NationStates Jolt Archive

The 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 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 not *bolded will be added if resolution resubmited* 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 there 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. The condemned will have the right to a private execution if the condemned so wishes, private being defined as an execution with only those being allowed to be present who the condemned approves of, and no video, audio, or photos of the execution being released to the public.
d) Have the body given over to the convict’s family after the execution.

It is submited under "human rights", under the name "Death Penalty Guidelines", and it strength is "significant"

After several drafts, I believe that this resolution is ready for submission. If you are the regional delegate please consider supporting it, and if you are not please make your regional delegate aware of it.

Thank you all for all your help in fine-tuning it.
The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855
Regional Delegate to SMEYC

I have alerted my regional delegate and will support this proposal should it become a resolution.

The Head of State of the People's Republic of Bravakia refuses to support this bill and encourages others in the Scroll Islands region to follow my lead. There are just some criminals that are a public neusance and must be done away with promptly and shouldn't be allowed to soak up all the media attention that they'll gain while awaiting trial and execution.

They must have killed the person (or helped kill the person) on the spur of the moment or in self-defense.

You mean "must not have", right?

You mean "must not have", right?

I think RomeW is correct here.

I believe RomeW is correct as well.

You mean "must not have", right?

Damb it! Yes, thats right. Unfortunutly the resolution has already been submited with that error, but if I resubmit it I will fix that error.

Yes and perhaps this foolish tripe will fail as the last resolution did that concerned this matter. We are not conservatives by any means but we shall be calling on all conservative nations to beat the hell out of this ultra liberal nonsense.

Yes and perhaps this foolish tripe will fail as the last resolution did that concerned this matter. We are not conservatives by any means but we shall be calling on all conservative nations to beat the hell out of this ultra liberal nonsense.

And what is so "ultra liberal" about it. I find nothing wrong with it being called liberal, unlike many, I proudly take the lable of liberal, and I would say that this is a liberal peice of legislation. However, I do not believe that it is extreme or radical, as your label of "ultra liberal nonsense" implies.

The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855
Proud of its lable as a "Scandenavian Liberal Paradise"
Regional Delegate to SMEYC

It is an underhanded slimy way of eventually getting what the liberal folk want,no death penalty. "Giv em an inch and they'll take a mile."

Ok, We formally retract our earlier statements as this resolution is written rather well. We do however have a problem with execution in a humane fashion. We say put a bullet in thier head and be done with it. Nothing was humane in the way they killed thier victim so why should we bear them any quarter?

Ok, We formally retract our earlier statements as this resolution is written rather well. We do however have a problem with execution in a humane fashion. We say put a bullet in thier head and be done with it. Nothing was humane in the way they killed thier victim so why should we bear them any quarter?

A bullet in the head would not be in violation of this proposal, since it ussually brings instant death and theirfore is painless. I recognize your belief that they do not deserve any quarter, I respectfully disagree. I do not think the goverment needs to be brutal in its form of execution. A person acting in a barbaric way does not justify the goverment using a barbaric punishment.

Damb it! Yes, thats right. Unfortunutly the resolution has already been submited with that error, but if I resubmit it I will fix that error.

You should notify the moderators immediately- if the resolution passes, there's no way to change it and you'll be stuck with a HUGE loophole.

Let us know here if that bit gets fixed. I was reading it yesterday, but that missing "not" makes garbage of the first clause, so I didn't approve it.

Any nation gathering support for a resolution to ban capital punishment outright should contact the Democratic Republic of Nam Qem.



::VV Qem, Minister of State, DRNQ

This is a damn fine proposal. Once the rephrased, resubmitted version has come up, we'll get our Delegate to vote for it.

Another modification: 'offensive to the victims’ religion', though well-intentioned, could be a bit of a problem, since a Buddhist or Jain, and probably many of the more pacifist Christians, would find any death penalty at all offensive to their religion.

