NationStates Jolt Archive

The second draft 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 do not merit it, this act mandates 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. (Must be the equivalent of a 1st degree murder by US standards)
b) Is not below the point at which the government does not consider a citizen to have the mental capacity to function in society, interpretation and regulation being up to the state.
c) Did not commit the murder because of a psychological disorder.
d) Is 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 government positions)", with 18 years of age as a minimum.
e) Was not forced to commit the murder by a 3rd party by way of force or threats.

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 before the execution, no earlier then 24 hours before it. The convict shall also have the right to a private statement with the victim’s family in person, by video, by audio, or in writing if the family excepts.
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.


Please voice any concerns or objections that you may have with it, so that if I agree with them they proposal be edited to fix it.

The second draft 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 do not merit it, this act mandates 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. (Must be the equivalent of a 1st degree murder by US standards)
b) Is not below the point at which the government does not consider a citizen to have the mental capacity to function in society, interpretation and regulation being up to the state.
c) Did not commit the murder because of a psychological disorder.
d) Is 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 government positions)", with 18 years of age as a minimum.
e) Was not forced to commit the murder by a 3rd party by way of force or threats.

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 before the execution, no earlier then 24 hours before it. The convict shall also have the right to a private statement with the victim’s family in person, by video, by audio, or in writing if the family excepts.
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.


Please voice any concerns or objections that you may have with it, so that if I agree with them they proposal be edited to fix it.

(1b) Someone can be declared mentally incapable by the state's opinion and still know right from wrong, they still have an understanding of murder and its consequences. If it were due to a mentall illness or disorder, that would be a different story. However, intelligence does not equal morality...

(3) Could you specify how much time will be given between the trial and the execution to allow new evidence proving the defendant's innocene?

(4b) I think it should be specified that it should also be up to the victim's family whether they want to hear a private apology from the accused in person. It can be very emotional, stressful, and scary for them.

Otherwise it seems acceptable to my standards. Good luck!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Better, but we still have a problem with: "people with psychological disorder"
too bad. It sucks that they have a disorder but must still be put to death. It does not make sense for someone who has say an obsessive compulsive disorder to not be punished with death if they commit murder. This resolution also does not adress self defence. We would like to see a clause put in about people who commit murder under 18 say 15yrs/16yrs old be held in prison until they are 18 and then transfered to death row Think of the boys who commited the Columbine massacre, suppose they did not off themselves, even though they are not at an age of 18, should they not be held accountable and punished with death themselves? We would also like to know what your definition of humane death would be?

I think that it should be specified that the psychological disorder clouded the accused's judgement when he/she committed the murder.

I do not agree with you, Polish Warrior, that if a child commits murder and follows all the other restrictions they should get the death sentence when they are 18, because the crime was not committed when they had that concept of consequences and judgement that can only be assured at the age of 18. I believe they should have life in prison, because by the time they're 18 perhaps they dont have that same sick, diabolical, 1st-degree-murderer, death-worthy mind. It's not completely perfect, but its better than killing those who made clouded mistakes as a child, and better than not having the death sentence at all.

1) Most of the time those with a very low inteligence (mentally retarded), have a very dimished sense of right and wrong. I will change the sentence for the part dealing with it to read "Has the mental ability to understand the difference between right and wrong on an adult level, judgement being up to the state."

2) No set time will be given between when a convict is convicted and when he or she is executed. Provision 3 is in place for if the occasion so arises that new evidence comes to light after the trial and before the execution.

3) To clear up any confusion from provision 4B, The second sentence shall be amended to say "The convict shall also have the right to a private statement with the victim’s family in person, by video, by audio, or in writing, if the victims family agrees to it"

4) The clause about the psycolojical disorder protects those who commited the murder under the influince of a disorder that would have impered their judjement. To make that clear, provision 1C shall be ammended to say "Did not commit the murder under the influince of a psychological disorder that impered the judgement and/or reasoning of the murderer."

