course of action.

Why put them in prision? They have murdered a person, they cannot be forgiven and they cannot learn from the deed they have commited. Prision should be a preventative action allowing the guilty time to see the wrongs they have committed. (This however cannot apply to the mentally ill).

Any Community Who base Their Morality upon the belief that Government
has the right to demand a life is Morally and Politically Corrupt

I am against banning the death penalty not because I believe in it (I am in fact against it entirely) but because the wording of this resolution seeks to define the death penalty as "violating the right to life," which in its current wording could be used to address issues that define life. It also does not adequately address the legal and social issues that a total and immediate ban on this form of punishment would cause. Several terms are potentially contentious in this resolution as well, because the author assumes that "mentally disabled" and "juvenile" defendants are universally defined in the United Nations. This is also not the case.

Hak-Generale and the region it represents proposes that a new, reworded resolution be brought before the UN for consideration. In its present state, we cannot endorse nor advocate for it.

I agree that the death penalty is a fair and just punishment, sometimes. I voted with this resolution, however, as it prevents mentally challenged people and juveniles, who we shouldn't be killing off, from getting the death penalty. A mentally challenged person would not know exactly what they were doing, and a juvenile still has a good chance of being reformed. We should vote for this resolution not to spare the criminals, but to spare those who are wrongly convicted, or underaged.

I don't really have an opinion regarding capital punishment, but I think it would be nothing short of hypocritical for the UN to ban it while on the other hand they support abortion. To defend the sanctity of life, you have to defend it on all fronts. Not mearly when it's conveniant.

Leynier votes against this resolution. As per Leynier's Constitution (http://home.earthlink.net/~vrwcagent/leynier/leynier_constitution.html), execution is reserved for the crime of treason, and shall remain the punishment for treason regardless of the success or failure of this resolution. If the UN wants to do something about it, let them.

Anti Pharisaism is preparing a statement on this debate: gigatron is hereby advised to develop a strong, well developed and supported argument on this issue.

Below is the debate as is appeared in the North Pacific.

Death penalty is for wimps.

Much more fun to prolong life in a well equipped dungeon, that allows the offended party to visit and partake in the action, always making sure the proper care is given after each session, for maximum muti..eh, mutual enjoyment.

If death penalty is to be used at all, then dole it out in equal measure to all felons. No more silly parking tickets and such - off with their heads ASAP!

Go bang your gables!
/Judge Dredd

Anti Pharisaism (AP) is cruel to those nationstates unable to clearly express themselves. Do not take offense, consider it negative rienforcement to bad statements and thought processes.

The proceeding is long, but worth reading, it outlines gigatrons thought process, well lack thereof to be more specific: In it gigatron makes unsupported claims, calls all conservatives murderers, and lies about previous UN Resolutions.

Starts out with the resolution......

AP:
Before Anti Pharisaism replies to this rubbish, it would like to hear an intelligent argument as to why Capital Punishment should be abolished.

Rhetorical ranting is not sufficient.

Mikitivity:

Can you return the favour and explain why it is necessary?

I think both sides are going to have to rely upon rhetoric, because this is something that different societies are going to have strong opinions about.

10kMichael

gigatron:
The majority of the RL world thinks that capital punishment is not neccessary. What was your argument again?

AP:
Mikivity, asking for a reason one should support/discuss a proposal is not rhetoric.
A difference between rhetoric and logic:

Logic appeals to reason. Rhetoric appeals to the emotions—it is the art of making an argument more persuasive without providing additional reasons in support of it

In some cases, if no reasons at all are offered in support of an argument, the argument may be all rhetoric.

Anti Pharsaism is requesting a logical rationale as to why Capital Punishment should be banned. The proposal as written, is complete rhetoric (under the second case), thus it is necessary to be given reasons to support it before commenting.

Such a request is not rhetorical. Also, there is no need for this debate to be rhetorical, it can be a very logical one. Now, Anti Pharisaism is not one to ask for something without specifying what it wants.

That being said: burden of proof lies with those who present and support the proposal. No proof has been offered, in fact the the amnesty international quote, and general discussion raises questions the proposal should address:

1) How is the death penalty the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
2) What makes it cruel, inhuman, and degrading? (If you believe killing is in and of itself cruel, inhuman, and degrading: state how this is so.
3) Is there a right to life? If so, why is it granted to all human beings. (Keep in mind there is a difference between a human being and person. A human being is that which has the genetic coding that makes us human, ergo a fetus is human. What implications does this have on the bill as written and address them.)
4) That capital punishment can be inflicted on the innocent a reason to abolish it, or is it that the process through which one is sentenced to death needs to be revised.
5) Deterrence: how is this relevant? Punishment is the denial of utility from aspects of life (or: a penalty imposed for violating the law). Capital Punishment is the ultimate punishment, it denies any and all utility from life.
6) Capital punishment has never prevented a crime? Has the recipient of capital punishment committed further crimes? How do we know that it has never prevented a crime?
7) Explain how capital punishment is torture.
8) How is it that a society who imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence? Explain.
9) Why is that every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment?

These are but a few the questions that the proposal should address based on the claims it makes. Anti Pharisaism would like to hear the answers to those questions, and perhaps more, before it responds to such a debate.

gigatron:
We are confident that this proposal will achieve quorum. Furthermore, once it has achieved quorum, we are confident that the majority of nations will Agree with the proposal and abolish Capital Punishment.

The only question we will answer is, that the UN has resolved the Universal Bill of Human Rights, which includes the right to life. The Death Penalty violates that right.


:twisted: It is almost done I promise:

AP:
Gigatron: do not attempt to insult other Nationstates intelligenc by lying.

Universal Bill of Rights:

Votes For: 11169

Votes Against: 3649

Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003

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.

Nowhere in the resolution is a right to life implied, or human being defined. The only thing you should be confident of is your inability to answer questions; explain and defend your proposal, and read critically.

gigatron:
I'll not defend it. Every normal human being should see the logic in the fact that killing is bad, no matter who kills. The proposal will most likely achieve quorum. Since most nations in real life have abolished the death penalty since a long time, I am sure most nation states players will endorse it. We'll see.

AP:
"the fact that killing is bad, no matter who kills."

A question Gigatron: What if someone kills in self defense, their only recourse for self preservation? Is killing then justifiable?

gigatron:
Here are 2 telegrams I just got:

QUOTE

"Exalted leader of Gigatron,

I will definently approve of this proposal. I am glad to see that there are good wholesome Liberals bringing such things to the floor. Workers of the world unite!"

QUOTE

"fuck u u liberal whore the death penalty is a great thing"

We'll see who will win this round.. the civil progressive and compassionate "liberals" or the murderous and civil backwards "conservatives".

On that note.. quorum has been reached, my world-wide campaign of telegramming every UN Delegate of over 2500 regions was successful. I hope the world has progressed past its middle-age where "an eye for an eye" was modern. Today we have a better understanding and higher value for human life and even those who might deserve death in your eyes, can be rehabilitated in most cases. As long as you cant give people life, don't be so quick to demand their death.

AP:
Some people are content with being stupid or ignorant, gigatron my friend, Anti Pharisiasm considers you doubleplusblessed: you are the epitome of both.

Logic is the science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument. The study of logic is the effort to determine the conditions under which one is justified in passing from given statements, called premises, to a conclusion that is claimed to follow from them.

Nowhere in your rambling have you come near to a coherent argument. You just label something as bad without justification. Rather than demonstrate moral character your responses demonstrates profound laziness and the incapacity for cognitive thought.

Your small mind will be defeated one of two ways: 1) you will be made a fool of in the debate provided no one of some intelligence comes to your aid: or 2) a new resolution more profound than yours will be submitted, and overide your resolution.

Why keep Capital Punishment:

1) Some people cannot be rehabilitated, as gigatron has admitted.
2) Of these people, some of them pose a significant risk to of escape as well as
a threat to the guards and other inmates around them (terrorists, sociopaths,
serial murderers etc..).
3) Given that those who can not be rehabilitated and pose a significan threat
would only recieve solitary confinement for life without parole.
4) Solitary confinement for life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment,
thus violating the universal bill of rights.* Solitary confinement is a death
sentence, they die in confinement, without contact to the outside world.

These are just some of the justifications for Capital Punishment, and if it can be shown to be justified in any case, we can not limit a country from imposing the sentence.

The world would be better served by the establishment of a criteria for Capital Punishment that must be met, rather than out right abolishment. See you at the UN Forum.


*Dr. Milton J Weinstein, Harvard School of Public Health,http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/MiltonWeinstein.html
Peg Tyre, Trend Toward Solitary Confinement Worries Experts, http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/

Death penalty is for wimps.

Much more fun to prolong life in a well equipped dungeon, that allows the offended party to visit and partake in the action, always making sure the proper care is given after each session, for maximum muti..eh, mutual enjoyment.

If death penalty is to be used at all, then dole it out in equal measure to all felons. No more silly parking tickets and such - off with their heads ASAP!

Go bang your gables!
/Judge Dredd

:evil: I want to be able to murder without fear for my life!!! HAHAHA!!! :twisted:

Death by Bunga Bunga, I say. :twisted:

Seriously, I'm all for the death penalty, and would like to see it applied more liberally, if you get my drift. :twisted: :twisted:

I'm against the death penalty too, but I'm also against the U.N. violating national sovereignty. (I know, I know, I played the old "national sovereignty" card.)

My nation is opposed to Capital Punishment.

There have been times when a convicted felon was so hated by the public that there was a movement to institute a Death Penalty, but the movement was overturned in the Stadt Courts on the basis that the political right to execute a human being (a political freedom) was less significant than the basic fundamental human right (a civil freedom) to live.

While I appreciate the sovereignty card, having played it myself many times, it is a line. There are some extremes to which the international community needs to respond to.

A case in point: Janurary / Feburary 2004 the Kingdom of Joccia was executing 100,000s of homosexuals, elves, and prostitutes (and a few political activists) and was claiming that the UN made that government sponsor what my country still considers crimes against humanity.

(OOC: The real world equvialent would be the 1994 Rwanada genocide campaign.)

In the case of Joccia, the government was sponsoring the murders. How is that different than in the case of capital punishment? I'll remind "newer" nations that in Jan. and Feb. a war broke out where other nations used force to convince Joccia that its campaign was inhumane. Nations rushed to Joccia's defense, while others rallied to end the slaughter in Joccia.

Other nations, like mine, enacted economic boycotts (pursuant to UN resolutions).

The point is, there is a line when nations will find the state sponsored killing of its citizens intolerable. Is it limited to genocides? Or are a handful of human lives worth fighting for (even if the fight is political / economic based)?

Surely no nation is going to want to just take in the convicted felons of other nations, but there are two questions before us:

(1) The most basic question: Should Governments Sponsor Capital Punishment or Invest in Other Solutions?

(2) Is the current resolution crossing the line (which is fluid) of sovereignty or is there enough of an international concern for some human rights?

Without a doubt, we will all disagree. But if any of your nations feel that we could approach this subject in a different means, please make suggestions. I'd like to feel out this body and give this resolution a chance. I've voted in favour, but constructive comments like the above are helpful.

10kMichael

DP

Well what will happen when all the prsons are full? I surely dont want to be paying for a criminals free ticket in prison. The death penalty is a Good punishment for those who dont deserve to live and is much cheaper than paying for some ones life sentence :evil:

There a lot of crazy murderers in this world and we should be protected from them.

First, I should define murder as I am using it here - the deliberate killing of a person, whether legal or illegal.

How is the death penalty the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment?

Life is considered to be the most precious thing any of us possess. Taking it away is inherently cruel, whether done by a person or the state. Death is a fundamental change in state of being, and I don't mean just in a spritual sense. When you die, you lose all ability to influence or sense the world around you, and deliberately depriving someone of this ability should be and is considered cruel.

When you end a life, it doesn't just affect the person whose life is ended. People who know him, family and friends, are also affected emotionally. The death penalty takes the cruelty and inhumanity of murder and compounds it by committing another murder and it also punishes the convict's family and friends, who have done nothing wrong.

2) What makes it cruel, inhuman, and degrading? (If you believe killing is in and of itself cruel, inhuman, and degrading: state how this is so)

For the reasons above, and also in murder cases, when it is applied in the spirit of vengeance. This is degrading to the state and the society it represents because it bloodies everyone's hands. An execution is carried out in the name of the law and society, and because it is society which decides the law, eventually we all are responsible for it.

Additionally, vengeance is not an excuse. If you assault a man convicted of raping your wife, you are still guilty of assault. If you break into death row and kill the prisoners, you are still guilty of murder. Where the death penalty is still legal, this is exactly what the state does, but because it's completely legal, no one is punished for it.

We can all agree that it is inhuman to commit murder, that it is inhuman to kill another person. By this reasoning, shouldn't the death penalty be considered inhuman too?

Society claims the right to imprison and punish those who break the law because they have fallen below the standards of society. Yet society stoops below its own standard when it carries out an execution. In this way, the death penalty degrades both the prisoner and society.

3) Is there a right to life? If so, why is it granted to all human beings. (Keep in mind there is a difference between a human being and person. A human being is that which has the genetic coding that makes us human, ergo a fetus is human. What implications does this have on the bill as written and address them.)

Firstly, I though I agree that a fetus is human, I do not believe it is considered alive, and so I don't believe that a fetus shares the rights that we as indisputably alive indivduals have. I am pro-abortion because I believe the rights and needs of a mother override the rights of the child she carries. Those who are against abortion except where the mother's life is endangered, like it or not, share this view, but they are simply unwilling to take a stand and say that the mother has an inviolable choice.

The status of a fetus is a debatable point, is another issue entirely, and it must be held irrelevant for the purposes of this particular argument. Abortion and capital punishment is too much to swallow at once, though they are, in this sense, related.

Yes, there is a right to life, and it is one that the state has no right to infringe upon. Put more starkly, the government should not have a licence to kill, whether by military aggression or the death penalty.

If you say that by violating the right to life of another you give up your own right to life, you are just advocating simple vengeance, which I've dealt with under point 2.

4) [Is] capital punishment can be inflicted on the innocent a reason to abolish it, or is it that the process through which one is sentenced to death needs to be revised?

Modified your question to make it clearer.

The answer is no. It is impossible to have a perfect judicial system, because all systems are set up by humans, and humans are fallible. No matter how much you revise it, inevitably a guilty man will go free and an innocent will be sent to jail.

5) Deterrence: how is this relevant? Punishment is the denial of utility from aspects of life (or: a penalty imposed for violating the law). Capital Punishment is the ultimate punishment, it denies any and all utility from life.

I'm not sure what your question is, but it's been proven that tougher punishments are ineffective as deterrents. A simple comparison is between Canada and the United States, which have similar cultures, similar racial compositions, similar systems of government, and similar accessibility to weapons, but Canada has outlawed capital punishment since 1977, while most of the US states still carry it out. Yet, Canada has a murder rate of 3 per 100,000 while the United States has 5 per 100,000.

6) Capital punishment has never prevented a crime? Has the recipient of capital punishment committed further crimes? How do we know that it has never prevented a crime?

See above.

The argument that the death penalty is used to prevent recurrence of crimes doesn't work because we can do it, but we don't. The most common repeated crimes are sexual offences and things caused by poverty or desperation, like robberies. These are not capital offences, and why? Because where the death penalty exists, we have decided to limit the death penalty to the most severe crimes, because we decide that the magnitude of the crime doesn't justify the death penalty.

Theives used to be put to death, but not anymore, and not just because the punishment doesn't fit the crime - in medevial times, we didn't have a problem with that. It's because we as a society have progressed and recognised that the death penalty is too harsh and too cruel to apply to common theives. We've decided that we should reserve such a harsh and cruel punishment to murderers and traitors.

From here, it's a simple step to decide that it is too harsh and too cruel to be condoned.

7) Explain how capital punishment is torture.

Capital punishment is not torture, and I've never said it was. I consider it cruel; that doesn't mean or even imply that it is the same as torture - "cruel" is an adjective. It describes, it doesn't define. Just because two people are both tall doesn't mean they're both the same person.

I don't believe the death penalty is torture, but I do believe it is cruel.

8. How is it that a society who imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence? Explain.

Firstly, people know right from wrong. No one will go on a shooting rampage because they've been playing Vice City. No one is that easily influenced.

You could take the comparative statistics regarding the US and Canada murder rates and use it to prove this point, but I don't think it really does matter. It isn't because executions are being carried out that people decide to commit murder.

Rather, is that the death penalty sends a subconcious signal that vengeance is a valid recourse, and in this way, it has an effect on... here's that word again, society. It creates the idea that it's okay to do bad things, as long as the other guy started it. It doesn't do so directly, but when combined with other cultural influences, it does have this effect.

It can also be argued that by murdering a murderer, the cycle of violence is perpetuated and that hypocrisy is produced. It also makes it difficult to say that killing is wrong when the state sponsors killings. If the state doesn't respect human life, why should I?

9) Why is that every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment?

For all the societal reasons I've already outlined - the death penalty degrades society by committing murder in all our names, it violates the sanctity of life, and it compounds the original crime.

There is another important question - does the death penalty do more good than harm, and if it does, should it continue because it does? The answer is that is does little, if any good. Its deterrent effect is negligible, if not non-existant, and it sends the wrong message on vengeance and respect for human life.

I hope that answers it for you.

-dp-

-tp-

there's been too many wrongful convictions lately (at least in the US) where the sentences of convicted murderers have been overturned 10, maybe 20 years after the time of the crime, due to dna or the real killer confessing. additionally many "probable" killers have gotten off (OJ Simpson), so we all know that what the jury thinks happened isn't always what really happened.

i think that the rate of mistakes is too high to throw at someone's life. throw them in prison for life, the problem is taken care of, and if they're found innocent later, no more innocent lives have been wasted.

killing eliminates the problem. rehabilitating eliminates the problem, and allows the convicted to fulfill his "debt to society," not through time, but by changing and contributing to make the world a better place. everyone needs a second chance.

We the Fiefdom of Polish Warriors declare this ultra liberal tripe of a resolution the most idiotic thing that has ever happened in the U.N. The death penalty is just and yes we also believe that if a 15 yr old blows everyone away at school in a shooting rampage then they should be held in prison until they are 18 and quickly executed. Perhaps our world shall become uber prisons over one billion built and counting! people can stroll in the national maximum security prison park admission would be 5$ and you can buy peanuts and feed the inmates yeah this is a great idea. Why have skyscrapers when we can build whole prison cities we could have highrise prisons with excellent views of the city for the more luxurious inmates or for white collar criminals! I mean after all all they did was destroy over one thousand people's financial well being for the next 20+ years(enron) :roll: If this is too close before Sunday we will secede and scoff at a once great governing body who now seem to have become tye dye daisy pickers.*O' what fools these mortals be!"

the death penalty degrades society by committing murder in all our names, it violates the sanctity of life, and it compounds the original crime.

The nation of Datagenesis agrees wholeheatedly. With the statistics we have all seen I am disgusted by the nation of Polish Warriors' statement and condemn it as an abuse of human rights.

It is interesting to note that the nations that voted AGAINST the abortion rights bill, thus VALUING the sanctity of life, now vote AGAINST this bill, ALLOWING the right to life to be violated, yet innocent people are still being killed.

The Nation of DataGenesis this thoroughly disgusted by so many nations ignorance.

Official Statement To United Nations From The People's Republic Of Morethanyou:

Morethanyou, as not yet a constituent member of the United Nations, forceably abstains from this. We shall use all tools, both violent and benign, that are available to the Republic to maintain firm control over any criminals that intend harm to our citizens. The citizenry is a part of the State and an injustice to one is injustice to all and therefore is intolerable. It is because of this that Morethanyou can claim the lowest crime rate of any nation in the Eastern Pacific. All nations would do well to consider their positions carefully on this issue. Morethanyou, while not yet a member-nation, counsels that this is a matter better left to individual states to administer for the time being.

Councilor Andre of Morethanyou, Envoy to the United Nations.

