NationStates Jolt Archive

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!

Thats a funny flash :) But I am glad this proposal finally made it through. Was a damn hard job going through thousands of regions and finding delegates that are active :)

Now I hope that the majority of Nationstates players is as "futuristic" as most RL nations and agree to abolish the death penalty here.

Thats a funny flash :) But I am glad this proposal finally made it through. Was a damn hard job going through thousands of regions and finding delegates that are active :)

Now I hope that the majority of Nationstates players is as "futuristic" as most RL nations and agree to abolish the death penalty here.

*Hint* Go after the non-American vote. Go to Europe or Canadian regions and ask those delegates.. Not to say many Americans don't agree.. but it's a tip.. take it for what it's worth!

...Are you nuts? They completely impeach someone else's right to live and they get to live in a prison, off the money of tax payers like the family of the victim!? That's insane. I say they forfeit their life as soon as they make the decision to take the life of someone else.

I agree, it is insane, Tekania stands by her stance in favor of capital-punishment. Criminals have forfeited their rights, pure and simple, which is why Tekania punishes theives by public canings, castrates rapeists, and executes murderers.... all punishments are voluntary and not-applicable to the rights protection in that the perpetration of the act was voluntary and subject to the penalties imposed...

Furthermore, Tekania considers the support of criminal's rights to be a direct afront and assault upon the rights of a free society, an ethical and moral insult upon the vicitms of these monsters... And anybody who persues such course shall be considered equal in guilt with the perpetrator of the crime.....

Where the punishment does not fit the crime, there is no justice.... Justice requires that there be equal penalty upon the perpetrator to that which they gave the victim.....

...Are you nuts? They completely impeach someone else's right to live and they get to live in a prison, off the money of tax payers like the family of the victim!? That's insane. I say they forfeit their life as soon as they make the decision to take the life of someone else.

I agree, it is insane, Tekania stands by her stance in favor of capital-punishment. Criminals have forfeited their rights, pure and simple, which is why Tekania punishes theives by public canings, castrates rapeists, and executes murderers.... all punishments are voluntary and not-applicable to the rights protection in that the perpetration of the act was voluntary and subject to the penalties imposed...

Furthermore, Tekania considers the support of criminal's rights to be a direct afront and assault upon the rights of a free society, an ethical and moral insult upon the vicitms of these monsters... And anybody who persues such course shall be considered equal in guilt with the perpetrator of the crime.....

Where the punishment does not fit the crime, there is no justice.... Justice requires that there be equal penalty upon the perpetrator to that which they gave the victim.....

Vote To Ban The Death Penalty On Nationstates...

You mean 'in UN nations,' surely?

I agree with what Tekania said.

OOC:
Correct me if I am wrong, but is the death penalty not already a daily issue? If it is I really feel the UN should not address this issue or at least not let it pass now it has reached quorum. UN and daily issues should be kept apart because if we continue to legislate in these areas there will be very little daily issues by which we can define our nations.

Personally I feel a game rule should be set that if an issue is already addressed via daily issues it will stay a local government topic and no UN resolutions can be passed on it. I know resolutions has already been passed in some cases which contravene what I suggest, but that is exactly my point, if we continue like this what is the point of having daily issues and what is the point of building a nation according to your ideals? Surely this is the fundamental aspect of the game.

ooc: I agree with the above post by Telidia -

"The government is cutting back on the number of political prisoners executed each year" - N00btopia's NS profile

ic: Why would a nation terminate use of the death penalty? Such nations may argue that to execute murderers is to stoop to their level, also that everyone has a right to life no matter how evil and criminally insane they are. The truth is, if this is your opinion, then you may do so. Our nation currently allows the death penalty although it is already on the way out. Although this falls in line with this resolution, I cannot vote against the endorsement of such punishment. This is an issue that should be addresed by each individual nation within itself, and NOT policed by the UN. If you vote "for" this resolution, you might as well post a reply below saying "Make the United Nations run EVERY aspect of a country - who needs Prime Ministers and Presidents anyway?" It is too restricting of the things that define our nations from eachother. I dread the day all nations are identical - I have voted AGAINST this one and strongly urge all others to do so as well.


