NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposed resolution so reads:
Recognizing that the death penalty is often used unjustly or against the innocent, and that it is often used to punish crimes that does not merit it, this act mandates that to all UN member nations that:

1) The death penalty only be considered when the criminal:
a) Has murdered someone deliberately in a manner where they had a clear idea what they were doing and did not kill the person on the spur of the moment.
b) Has an IQ of at least 75.
c) Did not commit the murder because of a psychological disorder.
d) Is at least 21 years of age at the time of the murder.
e) Committed the murder of their own free will.

2) If the death penalty is an option for punishment, the defendant shall have the right of a fair trial as mandated in the "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" act, except that their must be absolute proof as to the guilt of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence, including the defendant having a motive to kill the victim, the victims body being found near the defendants place of residence, or the absence of an alibi for the defendant will not be considered absolute proof. Absolute proof must include physical proof that the defendant killed the victim.

3) If new evidence is brought into the case that could potentially prove the defendant’s innocence; the defendant must be granted the ability to use that evidence and have representatives investigate it, and be allowed a hearing to decide if a new trial is needed.

4) When a criminal is put to death, they shall have the right to:
a) A last meetings with family members
b) A public statement and a private statement to the victims family prior to the execution, in person if the convict so wishes.
c) Be executed in a humane manner, which is defined as an executed in a manner that is not painful, humiliating, or offensive to the victims’ religion.
d) Have the body given over to the convict’s family after the execution.

If you agree with it (or most of it), please approve of it. If not please voice your objections to it.

Though I'm not a UN Delegate, there is enough meat in this proposal to illustrate that thought was put into this proposal, and I'd love to see a discussion take place!

I would hope that all UN Delegates consider endorsing this proposal.

Though I'm not a UN Delegate, there is enough meat in this proposal to illustrate that thought was put into this proposal, and I'd love to see a discussion take place!

I would hope that all UN Delegates consider endorsing this proposal.

Thank you. I encourage you to ask your regional delegate to look into it.

The Theocracy of the Gonite Inquisition refuses to endorse this proposal.

There are no innocents any more, only varying degrees of guilt.

While we of Sophista feel that capital punishment is a henious tradition, clinging to the legal systems out of ignorance, we shall support this proposal. Our nation chooses not to execute its criminals, yes, but nations who do feel such punishments are necessary should be held to strict standards governing who may and may not be put to death. If you cannot eliminate an evil completely, best to restrict it as best you can, to ensure that it operates in a diminished capacity.

Okay, let's say I really, really just want to kill this guy, and . . .

We oppose this resolution with the fury of a thousand seagulls.

One of my friends is working on an issue to publicize capital punishment(my superb idea) currently.


And my nation of Conan-Utopia also disagrees with it. We will be a capital-punishment-free nation.

My nation is anti-capital punishment, but recently after a mass murder was caught there was a public outcry to repeal my nation's ban on the death penalty. The CCSM's charter completely forbids state sponsored killing, but people being people ... at times they do advocate for the death penalty.

No doubt (let's call it a bird named Max) your nations have faced similar situations.

Now while my government remains true to its charter, not all nations agree that capital punishment should be banned. The Ban on the Death Penalty resolution failed just a month ago. Clearly the international community is not interested in capital punishment.

Now consider this ... having looked through the proposals, pro and con Death Penalty issues come up frequently. The two sides are virtually in dead lock (pardon the pun). I'd much rather this proposal, which puts STRONG limitations against capital punishment and only makes it an option pass, than some of the other more horrible proposals that are completely in favour of it.

I'm not suggesting you endorse the proposal if you feel very strongly against it, nor am I suggesting you vote in favour ... but please recognize that the author actually has drafted a well written compromise between the two camps.

I therefore ask that you keep your comments civil towards Xerxes.

While Meatopiaa allows for Capital Punishment, it is by far the most heinous of punishments. In my personal and most humble opinion, to kill a convicted criminal for commiting an act of killing, is the ultimate act of hypocrisy, at best. However, in unusual circumstances, the punishment must fit the crime for the benefit of the citizens of Meatopiaa who strongly advocate having Capital Punishment as an option to be used when those most unusual circumstances do occur.

I am curious, and I have a couple of questions for Xerxes before we can endorse this proposal to our Regional Delegate. While Meatopiaa wishes to endorse this proposal, there are a couple of details that seem somewhat discriminatory in regards to how UN member States are going to be directed, as far as how the States will be "permitted" to punish their Nations criminals when domestic crimes are committed and when governing bodies clearly should already have domestic laws pertaining to this matter. And, how domestic legislation shall be written, or changed for that matter, to be in compliance with this proposed resolution.