Kelssek,

I don't care how you define 'murder', your supplied definition is not that as used by the english language. In the english language murder means "the unlawfull killing of one person by another". That is the definition, that is how it is used. You cannot redefine the language by your own terms and then pass that off. Simple fact, your usage of the english word, 'murder' is incorrect under this language. When you speak a language you are governed by the rules of the language. "Murder" is not the word you should be using, the term "wrongfull death" would be more appropriate.

I would suggest you stop using that word, as it is a deception on your part, to attain your goals. You have no right, nor power to redefine the language of use as you see fit. Either speak the language proper, or use a different one.

And currently the DEATH PENATLY is lawfully operated, given that the UN has no resolution in power to regulate it. It is lawfully exercized by nations that posses it within their law. This is not a relative assessment either, it is LAWFULL absolutely. It does not matter whether or not it is LAWFULL in another jurisdiction, each JURISDICTION has prudence of operation in their scope of power, and the law is defined in that scope... Laws within other JURISDICTIONS do not effect legality outside of their scope. And here's the clencher, by international law as it stands, you must recognize that the death penalty is lawfull in the jurisdictions in which it is in force.. untill such time as UN law is passed which changes that. You can disagree on the propriety, but not on the legality.

Of course it is lawful. Any nation can make it lawful. We aren't saying it isnt lawful within a nation's sovereignty, we are saying that it statistically has no merit and should be abolished.

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.

Au contraire, my friend. Lethal injection is not proven to be inhumane. I'll cite some examples:

June 24, 1987. Texas. Elliot Rod Johnson. Because of collapsed veins, it took nearly an hour to complete the execution.

December 13, 1988. Texas. Pronounced dead 40 minutes after being strapped to the execution gurney and 24 minutes after the drugs first started flowing into his arms. Two minutes after the drugs were administered, the syringe came out of Landry's vein, spraying the deadly chemicals across the room toward witnesses. The curtain separating the witnesses from the inmate was then pulled, and not reopened for fourteen minutes while the execution team reinserted the catheter into the vein. Witnesses reported "at least one groan."

May 24, 1989. Texas. Stephen McCoy. He had such a violent physical reaction to the drugs (heaving chest, gasping, choking, back arching off the gurney, etc.) that one of the witnesses (male) fainted, crashing into and knocking over another witness.

September 12, 1990. Illinois. Charles Walker. Because of equipment failure and human error, Walker suffered excruciating pain during his execution.

March 10, 1992. Oklahoma. Robyn Lee Parks. Parks had a violent reaction to the drugs used in the lethal injection. Two minutes after the drugs were dispensed, the muscles in his jaw, neck, and abdomen began to react spasmodically for approximately 45 seconds. Parks continued to gasp and violently gag until death came, some eleven minutes after the drugs were first administered.

May 8, 1997. Oklahoma. Scott Dawn Carpenter. Carpenter was pronounced dead some 11 minutes after the lethal injection was administered. As the drugs took effect, Carpenter began to gasp and shake. "This was followed by a guttural sound, multiple spasms and gasping for air" until his body stopped moving, three minutes later.

et cetera...

That is just a few botched lethal injections. There is all sorts of suffering with other methods. Don't be so quick to your assumptions.

~ Zach, Leader of the Armed Republic of Bailin

The right to life so high that we should never presume remove it. It is important to realize that we are not true judges. We are opinionated people and to put the life of a person in the hands of another, no matter the atrocities the person has done, is wrong. We must place a ban on the death penalty in effect and come up with better solutions to our problems. For instance, intensive therapy, or something constructive, such as making them work for the good of the people. Life is sacred, and only in the defense of life, may life be taken. Certainly not in the name of "vengeance".

Pain suffered by the criminals executed my be an issue and Geektonia is willing to spend money and time, researching more efficiant methods of administering this punishment.

One issue I feel strongly about is witnesses, their very presense at executions is barbaric and sick, put simply. Geektopia, while enforcing the death penalty, does not allow witnesses, (other than those required to perform the duties).

This bill is another example of the UN intruding into a grey area of control.

Well... I'm new here, but I say, make the punishment fit the crime. If a person is in the right state of mind, and he kills another human being, he does not deserve the right to live. He's taken that right away from someone else. Why should he deserve the same right given to him?

Too many innocent people are killed as a result of the death penalty. Also, lethal injection only looks humane because they paralyze the person receiving the injection so you can't see their body writhing. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a far harsher sentence, the person gets no publicity, and has to rot in prison thinking about what they have done.

President Letizia

A couple of points for you... the only reason that we on a whole believe that life is precious is self intrest and a perpetualy inforced ideal from society at large.

The big debate here is not nessesaraly whether or not "Capital Punnishment" in and of itself is a form of barbaric and cruel punnishment, but wether the reasons behind doing it are "barbaric'.

Humanity has, and always will be, a race of barbaric children, trying to figure out how to survive. Some do it by work, keeping their pent up emotions deep within themselves and eventualy die (alone and unwanted in most cases). Some do it by lashing out at the hipocritical social and economic systems we have in place, becoming "rebles without a cause", who eventualy find their way in and out of the judicial system time and time again. Many who eventualy have a wrap sheet longer than the trans canada highway.

The question is "Should we instill in thoes who decide to rebell against a system of rules and laws (put in place, mind you, by the same peoiple who are breaking thoes laws) (thoes who rebel to the point of dismantling or distroying any person(s) way of life) a fear of great reprasial (ie- the "Death Penalty") so that they will be forced to follow the accepted set of social norms?"

Do any of us, in truth, have the right to dictate how anyone should live? The truth of the matter is, officaly, the answer is NO (a very loud and resounding no for that matter). Unofficaly however, it is a compleatly diffrent thing. The government, in all of it's aspects, is just another form of control over humanity as a whole. A control that we need!

Human beings are, by nature, a self destructive race. We are the only creatures on this planet that does not try and work with it's natural suroundings. Therefore when we police our own race, should we not make sure that the utmost care is taken when "punnishing" our dilinquent children?

The "Death Penalty" is also another form of control that our race needs. Because if we did not have the threat of our lives being taken away, why I can think of 5 people right now I would take care of. Then I would spend the rest of my life in a nice little cell, with life long friends, my whole life maped out for me. No rent to worry about... no bills or a job... You see what I'm getting at don't you? Life in prision isn't enough of a deterrent for some people.

In my opinion, we should have the death penalty. The only problem is is that we wait for so long! There are ment who have been on Death Row for over 20 years now, with no end in sight. With the death penalty, it should be inacted shortly after the decision (or verdict if you will) and not after 20 years of litigation of heming and hawing over little details of "he did it" or not. If he (or she for that matter) has been convicted of a crime so serious as to warrent the "Death Penalty" I say let it happen and FAST.

(and I dare someone to tell me that lethal injections is "inhumane". It's simple, fast, painless, and effective. (Just remember back to the days of the masked axeman...))

((and please be gentle it's our first time in the UN))

Lets say the death penalty is instated (right word?). The only way for the death penalty to go through would be positive evidence, that 100% for sure points that the murderer did the crime, and he was in a right state of mind.

Also as for rape, if a man rapes or sexually abuses someone else without consent (If you're under 16 or something, its still rape, even if its consentual), I say again, punishment fit the crime. I guess the politically correct word is castration? Without anasthetic? Though I doubt anyone will agree with such a brutal form of punishment.

I say the death penalty should be allowed, but only on certain circumstances. There has to be hard evidence. If there is, and the person is convicted, depending on the case, the execution method will range from lethal injection to a bullet in the chest.

Also, again, depending on the case, life imprisonment is also an option.

For rape, I would say castration, though no one would agree with me on that, though secretely, a lot of people do agree with me on these points, probably.

Cidak, being a person who has experenced this atrocity first hand I have to WHOLEY agree with you on that one.

Cidak, you're assuming the raper is a male, and in most cases it is, but that gives no solution to female offenders.

I voted against the death penalty because small countries like mine cannot afford to keep every person convicted of crimes behind bars. If we do, our economy will slow down dramatically, which will make life harder for all the citizens that have done no wrong.

Who is more humane, the executioner that kills in a minute, or the executioner who has your life drained away over years of inprisonment.

Also, I agree with Kamered. Execution is more humane, then seing yourself waste away.

Also, a solution for demale offenders... that's actually a hard one to think about... anyone else have solutions for female sex offenders?

for many who are on that life path, imprisonment is a relief from what they have had to go through all their lives. It gives them a chance to reflect on what they have done, and to find ways of twisting the system to fee them back into society at large where they can then again reak havock.

To quickly dispence with thoes who are among the most hated of "todays societys" degenerates, would be a blessing, because it would send a message to all saying "You don't mess with the social norms. They are in place to keep you safe. Thoes who "rock the boat" will be dealt with accordingly"

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030107/4756754s.htm

I'm voting in favour of the death penalty. You can't allow you know, evil scum, to walk the streets of your country. You can't allow something like that. Letting society's evil walk away is the greatest punishment of all... it is like punishing the innocent people of the nation.

Frankly, the death penalty is the only viable means of punishment for such things. It should be meted out swiftly, and violently, so as to further deter the criminal. It should be meted out by a jury of the man's peers, who would in turn serve as executioners- better to have it on their hands, let them decide, and carry out their judgement- thus it rests on their conciences. (That is, if they have conciences...)

Granted, it may be murder of sorts, but some folks just deserve death.

And thus, it is a necessary evil, it is something that must remain in this world.

Yeah, that's good too. You can also give the criminal a half honourable way out. Scenario: A man has killed a woman, a mother of two kids,a nd he has been sentenced the death penalty. The judge declares he is to be shot, because he shot the woman to death. If its possible, you can give him a half honourable way out. Rather than have his peers shoot him, or an executioner put the bullet in him, give the criminal a gun, with one round, and let him punish himself. It is the only honourable way left for him, I think.

It should be meted out swiftly, and violently, so as to further deter the criminal

Have you looked at the statistics offered in this thread?
The death penalty is *NOT* a deterrant any more than life imprisonment. This has been shown in countless analyses.

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.

The best way to make someone suffer, and it seems to be the main cause for the death penalty to exist... is NOT to kill them, for that gives them either
a: the end
b: eternal damnation/salvation (depending on how it all turns out)
c: a new start

This depends on how you view death, but if you DONT kill them, they have:

a: life in prison with no chance of parole
b: life in prison with no chance of parole
c: life in prison with no chance of parole

Now, I think thats a better punishment than the death penalty... throw in Barney re-runs and you've got eternal damnation right there.

Note: I was too lazy/tired to read all 17 pages of talking, so it is quite possible someone else has already made a very similar point.

-Galen

Finding the current UN Resolution to Ban the Death Penalty not entirely to our liking in a couple of areas, the Holy Empire of Aille has drafted an alternative that we desire feedback on.

As a general rule, we prefer to not involve ourselves in the sovereignty of individual nations within the UN except where issues of global justice are concerned. A lively debate took place among the polity of Aille about whether or not capital punishment met this criterion. In the end, we felt that it did not, at least not to a significant enough degree to justify a complete ban.

As an alternative, however, we pondered the existence of a UN regulated oversight committee to ensure that member nations did not abuse capital punishment. Citizens of UN member nations who felt that someone was executed unfairly or in an inappropriate manner could appeal to this committee and if their allegations were found to be accurate, the nation at fault would have its ability to practice capital punishment suspended until the matter could be resolved and measures put in place to address or at least ameliorate whatever conditions led to the abuse in the first place (for example, if the execution was the result of a racially motivated agenda or the front wave of a genocide campaign).

We feel that this has the dual benefit of compensating for the more vulgar aspects of capital punishment without treading on the national will of member nations.

From this point on, the Holy Empire of Aille will probably do nothing in regards to this issue. Should this resolution fail and anyone finds validity in our ideas, feel free to use them.

The Nation of DataGenesis thinks that Aille's ideas are a very good alternative.

The Nation also agrees with United Citizenship and we believe they have made a very nice argument.

This depends on how you view death, but if you DONT kill them, they have:

a: life in prison with no chance of parole
b: life in prison with no chance of parole
c: life in prison with no chance of parole

Uh, not always, the maximum punishment here is life with possible parole after 40 years. Depends on individual nations law. And I believe Barney was outlawed after 43 inmates killed themselves.

In the english language murder means "the unlawfull killing of one person by another". That is the definition, that is how it is used.... And currently the DEATH PENATLY is lawfully operated, given that the UN has no resolution in power to regulate it.

Firstly, it's illegal, not just not given out, but ILLEGAL, in my country both in real life and in-game. So it counts as murder as far as I'm concerned.

Two, I really am sick of debating such an arbitrary term with you.

Three, Stalin used the death penalty, massacres, and exile to Siberian work gangs to kill his political enemies. If you go by Russian law at the time, that wasn't murder either, though from an outside perspective, it certainly is.

That is exactly the sense in which I'm using the word. So, for the last time, shut up with your carping, you're neither advancing nor contributing to the debate, and you make it look like you lost the argument and are desperately searching for any way you can to puncture mine.

(Sorry, I really should've compacted it all...)

Also, I agree with Kamered. Execution is more humane, then seing yourself waste away.

How would a person "waste away"? Prison isn't a death camp where they try to kill off the inmates or deprive them of food or something, and most nations don't run Abu-Ghirabs. Conditions vary, but they aren't so bad that would make me choose death over life.

I'm voting in favour of the death penalty. You can't allow you know, evil scum, to walk the streets of your country. You can't allow something like that. Letting society's evil walk away is the greatest punishment of all... it is like punishing the innocent people of the nation.

...If there is, and the person is convicted, depending on the case, the execution method will range from lethal injection to a bullet in the chest.

...but I say, make the punishment fit the crime.

Behind your pretensions of humanism and justice is simple vengeance. I think the second quote, varying the pain in their execution with the severity of the offence, shows it best.

I'm repeating what I said earlier:

Vengeance, when carried out by an individual, is illegal. If you kill a man who raped your wife, you are still a murderer. How is vengeance outside the law and vengeance in accordance with the law different?

Society claims the right to punish those who break the law because, through the law, society sets standards, and those who do not meet them are punished. In effect, we punish because we believe ourselves, who have not broken the law or who have fulfilled the penalties when we do break it, to be better than them.

But when society puts a man to death, it violates its own standards. Murder is considered a severe crime because it violates life, and society holds life sacrosanct. So it is pure hypocrisy for society to also violate life.

That is why vengeance, which is the idea behind "make the punishment fit the crime" in the context of murder, doesn't hold water.

Granted, it may be murder of sorts, but some folks just deserve death.

"Many who live deserve death, but many who die deserve life, can you give it to them?" - JRR Tolkein, "The Lord of the Rings"

I keep wondering why everyone calls the Death Penalty inhuman. It's not inhuman at all. In fact, we humans love to kill eachother for various reasons. The word inhuman would suggest not originating from humanity. Yet, the fact that we kill eachother is prolly one of humanities major defining features. We just call it other things. If you kill someone when they are trying to hurt you then we use the euphemism "self-defense".

Maybe we should ban all forms of murder. Such as War, self-defense, Accidental, Neglegent etc etc. I mean if the Death Penalty is inhuman than war must be too ;p. Of course that means certain members of radical religious sects shouldn't pat eachother on the back when they "destroy infidels" or when patriots from certain massive countries cause "collateral damage" to groups of innocent people.

In short, a peoples ability to wage war, defend self, and punish criminals is all based on justification. So the next resolution I nominate is....

Ban those pesky justifications.... of course then we'll have to live like animals because we couldn't use higher brain functions.

Of course I'll disagree with Kelessk on the point about Death Penalty being hypocriscy. Governments are given the ability to enforce ultimate punishment so that individuals don't. When one individual decideds to take the life another individual then the killer loses all rights and some societies feel justified in ending the killers life as a consequence.

And the Tolkien quotation is pure emotional bull.

And just for silly quotations effect at the end of my diatribe...

"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry" -Hamlet

The death penalty is used far too much in some nations today but when used properly it is not evil, there are some crimes where the criminal cannot be rehabilitated. For example in a recent case in Australia a woman was pregnant to her boyfriend and wouldn't get an abortion so he got his friends, took her out and beat her untill she miscarried. he showed no remorse whatsoever, i don't think he even considers what he did wrong, there is no hpe for ever rehabilitating him, and keeping him in jail untill he dies is just a very drawn out death penalty and a dain on the economy.

I agree that in many cases the death penalty is inhumane and wrong but it is well deserved and the lesser of evils in some cases so an all out ban on the death penalty is not the right course of action

Of course I'll disagree with Kelessk on the point about Death Penalty being hypocriscy. Governments are given the ability to enforce ultimate punishment so that individuals don't.

And that's the standards argument again - the government claims the right to punish criminals and enforce the law. Murder is against the law because it violates life, which we hold sacrosanct. So why should the government, in the name of justice, decide that it can violate life?

Does it make sense to violate the sanctity of life to uphold it? And isn't it hypocritical to punish violations of life with violations of life? To punish murder with murder?

And the Tolkien quotation is pure emotional bull.

That doesn't invalidate it, and you haven't refuted the point or even tried. Many dead people deserve to live, but you can't bring them back to life. So who are you to decide who deserves to die?

Nothing is gained from the death penalty, there is no justice in it, the victim is still dead no matter what, definitely not deterrence, maybe some token satisfaction of a desire for revenge - which I'm sure we can agree is not the noblest of desires. It amounts to needless death.

One more thing - the word is inhumane, not inhuman. (edit - sorry, I just realised what you were referring to) I don't dispute that human nature is bad and that humanity is capable of truly horrific things. Humans are capable of such great destruction, greed and anger that at times it makes me ashamed of being human. But at the same time, the fact that we find these things horrific is at least redeeming, because it means we at least acknowledge that it is wrong.

But when people refer to humanity and in the sense from which you derive the word "humane", they refer to the human capacity for compassion, for empathy and love. And this is the sense in which I used the word. As you can see words themselves are ripe for debate.(end edit)

Today the nation of Catholic Sweden voted against the debated UN resolution regarding death penalty. After consultation with Lwanga Jonsson of the Institute for Morality and Values in Public Life the government decided to withdraw their planned support of the resolution.

Addressing the nation, Benedikt King justified the government's stance:

"My people,
One could argue that our peaceful nation should support the resolution of the United Nation which will prohibit the death penalty. In fact, our own justice system carried out the last death penalty some 150 years ago and there are some legislative actions to discard any reference to death penalty in the criminal code. I personally believe that our country doesn't need to execute criminals since there are more human methods to prevent crimes. But, in other societies and other situations death penalties are still neccessary. If, for example, Napoleon would have been put to death instead of being exiled to the isle of Elba back in 1814 much suffering could have been avoided. Therefore we cannot impose our intensions to obviate this form of penalty upon other nations.

May God bless our nation and expand our humility and obedience before his own eyes."

Other decision of Sweden can be viewed at: http://www.nyger.de/cathswed/index.php?pn=view&sort_kat=10

"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.

Handy!

Life in prison without parole.
A swift execution.

The net result is the same, both are a death scentence. One only drags out the inevitable, the other honest in its implication. You can not ban one form of punishment, without calling into question the humanity of the other.

For the likes of Jeffery Dahlmar and John Wayne Gacy. For those that have shown such a vile measureable disregard for the sanctity of life. For them it is the nobel, the humane, thing to show them honesty in kind.

Luindor firmly believes that a lifetime in prison is far worse than death.

Luindor firmly believes that a lifetime in prison is far worse than death.

Which is why Splimopia is for a ban of the penalty. Killing Humans in non-combat situations should be punished harshly!

No offence, but are you on drugs?

There is a clear distinction between death sentences and life without parole - and the difference is clear in the names, death versus life. To even suggest that they are the same is ludicrous. Yes, eventually it's the same thing, but I've got news for you, WE ALL DIE EVENTUALLY. By your logic everyone is under death sentence.

Prison does not deprive a prisoner of life, in fact there is still the ability for social interaction, physical activity and contact with the outside world. The more well-behaved inmates earn more freedom and privileges within the confines of the prison. It is not like they're locked away in solitary confinement until they die.