Regards

Daniel Jameson

Prime Minister of N00btopia

This is an outrage! My taxpayers cannot and will not shoulder the financial burden of leaving a criminal in jail for a life sentence. Kill them in a horrid and painful manner just as they killed their victims. Worst case you take a hardened criminal off the street, best case you deter others from committing murder.

Just so everyone in the world knows: Two wrongs do NOT make a right.

Just so everyone in the world knows: Two wrongs do NOT make a right.


This quote doesn't make any sense. the thing is that i have discovered is that most of the people against capital punishment are the very same ones that go out and protest having a new jail/prison built in their neighborhood as well.they don't want the blood of a innocent person on their hands or their conscience will bother them. that's a crock and you all know it.you got nothing to do with his execution,so why the bothered conscience? Everytime i see a debate about the death penalty the supposedly compassionate people that are against it don't have any idea about how to make it better. when 9-11 happened here in the states NOBODY in the world was against the death penalty(except maybe the terrorists) everyone in the world has violent crime whether they have capital punishment or not.Maybe it isn't a deterrent but it is the best we got so far and in reference to the convicteds rights HE HAS NONE!

If this bill passes theni resseign my post as a U.N. Delegate...i forone think a criminal should bekilled the way he/she killed the victim... and only the victim's family gets to decide whether he lives or dies...
Commander in Cheif
The Almighty Kahn

I believe the murderer has lost his right to live after he has murdered someone, and we need to punish the murderer with the ultimate penalty.

It seems that everyone arguing against the resolution are talking about the "penalty for murder".

Do you not realise that the death penalty is NOT just reserved for murder in the majority of nations that have it?

BAN THE DEATH PENALTY. Why dont we kill you, then lets see if you still like it. why should we kill a man for killing. then we just keep killing and killers kill. We all will be killing eachother after this is done

forgive me for thinking crazy, but arent most people on death row murderers who have TAKEN THE RIGHT TO LIFE FROM SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY??? :shock: i mean, they've already taken sum1 else's life. i dont kno about ne one else, but i think if sum1 i loved had been murdered, then i would want the killer to die, just like my loved one died. it would even be a humane death! i mean, it cant get much better than that, can it? they killed sum1 and took the ultimate price from these people: now its their turn to pay. :evil:

It is the stance of the Commonwealth of Sembryl that the sentence of death is a last resort only, not to be assigned lightly, and only where other less severe sentences show no possibility to prevent the individual so sentenced from once again commiting grievous violence.

Capital punishment is not seen as a punishment or even a penalty, but merely a means to an end, a vehicle for permanently removing the influence of an individual from society.

It is not a matter of morality, but one of convenience. In addition to consuming valuable resources, a violent offender who cannot ever be reformed or released from prison will only exert their violence upon others in the prison population, thus lending to further violence and recidivism among those so influenced.

Therefor, it is the logical conclusion that those, and only those criminals who have continually demonstrated zero possibility of reformation and re-entry into society be executed in the most painless and efficient manner available.

Both the Dark Forest of PsyPoke and Republic of PsyPoke Mk II (the UN member) am against the death penalty for two reasons:

1) Murder is murder no matter how you look at it. I feel if is hypocracy to call a government-sanctioned murder an execution and make it legal, while any other person doing the same would be illegal.
2) The system is not perfect. A small minority of death row inmates are falsely charged. Usually by the time someone like this is exonerated of their crime, it is too late, as they have already been executed.

However, if the death penalty were to be allowed in my country, it would be as a last resort only for cases where the person who has no chance of being rehabilitated, like the delegate from the Commonwealth of Sembryl mentioned. Under no circumstance would it be used as a punishment.