Polish Warriors: historically, the reason firing-squad isn't a commonly used execution method any more is more out of consideration for the executors than for the condemned. A great many people were traumatised by having to put a bullet into a defenceless person at virtually point-blank range.

To all: I have sent a message to the moderators, requesting that they either fix the error, or delete the resolution so I can resubmit it with the error fixed.

To Rehochipe: Good point about the religions, I will try to think of some way to reword it to subject that clause to reasnable limits that would unreasnably interfere with the execution (reasnable limits being defined by the individual state). So for example only being allowed to be executed by some religous ceremony would be unreasnable, but wanting to pray before hand, or wanting to wear green, would not be unreasnable.

It is still unchanged...and we have five days before it expires.

Have you noted down the names of those who have supported it, so you can TM them if/when it gets resubmitted?

I'll assume this will not reach quorum, so I can make a few suggestions on changes?

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.

Might be Nice to see something saying that only an independent medical practitioner or group of practitioners can determine the mental ability of the accused.

c) Did not commit the murder under the influence of a psychological disorder that impaired the judgement and/or reasoning of the murderer.

Same here.

e) Was not forced to commit the murder by a 3rd party by way of force or threats.

"Cohersion" sounds more....elegant perhaps than "force of threats?" <shrugs>

d) Have the body given over to the convict’s family after the execution.

not sure. Perhaps the convict would rather have the choice on who gets their body?

Overall, I quite like this proposal...for what it does. I'd like to have some sort of effort towards protecting accused from the death penalty when international law takes precedence...but on second thoughts thats a seperate proposal.

1. Define "humane" by ways of listing acceptable forms of implications of the death penalty.

2. REWORD clause 2.

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. 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.

I would suggest taking the route of real world Texas in this matter when it comes to the death penalty, though not in the way you may immediately associate. The death penalty should not be an option for punishment unless there is clear and convincing evidence of the guilt AND at least 3 credible witnesses that can provide circumstantial evidence as to motive and/or proximity to the victim at the time of the crime. Additionally, the death penalty should be applicable if the death "particularly gruesome" or "reasonably forseeable" even if the original intent of the crime was not to murder the victim (such as, a violent rape, or the committal of a feloneous crime that resulted in death).

I do not know if this has already been addressed, but if so... here it is again:

They must have killed the person (or helped kill the person) on the spur of the moment or in self-defense.

You probably intended to include the word NOT into that sentence.

By what standards is psychological impairment judged? The DSM-IV lists alcoholism as a psychological disorder, though I think that if someone commits murder while intoxicated and it could be shown previous indications of violent behavior or intent to harm was forseeable, then the accused should stand trial for First Degree Murder, and possibly have the death penalty as well.

I do not wholly agree on the point of age in cases where the defendant is shown to suffer extreme psychological impairments such as uncontrollable psychosis (even with medication) or antisocial personality disorder (ie:sociopath). Neither of those conditions are considered fully treatable to offer a guarantee of rehabilitation or safety. As such, persons who have these disorders and have committed murder would be only a burden to the state and even a threat to other inmates/personnel of the department of corrections. I realize the caliousness of that statement, but there comes a point where it is more humane and agreeable to put someone to death than to suffer them through years of solitary confinement.

I thoroughly and whole-heartedly approve with clause three, extending it to even say that should clear and convincing evidence come to prove a defendant's innocence, then the defendant should receive an immediate pardon.

I do not agree with the "right" to private execution. Though I do not feel that more than a minimal viewing audience should be used, I do think that victim(s)' families have the right to view the execution, as well as members of law enforcement who secured arrest, members of the legal field who secured conviction, and such. The gallery who views these executions are generally not seen by the convict. Private executions could lead to trickery and deception on the actual death of an inmate.

Whited Fields: I already pointed out the "must NOT have" mistake...it's that mistake that we're trying to correct at the moment.

"Cohersion"

Not to nag, but it's "coercion". "Cohersion"- or, correctly, "cohesion"- means the ability to stick together, which is completely different from what this proposal states. Usually it's something I'd overlook, but on a proposal, such a spelling snafu could be deadly.