Also, let me remind you, no death penalty does not necessarily mean every murder is punished by life without parole. Some nations don't even have life without parole. Canada's maximum for first-degree murder is life with no parole for 40 years, though this of course depends on the age of the convict.

For the likes of Jeffery Dahlmar and John Wayne Gacy. For those that have shown such a vile measureable disregard for the sanctity of life. For them it is the nobel, the humane, thing to show them honesty in kind.

Again with the vengeance argument. I guess what I said earlier about the human capacity for anger is much too true.

-dp-

this is a good form of punishment for murder.

if someone kills another then that person has given up his right to his own life.

Would it not be better to put criminals in cages and every now and then parade them in the streets to be publically scorned by the populace up until they die of a natural death, rather than rather than waste money and resources on finding a way to either kill or rehabilitate them? Public humiliation of criminals as a form of entertainment and learning process for the population, as well as saving money on jails and executioners. It would be a win-win situation for all concerned.

So, if this resolution passes, only God and murderers have right to take life? Or are the murderers hand of God? No matter, Rubberduckistan will survive whatever comes, and criminals will get their due. :wink:

If an innocent person gets killed, isn't that reason enought not to have it?!?

No offence, but are you on drugs?



If you're talking to me, no, I just have radical opinions. If you lock up the murderers, they'll eventually go crazy, insane, and hate life. They'll want to commit suicide, and this could teach them their lesson because the harsh punishment.

As a nation firmly rooted in the tradition of human rights and ethics, we find capital punishment to be incompatible with both our ethical and our spiritual beliefs. This resolution should not pass - at any cost. No human ever has the right to take the life of another. Not for any reason. This is simply not just and will not be tolerated. We have a saying here in Parsha:

"Tzedek, tzedek tird'off." (Justice, justice shall you pursue)

As a people, we believe taking the life of another is ever just. And since the goal of being a human is to live justly, we refuse to similarily take the life of another except in self defense, only if the situation allows, but never pre-emptively and never for revenge.

Revenge is one of the greatest sicknesses of our time. To talk out of character for a second, I'm a Canadian living in America and a Jew to boot. Both the nation I hail from, and the spiritual path I follow condemn this act with the highest of sanction. I will not stand for it. I only see ignorance when people advocate the deaths of others for any reason. We just don't have that right and if you contest this, I think you need to re-evaluate just how much you value human life. Shalom. :x

The death penalty is indeed wrong, however each and every nation should have the right to decide if the death penalty is necessary or not in their own nation.

I say vote AGAINST it; although I do agree that the death penalty should be banned, every nation should be at liberty to decide what to do in their own country about this extremely ambiguous issue. Everyone has different opinions after all and should have the right to decide over this sensitive issue regarding directly the lives of our own citizens.

Four words "Punishment to fit crime"

The one question u have to ask is this: does the death penalty work?
no, it does not. The main idea behind the death penalty is that it acts as a deterrence to stop others from committing crimes. This is all well and good, but the desired effect has not been achieved. In recent studies of highly-publicised, death penalty executions, measures of the amounts of murders committed 6 months before and 6 months after "execution" were recorded. The findings found that 54 murders occurred before the execution and 62 after. So does the death penalty work? no it does not. in theory it may in reality it fails. I use the term "execution" loosely because what the government condones is simply "humane" murder. Murder is simply the taking of another life. Dictionaries will differ on exact wordings of the definition but in essence to murder is to kill. The government of nations cannot condone murder of any sort for any reason. it is immoral and wrong.

You all realise, if this passes, we will have to kill one of the issues. Specifically, the one about the death penalty.

Procco, Jun' 28

I am most definately against this issue.... If the death penalty was to be banned, then all of our mass murderers [and other various criminals] would sit locked away in prison for the rest of their lives, sapping government funds away from more important stuff...

Plus, there's always the small chance of said criminal escaping from prison and going on another killing/crime spree before they're caught again.... I say the death penalty must not be banned.

Life in prison without parole.
A swift execution.

The net result is the same, both are a death scentence. One only drags out the inevitable, the other honest in its implication. You can not ban one form of punishment, without calling into question the humanity of the other.


I think you're forgetting that life in prison doesn't mean "thrown away in a dark 2 m x 2 m cell and to watch a leaky sink.

The quality of prison life is not designed to be high, but there are some things that can still be enjoyed.

The thing that bothers me the most about the "Life in Prison is worse than death" arguement (which is extremely common) is that it is based in logic that assumes that if you don't have the freedom of movement that your life is not worth living.

I wasn't able to walk once (serious injury). I was in INCREDIBLE pain. And though I actually did view death as an escape, I didn't wish for it. (There is a difference between welcoming something and pursuing it.)

My point is that handicapped individuals don't enjoy the same quality of life as the majority of the rest of us. But I don't here people arguing pulling the plug on them.

10kMichael

yes indeed the death penalty is wrong for crimes like suicide your only giving them what they want BUT say you were indeed married and someone mutilated your wife and children well my feelings are FRY HIM!! and if you don't want that then i guess you didn't really have feelings for your family so i say go AGAINST the ban of the death penalty it will save many lives a criminal mastermind can escape from jail during a life sentence and keeping them locked up is dangerous for others like guards and then MORE innocents will have been killed but you could have simply fried him and saved some lives cause cell mates could get killed and guards and then if they escape they can kill even more people and they can decide if they want to add more crimes since without parole their sentence cant really get worse so then they can performe arson robbery grand theft auto and add to the murder count so now you have that on your mind and think when you could have just fried him and saved lives now i say KEEP THE DEATH PENALTY!!!

You all realise, if this passes, we will have to kill one of the issues. Specifically, the one about the death penalty.

Procco, Jun' 28
The UN resolutions haven't stopped Abortion or Euthanasia issues from recurring.

Apparently Nation States' UN is about as able to enforce its resolutions as the Real World's. :wink:

Eye for an eye, but only in cases of murder one or two. Accidental death does not warrant the death penalty. But a premeditated criminal act such as murder(murder 1), or even an impulse murder(murder 2) warrant the just punishment. Why should the killer get to live and the victim no? You take a life, you have your life taken. It's that simple. And I better not get replies saying:"Well...if the government carries out the death penalty..well that's murder too..." No it's not. Read some Hobbes and you might understand the bases of our liberal western democratic system. We delegate our right to do whatever necessary to ensure our survival to the State (Leviathan) so that the State may keep order and peace by means of an implicit social contract. So, this means that if the contract is broken,(a criminal act), the State has full discretion to use the necessary and reasonable means to fix the problem. In this case, punishment fits crime. So the death penalty is fair, I don't care how sorry or regretful the purpotrator may be. Should have thought of that before you committed murder. Pro death penalty for murders 1 and 2 all the way!

The UN has no right to tell other countries how to deal with their criminals.
In my country, criminals who demonstrate malicious intent to violate another person's right to life deserve to be punished accordingly. If you murder someone, you will pay for it with your life. Now, there are special circumstances and I am in no way condoning the death penalty in all cases. However, in my country, those who commit heinous crimes will know what their outcome will be. And for those using religion to oppose the death penalty, there is a verse in Genesis that says "If one man takes another man's life, so shall his life be taken." So-called rehabilitation is nothing but a joke.

The main point is that the UN should not have the power to impose such a law on all countries when so many are opposed to it, be it morally or otherwise.

*beeep beeep beeep* ...a telegram from the free Council of the City of Gulai-Pole arrived...

The free People of Gulai-Pole decided to vote for a Ban of Death-Penalty.
We think it would be a pity if this resolution don`t pass, cause we think the death penalty is immorally. We would become a society of murderers too if we kill the killers. And our main motiv is the fact that the death penalty can`t eliminate the reason for crimes.
And killing people because we would have to waste money for their life in prison ist extremly immoral. The death-penalty is no solution for the big problems inside the society.

Greetings,
the Free Council of the City of Gulai-Pole

i'm sure these points have already been brought up before, but these are my reasons for voting against the resolution. For the record I consider myself a liberal who values life more than anything else in the world, and is probably going to see, and enjoy the michael moore movie tomorrow.

First of all, I strongly disagree with the final clause on the bill. The inability to export criminals who are atempting to hide in my contry is something I will not have. What this act does is gives people a free licence to do crime in a nation with the death penalty and then move to a united nations country. They cant be sent back or turned around at the border because that would violate national laws. So you create a huge crime problem with this law. For this clause alone, I would vote against the act.

Second of all, We are the United Nations. We are a conglomerate of nations who are serving the interest of humanity in an attempt to make the world a better place. While I agree that this idea would be great for humanity, I think that the UN should be more worried about dictating international policy than telling people how they have to run their countries. (Seriously, this is a game where people have to run a country. I want to be a member of the UN, but I dont want the UN running my country.) I personally think that if the UN makes a decision on this issue, then why couldnt it make a decision on every issue until there is no leeway in which a person could run his country. I think that while it is ok for the UN to take a stance on issues, for example as it did for female genitalia mutilation, the UN should not however, be making decisions that force policy. (Look at what happens in the real world, if a whole bunch of nations put up a bill that will force the US's hand, for example the Kyoto protocol, Bush will say 'no because i'm an idiot') This issue might be more likely to pass if for example instead of outright banning the death penalty, simply providing some sort of bonus to the country in the form of funding or other priveledge.

-Sandis

In the english language murder means "the unlawfull killing of one person by another". That is the definition, that is how it is used.... And currently the DEATH PENATLY is lawfully operated, given that the UN has no resolution in power to regulate it.

Firstly, it's illegal, not just not given out, but ILLEGAL, in my country both in real life and in-game. So it counts as murder as far as I'm concerned.

Two, I really am sick of debating such an arbitrary term with you.

Three, Stalin used the death penalty, massacres, and exile to Siberian work gangs to kill his political enemies. If you go by Russian law at the time, that wasn't murder either, though from an outside perspective, it certainly is.

That is exactly the sense in which I'm using the word. So, for the last time, shut up with your carping, you're neither advancing nor contributing to the debate, and you make it look like you lost the argument and are desperately searching for any way you can to puncture mine.

JURISDICTION, your own legality does not matter (get that through your THICK skull), and is not applicable to the laws of another nation. Murder is a term defined in law and language. You are right, but Stalin's actions are not murder (not to say they were morally right or ethical by our standards, but still not "murder"). The Death Penalty shall remain, in reality, as not being murder, untill at such time when there is legislation to make the act illegal. However there is no such legislation in place (at higher jurisdiction) that does so at present.

What Stalin did in the USSR, under Soviet law, has no bearing on the legality of it in your country, he was not in your jurisdiction, he was not under your law, your law is inapplicable to his actions, and therefore you cannot define what he did as legal or illegal by your law, because you have neither the right, nor authority to do so. You serve a great disrespect to jurisdicational authority, if you are unable to respect the law, shut your damn mouth. That is my point.

Next, you have not won, I don't call utilizing scewed tactics and the figures from decietful organizations to be classified as "winning"... more like grasping at straws..... All those "murder" figures used are scewed to begin with because there is no differenciation in their use of "murder", they count 1st and 2nd degree murder, and 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter as a single entity, as well as they don't subtract cases where it is listed as "self-defense"....

Cases like Stalin are mute, in this debate, as those acts are handled DIRECTLY under the Universal Bill of Rights... Political affilliation, Religious affiliation and ethnic classification are protected under Internatonal Law. In that case under present resolution Stalin's acts are illegal under International Law. HOWEVER, the usage of the death penalty against certain heinous crimes is within the jurisdiction of the sovereignties, and therefore is not illegal under International Law (which is the only thing you can apply to within the scope of jurisdiction to other sovereign nations at present).

Presently at least 4200 nations in the so far 8,000 nation voting block have or respect the usage of the Death Penalty as exercized... this would not fall into the catagory of "unsual" punishment. Most of the nations use execution methods that are pretty quick and limit suffering to a great deal, which definitely does not classify it as "cruel" either.

I disagree, strongly, that a judicial system is error prone.... It can be quite error proof when it is operated in reason and logic. It's the applicability to appeal to the emotions (rhetoric) that creates error, such a case is not applicable in a properly run judicial system. [OOC: IRL: The Commonwealth of Virginia has a 100% accuracy rating when dealing with executions, and as of yet has not executed anyone by error in the last century......]...

Tekania has the death penalty, it's application and operation are defined by Tekanian law, as put forth by the Tekanian legislature, elected by the Tekanian people. It is not illegal. It does not matter whether or not you like it... It is still not illegal.... It does not matter if you have it or not, it is still not illegal here, and the law here in Tekania is the only thing that applies here in Tekania... You cannot define the death penalty in Tekania as illegal because you possess neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to do so. Now unless you're willing to expend your authority on a battlefield, I suggest you shut your fat little liberal lips, and respect the rights and authority of national jurisdictions....




"I have just passed legislation that outlaws Kelssek forever, we begin bombing in 5 minutes.... Have a nice day!"

And for those using religion to oppose the death penalty, there is a verse in Genesis that says "If one man takes another man's life, so shall his life be taken."

As much as I want religion kept out of this, I think it's obvious you won't win a religious argument based on Christianity because Jesus later specifically overruled it with the "turn the other cheek" doctrine. Also, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

You cannot define the death penalty in Tekania as illegal because you possess neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to do so.

No, I don't, but the resolution does.

You're being a total anal retentive over something as simple as using a word for emphasis. Of course murder is a stronger word than killing, of course that is what I intended, but get THIS in YOUR thick skull, it is used outside your definition in daily life all the time. Such as the Stalin example. You can say it's technically not murder, but, and this also applies to the death penalty, that doesn't make it right. The Nuremburg Laws made the Holocaust legal under German law, and I'm sure you consider THAT murder.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't see why you must keep banging on about it. Your point is made. Don't whinge on and on about jurisdiction and stuff like that when you know that murder isn't defined just by legality, it is also defined by the general perception of what is right.

I could see why you'd regard a CNN report, which I got the murder rate statistics from, as well as Statistics Canada, as being a "deceitful organisation" but that's your view. I'm sure most of us do trust CNN to some degree, even if they are a little America-centric.

How do you know that Virginia has never had any judicial error? I suspect it's the circular logic again - court says he's guilty, therefore he's guilty, and he's guilty because the court says he's guilty.

Now unless you're willing to expend your authority on a battlefield, I suggest you shut your fat little liberal lips, and respect the rights and authority of national jurisdictions....

Bring it on, my I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are all warmed up. And if you can get this worked up over the use of a word, I sincerely hope you never achieve any real-world political office.

(edit: Since you question my statisics, I went and got fresh ones. Canada's 2002 homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000 according to http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal12b.htm, and according to the information at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html, the US homicide rate in 2002 was 5.6 per 100,000 - a bigger gap that I had originally said, which only reinforces my point about the ineffectiveness of deterrence.)

[quote=If Repmes]And for those using religion to oppose the death penalty, there is a verse in Genesis that says "If one man takes another man's life, so shall his life be taken."

Why not ban it? Its wrong, plain and simple.

Its just not right, you cannot kill a person for their crimes, whatever they may be without bringing in to question the motives behind the killing - I couldnt stomach the thought of killing a person for their crimes, with the knowledge that so few cases are as clear cut as right/wrong, guilty/not guilty.

It just doesnt sit right with me and I cannot condone mudrer by anyone, to anyone.

[OOC: IRL: The Commonwealth of Virginia has a 100% accuracy rating when dealing with executions, and as of yet has not executed anyone by error in the last century......]...

Please do not site ONE example of it being accurate and apply it to everywhere. There are plenty of examples to the contrary that you're simply ignoring. Just because this ONE place hasn't messed up, doesn't mean that the death penalty is perfect.

I'm not going to repeat the examples that other people have given, i.e. Canada not having the death penalty, but still having low crime rates. You people just keep ignoring things like this that go to show that the death penalty DOES NOT WORK. I've looked all over, and I have found very little evidence that the death penalty does anything to deter any crime. As few as one in ten sources even attempt to argue in support of this barbaric practice.

For more information (and more examples; I'M not just going to give one and claim it holds true everywhere), visit this website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES. Also, here is an essay written by a Ph.D. (somebody who has studied this a LOT, in case you don't realize). Read it, and be enlightened: http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/nov97/crime_control.htm. These sites will give you the facts behind the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. Stop spouting what you THINK you know and look at the FACTS for a change.


The Democratic Republic of Mom-topia

[quote=If Repmes]And for those using religion to oppose the death penalty, there is a verse in Genesis that says "If one man takes another man's life, so shall his life be taken."

You folk need to realize that this "old testament logic" is BS. I'm a Jew - we don't use the New Testament and we are not a people who believe at all in capital punishment. The only people who actually believe that the old testament says this are the whacked out, dumbass conservative CHRISTIANS who claim to be biblical literalists, quoting their crappily translated versions of the Tanakh (or bible as they call it) and they can't even read the original language. That's laughable.

In Jewish law, even though, your verse clearly states that - it obviously unconcionable. In the Mishnah (the oral Jewish legal tradition) it said that you had to have a court of 22 very carefully selected rabbis, who despised money and valued life. They had to produce a witness who saw the act done with their own eyes. They had to prove that they quoted chapter and verse from "Exodus" what would happen if they did, and then that they reinforced it afterwards. Then the judges had to vote unanimously in favor of the death sentence. If they voted unanimously in favor the defendant had to be acquitted because the theory was that anyone who could not find one extenuating circumstance in a court of 22 rabbis had to have been biassed and the case was thrown out.

The reason we do this is not because we don't believe in punishing people for hurting others - it's because we believe that only G-d has the right to take life. Humans NEVER have that right. However, after I made my post before someone said "I don't agree with it but I don't think it's my right to force that on other people."

Well, this is a UN human rights issue. And while I admire the levelheadedness of the comment - it's important that there not be a precedent set for such a barbaric act. Though I'm torn at this point because while I'm passionately against the death penalty, I'm also pasionately for individual choice. I'll put it this way. We will never execute in Parsha, and very few in the proletariat coallition will either. But for those who feel it's necessary to sacrifice morality for petty revenge - go ahead it's your choice. You're not bound by my spirituality or ethics. So do what thou wilt, I suppose. I guess in the end I feel it undermines the individuality of the nations. I hope this passes, but I'll see the logic if it doesn't.

Shalom,

Matt

If you can't stomache the thought of killing another human being, even one who is a murderer himself, then just hand him a pistol, one bullet, and lock him in the room.

The Praetor of Leynier, after consultation with his cabinet, has indeed decided to willfully disregard this blatant trampling of national sovereignity if it passes.

The only consideration now is whether to do so openly, or to begin experiencing an increase in 'shot while attempting to escape' situations.

My Country has no prison system at all and we have barely any crime what so ever. we accomplished this by using the money that would be used for prisons and put it twoards rehabilitation. By doing this the criminals are shown that what they have done is wrong and they learn why they should not commit a crime again. and we do this with understanding, love and compassion. And when thay are done rehab they are fuctioning members of society. instead of ignoring our problems by taking away their freedoms and locking people up or simply killing them we fix what is wrong with our criminals.
Comrade Taco of The People's Republic of North Chelmsfordia

I find it very annoying that the United Nations seeks to invade the ability of individual governments to make their own decisions. As a Brit I can easily compare this situation to the meddling of the European Union. The death penalty is an issue which can be argued both ways. Why not let local governments decide what they think is best based on the views of its own people? Not everyone thinks the same way you know! Stop invading national soverignty. The world is full of diverse people with different opinions. Even though I disagree with the death penalty, I shall vote against this resolution.

you can only rehabilate people so much if they can do it once in cold blood no matter what you do they can do it again if locked away for life they could other criminals who are in for lesser crimes such as stealing

Death is a terrible thing in any form. However, I think that people who murder or rape others should not be allowed to live; I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. There is only so much you can do to try to change a person, some are just sick....wharped beyond repair. It should either be life in prison or death, and I don't see why the tax money of honest citizens should be paying for the room and board of these psychopaths. Perhaps this can also serve as a warning to other would-be killers and rapists: this could be you, so don't trod down this path. Also, put yourself in the shoes of the people who have lost mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, spouses, friends, or children to the cruel plans born from these twisted minds. Think of how they feel, for they are the victims. Those who face the daeth penalty should not be tortured, but they should die. After all, what do you do for a mad dog? You put him down before he hurts someone. "Sorry, this package is damaged, return to Maker."