It is the opinion of The Holy Empire Of Roxy Music that the death penalty should not be banned. At the end of the day, taxpayers in my nation have to foot the bill to keep murderers and other lowlifes in relative comfort and luxury. My government is not prepared to support this policy.
The families of victims have suffered enought torment already. They do not need to suffer more while the person responsible for their anguish lounges in a comfy cell.

My goverment believes that a person forfiets the right to life when they take the life of another, innocent, person.

The stance of the United Socialist States of Eyeflashia is that should this be passed, we will not only finally get rid of capital punishment in UN states, but also of nations who will leave the UN if they can't have their capital punishment, taking us one step closer to the elimination of these right wing ideas.

I don't think the death penalty is necessarily a right wing idea, nor the irradication of an entire political wing a legitimate goal of the United Nations.

That aside, I'll be voting against the death penalty ban. As others have stated, it places undue burden on the citizens to support the life of one who has denied someone the right to their life.

There are also times when the death penalty is an absolute necessity. In this day and age it is all too obvious that one individual or small group can indeed wreak havoc upon a nation, from outside or from within, and may need to be executed in the name of national security and in order to avoid all out war with a nation likely to be uninvolved in the individual's schemes.

I agree, it is insane, Tekania stands by her stance in favor of capital-punishment. Criminals have forfeited their rights, pure and simple, which is why Tekania punishes theives by public canings, castrates rapeists, and executes murderers.... all punishments are voluntary and not-applicable to the rights protection in that the perpetration of the act was voluntary and subject to the penalties imposed...

Furthermore, Tekania considers the support of criminal's rights to be a direct afront and assault upon the rights of a free society, an ethical and moral insult upon the vicitms of these monsters... And anybody who persues such course shall be considered equal in guilt with the perpetrator of the crime.....

Where the punishment does not fit the crime, there is no justice.... Justice requires that there be equal penalty upon the perpetrator to that which they gave the victim.....

How would the Tekanian justice system handle the exceptional cases where a convicted criminal was later proven to have been falsely accused or framed by newly discovered and irrefutable evidence? Would there be any compensations for the defendant or would it be a mere "Oops, sorry about that" statement?

Gauthier will oppose the Death Penalty Ban not because it wishes to carry out executions, but because it wishes to reserve the right to execute a convicted criminal in special circumstances. Primarily when the defendant is deemed too hazardous a public risk to be allowed continued existence.

I am not going to argue with those who believe in the death penalty, because they cleraly do not share the humanist ideas necessary to see my point, just as I do not share the 'an eye for an eye' approach they have and will never agree with them.

Instead I will argue with those who think capital punishement is wrong, but that it is outside of the field of the UN and should be left to souverain nations.

It is true that the souverenity of individual nations is one of the most important principles in the UN-charter. However the UN-charter also opens for international intervention in certain cases. These cases are all when the basic human rights are being violated, especially if it happens on a wide scale, such as the intervention in Kosovo in 1998 and the current intervention in Congo. Although it is not strictly imposed by the UN today, the right to life is one of these rights. And let me add that human rights are inelliable. They are always valid, and for everyone, even despicable, evil criminals.

Clearly a death sentence does not call for the same action as the genocide that threatened Kosovo, but although an armed intervention can be ruled out, it is in now way contrary to the UN-charter to make a resolution against Capital Punishement as long as this resolution is approved in the appropriate way, which in NS is by majority.

Therefore I feel that it is both in the spirit and intention of the UN-charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to ban capital punishement.
Because of this I urge everyone to support the resolution currently being addressed.

I agree with your assessment. Personally, I abhor capital punishment for so many reasons. So many people are given the death sentence here in the United States only to be exonerated later while they sit on death row. The point is, what if we kill an innocent person? How can we make that right again?

What point is it for the state to do the same thing that the convicted has done? Does it really put a balance back in society? And by the way, it is absolutely more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them alive prison for life (litigation costs, doctors, media, etc.).