I have saved the names of the supporters, and I will telegram when this resolution is resubmited.

I have read everyones comments, but I am limited on time, so I will respond to them (and make changes to the proposal), later.

As I said with my initial posting, I did not know if someone had mentioned it. I was certain they had, but did not read the preceeding post before putting in my two cents worth. That is why I said it as I did, and announced my intention to say it again.

I am interested in hearing what, if any, of my proposals for this will be implemented or addressed.

As I said with my initial posting, I did not know if someone had mentioned it. I was certain they had, but did not read the preceeding post before putting in my two cents worth. That is why I said it as I did, and announced my intention to say it again.

I was just merely stating that I already said it...although it is worth mentioning several times since it is a HUGE typo.

I have time now and will adress all the points made. Sorry to keep you waiting Whited Fields.

I am pretty certain that the resolution will not reach quorum, so I will make changes to it (and post a draft), before I resubmit it.

Here goes, any changes that I am proposing are not final, I still am going to check them for spelling, grammer, ect. Changes are bolded.

1) 4C will be changed to say "Be executed in a humane manner, which is defined as an execution in a manner that is not painful or humiliating. Reasnable requests for religious reasons must be honored, judgement being up to a judge as to what is considered reasnable. The condemned will have the right to a private execution if the condemned so wishes, private being defined as an execution with only those being allowed to be present who the condemned approves of, and no video, audio, or photos of the execution being released to the public." The change is to recognize the point that Rehochipe brought up that indiscriminantly honoring the person religion could be impractical.

2) 1B will be amended to say "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, judgement being up to an independent medical practitioner or independent group of practitioners."
1C will be amended to say "Did not commit the murder under the influence of a psychological disorder that impaired the judgement and/or reasoning of the murderer, judgement being up to an independent medical practitioner or independent group of practitioners."

3) 4d will be amended to say "Have the body given over to the convict’s family after the execution, if the convict so wishes.".

4) 1E will not be changed because while "coercion" may sound more elequont, "force or threats" is more specific, and theirfore less up to interpretation and less likely to have a loophole.

5) I am considering adding another part to this proposal that explains parts of it. If I do I will list examples of what forms of execution are acceptable and unnaceptable.

6) I prefer Clause 2 the way it is.

7) 1A will be amended to say "Has murdered someone deliberately or as part of a deliberate act where the accused knew that their actions had a reasnable chance of killing the victim 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 not 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)"

8)
I do not wholly agree on the point of age in cases where the defendant is shown to suffer extreme psychological impairments such as uncontrollable psychosis (even with medication) or antisocial personality disorder (ie:sociopath). Neither of those conditions are considered fully treatable to offer a guarantee of rehabilitation or safety. As such, persons who have these disorders and have committed murder would be only a burden to the state and even a threat to other inmates/personnel of the department of corrections. I realize the caliousness of that statement, but there comes a point where it is more humane and agreeable to put someone to death than to suffer them through years of solitary confinement.

I disagree. In that case you are not punishing the person for the crime but for having a dangerous psycoljical disoder.

9) The sentence "If the new evidence is determined to prove the convicts innocence, the convict must be pardoned" will be added to #3.

10) 4C will be changed to say "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. The condemned will have the right to a private execution if the condemned so wishes, private being defined as an execution with only those being allowed to be present who the condemned approves of (besides the executioner), and no video, audio, or photos of the execution being released to the public."

Thank you all for all of your suggestions.

I was just merely stating that I already said it...although it is worth mentioning several times since it is a HUGE typo.

No point in rementioning it if it has already been acknowledged. I have no problem with his rementioning it though. Rest assured that error will be fixed.

Whited Fields: I already pointed out the "must NOT have" mistake...it's that mistake that we're trying to correct at the moment.



Not to nag, but it's "coercion". "Cohersion"- or, correctly, "cohesion"- means the ability to stick together, which is completely different from what this proposal states. Usually it's something I'd overlook, but on a proposal, such a spelling snafu could be deadly.