- Dragonlady Ice Ember -

Greetings.

There seems to be a pattern developing. Simplistic titles that harbor foolish notions.

I'll make this more clear than my last rebuttal.

THE UN HAS NO BUSINESS DEMANDING ANYTHING!

Abolish the death penalty... whatever for? Do you forget that the death penalty is something(in our country as in most others) that is only handed out to someone who has murdered in cold blood and without cause?

'Mentally disabled people cannot be sentences to death'

Oh, foolish man. By whos standards should we measure the mental disability of another? Can you see how a clever criminal could work this rule into his favor?

Lastly, it is the business of a particular nation to decide how to punish those who commits the most henious of crimes. I'm afraid this 'New World Order' aka 'Beast of the Uncovering' aka 'United Nations' is getting way too comfortable with its ability to manipulate people and nations into feeding it more and more power.

I will be voting against this proposal.

I bid you peace.

The Death Penalty is murder, nothing more, nothing less! There is no need to kill people when they could be arrested, it is nothing more than mere vengeance! If it is immoral to end someone's life, then this must apply to all people, whatever they do; even if someone is a murderer, they must still be treated morally.

The Death penalty doesn't solve anything, it merely causes more suffering!

The Death Penalty is also used as a tool by corrupt governemtns, such as those in America. Immediately before elections, many governers kill several criminals so that the people think they are tackling crime. Often these people have not had a fair trial.

It must also be remembered that there is no way of being certain that you have convicted the right person; even if they admit to the crime, it could be due to intense pressure by police. Once you have kileld someone, there is no going back.

I will also point out that arguments using religion espeically Christianity are not valid. Jesus says in Matthew 5:

'You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.'

Morality is about preventing suffering, not causing it. Even if someone has committed terrible crimes, there is no excuse to murder them to. I know you are all reasonable nations, and so I urge you to vote for this resolution. It is time to end these atrocities of murder legalised by the state, and to ban the Death Penalty now!

Novum: When you quoted Matthew 5 I am afraid you do so in ignorance. Remember that he says that when someone does something to YOU... forgive them. But when someone murders you... they don't just do it to you... they do it to your family and community as well. Besides, who is to say that when both murderer and victim are standing before God that they victim doesn't still have a chance to forgive the murderer.. and who says that murderer doesn't have a chance to be forgiven.

The death penalty is necessary.

No Resolution defines it as illegal Kelssek, it's still a proposal, and not in force..... unpassed legislation does not posses legal authority.

So you still lack the authority to dictate it's legallity in principalities outside of your jurisdiction. Case closed.

Yes, the Nuremburg laws did make the Nazi Holocaust legal under German law. But I don't consider it murder, I consider it what it is, genocide (the planned extermination of an ethnic, racial, or political group). I label things how they are, not what I want them to be.

My case on the Commonwealth of Virginia is not circular logic, it's called error correction, Virginia has the second highest Death Penalty conviction rate in the US, however, what is left out of that report is very few of the convictions are carried out because of error correction and control at the appeals level..... The judicial check and balance to catch errors... which is why it is there in the first place. Only about 1 in 10 make it through the system to execution. Only one type of murder is eligible for the death penalty, 1st degree. In many cases the convictions end up being either lessened to 2nd degree or 1st degree manslaughter, if not completely overturned because of errors or new evidence. In place is also a system for allowing the entrance of new-evidence even after the conviction.

I have seen many of the few cases where executions have been carried out, and I have yet to see cases where such an action wasn't justified....
A woman, wife of a SEAL team member is at home, with her is her 4 year old daughter, and she has two nephers she is watching ages 2 and 5. The house is broken into, the woman is beaten, then sexually assulted with the handle of a hammer, and then raped and further beaten to death. Weapon determined to be by blugeoning with a claw-hammer. The 4 year old daughter is also sexually assulted, and then beaten to death as well. The two boys are severlly beaten, one dying much later due to massive internal bleeding, multiple bone fractures, and a punctured lung, suffering for hours before he died. The other remained in sever condition but recovered. A hammer is found in the woods behind the house, present are bone fragments, blood, and other tissues from all four victims. The one survivor is able to describe the attacker, the description matches a 25 year old mentally handicapped person who lives down the street with his father. The man's fingerprints are present on the weapon, as is his blood. A journal is found in his room, not only describing his activities stalking this woman and her child, but also describing the events of the evening in all it's gore. Verdict? Convicted on 2 counts of 1st Degree (Premeditated) murder, 1 count of 2nd degree murder, and 1 count of assult with the intent to kill. His victims suffered for hours from his assult, he brutally ended the lives of 1 woman and 2 children, mentally and physically abused the one remaining survivor who had to see his aunt, brother and cousin all be assulted as well. The man died not a couple months ago by lethal injection, fairly quickly and painlessly.... This is where emotion REALLY kicks in, because this resolution seeks to "protect" this type of person... and when the crime happened 12 years ago, my fiancee lived right across the street.... I will not, and never shall support any effort that attempts to overide the legal, and rightfull use of the death penalty to remove monsters like this from the planet.....

Just because you are incapable of running an effective and efficent court system, does not entail that no one else is capable of it either... It just means you're too tripped up on mind-altering drugs to effectively run a government... Some of us are quite capable of holding fair and impartial trials to seek conviction, and check and ballencing out errors that may occur.

Thankfully, the PROPOSAL (it's not a resolution untill it is passed Kelssek, get that through your thick skull) is loosing, already with an almost 1000 vote lead on the part of the opposition (which means the better heads are prevailing).

You want to fix the system, enact resolutions to improve national court systems..... Don't fuck it all up for the rest of us though who already have effective court systems.....

The death penalty will stand in Tekania, regardless if this resolution is passed or not...

Tekania will still respect the jurisdictional rights and authorities of other nations, and continue to allow extradictions, regardless of what the penalty is upon the person, on a case by case basis, determined in hearing.... And we will expect any nation who has extradiction treaties to honor them, or face the consequences.

Lastly this is not over the use of a word. It's the resoning and meaning by which you use it.... You show no respect to other nations authority.

As for Mom-topia... ONE example is enough.... Fix the legal system not the penalties imposed.... It's the exorbenant ammount of error in the system that creates the problems, not the penalties imposed... Not to mention the "murder" rate studies only factor in murders that have been solved... I might remind you that Canada's low "murder" rate is topped by a legal system that is only capable of solving 21% of the cases that cross its path.... In the U.S. the rate is 86%, In Virginia in particular it is 98%.... I certainly don't call a system that has a gigantic back-log of unsolved cases, where most of the perpetrators are still running free in society an "effective" system.

The system already protects against the more attrocious acts of genocide (so these do not exist in the UN and so are invalid arguments in favor of this proposal) in the form of the Universal Bill of Human Rights Resolution.

You want to restrict it's use, fine... We already do that to the most serious cases

You want to improve the court system, fine.... We would gladly provide information as to what neccessitates an effiecient system

You want to ban the penalty? I don't think so..... That's no better then calling a medication that releaves symptoms of an illness, a cure... It's not, it releaves the symptom, while leaving the problem itself unsolved....

Necessitate fair and impartial juries, apply more restrictions to jurors, revamp, and harshen legal bar requirements... Enforce impartiality. Provide effective means to appeals, allow the addition of new evidence through the appeals process, provide meaningful and effective counsel to the accused... That is what you NEED to do..... Seek to decrease the number of wrongful convictions in the first place.... I don't personally see it right when anyone is incorrectly convicted, regardless of the crime or penalties imposed..... the Ban on the Death Penalty proposal (not resolution) is scape goat philosphy, seeking to reduce the penalties and leave the core of the problem intact....

Having studied ethics, philosophy and a couple of religions, I understand fully the 'value of life' and the controversy of this issue. I'm not going to quote the bible, or some philosophical teacher, we all know the opinions held.

Being religious my self, and concerned with what is 'right' I still feel torn between for and against for this issue. At first I thought I was for. But then I began thinking of the problems of crime in England. Due to more 'do-gooders' and civil rights people it becomes extremely difficult for police in England to charge, and convict criminals, and even then judges sentence them to what many feel are meagre punishments.

Those countries and states who do have stricter punishments, and indeed capital punishments, (Texas perhaps? I'm no expert) have no problems with crime what so ever.

I will continue to contemplate this issue, I've also found that there are many successful rehabilitaion camps baised on the teachings of Jesus, not a detterrent, but correction of those gone astray. So there are many supporting arguments for both sides.

Greetings.

There seems to be a pattern developing. Simplistic titles that harbor foolish notions.

I'll make this more clear than my last rebuttal.

THE UN HAS NO BUSINESS DEMANDING ANYTHING!


I think that is a wonderful rule. But I also believe that to every rule there are exceptions.

1994 Rwanada
2004 Joccia (from NationStates)

In both countries, massive genocide campaigns went unchecked. In both situations, the United Nations failed to act. (OOC: The real UN has since declared that it failed to protect 100,000s of Rwanadans, opening the political door for future responses.)

The point being, there are (in my nation's opinion) appropriate times to demand things.

The key isn't to make a habit out of making demands. It is not unlike raising a child. If you order them around and always use the strongest tone, when something really important comes by ... how will the child know what is important and what is not?

The question is really back to the issue many nations have been addressing: do your people consider government sponsored murders to be OK or not?

Though I've voted in favour of this resolution, I certainly appreciate that others do not share the feelings of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity. And I am a huge advocate of sovereign rights. Sovereignty should not be abused ... but my nation feels there are a few fundamental human rights that should be protected.

You will not see my nation supporting "Bans on Drugs", "Bans on Porn", "Bans on bad hair cuts", "Mandatory Abortions", "Mandatory Cloning", or any of the other domestic issues that nations foolishly bring forth.

But to this rule, there are exceptions. The termination of a human life (even if cost effective) is a blow to civil (not political) freedoms that my government feels is an exception.

10kMichael
UN / North Pacific Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

While Kerubia is against this proposal, we'll survive (like everyone else) if it passes, as we still have life in prison without parole. I don't know how it is in other nations, but life in prison without parole in Kerubia means you're thrown in a cell until you die, and you don't have a chance in hell of getting out (unless your innocence is proven). There isn't any of this forty years equals a life term in my nation.

In other regards, I am shocked at some of the people's arguments that we should ban the death penalty because it is more expensive (if there are appeals, which in most nations there are). It's true that it is more expensive if there's appeals, but justice does not (or should not) work for the lowest bidder, so this argument should be ignored. No matter the cost, justice must be achieved.

Kerubia acknowledges that justice is different in each nation. In some nations, capital punishment is not a just punishment, and we respect the right of that nation to decide so. In our nation, we do not believe that "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind", and we use the death penalty (although our favored punishment is life in prison without parole).

Kerubia is a nation that shoves aside morals (at least on paper) for the purpose of law and order. Perhaps, you could say that the law is our moral code, in which case you'd likely be correct. Murder, as in every nation ( I hope) is the most foul of crimes, and we are angered that it still exists. We chose to get rid of our murderers by either killing them outright or watching them rot in a cell until nature or God decides it's time for them to go. We do not want to spend the time and money to rehabilitate them when we can simply remove them via death or life in a cell.

Now now, I can hear you say, "That's so barbaric, so cruel," well, yes it is. But my nation doesn't care. Yes, that's "immoral" and "wrong", but once again, we don't care.

If this resolution should pass, which I certainly hope it doesn't, we still have our favored punishment, so we'll remain in the UN.

However, we would like to know which nation[s] will accept our murderers to be rehabilitated in their nations. We will not spend the time and money for their lives, but if you want to, we'll let you. You can even keep them in your nation if you like, or allow them to come back to Kerubia or any other nation.

So, which of you will accept our murderers for legal deportation to your nation?

Those countries and states who do have stricter punishments, and indeed capital punishments, (Texas perhaps? I'm no expert) have no problems with crime what so ever.

Not necessarily true. Nations that use the death penalty have higher crime rates, but this may not be as a cause of the death penalty. Perhaps if it didn't exist, they'd be HIGHER, but we may never know. However, in New York state, when the death penalty was legalized, crime rates went down (although the state still has a high crime rate).

If you didn't feel like reading my post, I'll summarize it for you here : The representative from Kerubia shuffles a deck of cards, and pulls a card out. It has a "national soverignty" face value.

come on now....


death is the final solution!!

if you can't kill those who kill you should just make killers rulers.

it isn't about fear...or human rights...

it is the law of the land...you kill...you should be killed

I just wanted to toss in a little observation. I sent out approximately 50 telegrams the other day urging delegates who voted for this resolution to change their votes. I was pleasantly suprised that almost 10% actually did.

Several nations wrote back, and I was absolutely amazed at the viciousness of those who claim to have voted for this resolution in the name of peace and human rights. The absolute cruelty coming from these supposed doves spoke volumes about their true motivation--not to protect "human rights" but to protect those who would take INNOCENT life. In addition, several nations went so far as to be directly threatening the lives of those in my nation. Their intent was also clear--to use their influence in the UN to excercise contorl over other nations. To hide this intention behind the cloak of the "right to life" is cowardly.

i reckon it should be banned and to finish the banning of prosecution shall prosecute the people who say it should be kept they should be killed to see how it feels


From
martisralia
:tantrum:

i reckon it should be banned and to finish the banning of prosecution shall prosecute the people who say it should be kept they should be killed to see how it feels


From
martisralia
:tantrum:

i reckon it should be banned and to finish the banning of prosecution shall prosecute the people who say it should be kept they should be killed to see how it feels


From
martisralia
:tantrum:

i reckon it should be banned and to finish the banning of prosecution shall prosecute the people who say it should be kept they should be killed to see how it feels


From
martisralia
:tantrum:

i reckon it should be banned and to finish the banning of prosecution shall prosecute the people who say it should be kept they should be killed to see how it feels

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your incredibly long run-on sentence but it seems like you are advocating killing innocent people in order to prevent guilty people from being killed but by rewarding murderers and punishing nonmurderers who just happen to not tolerate murder aren't you just creating a situation where cold blooded killing becomes the accepted societal norm?

This server should be put to death. Look below.

Both murder and vengeance are born of the same emotion: hate. My nation is of the mindset that hate can never be condoned. I would like to think that most nations hold it to be true that hate is bad. Why is it then that one outcome of hate (vengeance via the death penalty) is encouraged, while another outcome (murder) is punished. If we punish murder we cannot encourage vengeance. It is hypocricy as well as barbaric. Furthermore, if this argument does not change your mind consider this. By putting a murderer or rapist to death, you give them an easy way out for they will never have to face up to what they have done. Giving them a life sentence without parole seems to me to be a far worse punishment. Give me liberty or give me death and what not. The Most Serene Republic of Joehanesburg, as well as most of the region Guardians of the Universe will support the proposal .

We've gotta be able to kill a few off. The mortality rate is not a reliable area or buffer zone on the birth rate. In order to keep our eyes on the future we must stay ahead of population growth to allow for efficient planning and policy.

I'm glad so many of you are joining the good fight! We may win this one!

The death penalty should not be an issue for the United Nations, you fascists! No! After mass-murderer Harvey DeJohnson was apprehended six months ago, with a 314 body count, including women and children, the people of Hippy Forest demanded retribution! In protest, many refused to send their taxes to the penal system, causing a quick drop in the quality of prisons! They did this so they wouldn't support such a horrible person! After a lengty trial he was finally sentenced to death and executed but a few days ago. Yesterday, after the tax forms were collected, there was a surge of funding for our penal system, and already the results can be seen!

Do not let travesties such as this continue in other nations! If a few backward people wish to fill their prisons with corrupted souls, then let them, but those of us who know better should be allowed to use our better judgement!

I'm glad so many of you are joining the good fight! We may win this one!

The death penalty should not be an issue for the United Nations, you fascists! No! After mass-murderer Harvey DeJohnson was apprehended six months ago, with a 314 body count, including women and children, the people of Hippy Forest demanded retribution! In protest, many refused to send their taxes to the penal system, causing a quick drop in the quality of prisons! They did this so they wouldn't support such a horrible person! After a lengty trial he was finally sentenced to death and executed but a few days ago. Yesterday, after the tax forms were collected, there was a surge of funding for our penal system, and already the results can be seen!

Do not let travesties such as this continue in other nations! If a few backward people wish to fill their prisons with corrupted souls, then let them, but those of us who know better should be allowed to use our better judgement!

The debate on this ban has lead to two principle arguments: that Capital Punishment can not be allowed because it is an imperfect system, and that those sentenced to death should be sentenced to life in prison without parole. (Tekania has covered murder and killing, as well as CP not being cruel and unusual)

Conducted properly capital punishment is warranted, and that arguments contending that it is immoral and does not act as a deterrent are not valid reasons for its cessation. To conduct capital punishment correctly will require modifications to the system. Ant Pharisaism offers the following based on discussion with other NationStates:

The proper conduction of capital punishment relies on three powerful criteria that must be met.

First, the crime and its effects must be so heinous that the victims and members of society, represented by a jury of peers, feel justifiably threatened and insecure insofar that they are unable to perform their daily life activities without fear of harm so long as the perpetrator remains in existence.

Secondly, it must be proved through a preponderance of expert psychological analysis that so long as the criminal is alive the person will remain a threat to the lives of those with whom he or she comes into contact with, and that rehabilitation is not possible.

The last criterion is that guilt be determined without a doubt. This means that if it is at all possible the suspect is not the individual responsible for the crime that he or she is accused, the punishment, if convicted, cannot be death. Thus, to prove guilt without a doubt will require more than admission of guilt and eyewitness accounts, it will require concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime and proof that testimony is not acquiesced or admission forced. This is important because conviction without a doubt renders an appeal unnecessary.

Some would argue that this qualification for capital punishment is so stringent that very few individuals would receive the sentence. I do not consider this to be a negative argument against such a process. Capital punishment is unlike all other forms of punishment. The criminal is not denied utility and freedom due to imprisonment, the criminal is put to death, and thus denied the possibility of future freedom or derivation of utility from life.

The argument is also made that solitary confinement for life without the opportunity for parole, the only alternative to capital punishment as defined in this paper, offers society the same security as capital punishment. The prisoner is denied freedom and utility from life and not allowed contact with society, and thus cannot harm society. However, there are two reasons I do not believe that solitary confinement is a viable alternative to capital punishment.

First, solitary confinement is not entirely solitary in the physical sense. Inmates are lead by guards to their allowed physical activity session, which lasts for one hour. Although no guard is present in the area where physical activity is allowed to occur, a guard does lead the inmate to the area without engaging in personal communication. This physical engagement, where the guard leads the inmate to the recreational facilities, is an opportunity for the inmate to harm the guard, and thus should not be permitted. This is since psychoanalysis has concluded that given the opportunity it is likely the convict will harm the guard.

Second, several leading psychologists including Dr. Milton Weinstein, “Henry J. Kaiser Professor of Health Policy and Management Departments of Health Policy and Management and bio-statistics at Harvard University,” have concluded that solitary confinement leads to "memory loss to severe anxiety to hallucinations to delusions and, under the severest cases of sensory deprivation, people go crazy." This capacity to cause such mental deterioration via depravity constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is not allowed under UN law.

What do you do with such violent people that are a threat to those around them?
Isolate Gigatron from the rest of the world, and send them there?

Ban the dead penalty and instead of killing mutilate those anti-socialist sick tards.

So you say that genocide isn't murder and that the Holocaust therefore is genocide, not murder. Come ON. It's obvious that the two words go together, besides which, genocide is a war crime, so even THAT has to satisfy you.

No Resolution defines it as illegal Kelssek, it's still a proposal, and not in force..... unpassed legislation does not posses legal authority.

Since you want to get so technical, I'll remind you that it's a resolution at vote, not just a proposal. Proposals are things the delegates endorse, resolutions are what everyone votes on.

I will not, and never shall support any effort that attempts to overide the legal, and rightfull use of the death penalty to remove monsters like this from the planet.....