How was the minimum age limit for capital Punishment of 21-years reached? It is generally accepted in most, if not all, societies, that once a person reaches 18-years of age, they have reached adulthood. If anything, remaining Nations who do not share that view actually consider ages as young as 13-years to be the threshold of adulthood. Some Nations may consider even younger ages to be "adults". Perhaps the resolution should reflect that.

Also, how did you reach the conclusion that an IQ of 75 points was the minimum intelligence level to allow for Capital Punishment? Was that a question of IQ-75 being the line in the sand for making a case of mental retardation, and therefore, the perpetrator of such a heinous crime that it might require Capital Punishment cannot be held accountable for his or her actions? An IQ of 75 points is hardly mental retardation. Some of Meatopiaa's most popular politicians can't possibly have IQ's higher than 50, and they function in society, so I am only assuming that was your motivation. Perhaps it is because only people with IQ's of 75 or higher could possibly know the difference between right and wrong? Perhaps further clarification for the justification of an IQ of 75 should be reflected.

And one last point of interst. The article addressing "circumstantial evidence" also addresses an individual Nation's process of law, trial adjudication, and other legal aspects of all Nation's jurisprudence, maybe not intentionally, but it does.

Meatopiaa allows for circumstantial evidence (upon prior review by the trial judge and points of justification for and against admission by the trial attorneys, as due course) in court proceedings and it has been the justification for guilty verdicts in many trials all across the land. While bonified physical evidence is preferred (ie: video tape, smoking gun, etc), sometimes very heinous crimes take place, including serial murders, serial rape murders, child murders, torture/murder, etc., and the perpetrators of those most heinous of crimes, crimes befitting Capital Punishment, are not identified and arrested until weeks, months, years or even decades later, based only on circumstantial evidence. By that time, it is often likely that viable "preferred" physical evidence has been hidden by the suspect, never to be found again, or destroyed by the suspect, or simply decomposed to nothingness on its own, when such evidence would have been readily retrievable if the perpetrator had been identified and apprehended immediately after the crime(s) were committed.

Perhaps some clarification reagrding circumstantial evidence would help as well. Otherwise, you have Meatopiaa's enthusiastic support on the remaining points and articles.

While its fairly well written and some what noble in intent, for reasons related to particular parts of it and my having no time currently to list them, I shall suffice to say be against this proposal as strongly as I would have a golf club connect with a cane toad.

Regards,

While I'd prefer a total ban on the death penalty, it's better than letting nations kill people willy-nilly. If this reaches quorum, you'll have my support.

Cave Canem welcomes the rational wording of this proposal and agrees with much that has been said is support of Xerxes855 attempt to place stringent limitations on recourse to capital punishment.

We have strong reservations about several terms of the proposal that are uncomfortably open to interpretation, including but not restricted to:

1) murdered someone deliberately in a manner where they had a clear idea what they were doing

2) Has an IQ of at least 75 (our concern here is the subjectivity of the test used)

3) Did not commit the murder because of a psychological disorder

4) Committed the murder of their own free will

Arguably points 1, 3 and 4 amount to the same thing, and as such are all as open to interpretation as each other.

Ultimately, Cave Canem cannot endorse a proposal that rationalises or condones the presence of the death penalty, although we welcome the opportunity to see the debate before the UN.

Respectfully

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

While its fairly well written and some what noble in intent, for reasons related to particular parts of it and my having no time currently to list them, I shall suffice to say be against this proposal as strongly as I would have a golf club connect with a cane toad.

Regards,
Komokom reveals his nationality...

This proposal is rather good! It is well thought out, and while the Council of Enn does not believe in capital punishment, this proposal would be preferable to the plethora of others available.
The one thing we have an issue with is 1d) - the age of Majority varies between nations, and as such a person may be considered an adult can vary from approx. 14 until 21. We suggest changing this to 'above the age of majority within the nation where the crime is committed'.

The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze will support legislation that will effectively reduce the number of persons excuted through capital punishment. At this time, The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze would simply like to state their stand and welcome other nations to endorse or discuss this issue.

The Confederacy of South Puyallup would support the proposal under the following circumstances:

Paragraph 1d. is deleted. A 20-year-old is just as capable of first degree murder as a 50 year old.
Paragraph 4b. reads only "A public statement." A private statement to the family, especially in person, could be emotionally traumatic to the family. An apology to the family could be made publicly.
Paragraph 4c. is deleted. Courts would all define "a manner that is not painful, humiliating, or offensive to the victims’ religion" in different manners. That clause effectively emasculates any capital punishment laws.