5) We believe that provision 1A protects against those who commit murder in self defense with the statement, "did not kill the person on the spur of the moment." If you do not feel that is adequate, the statement "or in self defense" shall be added to 1A.

6) We believe that a citizen under 18 does not have the full judgement of an adult, and so should not be subject to the death penalty for any murders they commit under that age. They may be held accountable in other ways besides the death penalty.

(OOC) I do not believe that the Columbine boys should have gotten the death penalty if they had not killed themselves, nor should the 17 year old sniper (Malvo?) be given the death penalty.
(back to IC)

7) A humane death is defined under the provision as "an executed in a manner that is not painful, humiliating, or offensive to the victims’ religion."
(Just realized a grammer error, "executed" shall be changed to "execution")

Thanks you for your comments,
The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855, Regional Delegate to SMEYC.

Wasn't the death penalty ruled illegal by the U.N.?

I am all for ban of death penalty...

Wasn't the death penalty ruled illegal by the U.N.?

The most recent resolution dealing with the subject failed ... this happened between the Freedom of the Press and Tracking Near Earth Objects resolutions (somebody should really keep a record of these things, and I plan to once I've complied some statistics on prior resolutions that did pass ... I'm about 1/2 through).

It is possible that capital punishment may have been directly included in prior UN resolutions, but without a doubt I think a strong case could be made to suggest that it has already been indirectly approved in those prior UN resolutions.

Well, if this one fails I am going to re-write the death penalty ban proposal as we are wholeheartedly against the death penalty.

And I guarantee you it will fail! the ultra liberal tripe will not be had!
And these guys at Columbine did not deserve the death penalty?! nonsense! Because they were made fun of and not accepted in highschool, that gives them the right to brutally murder those innocent people? Hey I was not popular in highschool because I thought for myself and did not follow the herd when I thought the herd was moronic (which was most of the time) but did I go and shoot my classmates? no. Malvo needs to be put to death yeah because he is under 18 all of a sudden one day, he wakes up and realizes "hey sniping people is wrong" I did not know that when I was 17 but at 18 now I understand! Omega Supreme B.S.! execute him quickly and be done w/ it. If somebody killed my wife and they were under 18 do you really think I would give a sh**?! they would just die younger for thier foolishness.

Excuse me? You don't know for sure that these children in Columbine and the 17-year old sniper actually had the concept of consequences and judgement that an 18-year-old would have. The crime was heinous, but naivete cannot be punished by death, and we must assume so that no unjust executions are held that all minors are naive.

To answer other posts claiming the detah penalty is immoral, the easiest answer me say is that, really, it isn't. One of the first laws in history was the Code of Hammurabi, which claimed "An Eye For An Eye, And A Tooth For A Tooth", logic that cannot be denied.
Also, assuming it WAS immoral, you cannot bring morality into the issue of justice. Simply sacraficing a system that could bring a lot of benefit simply because it plays on some peoples emotions is illogical. I will say it again, YOU CANNOT BRING MORALITY AND EMOTIONS INTO THE ISSUE OF JUSTICE!
Furthermore, you cannot deny that this law will work, because not only does it follow the logic of the Code of Hammurabi, and having no cons besides emotions, it will also strongly discourage people from committing murders under such circumstances, out of fear. Once again, the ends justify the means, and you cannot bring morality into the issue, and the idealistic principle of avoiding fear, otherwise it makes you a "bad" nation, is irrational if good comes out of it. If there are less people committing murders because of fear of the law, then many innocents will be saved. I think that is reward enough for the sacrafice of a few vile, diabolical, evil human beings and for showing to ease or sugar-coating the law to potential future murderers.
The second draft is one of the best proposals i have every seen at it will be passed. I am BEGGING that you reduce crime greatly by passing this revelation in law and order.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

i misstyped. ..."And for *Not* showing ease"...