How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what the guy's done. Yes, I consider what you described monstrous, but that doesn't justify vengeance. I don't think Saddam Hussein should get away with gassing people, but neither do I want him executed. Even if you did get to watch them pump lethal chemcials into the hammer murderer, so what? You can't undo what's been done and all you do is keeping piling death upon death. You don't solve anything.

I'm not saying protect murderers. Don't kill them, that's all.

You want to ban the penalty? I don't think so..... That's no better then calling a medication that releaves symptoms of an illness, a cure... It's not, it releaves the symptom, while leaving the problem itself unsolved....

Do you know, that's exactly what is said about trying to solve crime problems by making punishments harsher. And if the "problem" you're referring to is the prisoner, then need I remind you, in spite of whatever angry hate-filled objections you have, they are still people. You're concerned for the family of the victim, what about the family of the murderer? I don't think his mother will go to the execution and say, "Oh, my son deserves to die. Never did think he'd amount to anything. Burn in hell, you worthless piece of garbage."

I might remind you that Canada's low "murder" rate is topped by a legal system that is only capable of solving 21% of the cases that cross its path

Uh, police solve cases. Not legal systems.

And yet, we have lower crime rates (not just cases which go to court, but cases REPORTED to police). Oh, we do have the occasional psycho, like the serial killer in BC who murdered prostitutes and disguised their remains as pork, but what's more important - solving crime or preventing it? Prevention is better than cure, and I think that's the difference in crime rates between Canada and the US, though that's my opinion.

I don't know about Virginia, let alone its legal system, though I assure you it can't be as rosy as you paint it, and I'd like to see your sources for those figures.

You want to fix the system, enact resolutions to improve national court systems..... Don't f--- it all up for the rest of us though who already have effective court systems.....

So here's the question - How, exactly, would removing the death penalty negatively impact your criminal justice system? Do you mean that every time you change your criminal code the court system goes haywire?

Ban the dead penalty and instead of killing mutilate those anti-socialist sick tards.

Mutiliation would be defined as "cruel and unusual" punishment under present, in force, UN resolution. And there is nothing wrong with being "anti-socialst" socialism is a red-herring anyway..... A way for an elitist government to control the masses of its' own citizenry under the guise of an equitable system... Not to mention the whole question of the Socialist influence banning the death-penalty brings to question all of your motives anyway, since it's illogical.... Socialist do not believe in individual rights... it is contrary to socialist doctrine, the social order takes precedence over the individual..... Where as in free states, individual liberties take precedence over social order.... which is generally why free-nations punish transgressions against the liberties of others, and socialist nations try to rehabilitate persons for the supposed betterment of society... Socialism does not believe in the principles of justice (justice necessitates vengance upon the wrongdoer, through the law, on behalf of the wronged), instead no justice is found in socialism....

justice is "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law."

vengeance is, "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

Mind you, "due reward" is a positive or negative term. A person who served their nation honorably is rewarded with honor from their nation. A person who murders another in a heinous act, is rewarded with DEATH for their dishonoring another's right to life.

Ban the dead penalty and instead of killing mutilate those anti-socialist sick tards.

Mutiliation would be defined as "cruel and unusual" punishment under present, in force, UN resolution. And there is nothing wrong with being "anti-socialst" socialism is a red-herring anyway..... A way for an elitist government to control the masses of its' own citizenry under the guise of an equitable system... Not to mention the whole question of the Socialist influence banning the death-penalty brings to question all of your motives anyway, since it's illogical.... Socialist do not believe in individual rights... it is contrary to socialist doctrine, the social order takes precedence over the individual..... Where as in free states, individual liberties take precedence over social order.... which is generally why free-nations punish transgressions against the liberties of others, and socialist nations try to rehabilitate persons for the supposed betterment of society... Socialism does not believe in the principles of justice (justice necessitates vengance upon the wrongdoer, through the law, on behalf of the wronged), instead no justice is found in socialism....

justice is "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law."

vengeance is, "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

Mind you, "due reward" is a positive or negative term. A person who served their nation honorably is rewarded with honor from their nation. A person who murders another in a heinous act, is rewarded with DEATH for their dishonoring another's right to life.

Conducted properly capital punishment is warranted, and that arguments contending that it is immoral and does not act as a deterrent are not valid reasons for its cessation.

Why isn't it valid? The cruelty, necessity or morality, are much more important, in my view. I'm standing up for guilty, convicted criminals here, and I don't care what they did. You cannot assume that every murderer is a hardcore sicko beyond redemption, when this is rarely the case. And even if they are beyond redemption, we don't "put them down" like with animals, because we're supposed to value every human life.

The last criterion is that guilt be determined without a doubt. This means that if it is at all possible the suspect is not the individual responsible for the crime that he or she is accused, the punishment, if convicted, cannot be death. Thus, to prove guilt without a doubt will require more than admission of guilt and eyewitness accounts, it will require concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime and proof that testimony is not acquiesced or admission forced. This is important because conviction without a doubt renders an appeal unnecessary.

Shouldn't you be doing this for EVERY trial, then? You cannot have "guilty" and "very guilty", because guilt and innocence are black and white. If you have ANY doubt at all, you are supposed to presume the accused innocent. And appeals are not just for fun, they are an essential check in the system.

Capital punishment is unlike all other forms of punishment. The criminal is not denied utility and freedom due to imprisonment, the criminal is put to death, and thus denied the possibility of future freedom or derivation of utility from life.

That is why I consider the death penalty cruel in the first place.

This physical engagement, where the guard leads the inmate to the recreational facilities, is an opportunity for the inmate to harm the guard, and thus should not be permitted. This is since psychoanalysis has concluded that given the opportunity it is likely the convict will harm the guard.

Uhh... okay, let's discard the implausibility of that, and say yes, and he gets immediately harmed by the other guards. Besides, in real prisons, other precautions are taken when handling psychotic or dangerous inmates. Anyway, as you said, this is a cruel and unusual punishment and is illegal.

What do you do with such violent people that are a threat to those around them?
Isolate Gigatron from the rest of the world, and send them there?

I don't mind if you send them here. We'd be saving their lives.

-dp-

i agree that we shouldn't kill the murderers ... instead we should torture them but keep them alive for a few years to teach them not to kill or it'll happen again... then put them on a fairly large desert island and have them fend for themselves until they die!!!

i agree that we shouldn't kill the murderers ... instead we should torture them but keep them alive for a few years to teach them not to kill or it'll happen again... then put them on a fairly large desert island and have them fend for themselves until they die!!!

A way for an elitist government to control the masses of its' own citizenry under the guise of an equitable system...

Uh, actually, that's capitalism.

What you are talking about is a mixture of Stalinist communism and fascism. Socialism is completely different and is, in fact, practiced in almost all developed, free countries to varying degrees. The United States has a socialist welfare system, and the very idea of Social Security or pensions is socialist. Canada, New Zealand, and the UK both have socialist healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded. Scandinavian countries take it even further.

Socialism is NOT communism, which is NOT fascism.

-dp-

I cannot wait for the new server.

-tp-

I mean, REALLY.

I think individual nations should decide if their countries should have the death penalty or not. Trying to ban it is another example of the UN's oppression of its members.

A way for an elitist government to control the masses of its' own citizenry under the guise of an equitable system...

Uh, actually, that's capitalism.

What you are talking about is a mixture of Stalinist communism and fascism. Socialism is completely different and is, in fact, practiced in almost all developed, free countries to varying degrees. The United States has a socialist welfare system, and the very idea of Social Security or pensions is socialist. Canada, New Zealand, and the UK both have socialist healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded. Scandinavian countries take it even further.

Socialism is NOT communism, which is NOT fascism.

No, that is not capitalism, capitalism only exists in a "FREE MARKET" system.... In capitalism the market is driven by the consumers.... In socialism the market is legislated by the government..... You possition is totally without bounds in reality.

I hate the welfare system, and I hate social-security, they are both programs contrary to the ideals expressed in the U.S. constitution... And they are nothing but money seives that will soak the U.S. dry.

I am a staunch capitalist [IRL: I am a small-business owner..... I can be that because of capitalism, capitalism believes anyone with enough drive and will to succeed, can..... I managed to grow up in a low-income family, and work my way into my present position through the will to succeed.]

I don't mind if you send them here. We'd be saving their lives.

The Parliament of Kerubia would like to offer you the oppurtunity to take all of our death row inmates, Kelssek. We feel that in such situation, both of our desires are met: our murderers are not killed (which is what you want) and the murderers are out of Kerubia's society (which is what we want).

We are willing to provide transportation, and if your rehabilitation proves useful, you may gain tax paying citizens.

We are willing to provide transportation, and if your rehabilitation proves useful, you may gain tax paying citizens.

Send them over, then.

We are willing to provide transportation, and if your rehabilitation proves useful, you may gain tax paying citizens.

Send them over, then.

Very well, once our governments have signed the agreements, you'll have'em.

We are willing to provide transportation, and if your rehabilitation proves useful, you may gain tax paying citizens.

Send them over, then.

Very well, once our governments have signed the agreements, you'll have'em.

This kind of idiotic "resolution" that just provides a front for political battles and strutting is exactly the reason I resigned from the United Nations.

In socialism the market is legislated by the government.

No, government control of the market is COMMUNISM. Socialism advocates government control of utilities, transportation, natural resources and land. That's very different - private enterprise is allowed, private ownership is allowed, but the government regulates and controls so that you don't get out-of-control consumerism and free-marketeering.

I hate the welfare system, and I hate social-security, they are both programs contrary to the ideals expressed in the U.S. constitution... And they are nothing but money seives that will soak the U.S. dry.

That's your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it. I think welfare is essential to prevent the poor from starving and to help the unemployed make ends meet while they find a job.

And they are sucking the treasury dry only because you have an idiot in charge who keeps giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to the rich. Corporate welfare, in the form of tax breaks and bailouts, the last especially for the airlines, was more than the welfare for people with no jobs or barely making the living wage. Even before the 9/11 attacks, he'd managed to reverse Clinton's economic growth and blow your federal surplus. And now he's turned it into a $1 trillion deficit. I like the USA enough to want Bush to lose the election.

Look, let's both drop economics, okay? We're debating human/civil rights.

I am a staunch capitalist [IRL: I am a small-business owner..... I can be that because of capitalism, capitalism believes anyone with enough drive and will to succeed, can..... I managed to grow up in a low-income family, and work my way into my present position through the will to succeed.

Good for you then. I said the wrong thing, it's not capitalism that's wrong, it's capitalism when combined with out-of-control free markets and globalisation that gets you an elite power structure with phantom social equality.

What about making people "disappear."

Isn't that sort of the death penalty in another form?

Why isn't that included in this resolution

A terrorist is about to execute a group of people. A nation's swat team has the terrorist in its sights. If this becomes law, the swat team builds a campfire snuggles down with the terrorist and prepares to sing while watching everyone get killed, including themselves. This is an open invitation for non-UN countries to invade the UN nations. We would not be allowed to kill any of them while they massacre our people.

How in the world could the same body uphold, and in fact laud abortion which is murder, yet propose to ban the death penalty? At least a person being put to death has been convicted of a crime, and is not being killed because they are a sheer inconveniance. The UN in this game is as backward and hypocritical (and useless) as the real life UN. It just stands to reason that any organization which infringes on the sovrienty of other nations is incapable of making decisions that fit all of the nations. Solution: make your own laws and forget the UN.

Kelessek

Your basic premise "life is sacrosanct" is flawed at least as an absolute statement. Governments are not acting on hypocrisy to end life because we agree to the social contract that states "to take ones life is met with consequences". The consequence a society deems fit is solely the right of that society to decide. To make the absolute statement that "life is sacrosanct" would be foolishly naive because then it completely invalidates the lives of those that follow the rules of their societies.

I am not morally stupified by the prospect of killing another human being who is attempting to kill me. It would be inhumane for me to be made helpless by such a silly absolute like you have proposed in the face of those unwilling to ascribe to the basic value of free will, which is realized through life. Death Penalty isn't punishment set down to correct abnormal behavior it is a statement of the will of a people to not tolerate filth that masquerade as citizens. A murderer is put to death because he lost his right to free will. The society determines the response by justifcations and the qualifications of the crime.

This kind of idiotic "resolution" that just provides a front for political battles and strutting is exactly the reason I resigned from the United Nations.

Me too, I just couldn't take it. It's worthless. Useless Negotiations. That's all it is. Get out, get out while you can! :lol:

This depends on how you view death, but if you DONT kill them, they have:

a: life in prison with no chance of parole
b: life in prison with no chance of parole
c: life in prison with no chance of parole

Uh, not always, the maximum punishment here is life with possible parole after 40 years. Depends on individual nations law. And I believe Barney was outlawed after 43 inmates killed themselves.

Darn, Barney was such a good idea too.

It may be the max you have in your country, but I believe that all convicted murderers should get life in prison without parole, and that certain rapists should too. But, those are just my beliefs.

To make the absolute statement that "life is sacrosanct" would be foolishly naive because then it completely invalidates the lives of those that follow the rules of their societies... A murderer is put to death because he lost his right to free will. The society determines the response by justifcations and the qualifications of the crime.

Yes, there are and should be consequences. I'm not against harsh punishment for murderers, it's killing them that I'm against.

The very fact that we even think of imposing, and that you approve of the death penalty for murder, is because you, too believe that life is sacrosanct, and that violating it willfully must be punished harshly! Society decides that harsh punishment is called for because of this belief, but it is counter-productive and contradictory for society to be breaking its own ideals to remove "filth", as you put it.

(edit) I don't see how this is naive. I also have no idea what you meant with the free will thing - how does a murderer forfeit free will?(end edit)

The society determines the response by justifcations and the qualifications of the crime.

Through the law, yes. But society often needs prodding from the law for progress. Take the civil rights movement for blacks, or more recently, for gay rights in the USA. It took a court ruling, against segregation, and to strike down laws against sodomy, to begin the change towards equality and tolerance and push society in what was inarguably the right direction. I believe a similar thing is called for here, to push society into no longer taking life to uphold life.

A terrorist is about to execute a group of people. A nation's swat team has the terrorist in its sights. If this becomes law, the swat team builds a campfire snuggles down with the terrorist and prepares to sing while watching everyone get killed, including themselves. This is an open invitation for non-UN countries to invade the UN nations. We would not be allowed to kill any of them while they massacre our people.

You know well enough that capital punishment and military operations are two different things and that banning the death penalty will have no effect on the ability of law enforcement and the military to act in defence of the nation. If you don't, now you know, and none too soon.

Think of it this way, assuming death penalty applies - When you kill in self-defence, you gain 1 life - your own, and lose 1. That's a "net gain", because if you had died, your murderer would have been executed anyway. When you take down a suicide bomber running down the street with dynamite strapped to himself, you gain several lives and lose one. It's a net gain. But when you execute a person who commited a murder, you lose 2 lives and gain none, and you get a net loss.

Jacob Eberhart wrote:
99.9% of the time they are murderers


Really, You Say 99.9% Of The Time? Even If That Were True, Which It Is Most Likely Not, That Means...
out of 1000 executions, 1 are innocent, and know it.
out of 10000 excecutions, 10 are innocent, and know it.
out of 100000 executions, 100 are innocent, and know it.
out of 1000000 excecutions, 1000 are innocent, and know it.

But, Those Innocent Are Just A Side Affect Of A Greater Good, Like Civillians Purposely Killed In A War, Aren't They? I say No! There Is No Reason For Execution Other That Humanities Obsession With Death! Law Has No Right To Be God In These Decisions, And The Execution Of Innocent Is Not Reversible. Besides, A Murderer Would Suffer More Staying Alive In A Horrible Prision Awaiting A Death Of Disease Or Old Age, And An Innocent Person Has A Chance That Someday, Someone May Discover His Innocence.Death Penalty Has No Real Advantage Other Than Less Jails. I say NO To The Death Penalty.

Irathian Represenative To U.N.

Law Has No Right To Be God In These Decisions, And The Execution Of Innocent Is Not Reversible. Besides, A Murderer Would Suffer More Staying Alive In A Horrible Prision Awaiting A Death Of Disease Or Old Age, And An Innocent Person Has A Chance That Someday, Someone May Discover His Innocence.Death Penalty Has No Real Advantage Other Than Less Jails. I say NO To The Death Penalty.

Irathian Represenative To U.N.

Your post brings up a good point, and infact is untrue. Mentioning God, and the laws inability to to be God is interesting. If you believe in God, then I would assume you believe in the truth of the scripture. If you believe in the truth if the scriture, then you believe it when it says that, while God judges in heaven, He places people here on earth to judge punishment for earthly crimes. If a human judge decides that the death penalty is warrented, as it should be in the worst cases, then that is not playing God, but is in fact following God.

Lastly, while there are occasional innocent people killed, that is, you could say, the cost of justice. I would honestly rather have an innocent person killed in a rare instance, than to free a murder or rapist on parol, only to have them kill and rape again. Parol is always there. Life without parol can be sentenced, but parol or a shortened sentence is always there. The only way to keep society safe from uncurable criminals is to rid it of them permanently. The best way to do this is capital punishment.

Perhaps a better resolution would not be a ban on capital punishment, but a banning of methods. Leave the legality of capital punishment up to the member states, but limit their abilities. For instance, ban the electric chair of firing squad. Only allow lethal injection. In my humble opinion, this is a far superior option.

In order for one to be able to play God, there must be a firm belief of that person that there is a God. The Autonomous Collective of Social Cleavage is a completely Athiest nation and as such the death penalty (which is legal for First Degree Murder Only) is and will continue to be a necessary procedure for any nation wishing to curb murder and save prison costs at the same time.

In addition the United Nations has no right to dictate internal policy to its member nations. Those decisions are to be made by the ELECTED officials in the democratic UN nations. The UN is drasticly over-stepping its bounds by even proposing this legislation ans thus I have voted against it and i encourage you all to do the same.

In socialism the market is legislated by the government.

No, government control of the market is COMMUNISM. Socialism advocates government control of utilities, transportation, natural resources and land. That's very different - private enterprise is allowed, private ownership is allowed, but the government regulates and controls so that you don't get out-of-control consumerism and free-marketeering.

I hate the welfare system, and I hate social-security, they are both programs contrary to the ideals expressed in the U.S. constitution... And they are nothing but money seives that will soak the U.S. dry.

That's your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it. I think welfare is essential to prevent the poor from starving and to help the unemployed make ends meet while they find a job.

And they are sucking the treasury dry only because you have an idiot in charge who keeps giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to the rich. Corporate welfare, in the form of tax breaks and bailouts, the last especially for the airlines, was more than the welfare for people with no jobs or barely making the living wage. Even before the 9/11 attacks, he'd managed to reverse Clinton's economic growth and blow your federal surplus. And now he's turned it into a $1 trillion deficit. I like the USA enough to want Bush to lose the election.

Look, let's both drop economics, okay? We're debating human/civil rights.

I am a staunch capitalist [IRL: I am a small-business owner..... I can be that because of capitalism, capitalism believes anyone with enough drive and will to succeed, can..... I managed to grow up in a low-income family, and work my way into my present position through the will to succeed.

Good for you then. I said the wrong thing, it's not capitalism that's wrong, it's capitalism when combined with out-of-control free markets and globalisation that gets you an elite power structure with phantom social equality.

Actually the wellfare system and social security has been doomed to failure since it's very creation under F.D.R..... Welfare will always be self-destructive in the USA.... Because the USA is a constitutionally mandated free-market society... the attempt to mix socialism into free market ideology, merely leads to the death of the weaker "socialistic" system in the long run, because it's incompatible with the nation as a whole. You could shove any president in the White House, the system will die regardless within 50 years from the present.... It's been on that road, at least, since the 1960's... You simply cannot shove a round peg into a square hole....