Do you also know that studies are available to conclude that most people who murder once will not do it again? You can thank the more progressive European nations for that, since many of them have opted to do away with the death penalty.

Our society is quite a bit more retributive than more ancient societies. For example, the Babylonians required that a murderer had to make amends for his crime through restorative means: he had to provide a certain amount of earnings and cattle for life to the family that was wronged. It might be worth to consider this in light of some of the more aggressive states in the US (such as Texas).

I myself do not like the death penalty. However i cannot support this resolution because it takes away a nations soveirgn RIGHT to CHOOSE whether it should have a death penalty.
The U.N. should not be like some Authoritorian government and tell other nations what they can and cannot do. Even if we don't like the death penalty we have to accept that to others, it is a very valuable part of their Judicial system. Taking away a nations right to choose would be like stripping the people of a country of ALL freedom.
Bring he right to choose BACK to National Leaders and OUT of the U.N.'s Tyranical hands. Vote NO for the ban on the death penalty.

the point is this.


Even if someone killed, raped, brutally slaughterd someone.

they will be punished yes, and go to jail, prison.

is that anougth punishment for the family that had a member killed probally not.


But it all boils down to this, you take a life, and then you give goverments, and whole nations the right to watch, or have that person, killed in a even worse way, is just as bad as the crime, murder, that criminal did.


so if you justify the death penalty, your no better off then a person who killed somebody.

its the same sort of hatred, were just trying to ban the hatred, then society will be a safer place has a whole, and hatred, and stupidity, will have a harder time of flourishing. :wink:

the point is this.


Even if someone killed, raped, brutally slaughterd someone.

they will be punished yes, and go to jail, prison.

is that anougth punishment for the family that had a member killed probally not.


But it all boils down to this, you take a life, and then you give goverments, and whole nations the right to watch, or have that person, killed in a even worse way, is just as bad as the crime, murder, that criminal did.


so if you justify the death penalty, your no better off then a person who killed somebody.

its the same sort of hatred, were just trying to ban the hatred, then society will be a safer place has a whole, and hatred, and stupidity, will have a harder time of flourishing. :wink:

Aelov's argument is flawed as nations CHOOSE to be members of the UN and by doing so chooses to obey the Universal Human Rights (the post-ww2 version, not the one made in France in 1791). This is where the UN differs from the League of Nations. The international comunity has decided that souverenity and the right for a governement to decide over it's people, although fundamental, is less important than protecting the rights of individuals. If a nation were to exterminate an ethnic group, it could not claim the right to do this through its souverenity.

The ban of the death penalty is clearly a less extreme example of the same case, as it too is justified through a basic human right.

Here in Washington State, a woman calmly took her two daughters to the woods, gave them snacks, and shot them in the head. We have a death penalty and so should she.

and luckly here in Aelov jack studs, we do not have to worry about these things, as everyone in Aelov is drugged so they don't get angry, ther ehasn't been crime in i'd say 100 years.

Here in Corneliu, we have fully death penalty from crimes ranging from Murdering Children (automatic Death penalty), Federal Murder (cop killing and soldier killing and Government Killing-Automatic) and Murder 1(done by jury)

We fully support the Death Penalty!

Attorney General O'Neil
Corneliu

Oh good point Riekelesia, i guess my argument doesn't hold much ground then. Oh well then you are subject to regulations and rules implied by the U.N. Srry Then.

If you don't want to to be killed, don't murder someone.

1) Murder is murder no matter how you look at it. I feel if is hypocracy to call a government-sanctioned murder an execution and make it legal, while any other person doing the same would be illegal.

Here we confuse killing and murder, and all wonder why killing a fetus isn't murder.
Anyway, killing is killing, and murder is murder; and killing isn't murder, although murder is killing.
Get it?
2) The system is not perfect. A small minority of death row inmates are falsely charged. Usually by the time someone like this is exonerated of their crime, it is too late, as they have already been executed.