Tzorsland politely cites the following document on the subject.

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

"Deserves death!" Gandalf responds. "I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

And I guarantee you it will fail! the ultra liberal tripe will not be had!
And these guys at Columbine did not deserve the death penalty?! nonsense! Because they were made fun of and not accepted in highschool, that gives them the right to brutally murder those innocent people? Hey I was not popular in highschool because I thought for myself and did not follow the herd when I thought the herd was moronic (which was most of the time) but did I go and shoot my classmates? no. Malvo needs to be put to death yeah because he is under 18 all of a sudden one day, he wakes up and realizes "hey sniping people is wrong" I did not know that when I was 17 but at 18 now I understand! Omega Supreme B.S.! execute him quickly and be done w/ it. If somebody killed my wife and they were under 18 do you really think I would give a sh**?! they would just die younger for thier foolishness.

(OOC)
You don't develop your full reasoning capabilities till your an adult. Its different for different people, and not black and white, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. No one here is justifing what the columbine kids or Malvo did. They can still be punished. This proposal prohibits them being put to death, not them being punished.

To Voroziniya:

I believe that this resolution fits better into human rights. It does not force nations to use the death penalty.

To Tzorsland:

That is one of my favorite quotes.

If this isn't going to be effectively enforced it should not be in the UN. Nations already have the right to decide whether they want to reintroduce the death penalty. If you're introducing these guidlines to the UN it is because the members of the UN are required to abide by all of the resultions passed. We have to reduce crime by ensuring that all of the UN nations do comply with this resultion, assuming it gains the necissary support.

If this isn't going to be effectively enforced it should not be in the UN. Nations already have the right to decide whether they want to reintroduce the death penalty. If you're introducing these guidlines to the UN it is because the members of the UN are required to abide by all of the resultions passed. We have to reduce crime by ensuring that all of the UN nations do comply with this resultion, assuming it gains the necissary support.

I may be missing something, I haven't seen any old resolutions dealing with the death penalty. This resolution in no way forces nations to use the death penalty. It is not inteded to. The point of this resolution is to set limits for how the death penalty can be used and give extra rights to criminals that could get the death penalty if a nation has the death penalty.

I don't personally agree with the death penalty, but it seems to me if it was going to be legal, it shouldn't only be legal for murderers. What about those who commit serious acts of treason? What about spies during war time? This resolution would restrict a nation which uses the death penalty so that it could only use it to punish murderers, whereas it seems to me that if you feel the death penalty is appropriate at all, it should be appropriate for certain other crimes aside from just murder.

(by the way, Pantocratoria embodies a lot of things I disagree with, and does use the death penalty, although it does so sparingly)

Furthermore, you cannot deny that this law will work, because not only does it follow the logic of the Code of Hammurabi, and having no cons besides emotions, it will also strongly discourage people from committing murders under such circumstances, out of fear.

The code of Hammurabi was written over 3000 years ago and is inapplicable in modern society, unless you also believe women should suffer greater punishments than men for committing a crime and that the rich should be able to get off completely by paying a fine.

And if your argument regarding fear/deterrence was correct, countries with the death penalty should have lower homicide rates than countries without, yet the opposite is often true. The easiest comparison is between Canada and the United States, since both have similar societies and cultures, but Canada does not have the death penalty, while the great majority of the US states do. Canada's homicide rate is 2 per 100,000. The United States's is 5 per 100,000.

Well it seems you take everything too literally. I did not support the Code of Hammurabi entirely, simply one ideal. As a socialist, I strongly agree with social equality (women's rights) and economic equality (rights for rich = rights for poor). Also, it is true that certain aspects of the code are not applicable to modern society, but the one I cited IS. Tell me this; how is the "An eye for an eye" concept irrelevant to today's world? It was not taken literally, in case you are so naive to think, but it is a concept of the crime perfectly fitting the punishment.