I also might mind you, those "tax-breaks" for the rich, were not for the rich... they were for those of us running LLC's and Chapter S corporations (small business'). Mind you, by some people's standards we would be considered "rich" in that we have a gross worth between 200,000 and 1,000,000, but mind you, 90% or more of that is tied up in our company to keep it running..... Those "horrid" tax-cuts, allowed me to expand my business more over the last 3 years, and hire more people on (more people working, less people NEEDING welfare in the first place). IMPO the president's plans are just fine, and working very effectively... And my fellow business owners also agree...... We also look forward to the proposed ability to make social-security optional, to allow our workers more control over their retirement benifits. I might remind you, the USA existed for about 160 years without income tax, social-security or wellfare..... The whole socialistic system has only been in place for 70 yearsAnd won't make it past 130.

This is all also, agreed, outside the scope of the topic....

Once again, much like my Virginia example, CP is only brought on by 1st Degree murder, and Treason during times of war..... And it all weights in the idea of reasonable doubt (reasonable doubt leads to no conviction).. there has to be an preponderance of evidence against the accused being the murder, as well as preponderance of evidence that he premeditated the act... It's up to the prosecution to proove the accused commited the murder BEYOND reasonable doubt... Innocent till proven guilty still stands in Tekania. CP is tightly controled, severly limited in scope, and applied only in the most grievous circumstances.

Regardless of it all, the UN means nothing, and neither do her resolutions.... EVERY nation in the end answers to one authority, and one authority only...... the will of her people.

I will also note that the opposition to this proposal has reached a 2000 vote lead to the proponents... and the steady rate of 1.4 opposition votes to every 1 supporting votes is continuing.... YAY reason and justice!

while God judges in heaven, He places people here on earth to judge punishment for earthly crimes.

Uh huh... What Scripture are you reading that talks about judges having the right to decide life or death? There is none, thats the hammurabi code "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" in which a judge decides whats a fitting punishment, that hase nothing to do with god, that is, infact, 1 man playing god over a civilization

occasional innocent people killed, that is, you could say, the cost of justice. I would honestly rather have an innocent person killed in a rare instance, than to free a murder or rapist on parol, only to have them kill and rape again.

I never Said Parol Is Even Allowed In My Country, Which it is not. Our Government believes that, unless wrongly accused, you are to serve your entire sentence. also, because we are ruled by a dictator, and legal loop hole abuse is forbidden, so that murderers and rapists never get away.
And To your Point About occasional innocent person killed for the greater good, I find that totally unacceptable. Plus, I HIGHLY Doubt That 99.9% Of Prisioners are innocent. And look at this little bit...

"now well over eighty and rising rapidly -- of prisoners who in the past quarter century were sentenced to death but were released from prison because of the likelihood of their innocence."- William Kreuter.
Also In The Same Article, A Story About 2 Innocent People Who Were Executed But Later Found To Be Innocent. In Florida, Sonia Jacobs and Jesse Tafero were convicted of murdering a state trooper and his companion in 1976 and were sentenced to death. The chief evidence against them was supplied by the third person at the scene of the crime, an ex-convict named Walter Rhodes. In exchange for his testimony, Rhodes pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received a life sentence.
"In 1981 Jacobs' death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. But in 1990 Tafero -- despite his protestations of innocence -- was executed. Micki Dickoff, a childhood friend of Jacobs', read about Tafero's execution and reestablished contact with Jacobs. Thanks to Dickoff's unflagging efforts, federal courts threw out Jacobs' conviction; in 1992 she was released when the state admitted not having the evidence to retry her. It now appears Jacobs was completely innocent. Why is the Jacobs-Tafero case so significant?
If Jacobs was innocent, then the execution of Tafero was probably the execution of an innocent man, because the same evidence (later shown to be insufficient) used to convict Jacobs had also been used to convict Tafero.
The information that freed her would have freed him -- if he had not already been executed...On March 25, 1997, Pedro Medina was killed in a botched execution in Florida's "Old Sparky." Medina's head was set on fire and thick smoke filled the execution chamber. But the rare media attention prompted by this spectacle almost entirely ignored substantial questions of Medina's sanity as well as his guilt.
Pedro Medina came to the United States in the Mariel boatlift of 1980, when the Castro administration sent to the US thousands of Cubans, including many criminals and mentally ill people, whom the Cuban government found undesirable. Medina was then a teenager with a lengthy history of psychiatric disorders and disastrous scholastic performance who had just been released from a Cuban mental hospital.
Two years later he was arrested for the Orlando murder of Dorothy James. Two state-appointed psychiatrists ruled Medina competent to stand trial although he spoke of God sitting bodily beside him. He was sentenced to death in spite of having no prior convictions.
The prosecution only obtained such a result because of Medina's mentally troubled state. The fact is that there was very little physical evidence to link him to the crime scene. His fingerprints were not found in the victim's apartment, and there was no blood in the car in which he allegedly left the scene. Nor was there blood on the knife that the prosecution touted as the murder weapon. Indeed, there is no question that the state's case against Medina was weak until he bolstered it with his own behavior during trial.
Medina displayed wildly unpredictable mood swings during his pretrial confinement, and was once placed under a suicide watch. In court, Medina maintained a steady stream of distracting outbursts and expressed frequent confusion at the proceedings. On the last day of trial, he disregarded counsel's advice and took the stand himself. In spite of this behavior, Medina's lawyer never presented his client's history of mental illness as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Subsequent evaluations by mental health professionals revealed paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis and depression, leading one doctor to observe, "It appears that though this individual had a factual understanding of the charges against him, he lacked a rational ability to aid counsel in his defense.... There is a substantial probability that this individual was incompetent to stand trial at the time his trial was held." For purely procedural reasons, the matter was never considered on appeal.
On February 10, 1997, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that Medina should receive an evidentiary hearing to decide his sanity. However, a minority of three of the judges also wanted for the hearing to include considering claims that the evidence pointed to another killer.
Justice Harry Anstead said the court should have noted Medina's long history of mental illness and the fact that the case against him was based on circumstantial evidence; the judge pointed out that daughters of the victim testified that they do not believe that Medina killed their mother. The justice added that the "most troubling" aspect of Medina's appeal was the claim that the state failed to disclose evidence suggesting that someone else killed Dorothy James.
On March 24, 1997, the Florida court system quickly refused to consider new evidence. The original trial jury convicted Medina of stabbing James, his former neighbor, after the jury heard, among other things, that he was found in North Florida with her Cadillac a few days later. A knife believed to be the murder weapon was found in the car.
At this proceeding, Medina's lawyers said they never knew that a knife was taken from the victim's home and tested by a medical examiner. They claim that knife, which had no links to Medina, could have been the murder weapon.
One of Dorothy James' daughters, Lindi James, was often outspoken in opposition to the state's wishes. She said, "There was never to my satisfaction an investigation done that supported executing someone." She also said, "I really feel strongly against the execution of Medina, but at this point I'm just really tired of it all being brought back up over and over and over and over again." Lindi James always believed that too many questions were left unanswered about her mother's murder, and she gave Medina's lawyers an affidavit to that effect.
"I have never believed Pedro killed my mother," Ms. James said in the affidavit. According to her daughter's affidavit, Mrs. James liked Medina and tried to help him adjust to life in the United States.
"I do not want my mother's memory to be used as an excuse for executing Pedro Medina," Ms. James said. In addition to the ignored wishes of the victim's family, Medina's case prompted appeals for clemency from Pope John Paul II and a church in New Jersey; for a while after arriving from Cuba, Medina lived in Cape May, N.J., where a member of the First Presbyterian Church sponsored him."-William Kreuter, Executed Innocents.

So, In Conclusion: Innocent people are executed more than we would like to believe, because justice has it's flaws, Meaning It Shouldn't be allowed to kill in the name of a possibly incorrect hearing.

Izrathian Represenative to the U.N.

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.

So what is the government there for? To protect the majority of society correct? For that reason we have a criminal justice system to begin with. The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison. Would you rather the government be spending your tax money to keep the guy who slaughtered a room full of people alive instead of spending that money on a healthcare program that could pay for your mother's heart surgery?

Um, Actually, Due To the repeal proccess in most countries, execution costs around 1.2 million while keeping them alive from age 18 to 70 costs almost half that. executions are expensive

Um, Actually, Due To the repeal proccess in most countries, execution costs around 1.2 million while keeping them alive from age 18 to 70 costs almost half that. executions are expensive

That would be the result of bureaucracy and the endless appeals and additional time before sentencing.

in that case: your saying you cost cut by only reviewing once and sending them off to the needle room? i cannot imagine the amount of innocent people die because of that. beuracracy's executions are full of repeals and still innocent die.

I never Said Parol Is Even Allowed In My Country, Which it is not. Our Government believes that, unless wrongly accused, you are to serve your entire sentence. also, because we are ruled by a dictator, and legal loop hole abuse is forbidden, so that murderers and rapists never get away.


Well woop-t-doo. Good for you, I guess this would work for you. Here's the problem. You are thinking only for yourself. What would come of countries who offer parol? With the UN infringing wrongfully on their sovrienty, they would be forced to also ban parol. This would create environment in which no prisoner is ever released early, no matter how minimal their crime or recovery. So while it works for you, it does not work for other member nations. This is exactly why I resigned from the UN. Unlawful infringement on sovrienty, and selfishness in resolutions.

Also, isn't anyone going to touch on abortion here? You want to ban capital punishment, yet you will gladly kill a baby? Ya'll (the U.N.) are sick and inconsistant. Passing this resolution says "We don't like to kill people who are guilty of murder and rape, just helpless babies."

I hope this resolution fails, as it is currently doing.

[quote=Izrathia]
Also, isn't anyone going to touch on abortion here? You want to ban capital punishment, yet you will gladly kill a baby? Ya'll (the U.N.) are sick and inconsistant. Passing this resolution says "We don't like to kill people who are guilty of murder and rape, just helpless babies."

I hope this resolution fails, as it is currently doing.

Ahem, I Am Against Abortion... But Its Already law that its legal, which pisses me off.

As For Your Other Topic: Parol Is A waste of time. You Serve The Time Given. This should also be included in the UN. If Your A Decent Guy Who Just Happens To Like Fire And Killed A House Full Of Small Fluffy Kittens, You Deserve Your 10 Years, Even If Your A Nice Prisioner.

B.T.w, I Forgot To Change Into My Actual Country, This is Just My Puppet Country... That isn't bad, is it?

Please, Do Not Be Arrogant And Unable To Think Outside Your Tiny World. Embrace People's Thoughts... If They Aren't Raving Idiots.

That would be the result of bureaucracy and the endless appeals and additional time before sentencing.

Which, I'll remind you, are necessary as checks in the system to prevent innocent people from being executed!

And Tekania, I can see we need another economics resolution so we can argue again.

Please, Do Not Be Arrogant And Unable To Think Outside Your Tiny World. Embrace People's Thoughts... If They Aren't Raving Idiots.

I am neither arrogant, nor have difficulty with people's ideas. I am more than willing to listen to your thoughts. I will not, however condone or accept something I disagree with such as this resolution. To listen to someones thoughts is fine, but in no way should you automatically accept them. I accept it as your thought, but nothing else. If it has merit, then I may consider it, but if it is completely against my moral belief, such as abortion, or ending the death penalty, I'll listen, but you are never going to convince me.

Its comical to me that the same people arguing for the death penalty, argue for the protection of the unborn children...and the people that are against the death penalty are for the killing of unborn babies....


Very Ironic

Its comical to me that the same people arguing for the death penalty, argue for the protection of the unborn children...and the people that are against the death penalty are for the killing of unborn babies....


Very Ironic

Well, the difference is actions. A rapist has, well, raped someone. A murderer has killed someone. They are a danger to society, and in all likelyhood, can not be rehabilitated. An unborn child has done nothing wrong, and has every right to live a responsible, healthy life. The murderer or rapist, through their actions, has given up that right.

That's the difference.

Its comical to me that the same people arguing for the death penalty, argue for the protection of the unborn children...and the people that are against the death penalty are for the killing of unborn babies....


Very Ironic

Im Against abortion and death penalty, so am i not ironic?

In our country we tell people how you can have sex, and not get pregnant or get a venerial disease. So although abortion is permitted, we have the worlds lowest rate in abortion.
The same goes for the stupid drug abuse. It is free, so nobody feels the need to use them anymore.
Why should you? There are no problems.
Crime rate is to an all time low, because there is no reason for crime.
Every citizen has a standard income for free each month, so we have a very lean administration. Our police force has everything under control.

O, I forgot to mention... Vote for the ban on death penalty!!

Although my political stances are generally fairly liberal, I'm going to have to vote against the ban, more for pragmatic than moralistic reasons. Simply put, if an individual is sentenced to life imprisonment, or he commits an incredibly heinous crime and is deemed to be incapable of rehabilitation, the state can't be expected to continue to provide food and housing for him for the rest of his life. Obviously, execution should be used extremely sparingly; but I continue to reject the proposal that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it is necessary.

Its comical to me that the same people arguing for the death penalty, argue for the protection of the unborn children...and the people that are against the death penalty are for the killing of unborn babies....

Well, I certainly can't speak for the other camp, but I can explain my side.

First, I believe that all people have inalienable rights which are not lost no matter what atrocities they commit. Once again, this is highly subjective and because people will disagree with my own fundamental values which I use to derive my points of view, they may find this entire post irrelevant. Now the abortion bit.

I believe that the status of the fetus is in doubt. While there is no doubt that the fetus has the potential for life, at the same time you cannot say that is alive. This is because an important criteria for life is the ability for independent survival, and up to the very late stages, the fetus is incapable of it.

Infants display some very important differences from fetuses. Infants are able to eat (suckle, in the early stages), digest, and crap, by themselves. Fetuses have this all taken care of by the umbilical cord. Infants also clearly exist as an independent entity, for fetuses, they are connected to the mother by the umbilical cord and are contained in the mother's womb, so it is not inaccurate to consider it part of the mother's body.

So I believe that a fetus is not life, in the strictest sense, as far as it does not independently function and is contained within the mother's body.

So we have established that the fetus is potential life, and that its status is in dispute. I do not claim to be right, and I think the pro-life argument is equally valid. But the point is, it is in dispute and I do not believe that you can consider a fetus as alive as me because of the important differences outlined above. I believe the rights of the mother, who is indisputably alive, override the disputable rights of the fetus who is a part of her body, and who is her child. Additionally, bringing an unwanted child into the world will be only detrimental to that child's life.

Let me get this clear - I don't like the idea of abortion, but I believe the mother's rights and the mother's life is more important.

But how does this relate to the death penalty, and why do murderers have more rights than fetuses? Well, it's the same thing. Criminals are alive, and you can't dispute that. Therefore, their rights are more concrete than the rights of a fetus whose status is still in doubt.

Yes, you're free to toss lemons at me because I know many will strongly disagree with what I said, but I'm not arguing it, just explaining my view. My actual arguments are all earlier on.

The good people of Theocracy of Novum Tobetia are exasperated by the many Cowby-style Americanite ideas being posted on this forum. I will look at the issue philosophically from an athiestic/agnostic viewpoint to try and change your minds.

What is morality?

Morality is about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. How do we define this?

Assuming the inexistance of a divine creator of morality, which will be debated later, morality is either the product of evolutionary instict and/or the product of our upbringing and environmental factors. Either way, people behave morally for the simple reason of feeling good for doing so, or for preventing themselves from feeling guilty etc.

Sometimes, ofcourse, people behave 'morally' for the simple reason that they have been brought up to view morality as a 'good' thing, and therefore wish to see themselves as moral people.

Either way, according to different customs and situations, different societies and peoples come up with different moral systems. There is no way of saying any one is more 'right' than another, even if one allows murder; they are all products of each peoples' different moral views, due to both environmental or evolutionary factors.

So, most Post-Modern philosophers conclude all morality is relative. What then, is the point of morality in the modern age?

Here I take a Utilitarian view. Surely, for an athiest or agnostic, the point of morality can only be to PREVENT SUFFERING! What is the point, for instance, of refusing to lie to someone because it is 'morally wrong', even when doing so would save millions of people's lives? In any moral situation the choice that removes the most suffering must be taken.

So, we shall now apply this to the issue of The Death Penalty. What path causes the least suffering?

From a Utilitarian point of view, which I have already shown to be the most sensible athiest route, the path that is chosen must be the the one that causes the most happiness for the greatest number, even if one of these numbers is an insane psycopathic murderer.

The idea of someone suddenly 'deserving' punishment after doing something wrong is a primitve social construct created in order to keep control in primitive societies. When viewd logically it makes no sense at all, why just because someone has done something immoral, should they suddenly deserve suffering? It has no place in modern morality and ethics!

So, what would the path that causes the least suffering be?

It is possible, although unlikely, that the victims would want retribution (although anyone who would want to end another life like this is probably mentally unwell), however we have to take in the suffering that the criminal, his friends and family would experience from firstly waiting for the convicted criminal to die, and then the family would suffer further after death. The suffering of the criminal and his family would obviously be far greater then any happiness the victim's family would gain.

It could, therefore, seem obvious that the issue of Capital Punishment is simpler than it truly is; it ends another humans life, causing great pain and suffering, however, it could also be argued that it acts as a deterrent for other criminals, preventing further crimes from being committed.

Here I will use empirical evidence and statistical data from the real world to thwart attempts to further justify the death penalty. In Britain, for example, when the death penalty was abolished, some fifty years ago, crime levels did not rise even slighty; there was virtually no change! Even today, countries like the USA, the states with the Death Penalty legalised, such as Texas suffer from far more crime than more forward looking states such as Pensylvania. A far more effective deterrent is not simply killing those who commit crimes, but looking at the causes that drove them to do this.

I feel that it may be concluded that from an athiest or agnostic perspective, the Death Penalty becomes nothing but murder, legalised by the state. (Ofcourse, the issue of proving who has committed the crime has not even been mentioned!)

I shall now look at the issue from a religious perspective.

Unfortunately, the religions that I know in enough depth to argue from are very limited. Novum Tobetia has a large Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh population, as well as many Jains and a collection of New Age Cults. Most of aour religious teachers have hated the Death Penalty for years.

Therefore, I will argue from a Christian perspective, using a single passage, one of the most important int he Bible: Matthew 5:38 states:

'You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth."But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. '

Christians are meant to cause harm to no-one but to treat everyone with an unconditional love (agape). Agape must be unconditional, Christians must love murderers as well as saints, and cause harm to neither. Christians are meant to be like God; ALL FORGIVING and ALL LOVING. Do I need to point out the Christians should be against the Death Penalty?

I feel my points are conclusive; be moral and be human, vote to save lives and BAN THE DEATH PENALTY NOW!!!

The good people of Theocracy of Novum Tobetia are exasperated by the many Cowby-style Americanite ideas being posted on this forum. I will look at the issue philosophically from an athiestic/agnostic viewpoint to try and change your minds.

What is morality?

Morality is about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. How do we define this?

Assuming the inexistance of a divine creator of morality, which will be debated later, morality is either the product of evolutionary instict and/or the product of our upbringing and environmental factors. Either way, people behave morally for the simple reason of feeling good for doing so, or for preventing themselves from feeling guilty etc.

Sometimes, ofcourse, people behave 'morally' for the simple reason that they have been brought up to view morality as a 'good' thing, and therefore wish to see themselves as moral people.

Either way, according to different customs and situations, different societies and peoples come up with different moral systems. There is no way of saying any one is more 'right' than another, even if one allows murder; they are all products of each peoples' different moral views, due to both environmental or evolutionary factors.

So, most Post-Modern philosophers conclude all morality is relative. What then, is the point of morality in the modern age?

Here I take a Utilitarian view. Surely, for an athiest or agnostic, the point of morality can only be to PREVENT SUFFERING! What is the point, for instance, of refusing to lie to someone because it is 'morally wrong', even when doing so would save millions of people's lives? In any moral situation the choice that removes the most suffering must be taken.

So, we shall now apply this to the issue of The Death Penalty. What path causes the least suffering?

From a Utilitarian point of view, which I have already shown to be the most sensible athiest route, the path that is chosen must be the the one that causes the most happiness for the greatest number, even if one of these numbers is an insane psycopathic murderer.

The idea of someone suddenly 'deserving' punishment after doing something wrong is a primitve social construct created in order to keep control in primitive societies. When viewd logically it makes no sense at all, why just because someone has done something immoral, should they suddenly deserve suffering? It has no place in modern morality and ethics!