One doesn't end up on death row when there is doubt about the guilt, only when all the jurors recommend the death penalty, and the judge agrees, is the person put on death row.
Also, one is put on death row for first degree murder, and nothing less.

IF the death penalty is only used as a last resort, what about the findings in the US that innocent people have been executed? The case of one man was not thoroughly looked through untill after his execution, and he was then found not guilty. I think that this evidence shows that the death penalty is BAD and should be abolished.

IF the death penalty is only used as a last resort, what about the findings in the US that innocent people have been executed? The case of one man was not thoroughly looked through untill after his execution, and he was then found not guilty. I think that this evidence shows that the death penalty is BAD and should be abolished.

The stance of the United Socialist States of Eyeflashia is that should this be passed, we will not only finally get rid of capital punishment in UN states, but also of nations who will leave the UN if they can't have their capital punishment, taking us one step closer to the elimination of these right wing ideas.
This is a load of crap.
I am right-wing slightly more often than not, mostly on moral issues, and am left-wing on social issues.

Even so, we should all agree that when voices are silenced, things get worse.
What was the quote from Germany under Hitler's rule? Something near:
"When they came for the Jews, I said nothing. When they came for the old, I said nothing. When they came for the handicap, I said nothing. When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak."
When we silence, or rid ourselves of people and thier opinions, things get worse.
We need people on both sides of every issue in order to keep everything balanced, and to make sure that things stay under control.

So many people are given the death sentence here in the United States only to be exonerated later while they sit on death row. The point is, what if we kill an innocent person? How can we make that right again?
We haven't killed an innocent person in years.
Also, not everyone who kills someone is magically put on death row. Most of the time, people are given life.
Being on death row isn't nearly as likely as most people think.
What point is it for the state to do the same thing that the convicted has done? Does it really put a balance back in society?

Once again, there is a MAJOR difference between killing somebody and murdering somebody.
And as for balance, think of the golden rule, or an eye for an eye. This may seem cruel, but once again, there are very few people who are actually executed these days.
And by the way, it is absolutely more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them alive prison for life (litigation costs, doctors, media, etc.).

Ah, finally the intelligent argument I was looking for, though I'm not sure why you mentioned the media, they just love it when someone dies. Just watch Bowling for columbine.
It is possible to have a just Justice system in which a person is executed and it costs less than life in prison.
Do you also know that studies are available to conclude that most people who murder once will not do it again? You can thank the more progressive European nations for that, since many of them have opted to do away with the death penalty.

Most murders are caught, and can't murder again.
Our society is quite a bit more retributive than more ancient societies. For example, the Babylonians required that a murderer had to make amends for his crime through restorative means: he had to provide a certain amount of earnings and cattle for life to the family that was wronged. It might be worth to consider this in light of some of the more aggressive states in the US (such as Texas).
Ah yes, let's point at Texas and say that they're heartless. Easily done, as we see.
Anyway, I don't believe that we should place a price on an innocent human life.
You couldn't pay me enough to let you kill a friend of mine, or a family member.
This idea of placing a numeric value on a human life disgusts me.

the point is this.
[/qoute]
Oh goodie! I was wondering if there was a point.
[quote=JaCK stUDs]Even if someone killed, raped, brutally slaughterd someone.

they will be punished yes, and go to jail, prison.

is that anougth punishment for the family that had a member killed probally not.

I agree so far, it's not enough punishment.
But it all boils down to this, you take a life, and then you give goverments, and whole nations the right to watch, or have that person, killed in a even worse way, is just as bad as the crime, murder, that criminal did.

I know of no murderer who has been recently executed that was killed in a worse manner than the person, or persons, that he murdered.
so if you justify the death penalty, your no better off then a person who killed somebody.

I would beg to differ.
First of all, we don't give people the death penalty because we're better than them.

We give them the death penalty because of actions that they took, which we, as a society, decided were wrong.

I don't see how you can say that I'm as bad as, say the guy in Kentucky who raped a girl for well over an hour and then killed her, just because I feel that a person we're certian murdered in cold blood should recieve retribution. Rejoice, those opposed to the death penalty, for that man walks free today.

