NationStates Jolt Archive


Firstly, I am COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION

Dashkapech
26-06-2004, 02:12
There are many reasons for my stance. First, the hippocracy of teaching people not to kill by killing them. I have also made some observations on the string that are similar to those of 'hot topless men.'

Firstly, I have noticed a few different people using actual states as an example of the function of the death penalty. THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. States, actually, do not have solid borders between each other. In case you haven't noticed, many people who live in a state, were not actually originally from there. Add the fact that criminals are constantly on the run and your little argument is reduced to nill. Also, this is not a good example because many of these states do not have to death penalty, but do not put enough money into rehabilitating their prisoners.

Second, somone said 'people who cannot be rehabilitated sit in jail while being paid for by the taxpayers.' People who cannot be rehabilitated have a title: CRIMINALLY INSANE. If you took the time to realize that more money to prisons would help realize that these people were, in fact, insane, they would be sent to a mental hospital where their own FAMILY, would decide their fate.

Third, (real life example,) isn't not only on the 'Constitution of the United States', and the "United States Bill of Rights,' but also in the 'UN Bill of Rights' that every person has a right to live. And wouldn't killing them, for whatever "justified reason" (note the saracasm,) infringe on that?

Fourth and Final, I don't think that people have taken into account that all too often that convictions that lead to executions are WRONG. The mistake of sending an innocent person to death is IRREVOCABLE. If you read the books about death penalty innocence by Peter Nuefeld it will horrify you the estimated wrongful exectutions of people in the United States ALONE.

VOTE YES FOR THIS RESOLUTION
Unfree People
26-06-2004, 02:22
There's already a thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=152585) on this resolution :P
Tekania
26-06-2004, 02:33
There are many reasons for my stance. First, the hippocracy of teaching people not to kill by killing them. I have also made some observations on the string that are similar to those of 'hot topless men.'


The purpose is not to teach, it's to penalize... The price of personal freedom, is personal accountability.


Firstly, I have noticed a few different people using actual states as an example of the function of the death penalty. THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. States, actually, do not have solid borders between each other. In case you haven't noticed, many people who live in a state, were not actually originally from there. Add the fact that criminals are constantly on the run and your little argument is reduced to nill. Also, this is not a good example because many of these states do not have to death penalty, but do not put enough money into rehabilitating their prisoners.


I used real-world comparisons to propose a valid argument, if you're not going to use real-world examples, debate on an issue such as this is pointless, since it's already established you can't use NS-world examples either.... In which case, no one has proof for or against this resolution, or any other resolution for that matter, and all resolution debate, proposing, and voting, in addition to the very existance of the UN becomes meaningless....


Second, somone said 'people who cannot be rehabilitated sit in jail while being paid for by the taxpayers.' People who cannot be rehabilitated have a title: CRIMINALLY INSANE. If you took the time to realize that more money to prisons would help realize that these people were, in fact, insane, they would be sent to a mental hospital where their own FAMILY, would decide their fate.


The inability to rehabilitate has little to do with being "criminally insane", many quite sane people cannot be rehabilitated either... As established before, no matter how much money you pour into rehabilitative programs, they are worthless unless the person to be rehabilitated wants to in the first place....


Third, (real life example,) isn't not only on the 'Constitution of the United States', and the "United States Bill of Rights,' but also in the 'UN Bill of Rights' that every person has a right to live. And wouldn't killing them, for whatever "justified reason" (note the saracasm,) infringe on that?


As established before.... Personal liberty means personal accountability. By default people surrender their rights upon making faulty decisions. I use the U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights of which is part of) as an example, only in that it is a declaration of inherated rights (same principle I believe) and not as the U.N's bill of rights, which are rights resolved (granted) to people... I don't believe people are "granted" rights, I believe they inherantly have them.... However, the cost of violating the rights of others, can mean that your own rights are penalized as a result (This applies personally as well, one person has the legal right to kill another in self-defense if they are being attacked.... the attacker might have had a "right to life", but the moment he went after another to take away their right, their right to life was automatically penalized in favor of the victim)


Fourth and Final, I don't think that people have taken into account that all too often that convictions that lead to executions are WRONG. The mistake of sending an innocent person to death is IRREVOCABLE. If you read the books about death penalty innocence by Peter Nuefeld it will horrify you the estimated wrongful exectutions of people in the United States ALONE.


I've discussed this too, this has more to do with ineffectively run legal systems, then anything else.... Why not improve the legal system overall to prevent all forms of errored convictions? Irregardless of the penalty, you severly damage a person when you wrongfully, by error, convict them of a crime.... Like I said, worry about the illness, not the symptom....


VOTE YES FOR THIS RESOLUTION


No, I'll stick by my vote against it. Along with the other 7000+ nations who have done so, seing the falacy of the proponents positions and ideals.
Myrth
26-06-2004, 02:35
Myrth
26-06-2004, 02:40
There is already a thread for the debate of this resolution.