So, what would the path that causes the least suffering be?

It is possible, although unlikely, that the victims would want retribution (although anyone who would want to end another life like this is probably mentally unwell), however we have to take in the suffering that the criminal, his friends and family would experience from firstly waiting for the convicted criminal to die, and then the family would suffer further after death. The suffering of the criminal and his family would obviously be far greater then any happiness the victim's family would gain.

It could, therefore, seem obvious that the issue of Capital Punishment is simpler than it truly is; it ends another humans life, causing great pain and suffering, however, it could also be argued that it acts as a deterrent for other criminals, preventing further crimes from being committed.

Here I will use empirical evidence and statistical data from the real world to thwart attempts to further justify the death penalty. In Britain, for example, when the death penalty was abolished, some fifty years ago, crime levels did not rise even slighty; there was virtually no change! Even today, countries like the USA, the states with the Death Penalty legalised, such as Texas suffer from far more crime than more forward looking states such as Pensylvania. A far more effective deterrent is not simply killing those who commit crimes, but looking at the causes that drove them to do this.

I feel that it may be concluded that from an athiest or agnostic perspective, the Death Penalty becomes nothing but murder, legalised by the state. (Ofcourse, the issue of proving who has committed the crime has not even been mentioned!)

I shall now look at the issue from a religious perspective.

Unfortunately, the religions that I know in enough depth to argue from are very limited. Novum Tobetia has a large Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh population, as well as many Jains and a collection of New Age Cults. Most of aour religious teachers have hated the Death Penalty for years.

Therefore, I will argue from a Christian perspective, using a single passage, one of the most important int he Bible: Matthew 5:38 states:

'You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth."But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. '

Christians are meant to cause harm to no-one but to treat everyone with an unconditional love (agape). Agape must be unconditional, Christians must love murderers as well as saints, and cause harm to neither. Christians are meant to be like God; ALL FORGIVING and ALL LOVING. Do I need to point out the Christians should be against the Death Penalty?

I feel my points are conclusive; be moral and be human, vote to save lives and BAN THE DEATH PENALTY NOW!!!

I do not really feel "involved" in this conversation, yet I have, from reading part of the thread (admittedly only the first five or so pages) made some observations. If I appear to be ignorant of what this conversation is about, please enlighten me. I wish to point out the flaws of the arguments which came up again and again. I am naturally biased. I disagree with the death penalty on quite a few counts, yet I will not bore the patrons of this board, for I have nothing new to add to the cracking debate.
Here are my observations;

1) Many member states used their own country as an example in the debate. Whilst I accept that the resolution being discussed at hand is specifically aimed at the nation states, we must not forget that this is not, in fact, reality, and therefore arguments for and against this resolution in which a nation state used their own country as an example - eg "My country has the death penalty and crime is really low" - are completely meaningless. You cannot use an invented country to illustrate how well or not well the death penalty works in practice. IT'S NOT REAL. This argument irritated me the most.

2) Hypothetical arguments are also, in this case, meaningless. If this were a philosophical argument debating the merits of the death penalty, it would be different, yet in this context, it is inappropriate. Arguments such as "If your wife were raped and murdered by some evil-doer you'd want justice for it" show that people fail to understand that what people want in theory may be different or the same as what they want in practice. We don't know. Each person is different. It is all very well for people to say they or someone or most people would probably react in one way, when in actuality, it is impossible to determine. It is very interesting to see how some people act, compared to how they think they'd act. This argument was mostly used by those in favor of the death penalty. There have been known cases of victim's relatives, formerly in favor of the death penalty, finding that they can't bring about the death of the criminal involved. I do not wish to be a hypocrite, however, and recognize that "some people" is not everybody - all I wish to do is to point out that people's actions and somewhat unpredictable, and it is meaningless to present hypothetical situations in favor or against the death penalty. Unless you, or people you know, have been in those situations, you cannot use these "scenarios" to back up your claims. I believe that the crude practice of shocking people in order to "get them on side" should be avoided, lest you find yourself ridiculed by those who see the irrationality in these arguments. How would you act in Nazi Germany? Would you flee? Would you rebel? Would you become a Nazi thug? No one knows. Do not presume to know for your own agenda.

3) Making allusions as to knowing human nature in order to strengthen your argument is extremely unscientific and has been used, in the past, to justify the most abhorrent practices. In 17th Century Britain, women were refused the vote, the justification being that they were "weak" and meant only for the purposes of procreation and giving men pleasure. Men justified this by calling what they thought of as "women's inferiority" "human nature". Similarly in Nazi Germany, Nazis justified taking away citizenship rights from the Jews using what they called "social Darwinism". They said that Jews were inferior to the Aryan race, and that this was just "human nature". No Darwinist would even suggest that black, Jewish, Slavic, Aryan peoples belonged to lesser species. The Nazis used a "human nature" argument that was completely unscientific to somehow justify their actions and beliefs. In the same way, many people in this forum said that capital punishment is "OK" because of human nature - ie: that it was right to kill people off and that revenge is inherently natural and right. You do not know that. You cannot make that generalization. I suspect that no one in this forum is in a position to make that generalization. It's a crude, ill thought out argument and people should not use it to back up their own views.

4) If Member states wish to use examples, they must remember this simple phrase - "The exception proves the rule". Isolated cases have their value, yet solid statistics mean much more. Using exceptional examples did not happen a lot, yet I did notice that few tried to back up their ideas with anything of substance or worth. Repeating your point of view is one thing. Justifying it is another. I write this only so those involved in the debate can take care when writing their next post.

5) Abortion is a separate issue. I strongly advise that future participants planning to post ignore it. Take it into another forum, it's not relevant here.

I hope that I have gone some way is showing people the flawed logic of what they say. This post is a bit long-winded, yet the pain of reading irrational arguments again and again moved me to do it. Please point out anything that may strike you as illogical in MY post. I would rather be proved wrong than remain wrong

PS: Do not judge my nation state by its apparent title "Hot Topless Man" - my friend created it on my page and I can't get my own one back. My actual nation is called "Kitaly" - I am not as shallow as the name of the country a friend of mine created suggested.

I am totally against the death penalty. Whatever anyone says, i think killing someone deliberty is a crime. It makes the the exincuter and the sentencers just as bad as the murder or criminal in question.

How do you ensure that everyone you sentence to death is guilty? The legal system is not infallible, and in making such an irreversible action, you deny any fallibility in the legal system, which is absurd, unless you don't care for the right to life of the innocent.

I do not really feel "involved" in this conversation, yet I have, from reading part of the thread (admittedly only the first five or so pages) made some observations. If I appear to be ignorant of what this conversation is about, please enlighten me. I wish to point out the flaws of the arguments which came up again and again. I am naturally biased. I disagree with the death penalty on quite a few counts, yet I will not bore the patrons of this board, for I have nothing new to add to the cracking debate.
Here are my observations;

1) Many member states used their own country as an example in the debate. Whilst I accept that the resolution being discussed at hand is specifically aimed at the nation states, we must not forget that this is not, in fact, reality, and therefore arguments for and against this resolution in which a nation state used their own country as an example - eg "My country has the death penalty and crime is really low" - are completely meaningless. You cannot use an invented country to illustrate how well or not well the death penalty works in practice. IT'S NOT REAL. This argument irritated me the most.

2) Hypothetical arguments are also, in this case, meaningless. If this were a philosophical argument debating the merits of the death penalty, it would be different, yet in this context, it is inappropriate. Arguments such as "If your wife were raped and murdered by some evil-doer you'd want justice for it" show that people fail to understand that what people want in theory may be different or the same as what they want in practice. We don't know. Each person is different. It is all very well for people to say they or someone or most people would probably react in one way, when in actuality, it is impossible to determine. It is very interesting to see how some people act, compared to how they think they'd act. This argument was mostly used by those in favor of the death penalty. There have been known cases of victim's relatives, formerly in favor of the death penalty, finding that they can't bring about the death of the criminal involved. I do not wish to be a hypocrite, however, and recognize that "some people" is not everybody - all I wish to do is to point out that people's actions and somewhat unpredictable, and it is meaningless to present hypothetical situations in favor or against the death penalty. Unless you, or people you know, have been in those situations, you cannot use these "scenarios" to back up your claims. I believe that the crude practice of shocking people in order to "get them on side" should be avoided, lest you find yourself ridiculed by those who see the irrationality in these arguments. How would you act in Nazi Germany? Would you flee? Would you rebel? Would you become a Nazi thug? No one knows. Do not presume to know for your own agenda.

3) Making allusions as to knowing human nature in order to strengthen your argument is extremely unscientific and has been used, in the past, to justify the most abhorrent practices. In 17th Century Britain, women were refused the vote, the justification being that they were "weak" and meant only for the purposes of procreation and giving men pleasure. Men justified this by calling what they thought of as "women's inferiority" "human nature". Similarly in Nazi Germany, Nazis justified taking away citizenship rights from the Jews using what they called "social Darwinism". They said that Jews were inferior to the Aryan race, and that this was just "human nature". No Darwinist would even suggest that black, Jewish, Slavic, Aryan peoples belonged to lesser species. The Nazis used a "human nature" argument that was completely unscientific to somehow justify their actions and beliefs. In the same way, many people in this forum said that capital punishment is "OK" because of human nature - ie: that it was right to kill people off and that revenge is inherently natural and right. You do not know that. You cannot make that generalization. I suspect that no one in this forum is in a position to make that generalization. It's a crude, ill thought out argument and people should not use it to back up their own views.

4) If Member states wish to use examples, they must remember this simple phrase - "The exception proves the rule". Isolated cases have their value, yet solid statistics mean much more. Using exceptional examples did not happen a lot, yet I did notice that few tried to back up their ideas with anything of substance or worth. Repeating your point of view is one thing. Justifying it is another. I write this only so those involved in the debate can take care when writing their next post.

5) Abortion is a separate issue. I strongly advise that future participants planning to post ignore it. Take it into another forum, it's not relevant here.

I hope that I have gone some way is showing people the flawed logic of what they say. This post is a bit long-winded, yet the pain of reading irrational arguments again and again moved me to do it. Please point out anything that may strike you as illogical in MY post. I would rather be proved wrong than remain wrong

I am glad that someone has finally brought some sense into the conversation here. I would like only to reinforce the statement that abortion is a separate issue. It is common in my experience for advocates of the death penalty to try and expose the hypocrisy of those who would argue against it by bringing up the issue of abortion. This does not pose a challenge to most positions against the death penalty. There are many defensible positions that can consistently oppose the death penalty and promote the right to choose to have an abortion. Regardless of that, it would seem to be counter to the original intention for someone intent on advocating the cold-blooded murder of a human being (who has a significant chance of being proved innocent after their death, by the way) to bring up the sanctity of human life in relation to abortion.

I am for the death penalty, but you also have to realize, not everyone who commits murder gets the death penalty. Only those who willingly performed murder in a dehumanitizing way. ie: someone kills three girls by hitting them all with baseball bat until their bodies and faces are unrecognizable.

A hitman for instance would not get the death penalty. Perhaps the people that hired him would but not the hitman. He would do 3 years for each act commited though.

Oh, and for the record I am personally against abortions, but I believe a woman should choose, and be forced to live with what she has done. I think that is punishment enough.

And unless there are death penalties for commiting hanous crimes the people will resort to vigilante action themselves. And if your nations are so mighty and democratic, you would let the people decide in your nation whether or not to have the death penalty. Give them the choice. Unless you evil dictators don't believe in letting free will flourish and want everyone think exactly like you.

The death penalty is not imposing anyones civil rights, and keeps everyone else free. Free from fearing.

Do not endorse this resolution!!!

I am for the death penalty, but you also have to realize, not everyone who commits murder gets the death penalty. Only those who willingly performed murder in a dehumanitizing way. ie: someone kills three girls by hitting them all with baseball bat until their bodies and faces are unrecognizable.

A hitman for instance would not get the death penalty. Perhaps the people that hired him would but not the hitman. He would do 3 years for each act commited though.

Oh, and for the record I am personally against abortions, but I believe a woman should choose, and be forced to live with what she has done. I think that is punishment enough.

And unless there are death penalties for commiting hanous crimes the people will resort to vigilante action themselves. And if your nations are so mighty and democratic, you would let the people decide in your nation whether or not to have the death penalty. Give them the choice. Unless you evil dictators don't believe in letting free will flourish and want everyone think exactly like you.

The death penalty is not imposing anyones civil rights, and keeps everyone else free. Free from fearing.

Do not endorse this resolution!!!

Each government has their own way of punishing their citizens, some may use the death penalty, some may not, but I deserve to choose how to punish my citizens for their actions.

I disagree completely with Novum Tobetia's views to this matter. For one, he takes everything in it's relitivistic capacity, and sees no real or true absolute.

Rather then compare two distant states (as Pennsylvania and Texas), let's look at two next to one another, New York and Pennsylvania. New York does have a significantly higher crime rate then Pennsylvania at present, ir also had had a significantly higher crime rate then Pennsylvania prior to 1979 when the Death Penalty was re-instituted there. After the institution of the Death Penalty in New York, the crime rate dropped significantly, and while still higher, the difference lessed to a significant degree... Might not seem much, but also look at this, New York has tigher gun control laws then Pennsylvania... But let's compare two other states.... Pennsylvania and Virginia (Virginia also has the Death Penalty).... In 2000 there were only 401 murders in Virginia, while Pennsylvania had 602.... In fact, since 1960, even though Virginia's population has doubled, it's murder rate has been on a steady decline.... On the other hand Pennsylvania, whose population has not significantly changed since 1960, (only a difference of 1,000,000 persons vice Virginia's population increase by almost 4,000,000) murder rate has TRIPPLED there! So obviously the Death Penalty DOES have an effect to lower murder rates... I also might add that Virginia has some of the laxest gun control laws in the US.

I might add that most US states that use the Death Penalty, have a rather quick population growth, and their murder rates decrease on average with their increase in population..... Most of the non-Death Penalty states have little population growth, but soaring murder rates, in relation to population.... It is quite clear that the Death Penalty has a significant effect on murder rates, as do the presence of gun-control laws. In fact, statistically, states with laxer gun control in the US, have lower murder rates then states with tighter gun-control, and the effect upon gun-control has more impact upon the rate then the presence of lack thereof of a Death Penalty.....

In any case, the need for the Death Penalty is dictated more by it's relation to the culture, then by any other form. What works in Europe, would lead to chaos in the USA, and vice versa (the European nations do not recognize the ideal of Freedom as expressed in the U.S., not to say they're not "free", but just that their "freedom" is not what would be considered "freedom" at all in the U.S. )... Because at their foundation they are different nations with completely different sets of ideals and values. So it is relative, but it's relativity dictates that the nations should be making the decisions on this issue, and not some disconnected nebulous over-head world authority( sic. the U.N. ).

I disagree that the purpose of morality is to cause "less suffering". Such might be the humanistic view, but who is to say the relativistic religious view of secular-humanism (sic. Atheism/Agnosticism) is any better then any other form of religion... I might remind you that Atheism/Agnosticism are by definition "religions" in that they are a codified set of beliefs,and therefore while subject to the same freedom of all other religions, are no more legally legislatable in a free society then Christianity, Buddhism, Moslem, or Hindi religious world-views. In the end there is no difference, relativisticly, between passing laws based on secular-humanistic world-view, then passing laws based upon Judaistic old testament theocracy... Either way is an improper way to run a "free" society... ( I might add the U.S. Constitution was set upon Deistic thought, Deists prize human's capacity of free-will to the utmost... and hense the practices dictated in US operations are based upon that foundation of Deistic thought... In the end, the U.S. philosophical principle is that people are inherantly granted freedom, the gov't serves the people, and is defined by them, freedom in itself is inherant...... European, and Secular-Humanistic thought declared people are provided freedom by those secular rulers in power, and in the end people are the servant of their government. Freedom is something granted to them, not something inherant.) This all leads to different ways in which society reacts to people's choices... Bad decisions are hit harder upon in the USA then in Europe, when people make wrong choices, accountability to their actions is held to a higher esteem in the USA then in Europe.....

The ideal of "modern morality and ethics" is a cop-out label. It's merely an attempt to deceive your audience into believing that because it is "new" it is better....

The suffering brought upon the family of the criminal, is not brought upon by the Gov't use of penalty towards the crime said criminal committed... It is brought upon by the choice of the criminal to commit this crime. The criminal is responsible, not the Gov't... Many families suffer watching their offspring getting locked behind bars for breaking the law, this in no way justifies their not being locked up to prevent the suffering.... It is the criminal who is responsible, accountable, and as such held so... He family may suffer, but it is the criminals fault that they are, not societies, or the Gov'ts.

I also might remind you that Christ's response was to people. Officers acting for the Gov't are not allowed to show mercy, but to exercize the law. And before you bring up the harlot, you might want to ask yourself some of the background on that issue... Because from my research it is not what most people assume is going on....

Just to provide this interpretive, I'll present it here....

First, the NT passage,


John 8:1-11

Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."



Some use this as an example of Christ's abolition of the O.T. death penalties as such, however, I might ask, can any of you answer as to what he wrote in the sand? It quite clearly would be the response to the question they just asked him.... Would it not be appropriate for Jesus to stoop down and WRITE the law they are supposedly following in the sand? So where is this law?


Leviticus 20:20

'If {there is} a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Now, I might add, who was being stoned? The woman right? Where was the adulterer? According to the law, both were to be tried, and stoned. So if they were executing the woman, and not the man, were they in fact in obedience to the law? The answer if of course no.


I John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


To disregard the law is sin, the practice of accusing a women of adultery, but to let the adulterer go free while she is stoned, is not following the law, and therefore a transgression a SIN on the part of the accusers.

Her trial, and prosecution for adultry was unjust under the law. Therefore, when presented with the law, none of them could throw a stone, because all of them had already violated that law, by not following it.

It is obvious that the witness' testimony were lies against her, so they sinned, the prosecution did not bring in the adulterer as well, if there even was one, and so they sinned as well. And the Judges, knowing the law, based on witness testimony without the actual adulter present, convicted her of the crime, and so they sinned as well.... It's questionable if she even commited adultery legally speaking. I might add, historically speaking at the time, the Jewish legal system was more interested in following the Rabbinical writtings, interpretations, and "tradition" then the letter of the Law of God as written. They were following men, not God.

I might also add that at that time, most gov'ts operated on the principle of a Theocracy (God as head, or god, depending, most "emporers" were considered "gods" by their people). This is obviously not the case.

All this is besides the point, but to merely refute the false suppositions on both sides about that particular issue, in relation to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

In the long run, we need to take a look at the larger picture of things, rather then slicing a single tiny slice out of a magot infested pie, just to support what we want to think....

IMHO, the Death Penalty imposition, or lack thereof, should be a determination of the society of which enacts it one way or the other. And should only be forced within the scope of highly questionable international actions (which has already been done in the from of the Universal Bill of Human Rights).

As a whole, this proposal seeks to, by force, apply the ideology of one society upon that of another, which in many cases will be quite incompatible as such.

The U.N.'s purpose should be one of creating a peacefull world. It is already quite appearant that there are factions among the secular-humanistic religions (deal with it, I'm calling your beliefs what they are, a religion... if you don't like it, tough titties on you). The issue should be, with regard to members, who have, for the most part sensed a need for world-peace, in that they have joined the U.N. in the first place; compromising our different religious world-views, to attain peacefull co-existance between our different societies and gov'ts and stand as a light to those outside of the U.N. who posses ideals completely counter to peacefull co-existance. Look at the U.N. at present? These secular-humanistic ideologies just create rifts in the single organization that has the capacity of attaining peace in the world, your IDEALS are contrary to world-peace..... It's time to compromise like the rest of us do, get off of your high-horse, and join the rest of us in forming a peace-full world.

In the end each gov't represents her people.... The ambassadore's present here each represent their own nations views, and ethics... The general concensus is that the "secular-humanists" are trying to "protect" my people from me, their representative who they have elected and appointed.... In fact, what it is an attempt at, is to rift the nations apart, and create a hostile world.