I've not included a quote of the rest of your post, as it's completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.

If a nation were to exterminate an ethnic group, it could not claim the right to do this through its souverenity.

The ban of the death penalty is clearly a less extreme example of the same case, as it too is justified through a basic human right.

THAT'S NOT THE SAME CASE AT ALL!

The death penalty is killing someone for a cold-blooded murder.

Racial genocide is killing many people for no good reason at all.

IF the death penalty is only used as a last resort, what about the findings in the US that innocent people have been executed?
What about the innocent people who have been murdered?
Also, that is a case of an error in the justice department, not in the death penalty ideology. Then again, they were found completely guilty by a jury of thier peers.
The case of one man was not thoroughly looked through untill after his execution, and he was then found not guilty.

As I said, this was an error of the justice department.
I think that this evidence shows that the death penalty is BAD and should be abolished.
I think this shows that we need to make sure all of our justice departments need to be carefully examined to show that they don't make ANY errors at all.

But once again, this shows a malfunctioning justice system.

THIS, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM SHOWS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG.

You can vote how you wish for whatever reasons you wish, but if you wish to debate, have some intelligent arguments, PLEASE.

IF the death penalty is only used as a last resort, what about the findings in the US that innocent people have been executed?
What about the innocent people who have been murdered?
Also, that is a case of an error in the justice department, not in the death penalty ideology. Then again, they were found completely guilty by a jury of thier peers.
The case of one man was not thoroughly looked through untill after his execution, and he was then found not guilty.

As I said, this was an error of the justice department.
I think that this evidence shows that the death penalty is BAD and should be abolished.
I think this shows that we need to make sure all of our justice departments need to be carefully examined to show that they don't make ANY errors at all.

But once again, this shows a malfunctioning justice system.

THIS, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM SHOWS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG.

You can vote how you wish for whatever reasons you wish, but if you wish to debate, have some intelligent arguments, PLEASE.

IF the death penalty is only used as a last resort, what about the findings in the US that innocent people have been executed?
What about the innocent people who have been murdered?
Also, that is a case of an error in the justice department, not in the death penalty ideology. Then again, they were found completely guilty by a jury of thier peers.
The case of one man was not thoroughly looked through untill after his execution, and he was then found not guilty.

As I said, this was an error of the justice department.
I think that this evidence shows that the death penalty is BAD and should be abolished.
I think this shows that we need to make sure all of our justice departments need to be carefully examined to show that they don't make ANY errors at all.

But once again, this shows a malfunctioning justice system.

THIS, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM SHOWS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG.

You can vote how you wish for whatever reasons you wish, but if you wish to debate, have some intelligent arguments, PLEASE.

Fellow Members,
I think the only possible answer that can be made to this resolution in good conciensce is a vote of "no". Whilst our Grand Duchy does not in itself believe in the somewhat barbaric practice of state sanctioned murder, it is widely felt amongst the citizens that each Grand duchy or fifedom should have the right to decide this by a referdum or plebicite of the people.

Regards, in Democracy.

Not-Paris.

The ban of the death penalty is an absurd matter. of course murderers must pay for their crimes. They have shed the blood of another and their blood deserves to seep into the earth as well. You must have remorse for the innocent blood of the victim! This is not a human rights resolution. This is a human rights violation against the victim not the crinimal. Justice is not always clean...it gets dirty in some parts and that is what we as governments must realize! We must take action and fight the ban on the death penalty! VIVA LA RISE OF THE DICTATORS AND FASCISM! :twisted:

The ban of the death penalty is an absurd matter. of course murderers must pay for their crimes. They have shed the blood of another and their blood deserves to seep into the earth as well. You must have remorse for the innocent blood of the victim! This is not a human rights resolution. This is a human rights violation against the victim not the crinimal. Justice is not always clean...it gets dirty in some parts and that is what we as governments must realize! We must take action and fight the ban on the death penalty!