Otherwise, the proposal meets the satisfaction of this UN Delegate.

Saying that the text of the resolution is open for interpretation is a lot like saying rain is wet: it's already pretty much fact. No matter the law, no matter how precisely defined, there will always be wiggle room. Such is the nature of policy making. Any limits are better than no limits, and if a nation chooses to subvert this legislation by rapidly redefining IQ testing or similar measures discussed in this legislation, that only exposes the character of these nations.

A narrower definition of the standards involved would be beneficial, but even without such addition, the proposal is still better than nothing.

Saying that the text of the resolution is open for interpretation is a lot like saying rain is wet: it's already pretty much fact...

A narrower definition of the standards involved would be beneficial, but even without such addition, the proposal is still better than nothing.

We accept that all legislation is open to interpretation to a degree. the point that we were making is that we feel this particular proposal is too loosely worded, a point Sophista appears to be accepting above. The 'better than nothing' argument is a weak one. It would be relevant if the resolution was already passed, but proposals before the UN are honed by the process of debate and collective criticism - if we simply decide that a proposal is 'better than nothing' then this will not happen.

Answering some of the points that have been made:

1) This resolution is designed to limit the use of the death penalty if it is used. This resolution does not force any nation to use the death penalty, it only sets limits on the death penalties usage if a nation wants to use it. It does not restrict any future resolution completly banning the death penalty. Personally I am on the fence as far as whether the death penalty should be used at all and whether it should be used in a restricted sense. I believe that nations should have the right to use it, but should follow reasnable limits.

2) This resolution should be enforced like any other resolution.

3) If I submit this resolution again, the age limit shall be changed to "above the point at which a citizen is considered to be an adult and enjoys all the legal rights of an adult (excluding the right to run for high level goverment positions)", with 18 years of age as a minimum." This acknowledges the varying positions of goverments towards when a citizen comes of age, while establishing a reasnable limit of 18. I may reword it, but the meaning will stay the same.

4) If I submit this resolution again, the mental retardation limit shall be changed to "The point at which the goverment does not consider a citizen to have the mental capacity to function in society, with a minimum of an IQ of 60. The testing for IQ shall comply with internation standards." Same justification as above for the age. I also may reword it, but the meaning will stay the same..
The standards I am using to come up with the limit:
http://www.psyweb.com/Mdisord/menret.html

5) The reasoning behind the rejection of circumstantial evidence is that absolute proof should be neccesary in a death penalty case, because once you take away a life you can not take it back if future evidence proves the innocence of someone who has been executed. Keep in mind that these rules have no bearing on cases where the death penalty is not considered. It would not be in violation of this resolution if a convict was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence and given life in prison.

6) Concerning these points in the provision:
a) Has murdered someone deliberately in a manner where they had a clear idea what they were doing and did not kill the person on the spur of the moment.
c) Did not commit the murder because of a psychological disorder.
e) Committed the murder of their own free will.
The 1st one is to limit the consideration of the death penalty for murders equivalent to the US standard of 1st degree murder. The 2nd specificly prohibits the death penalty for murders where the criminal commited the murder under the influince of a mental disorder. The 3rd prohibits the death penalty for any case where the criminal was forced (forced being physically or by way of threats) to commit the murder. I acknowledge that these provisions can be subject to interpretation. In an effort to make them more specific, the sentence "(Must be the equivalent of a 1st degree murder by US standards)" well be added to 1A and 1E shall be reworded to say "Was not forced to commit the murder by a 3rd party by way of force or threats."

The 'better than nothing' argument is a weak one. It would be relevant if the resolution was already passed, but proposals before the UN are honed by the process of debate and collective criticism - if we simply decide that a proposal is 'better than nothing' then this will not happen.

Our reply wasn't meant to excuse the still-nascent proposal's condition, rather to defuse those who were opposed to it simply because it could never be fine-tuned enough to cure all of the world's ills. I agree, there is still much work to be done before it would be meritous as a resolution, but that work is still wroth doing.

We appreciate this resolution in the sense that it does try to limit the use of the death penalty and make it more thourough,however, we believe that this can be more effeciant if thourough scientific testing is done such as DNA etc. We strongly disagree with limiting this to 21 yrs or older. If one can join a nation's army at 18 and be killed then why can a person who is 18 and commits a pre meditated murder not? When I was 18 I was fully aware of right from wrong. We even will go as far as saying that people under 18(if the crime permits it) can be eligible to be put to death. We put this limit at 16. As far as Iq score we feel that this is not scientific enough to be used as evidence of a persons mental ability. We also feel that even if a person is going through some emotional stress this does not give them the right to kill. In the end, it is up to the individual to make the right choices and seek medical help and or not take the action of violence. No one makes you do anything you choose to do it and must pay the consequences for your actions due to the fact that action determines character and therefore is a good determiner for fair judgement of that individual.