Basically, you cannot compare the two separate ideals that endorsing a concept = following aristocratic patriarchal laws from 1000 B.C. simply because they share a common thread. Not everything I do must follow every law of the code simply because i commended one part of it.

It is true that Canada does not have the death penalty, but the reason for its low homocide level is that:
a. Canada's population is MUCH less than California's
b. Canada has SEVERE anti-weapon policies
c. Canada has STRONG social welfare and educational policies so there is less motivation and morale for crime.
d. The US's attention is mostly military, while Canada's is domestic.
Obviously there are more reasons for Canada's low homocide that I am not able to explain right now, simply because I do not know. I'd like to see you think of why you believe Canada's low homocide is actually low because of the lack of the death penalty.

Hopefully you will have read this instead of skimming it and actually answer me on the 2 questions I asked.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I don't personally agree with the death penalty, but it seems to me if it was going to be legal, it shouldn't only be legal for murderers. What about those who commit serious acts of treason? What about spies during war time? This resolution would restrict a nation which uses the death penalty so that it could only use it to punish murderers, whereas it seems to me that if you feel the death penalty is appropriate at all, it should be appropriate for certain other crimes aside from just murder.

(by the way, Pantocratoria embodies a lot of things I disagree with, and does use the death penalty, although it does so sparingly)

While I feel that other crimes are worthy of heavy punishments, I do not believe that any crime but murder should be subject to the death penalty, because if you do not take a life your life should not be taken.

I am very much of the opinion that the death penalty - however universal it may seem - is a national, not international, issue unless it involves a citizen of another country.

While I feel that other crimes are worthy of heavy punishments, I do not believe that any crime but murder should be subject to the death penalty, because if you do not take a life your life should not be taken.

But consider the gravity of some of these crimes. A traitor during war time could give away information to an enemy power which could cost hundreds of lives. Just because the traitor didn't shoot them all himself, that doesn't make the crime any lesser in my opinion, and yet he will be exempt from the death penalty, while someone who commits a pre-meditated murder of a single person may be subject to the death penalty.

it is a concept of the crime perfectly fitting the punishment.

I completely disagree with that particular interpretion of crime fitting the punishment, and I apologise if I read you wrong, but your post seemed to be pretty happy about the whole thing.

Yes, the severity of punishment should match, but I don't believe in literally "eye for an eye", and by extension, I don't believe in "life for a life". Why not? I just don't, because I think it's wrong. Just as you might say, "I believe in punishment fitting the crime. Why? Because I just do. I think it's right."

a. Canada's population is MUCH less than California's

Smaller populations do not equal small crime rate. In terms of total murders, of course a nation of 260 million has more murders than one with 30 million, but I didn't compare totals, I compared rates. For every 100,000 people in the US, 5 people are murdered, for every 100,000 people in Canada, 2 are murdered.

b. Canada has SEVERE anti-weapon policies

On paper, I guess we do, but from my experience they are very laxly enforced, and you're speaking in relative terms. Canada's gun policies are actually more lax than those you might find in the EU, or in some countries which ban them totally. Our gun ownership rates are also quite high.

c. Canada has STRONG social welfare and educational policies so there is less motivation and morale for crime.

Correct, and in fact you just said for yourself the best way to reduce crimes and murders. It isn't deterrence, it's by attacking the causes of crime.

d. The US's attention is mostly military, while Canada's is domestic.

I doubt that's the case really, yes the US is militaristic, but I really doubt that the government really neglects domestic issues as much as you imply. In any case I submit that's purely an effect of the Republicans having control in both houses of the legislature and right-wing extremists like George W. Bush's cabinet in charge.

I'd like to see you think of why you believe Canada's low homocide is actually low because of the lack of the death penalty.

I never said that the lack of the death penalty causes low homicide rates, I was only quoting the stats to show that it has little, if any, deterrent effect. Your argument was based on deterrence and I was just answering it.

These comparative stats hold when comparing the homicide rates of American states before and after they abolished the death penalty. In almost every case, the homicide rate remains more or less the same, and in some, it even went down.

Once again, I'm not saying that removing the death penalty reduces murders, I'm saying that removing it will NOT cause an increase, and that it is not an effective deterrent.

But consider the gravity of some of these crimes. A traitor during war time could give away information to an enemy power which could cost hundreds of lives. Just because the traitor didn't shoot them all himself, that doesn't make the crime any lesser in my opinion, and yet he will be exempt from the death penalty, while someone who commits a pre-meditated murder of a single person may be subject to the death penalty.

I understand your point of view. I may right an amendment tommorow (I'm really tired right now) dealing with this. I'll tell you right now this will only encompass those who were part of a murder plot who had a clear intention to be part of a murder plot.

a. Canada's population is MUCH less than California's

Smaller populations do not equal small crime rate. In terms of total murders, of course a nation of 260 million has more murders than one with 30 million, but I didn't compare totals, I compared rates. For every 100,000 people in the US, 5 people are murdered, for every 100,000 people in Canada, 2 are murdered.




I'm not disagreeing with your point at all ...

Though:

USA (2003) = 290,809,777
CA, USA (2003) = 35,484,453
CA (April 2004) = 31,825,416

If anything I'd say this reinforces the opinion that dealing with crime is a cultural / social problem and something best dealt with on the national level.

Yes but in reality that is really not that big of a jump. 2per 100,000 versus 5per100,000 and considering the population here in the states. We do not see how that rate makes any differance.

Though that is true, we must get back on topic.

The point is that if there is a more serious sentence, for serious crimes, under seriously tight conditions, the potential future murderers will be greatly discouraged from committing these crimes, possible saving hundreds or thousands of innocents per year.

The only problem that some people have with this resolution is that they believe that sympathy and forgiveness must be, for some reason, taken on 1st degree murderers [This is sounding rather religious, and religious morales should never, ever, ever interfere with the government]. They believe the crime should not fit the punishment, and it plays on their emotions to think of the state killing people. They claim it will "bring us down to their level".

The truth is that people's personal beliefs, morales, religious and religion-based morality, and opinions cannot get involved in saving innocent. So what if we bring ourselves down to their level? Maybe it does upset you that the state has to kill murderers, instead of leaving them in jail for life [Which is probably worse, by the way], the point is that we're saving LIVES in the process.

Which is more important, emotions or lives?

However, I do agree that this is an issue for the nations to decide on their own, yet I still will support this proposal because I dont want to see nations hurting themselves by not enforcing the death penalty, and with that not enforcing the law!

...Any disagreements?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

To answer other posts claiming the detah penalty is immoral, the easiest answer me say is that, really, it isn't. One of the first laws in history was the Code of Hammurabi, which claimed "An Eye For An Eye, And A Tooth For A Tooth", logic that cannot be denied.
Also, assuming it WAS immoral, you cannot bring morality into the issue of justice. Simply sacraficing a system that could bring a lot of benefit simply because it plays on some peoples emotions is illogical. I will say it again, YOU CANNOT BRING MORALITY AND EMOTIONS INTO THE ISSUE OF JUSTICE!

Rubbish. Justice is the practical expression of ethics. Nothing more.

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' contains no logic whatsoever, and denying it is trivial. Indeed, it's far more emotion-driven than virtually any legal system: that is, it's a crude appeal to the lust for revenge. Revenge is no way to run a society.

That the death penalty is not an effective deterrent is a matter of fact.

We support this to an extent - we don't think that the death penalty is legitimate, but we don't support imposing this view on other nations. We do think that other nations should be restricted from killing those who are not entitled to vote, whether because of age restrictions or questions of mental competency.

If you can't be credited with enough understanding and autonomy to choose politicians, then it's clear that the State considers you to be less than fully responsible for your choices. If you're less than fully responsible for your choices, then holding you fully responsible for them (as the death penalty will necessarily do) is just plain stupid.