I am not going to argue with those who believe in the death penalty, because they cleraly do not share the humanist ideas necessary to see my point, just as I do not share the 'an eye for an eye' approach they have and will never agree with them.

Instead I will argue with those who think capital punishement is wrong, but that it is outside of the field of the UN and should be left to souverain nations.

It is true that the souverenity of individual nations is one of the most important principles in the UN-charter. However the UN-charter also opens for international intervention in certain cases. These cases are all when the basic human rights are being violated, especially if it happens on a wide scale, such as the intervention in Kosovo in 1998 and the current intervention in Congo. Although it is not strictly imposed by the UN today, the right to life is one of these rights. And let me add that human rights are inelliable. They are always valid, and for everyone, even despicable, evil criminals.

Clearly a death sentence does not call for the same action as the genocide that threatened Kosovo, but although an armed intervention can be ruled out, it is in now way contrary to the UN-charter to make a resolution against Capital Punishement as long as this resolution is approved in the appropriate way, which in NS is by majority.

Therefore I feel that it is both in the spirit and intention of the UN-charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to ban capital punishement.
Because of this I urge everyone to support the resolution currently being addressed.

:idea:
hu·man·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nst)
n.
A believer in the principles of humanism.
One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

hu·man·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nzm)
n.
A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: “the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism” (Savvy).
Medicine. The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick

***Just who's interest are you concerned with? Everything has a price, equivalent is value - the law of nature; give/take, good/bad, up/down, work/reward, etc. You cant cheat this law. Therefore it is in the best interest of humanity to give the life of the murderer in return for his choice to take another's life. ***
:idea:

An interesting and controversial resolution. I am for it in it's general spirit and intent but I am forced to vote against it on a single point.



• no states having abolished or suspended executions extradite anyone to third countries still applying the death penalty, irrespective of guarantees that it would not be imposed.



I do not like this line in the proposal. First of I think a better reading would be "No country having abolished or suspended the apllication of the death penalty shall extradite anyone to another country still applying the dealth penalty regardless of garauntees that it shall not be imposed."

Even is this form I see a glaring deficiency. As read however it seems to rather prevent extradition for any crime. I seriously doubt that a nation would ever impose the death penalty on someone for less than a capital offense. Further, this seems to overstep the bounds of the United Nations. This would force UN nations to cease extraditions to non-UN members applying the death penalty, something I'm not willing to do. When in another country you're subject to its laws regardless of whether or not they're applicable in the home country. That's just good diplomatic sense.

~Torin nan Huor
Chief Weapons Expert
Caras Galadon

I am not going to argue with those who believe in the death penalty, because they cleraly do not share the humanist ideas necessary to see my point, just as I do not share the 'an eye for an eye' approach they have and will never agree with them.

Instead I will argue with those who think capital punishement is wrong, but that it is outside of the field of the UN and should be left to souverain nations.

It is true that the souverenity of individual nations is one of the most important principles in the UN-charter. However the UN-charter also opens for international intervention in certain cases. These cases are all when the basic human rights are being violated, especially if it happens on a wide scale, such as the intervention in Kosovo in 1998 and the current intervention in Congo. Although it is not strictly imposed by the UN today, the right to life is one of these rights. And let me add that human rights are inelliable. They are always valid, and for everyone, even despicable, evil criminals.

Clearly a death sentence does not call for the same action as the genocide that threatened Kosovo, but although an armed intervention can be ruled out, it is in now way contrary to the UN-charter to make a resolution against Capital Punishement as long as this resolution is approved in the appropriate way, which in NS is by majority.

Therefore I feel that it is both in the spirit and intention of the UN-charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to ban capital punishement.
Because of this I urge everyone to support the resolution currently being addressed.