We appreciate this resolution in the sense that it does try to limit the use of the death penalty and make it more thourough,however, we believe that this can be more effeciant if thourough scientific testing is done such as DNA etc. We strongly disagree with limiting this to 21 yrs or older. If one can join a nation's army at 18 and be killed then why can a person who is 18 and commits a pre meditated murder not? When I was 18 I was fully aware of right from wrong. We even will go as far as saying that people under 18(if the crime permits it) can be eligible to be put to death. We put this limit at 16. As far as Iq score we feel that this is not scientific enough to be used as evidence of a persons mental ability. We also feel that even if a person is going through some emotional stress this does not give them the right to kill. In the end, it is up to the individual to make the right choices and seek medical help and or not take the action of violence. No one makes you do anything you choose to do it and must pay the consequences for your actions due to the fact that action determines character and therefore is a good determiner for fair judgement of that individual.

The limit is going to be changed to 18, see my post above. The reason I am using IQ is that it is a standard score that is used universally. This resolution does not prohibit the death penalty for cases where their was emotional stress. You could be forced by someone to commit murder under the threat of death for yourself.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya firmly supports this proposal, for the most part. Not only because of the basic logic "An Eye for An Eye, and A Tooth for A Tooth", but also because capital punishment is the best way to send a message to criminals that there is no forgiveness for 1st degree murder. If people are more afraid to commit these murders, the need for the punishment may become rarer.

I know it makes many people sad to think about the government killing a citizen, I know it is emotionally unappealing, but the truth is that if something is more effective in reducing crimes you cannot bring morality into the issue. If those criminals don't die, then murderers will not be as discouraged, and many more innocents will die, who would have otherwise had a life OUTSIDE of jail. My nation has reintroduced capital punishment, and we would like all others to accept it.

There are just a couple of things that must be changed with the proposal...

I believe that the IQ limitation must be limited. Assuming that statistically 75 was the minimum IQ to be declared mentally sane, retards know right from wrong, they know basic morality. I do believe there should still be an exception if this person had significant mental illness, but IQ alone does not measure sanity or morality, it measures intelligence.

I also believe the age limit should be lowered from 21 to 18. 18 year olds are not children, they are not naive, they are capable of fully understanding their actions, they are adults.

Besides for those rather minor issues, Voroziniya stands behind the proposal, and we encourage the UN to. We must sacrafice the lives of several criminals to scare the public into not committing murders and killing many innocents.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya firmly supports this proposal, for the most part. Not only because of the basic logic "An Eye for An Eye, and A Tooth for A Tooth", but also because capital punishment is the best way to send a message to criminals that there is no forgiveness for 1st degree murder. If people are more afraid to commit these murders, the need for the punishment may become rarer.

I know it makes many people sad to think about the government killing a citizen, I know it is emotionally unappealing, but the truth is that if something is more effective in reducing crimes you cannot bring morality into the issue. If those criminals don't die, then murderers will not be as discouraged, and many more innocents will die, who would have otherwise had a life OUTSIDE of jail. My nation has reintroduced capital punishment, and we would like all others to accept it.

There are just a couple of things that must be changed with the proposal...

I believe that the IQ limitation must be limited. Assuming that statistically 75 was the minimum IQ to be declared mentally sane, retards know right from wrong, they know basic morality. I do believe there should still be an exception if this person had significant mental illness, but IQ alone does not measure sanity or morality, it measures intelligence.

I also believe the age limit should be lowered from 21 to 18. 18 year olds are not children, they are not naive, they are capable of fully understanding their actions, they are adults.

Besides for those rather minor issues, Voroziniya stands behind the proposal, and we encourage the UN to. We must sacrafice the lives of several criminals to scare the public into not committing murders and killing many innocents.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Though I hate to take away a reason for your supporting this proposal, but this proposal does not force nations to use capital punishment, it limits the usage of capital punishment while providing for the rights of a criminal subject to it, while allowing nations to not use capital punishment at all.

The IQ limit has been lowered to 60, see my post above.

The age limit has been lowered to 18, see my post above.

It appears that I need to repost a second draft.

This is the UN, comrade. You cannot give people the option of abiding by it. If they are given the priviledge to have a say in these resolutions, they must have the responsibility to abide by them themselves.