And please do not give me that spurt about "molding the world in your own image".... That's nice for little tottlers screaming for attention, but not between adults. Debate can serve two functions.... either it can be a bashing between two differentiating ideologies, who refuse to bend in the slightest to reach a compromise.... Or it can be a beneficial practice, to express each's own views, and form a mutually beneficial agreement, that is applicable to majority concensus (I'm a firm proponent that proposals should be posted and debated, and formed in Forum, before submission to the U.N. for approval and vote).

Mine you, I favor the Death Penalty, as my nation does as well.... However, only for my nation, I'm not directly concerned with it's application in other sovereignties.... Had this resolution been compromised to apply stricter controls as such on the Death Penalities application, an outright ban will not work... (I support the Death Penalty, in certain heinous circumstances... this does not mean I execute people for parking violations....)

In the end, turning absolute ideological principles into public policy, is the idiotic actions of someone incapable of being equitable and just. And, IMO, someone not qualified for diplomatic office.

I might add, while my personal "ideology" is that of capitalism and freemarket social principles, I have many times debated AGAINST the proposal of such to force other nations into that ideological principle... Because, at heart, I find the idea of forcing incompatible ideologies on others, to be unethical, and an affront to the peace making process... We must all bend alittle, if we wish to attain this... If you're not willing to give alittle.... You have no part in the U.N.

I believe that the status of the fetus is in doubt. While there is no doubt that the fetus has the potential for life, at the same time you cannot say that is alive.

Well, we can say that it is alive, most certainly, but I think I see your point here. Whether or not it's actually a conscious human or not, well yeah that's in doubt. Sure, the fetus is certainly homo sapien--it carries all the DNA to make it so--but is it actually human?

Anyway, the abortion debate should be long over with here, as the resolution has been passed. But that issue remains . . .

In any case, the need for the Death Penalty is dictated more by it's relation to the culture, then by any other form. What works in Europe, would lead to chaos in the USA, and vice versa (the European nations do not recognize the ideal of Freedom as expressed in the U.S., not to say they're not "free", but just that their "freedom" is not what would be considered "freedom" at all in the U.S. )... Because at their foundation they are different nations with completely different sets of ideals and values. So it is relative, but it's relativity dictates that the nations should be making the decisions on this issue, and not some disconnected nebulous over-head world authority( sic. the U.N. ).

Well met, and said. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the UN is here to unify us for what most nations think is the best for everyone (whether or not it actually is, only time will tell). When we joined the UN, we gave up a great deal of our national soverignty, as we all know.

Kerubia,

Said well, but it equally seems a great deal of U.N. states gave up the concept of Common Sense as well... otherwise we would not be debating resolutions up for vote that were doomed to failure before they even hit the submission page, simply because ideologic morons are incapable of discussing and making compromises with anyone else.....

In the end, the U.N. would become a VERY small segment of Father-Knows-Best socialistic wellfare states, all with doomed and failing economic policies. But if they could only look at their own national pages and see how bleak and miserable the future of their own people are!

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.

Hear hear!!!!

When you violate the rights of others, you surrender your rights. 12 men decided the murderer must die, he will be killed by the state, preferably in a humane fashion.

Well, opposition to this resolution is holding with a 2000 vote lead to the resolution's supporters....

Looks like all the idealism of the secular-humanists in here might just be a mute point......

And to think, if they had been willing to open the pre-submitted proposal to input and debate, as well as received constructive criticism from others.... they might have actually had SOME of their reservations answered.... but instead, because of blind, idiotic, idealism, it's likely they will get NONE of them answered.... Shame isn't it?

No one to blame but yourselves and the one who wrote the proposal....

Remember, diplomacy means compromise :wink:

Granted that I haven't read all the pages for this, but I believe that there should be a death penelty... but for only one charge.

Treason.

Here in Canada, there is one charge that will get you a hanging death. Guess what that is?

You go out to cause harm to the country, then it's not a eye for an eye anymore. It'd be, you took my eye, now I'm gonna cut off alittle bit of flesh from your pinky.

Granted that I haven't read all the pages for this, but I believe that there should be a death penelty... but for only one charge.

Treason.

Here in Canada, there is one charge that will get you a hanging death. Guess what that is?

You go out to cause harm to the country, then it's not a eye for an eye anymore. It'd be, you took my eye, now I'm gonna cut off alittle bit of flesh from your pinky.

Agreed, however I support it as well for 1st Degree (Premeditated) Murder.... that and treason during times of war are the only situations I see as valid reasons for it....

And treason by it's very definition is non-rehabilitative... It's not just a crime against the life of a government, or her people, but against an entire nation... It's not much better then genocide.

Well, in Snidelia we need those killers out on the streets, because someone must do their job. However, as it is the will of the general public that other people, rapists and their likes, ought to be executed, I still cannot endorse such a ban. And in Snidelia, treason is not a crime, it is considered a well-meaning attempt to help the government, and who are we to condemn the noble spirits ready to commit what others would call treason? Know that the corpulent people of Snidelia stand beside me, and all others who have spoken out against the ad hoc-infested swamp that is the death penalty debate in itself!

And to think, if they had been willing to open the pre-submitted proposal to input and debate, as well as received constructive criticism from others.... they might have actually had SOME of their reservations answered.... but instead, because of blind, idiotic, idealism, it's likely they will get NONE of them answered.... Shame isn't it?

Actually, it WAS being debated well before it reached quorum, just that everyone ignored the proposal and dived straight into the issue itself.

Here in Canada, there is one charge that will get you a hanging death. Guess what that is?

Actually, treason is no longer a capital crime, as of 1998 - http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41462.html "47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life."

And to think, if they had been willing to open the pre-submitted proposal to input and debate, as well as received constructive criticism from others.... they might have actually had SOME of their reservations answered.... but instead, because of blind, idiotic, idealism, it's likely they will get NONE of them answered.... Shame isn't it?

Actually, it WAS being debated well before it reached quorum, just that everyone ignored the proposal and dived straight into the issue itself.


pre-submitted..... hear that? pre-submitted.... sic. Before it was submitted to the U.N. so that details can be ironed out.... Debate after the fact is meaningless to develop a proposal, if it is already submitted in it's final form.... To re-interate, I mean "debate" in forum, to take in critisism, not merely before it reaches quorum, but BEFORE it is even submitted for delegate approval....

Kerubia,

Said well, but it equally seems a great deal of U.N. states gave up the concept of Common Sense as well... otherwise we would not be debating resolutions up for vote that were doomed to failure before they even hit the submission page, simply because ideologic morons are incapable of discussing and making compromises with anyone else.....

In the end, the U.N. would become a VERY small segment of Father-Knows-Best socialistic wellfare states, all with doomed and failing economic policies. But if they could only look at their own national pages and see how bleak and miserable the future of their own people are!

You misunderstand in thinking we care about our economy overmuch. You see, many people who you happen to share the world with happen to have something called "value," it's really amazing. We would rather have no money than become the power hungry depraved lunatics as I am sure you would have us become. The problem with you is you are a coward. You critique everyone else's view of the world but as of yet I haven't heard solidly from you how you would approach the problem. Lets switch roles. You make a proposal and I'LL hide behind vocabulary and saracasm while making irrelevant biased statements? Sound alright?

since it seams the death penalty will succeed. we should make a amendment to the amount of apeals a criminal gets. even if a criminal gets the death penaly it could take years to complete. costing our states loads of money. For every man that gets the death penalty there is a lawyer making 2 million. (that is a guestimate) but i think you get the point. all in favor of limiting apeals to one say "I"

Kerubia,

Said well, but it equally seems a great deal of U.N. states gave up the concept of Common Sense as well... otherwise we would not be debating resolutions up for vote that were doomed to failure before they even hit the submission page, simply because ideologic morons are incapable of discussing and making compromises with anyone else.....

In the end, the U.N. would become a VERY small segment of Father-Knows-Best socialistic wellfare states, all with doomed and failing economic policies. But if they could only look at their own national pages and see how bleak and miserable the future of their own people are!

You misunderstand in thinking we care about our economy overmuch. You see, many people who you happen to share the world with happen to have something called "value," it's really amazing. We would rather have no money than become the power hungry depraved lunatics as I am sure you would have us become. The problem with you is you are a coward. You critique everyone else's view of the world but as of yet I haven't heard solidly from you how you would approach the problem. Lets switch roles. You make a proposal and I'LL hide behind vocabulary and saracasm while making irrelevant biased statements? Sound alright?

I don't call a system that eventually leads to everybody relying on an economically non-viable state to provide all their sustenance, as they all slowly starve to death due to failing economic policies and dropping resources, a system of "value".....

Any why shoudln't I respond with the utmost sarcasm, just mentioning I'm a capitalist in ideal (even though I would readily oppose any resolution mandating capitalism in all UN nation-states, on principle of independence) is enough to get insults hurled at me... It's just basic demonstration of my model, socialists in the U.N. for the most part inherantly refuse personal accountability (sic. they want to dish it out, but can't take it)... It's no wonder most of you either have soaring crime rates, or necessitate control of crime by planting Gestopo agents at everyone's front door...... There's sarcasm for you.....

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

It violates the right to life.





Odd how just a while ago the UN passed a resolution legalizing abortion, yet criminals have "The right to life." The UN is insane.

Odd how just a while ago the UN passed a resolution legalizing abortion, yet criminals have "The right to life." The UN is insane.

I expect a resolution to come down the chute soon trying to ban the logging industry because the tree-huggers can hear the trees shriek in pain. :roll:

It depends what your definition of life is.

Also, by allowing abortion you are also preserving the right to have a full and fulfilled life for the mother who usually has no resources to bring up the baby thus has an abortion.

I expect a resolution to come down the chute soon trying to ban the logging industry because the tree-huggers can hear the trees shriek in pain. :roll:

Only if you want to be immature about it. You will find that most of the environmentalists simply want sustainable logging thus the majority from dedicated sustainable plantations rather than reducing the amount of rainforest in places like Java Indonesia by 8 % per year.

Opposition is still holding well in the vote, our lead is at ~2150 presently over the proponents, with one day of voting left to go. And the voting block is reaching "normal saturation" meaning as it progresses through the day, it'll be less and less likely for the resolution to pass....

:preps his party favors:

I condemn everyone that votes no to death! LOL

I condemn anyone who believes radical idealism is well fit for public policy:!:

And to think, if they had been willing to open the pre-submitted proposal to input and debate, as well as received constructive criticism from others.... they might have actually had SOME of their reservations answered.... but instead, because of blind, idiotic, idealism, it's likely they will get NONE of them answered.... Shame isn't it?

Actually, it WAS being debated well before it reached quorum, just that everyone ignored the proposal and dived straight into the issue itself.

Here in Canada, there is one charge that will get you a hanging death. Guess what that is?

Actually, treason is no longer a capital crime, as of 1998 - http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41462.html "47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life."

Oh bloody hell, 1998? Gah, stupid liberal Bastards. A country should not have to feed and clothe a bloody traitor that would betray us to our enemies.

The stance of Oberan as a nation, and also as a leader in the region of Ossus is that the death penalty should be kept to deter criminals from murdering, raping, commiting treason or the like. The way I see it, the death penalty can be more humane than letting a murderer live. There is a fate worse than death -- wanting to die and not being able to. I think the death penalty is certainly fair. Do we really want murderers and rapists breeding to spread their seed in the world? Certainly not. Especially with the prison system becoming more of a hotel than a punishment, criminals are getting away with too much, and it's time that governments put their feet down and do something about it.
Jacen Stone
Emperor of Oberan
Chairman of the collective security organization of Ossus, the nWo.

To re-interate, I mean "debate" in forum, to take in critisism, not merely before it reaches quorum, but BEFORE it is even submitted for delegate approval....

If you go back, you'll find that it had to be re-submitted several times, and that the proposal as seen in its current form WAS being discussed during the time it had to be re-submitted, thus there certainly was the opportunity to modify it before that stage.

Like I said, it was just that everyone ignored the proposal itself and jumped right into the argument.

While i have some reservations on the phrasing and focus of the current resolution. I agree with it in principle.

UN Members who support the issue. if you believe this should pass, I urge you to act quickly to campaign large regions, (taking a block at a time) and listing that block.

Start at the top and work down--telegram only regional delegates w/ more than 5 members. I also urge non-delegates to move regions in order to convince like minded folks in other regions to immediately remove endorsements from their delegate if they disagree with a vote against this issue.

Use logic and reason. Not rhetoric and vitriol in your campaign. It works, but you have to put some effort into it.

I expect a resolution to come down the chute soon trying to ban the logging industry because the tree-huggers can hear the trees shriek in pain. :roll:

Would Bring A Whole New Meaning To 'If A Tree Falls In The Woods, Does Anyone Hear It Scream In Pain?'







Morgan R. Bishop, Rep.

Well, I'm pretty well certain the resolution is in fact dead at this point, short of by divine intervention, this resolution will be rejected..... even if the remainder of the nominal saturation voting level were to be applied to the resolution at this point to the proponents, it would be not enough to overcome the difference, and will fail anway.....

(Finds the U.N. voting trend way too predictable)


On a side note, I fucking hate Apache web-servers..... This site is living proof of how much they suck dealing with high-capacity web-services....

It is indeed a failing resolution. Yet the amount of support the resolution has received shows how divided people think on this issue. I blame the lack of votes in support of the resolution on the fact that most people playing Nationstates are from the US, which have the death penalty in most states. If the majority here was European, the result would most likely be reversed, since Europeans are usually not as "conservative" in their political views. Considering also that the resolution had no campaign aside from a few telegrams sent to delegates to reach quorum with the proposal, it came a long way and even had a majority voting in favour of the resolution at the beginning (the FOR votes had a lead of around 1500 at the beginning).

I will not resubmit the proposal nor change the text. It was intended to enforce a universal ban to remove any loopholes and be a true success for humanity. Yet it seems that trying to improve human rights worldwide is seen as a despicable attempt at infringing on "nation's sovereignty"... So be it, those nations that enjoy slaughtering their own citizens, innocent or not, may keep doing so. All hail ignorance.

It is indeed a failing resolution. Yet the amount of support the resolution has received shows how divided people think on this issue. I blame the lack of votes in support of the resolution on the fact that most people playing Nationstates are from the US, which have the death penalty in most states. If the majority here was European, the result would most likely be reversed, since Europeans are usually not as "conservative" in their political views. Considering also that the resolution had no campaign aside from a few telegrams sent to delegates to reach quorum with the proposal, it came a long way and even had a majority voting in favour of the resolution at the beginning (the FOR votes had a lead of around 1500 at the beginning).

I will not resubmit the proposal nor change the text. It was intended to enforce a universal ban to remove any loopholes and be a true success for humanity. Yet it seems that trying to improve human rights worldwide is seen as a despicable attempt at infringing on "nation's sovereignty"... So be it, those nations that enjoy slaughtering their own citizens, innocent or not, may keep doing so. All hail ignorance.

I agree, it's one of the things I really despise about living in the US.

Kerubia,

Said well, but it equally seems a great deal of U.N. states gave up the concept of Common Sense as well... otherwise we would not be debating resolutions up for vote that were doomed to failure before they even hit the submission page, simply because ideologic morons are incapable of discussing and making compromises with anyone else.....

In the end, the U.N. would become a VERY small segment of Father-Knows-Best socialistic wellfare states, all with doomed and failing economic policies. But if they could only look at their own national pages and see how bleak and miserable the future of their own people are!

You misunderstand in thinking we care about our economy overmuch. You see, many people who you happen to share the world with happen to have something called "value," it's really amazing. We would rather have no money than become the power hungry depraved lunatics as I am sure you would have us become. The problem with you is you are a coward. You critique everyone else's view of the world but as of yet I haven't heard solidly from you how you would approach the problem. Lets switch roles. You make a proposal and I'LL hide behind vocabulary and saracasm while making irrelevant biased statements? Sound alright?

I don't call a system that eventually leads to everybody relying on an economically non-viable state to provide all their sustenance, as they all slowly starve to death due to failing economic policies and dropping resources, a system of "value".....

Any why shoudln't I respond with the utmost sarcasm, just mentioning I'm a capitalist in ideal (even though I would readily oppose any resolution mandating capitalism in all UN nation-states, on principle of independence) is enough to get insults hurled at me... It's just basic demonstration of my model, socialists in the U.N. for the most part inherantly refuse personal accountability (sic. they want to dish it out, but can't take it)... It's no wonder most of you either have soaring crime rates, or necessitate control of crime by planting Gestopo agents at everyone's front door...... There's sarcasm for you.....

In fact, as of yet, I've noted that YOU have been the one refferring to US as "Idealistic Morons," in case you haven't noticed. that qualifies as an insult. Oh and for the crime rates, is that a real-life example or a Nationstates example? You didn't clarify enough.

This is a ludricous proposal. In fact, we need to use the death penalty MORE! Vote no!

This is a ludricous proposal. In fact, we need to use the death penalty MORE! Vote no!

As I've stated, I support it's use in specific heinous crimes; treason (during time of war), and 1st Degree Murder.

I would be fully in support of limiting it's usage within the U.N. to these crimes only (within UN members with the DP).

I would not even support expanding it to crimes of passion or error (manslaughter) or even discresionary cases of murder (2nd Degree). And certainly would neither advocate, nor support it's use where killing was not involved in the crime....

[OOC: Tekania is operated under similar philosophical principles as the early U.S.A. somewhat on the Consitution, but probably more indicative of the Articles of Confederation (Governing document over the early states, between 1776 and 1789 before the Constitution was drafted). So philosophically speaking, the Tekanian gov't is does not "rule" over her people, as is common in most other national philosophies, but rather, is an representative and arbitrator between her citizenry... more or less, each Tekanian citizen is viewed as a sovereign in and of themselves, and the presence of the Gov't is to step in and arbitrate when sovereignties clash... This is the guiding principle of a Democratic Republic.]

I agree, it's one of the things I really despise about living in the US.


If you dont like living in the U.S. leave. Stop complaining, millions of people would love to live here. Your so ignorant and unpatriotic. Spend some time in another country, besides the UK. Better yet got to France, you would fit well there!!

God bless the USA and United Kingdom!

The death penalty is a proven way to decrease crime. If we used it more for more crimes as it was done in EUROPE in the 16th and 17th centuries then crime would fall dramatically. And the reason most people on nationstates are realistic americans like myself is because the majority of english speaking people on the internet are AMERICAN.

O and by the way "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" is a hipocritical statement. Punishment must be Unusual or it would be ineffective; if u usually punished people no matter what they do then it would not sevre the purpose of discouraging criminal activity. Also the systems failure to use the perfected biological mechinism and related survival instict of PAIN is folly. History has shown punishments such as public flogging are much more effective than confinement. Confinement is absolutly pointless. You put criminals in with other criminals and they simply prosper like bacteria in a peitri dish.

I implore all nations to vote "NO" on this resolution. It prevents countries from executing justice on those criminals who would shake the very core fo world civilization. We must not allow these bleeding-heart liberals to take away a valuable tool of justice.

Prime Minister Alec Mannerheim
Republic of Sevaris

The government does not have the right to take the lives of its citizens.

An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind - which i'm afraid those who are supporting the death penalty are. They can't see that whatever argument they make they don't posses the morale high ground with which to win it

An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind - which i'm afraid those who are supporting the death penalty are. They can't see that whatever argument they make they don't posses the morale high ground with which to win it

The government does not have the right to take the lives of its citizens.

Umm... yah actually it does and it should stay that way. The government has the right and duty to kill any person within thier boarders that:
A. immediatly threatens the life or lives of other person(s) currently within their country
B. attempts the local government by way of violence
C. any criminal that can not be safly released based on pervious crimes

Gigatron is the biggest moron. He says that the death penalty strips people of their rights, when in fact he trying to strip rights from others. He believes that people cannot choose for themselves what punishment should be best, as decided by the people.

Let the people decide. Don't take away their freedoms. Discourage resolutions that restrict rights or do you think you are the kind of england and that you know what's best for everyone in the world!!