'Course, this would prevent dictatorships from ever executing anybody, but I've got no problem with that.

The 'psychological disorder' thing is too wide-reaching, though. There are a hell of a lot of psychological disorders that don't affect appreciation of ethical concerns. Major depression, for one: even the deeply depressed can fully understand and appreciate such concepts. I still might kill someone with the immediate reason being because I was depressed - but I'd also be making an ethical choice as I did so.

Yes but in reality that is really not that big of a jump. 2per 100,000 versus 5per100,000 and considering the population here in the states. We do not see how that rate makes any differance.

It is quite a difference, since it means that the US has 2.5 times the murder rate of Canada. I just found a more recent stat (June 2003 to June 2004), though I don't know how reliable it is, which puts it at 7 per 100,000 in the US.

Think of it this way, a difference of one in the murder rate means 2,800 more murders in the US.


The point is that if there is a more serious sentence, for serious crimes, under seriously tight conditions, the potential future murderers will be greatly discouraged from committing these crimes, possible saving hundreds or thousands of innocents per year.

Didn't you listen? The death penalty has been statistically proven to have NO DETERRENT EFFECT. Some US states have removed the death penalty, and the stats show that their murder rates did not increase. No one is going to say, "Hey, I can no longer be put to death for murder, now's the time to kill my boss!"

Also, can you tell me how life imprisonment is not a "serious sentence"?

I dont want to see nations hurting themselves by not enforcing the death penalty, and with that not enforcing the law!

It really sounds like you're ignoring everyone, because the proposal's author has explicitly said that this does NOT force nations to use the death penalty.

Also, saying that we're not enforcing the law because we don't execute people depends on whose law you're talking about. Our constitution in Kelssek explicitly outlaws the death penalty.

We also don't believe we'd be hurting ourselves at all, since the death penalty, in our eyes, has no beneficial effect whatsoever.

The truth is that people's personal beliefs, morales, religious and religion-based morality, and opinions cannot get involved in saving innocent.

No lives are saved by killing someone instead of putting them into prison. In fact, you're more likely to wrongly convict an innocent person and execute them than to save any lives through your misguided belief in deterrence. You think it doesn't happen? Illinois stopped using the death penalty because a whole bunch of people on death row were found to be innocent.

You say that beliefs, morals, religion, and opinions should not interfere with "saving the innocent", by which you mean the death penalty. But isn't that a belief and an opinion? I agree with the post above on this.

The reality is that the entire concept of law is based on cultural morals and beliefs. There's no such thing as theft when a culture regards all property as communal. Conversely, a culture could consider vandalism tantamount to murder, and have laws accordingly. It's all subjective, though in practice you don't really see these differences.

I hope you actually read all this instead of ignoring it all.

I hope you actually read all this instead of ignoring it all.

I have and I'm forwarding your discussion to my government for review, but I think I can predict that it will likely adopt your nation's position on this issue. ;)

Illinois stopped using the death penalty because a whole bunch of people on death row were found to be innocent.

To add to that, the Illinois study found that 1 in 2 were wrongly convicted. Any failure rate- especially one like that- is unacceptable with regards to the death penalty, since a nation cannot bring someone back from the dead but can release someone from prison.

Gee--well maybe we've thought about that already. Did it ever occur that this wasnt thought about for more than 5 minutes.

If you read the guidlines carefully, there has to be physical proof, not evidence, that the accused was in fact guilty. The proposal comes down on the penalty and only uses it in extreme circumstances.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

This resolution will hopefully help severly reduce the number of wrongly convicted.

(OOC)
I do not like the death penalty. I do not agree with the lojic of "an eye for an eye". While I think that the death penalty does act as a small deterent, I do not believe it is significant enough to justify killing a number of wrongly convicted people. The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855 does not use the death penalty.