:idea:
hu·man·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nst)
n.
A believer in the principles of humanism.
One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

hu·man·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nzm)
n.
A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: “the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism” (Savvy).
Medicine. The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick

***Just who's interest are you concerned with? Everything has a price, equivalent is value - the law of nature; give/take, good/bad, up/down, work/reward, etc. You cant cheat this law. Therefore it is in the best interest of humanity to give the life of the murderer in return for his choice to take another's life. ***
:idea:

I am not going to argue with those who believe in the death penalty, because they cleraly do not share the humanist ideas necessary to see my point, just as I do not share the 'an eye for an eye' approach they have and will never agree with them.

Instead I will argue with those who think capital punishement is wrong, but that it is outside of the field of the UN and should be left to souverain nations.

It is true that the souverenity of individual nations is one of the most important principles in the UN-charter. However the UN-charter also opens for international intervention in certain cases. These cases are all when the basic human rights are being violated, especially if it happens on a wide scale, such as the intervention in Kosovo in 1998 and the current intervention in Congo. Although it is not strictly imposed by the UN today, the right to life is one of these rights. And let me add that human rights are inelliable. They are always valid, and for everyone, even despicable, evil criminals.

Clearly a death sentence does not call for the same action as the genocide that threatened Kosovo, but although an armed intervention can be ruled out, it is in now way contrary to the UN-charter to make a resolution against Capital Punishement as long as this resolution is approved in the appropriate way, which in NS is by majority.

Therefore I feel that it is both in the spirit and intention of the UN-charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to ban capital punishement.
Because of this I urge everyone to support the resolution currently being addressed.

:idea:
hu·man·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nst)
n.
A believer in the principles of humanism.
One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

hu·man·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hym-nzm)
n.
A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: “the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism” (Savvy).
Medicine. The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick

***Just who's interest are you concerned with? Everything has a price, equivalent is value - the law of nature; give/take, good/bad, up/down, work/reward, etc. You cant cheat this law. Therefore it is in the best interest of humanity to give the life of the murderer in return for his choice to take another's life. ***
:idea:

An interesting and controversial resolution. I am for it in it's general spirit and intent but I am forced to vote against it on a single point.



• no states having abolished or suspended executions extradite anyone to third countries still applying the death penalty, irrespective of guarantees that it would not be imposed.



I do not like this line in the proposal. First of I think a better reading would be "No country having abolished or suspended the apllication of the death penalty shall extradite anyone to another country still applying the dealth penalty regardless of garauntees that it shall not be imposed."

Even is this form I see a glaring deficiency. As read however it seems to rather prevent extradition for any crime. I seriously doubt that a nation would ever impose the death penalty on someone for less than a capital offense. Further, this seems to overstep the bounds of the United Nations. This would force UN nations to cease extraditions to non-UN members applying the death penalty, something I'm not willing to do. When in another country you're subject to its laws regardless of whether or not they're applicable in the home country. That's just good diplomatic sense.

~Torin nan Huor
Chief Weapons Expert
Caras Galadon

An interesting and controversial resolution. I am for it in it's general spirit and intent but I am forced to vote against it on a single point.



• no states having abolished or suspended executions extradite anyone to third countries still applying the death penalty, irrespective of guarantees that it would not be imposed.



I do not like this line in the proposal. First of I think a better reading would be "No country having abolished or suspended the apllication of the death penalty shall extradite anyone to another country still applying the dealth penalty regardless of garauntees that it shall not be imposed."

Even is this form I see a glaring deficiency. As read however it seems to rather prevent extradition for any crime. I seriously doubt that a nation would ever impose the death penalty on someone for less than a capital offense. Further, this seems to overstep the bounds of the United Nations. This would force UN nations to cease extraditions to non-UN members applying the death penalty, something I'm not willing to do. When in another country you're subject to its laws regardless of whether or not they're applicable in the home country. That's just good diplomatic sense.

~Torin nan Huor
Chief Weapons Expert
Caras Galadon

:twisted: I want to be able to kill & murder without worry of my life!!! AHAHAHA! :evil: