NationStates Jolt Archive


Death Penalty Guidelines resolution - Third Draft

Xerxes855
30-07-2004, 16:48
The 3rd 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, while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used, this act mandates to all UN member nations that:

1) The death penalty may only be considered when the criminal:
a) Has murdered someone deliberately in a manner where they had a clear idea what they were doing or helped commit the murder if they had a clear intention to be part of the murder plot. They must have killed the person (or helped kill the person) on the spur of the moment or in self-defense. (Must be the equivalent of a 1st degree murder by US standards)
b) Has the mental ability to understand the difference between right and wrong on an adult level and the mental ability to understand the consequences for their actions, interpretation and regulation being up to the state.
c) Did not commit the murder under the influence of a psychological disorder that impaired the judgement and/or reasoning of the murderer.
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 victim’s family agrees to it.
c) Be executed in a humane manner, which is defined as an execution 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 post any comments and/or objections.
Thank you for your help in this proposal.

The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855
Regional Delegate to SMEYC
Voroziniya
30-07-2004, 22:14
I personally think it is a masterpiece and revolution in law enforcement and crime-fighting.

I simply have a question. I personally believe the accused should have the right to a private as opposed to public execution, if he chooses. Public executions themselves can be classified as "humiliating" for some, so can that be added, perhaps?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya
Xerxes855
31-07-2004, 06:15
Thank you.

If it can be classified as "humiliating", it is not allowed, but I will add the sentence "The condemned will have the right to a private execution if it the condemned so wishes, private being defined as an execution with only those being allowed to be present who the condemned aproves of, and no video, audio, or photos of the execution being released to the public." to clarify.
Enn
31-07-2004, 06:20
... 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 there must be absolute proof as to the guilt of the defendant...
Just doing a grammar check. I may have missed other things, but you always need a few people to check that what you are saying is what you want to say. A simple mis-placed apostrophe can make a complete change in meaning.
Xerxes855
31-07-2004, 06:33
Just doing a grammar check. I may have missed other things, but you always need a few people to check that what you are saying is what you want to say. A simple mis-placed apostrophe can make a complete change in meaning.

Thank you, I will fix it. I ran it through word spelling and grammer check, I guess it missed that.