<shrugs>

Was In a rush when I typed it, but thanks for the correction.

My objections to age still stand.

The convict is being punished for murder.
The punishment is what is best for both the convict and the state.

In cases of severe psychological disorder that makes the person violent and has no possible treatment to reduce said threat, it is equally favorable to the state and the fellow citizens to allow for execution.

This is especially true for the cases involving minors, since the legal system for minors in many countries do not allow for imprisonment beyond the age of 21, unless tried as an adult. By arguing that the death penalty is inapplicable to said minors, then the defense has further ammunition to declare that the defendant should not be charged and tried as an adult.

As for private executions, I still believe that is not a "right" of the convicted. It is the "right" of the surviving victims (family and friends of the one murdered) to see justice in action and witness the death of the convicted. Why are we giving more rights to the convicted than to the victims?
--Single witnesses (the executioner) is still falliable and therefore subject to mistakes or weaknesses. A rich defendant offering money could very well be that weakness. Also offers the possibility of gang members holding family and friends of executioners hostage in exchange for the faked death.

In the cases where judgement is key, such as the determination of mental capacity and psychological impairment, I do think a panel of practitioners does suit well. But I also understand this is not wholly practical to always have 3, 5, or 7 practitioners making a judgement. Much like the execution witnessing, corruption can be found in singularity. This is more a warning than an objection.

[QUOTE=Whited Fields]My objections to age still stand.

The convict is being punished for murder.
The punishment is what is best for both the convict and the state.

>In cases of severe psychological disorder that makes the person violent and has no possible treatment to reduce said threat, it is equally favorable to the state and the fellow citizens to allow for execution.

Then perhaps you should introduce a resolution to immediately euthanize violent psychotics before they can be a threat to others. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," neh?

And what sort of medical practitioners do we mean? In some remote areas of Nam Qem, tribal shamans diagnose mental illness through a ritual involving their personal river yak and pouring of water onto the afflicted. In a corporate police state, the "doctor" might be nothing more than a corporate pawn whose duty is to eliminate inefficiencies by denying or providing care, as in the American HMO system. I do not recall seeing any previous resolutions creating international standards for either mental illness or certification of doctors, leaving a large loophole in this clause.

>As for private executions, I still believe that is not a "right" of the convicted.

Barbaric. Such an eye for an eye sanctioning of revenge turns the justice system into a vehicle for vindictiveness and personal retribution. The state has no business meteing out capital punishment to begin with, but at the very least it should remain rational.

>A rich defendant offering money could very well be that weakness. Also offers the possibility of gang members holding family and friends of executioners hostage in exchange for the faked death.

If you fear street hooligans spiriting away prisoners, I suggest firing the head or your corrections system. And I thought you were a socialist nation, haven't you dealt with the rich yet?


::VV Qem, State Ministry, DRNQ

I believe that instead of Coercion or Force and Threats, your best bet would be "While under Duress" Which basically means Threats and Force.

It comes from nearly all United States' Statutes on the validity of a signed contract, a contract that was signed under Duress is void and basically means that if the contract was signed because the person was forced into it either by physical harm, or intimidation, it does not count as valid in the court of law

It is a very good proposal, and well-written, except for the "not" issue already mentioned. I will be sure to pass it on to both the Delegate for my region, and the Delegate for The North Pacific, Thel DRan.

If it reaches vote, I will support it.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Founder of the UNEC
UN Member
Founder, Part123
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Part123
Ambassador to The North Pacific
Part123 Administration


P.S. - Throw in the "coersion" thing too. "While under Durress" might be okay, but a lot of people may not know what that means, and coersion is probably better-known. Apologies if you did know what it meant beforehand and think I just called you stupid, that is not what I intended. :)

To the Nation of Nam Qem.

While I understand your feelings about the death penalty, I do not agree with them. I do understand you wholly sarcastic undertones to my arguments.

However, since you have nothing to offer for or against the proposal before us, then I wager you have no opinion, or idea what it is about.

To preventatively execute dangerous sociapaths and psychopaths would be wrong. It would make the state nothing more than sanctioned murderers. To EXECUTE a condemn criminal, who murdered a person(s), but also happens to suffer from severe psychological disorders that are medically untreatable or even controllable is not murder (the only 2 known severe psychological disorders that can not be controlled are anti-social personality disorder and some extreme cases of psychosis). I do not want another country telling me that I must suffer my people and safety to house such a prisoner for the remainder of the convicted's life span. Generally speaking, the worst of the worst in psychological disorders begin early in life. First outbreaks can occur as young as 8. Serious elevation in crimes committed are the same. Statistically, that means that a child of 9-12 can commit a serious and harmful crime, then spend the next 70-ish years in prison systems. That is 70-ish years where they can kill other inmates or DOC personnel, pose a threat of escape, and drain resources housing them separately in maximum security solitary confinement quarters.

The death of a loved one hardly evokes "rational" behavior from anyone. But I see nothing wrong with the VICTIMS having the RIGHT to view the execution of someone who killed their loved one(s).

My mentionings of singularity are applicable in to ANY country. Unless that is to say that you know personally that the executioner is above the table in all manner and respect and the only said guarantee to such would be if YOU were the one pulling the switch. Even then, guarantee is dubious. To allow limited viewing of the execution (Im not talking broadcasting the damn thing) by surviving victims, a doctor, members of law enforcement and even the convicted's lawyer is what ENSURES that the mode of execution IS humane.

You do bring up an excellent point about the qualifications of the medical personnel that would be independantly judging the psychological impairment of an accused person.

To the Nation of Xerxes855:

I also stand by my objections to clause 2. Even as forensic abilities increase, so does the cunning that a criminal may have to evade such testings. Since we hope that the global society does not become "Gattaca" like, and equally hopeful that we do not rush in an era of "Minority Report" policing, then we have to use reasonable evidence. Not every murder has forensic evidence, but the testimony of 3 credible (I place emphasis on credible) witnesses who can testify to motive and/or proximity to the deceased at the time of death then that should be considered reasonable proof that the defendant did commit the crime.

In the case of credible witnesses providing testimony to proximity at the time of murder, the state SHOULD provide a credible motive that can be suppositioned by inference, but actual past behavior, statements, and incidences involving the deceased.

Whited Fields:

1) I still prefer clause 2 as it is. Proximity isn't absolute proof. The witnesses could be lying, or be mistaken on the identity of someone they saw. Also, their could be clear absolute evidence that someone commited a crime, without their being a clear motive, or actions/statements that would suggest they were going to do it, and without 3 credible witnesses. Examples could be if the murder was caught on camera, if the convict confessed, or if the victim was choked and DNA clearly says that the convict did it.

2) What you are suggesting is that we punish someone not for the crime they commit, but for putting them to death because of they have a dangerous mental disorder. This doesn't even qualify as the death penalty, because if it is not a penalty. Their is a current proposal about banning involuntary euthanasia (I'm sure thats not spelled right), that is more relevant to killing people because they are dangerous to society because of a mental disorder. I belief what you are advocating for is immoral, personally, and I will not condone it.

3) This resolution does not restrict nations from putting minors in prison for life, so the argument that they should be put to death because they may be released is irrelevant, and is also based off the premise that you have to settle for overpunishing to avoid underdoing it, which I do not think is right.

4) If you are so worried about faking executions, you can have private exeuctions where the victims family waits outside and sees the body go buy, with all exits being viewable to the family, and allow the family to search the room afterwords. I will ammend 4c to say "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. The condemned will have the right to a private execution if the condemned so wishes, private being defined as an execution with only those being allowed to be present who the condemned approves of (besides up to 3 executioners, and two goverment officials to oversee the process), and no video, audio, or photos of the execution being released to the public."

5) Corruption can happen in any system. Their is no way to prevent all of it.

6) to Nam Qem: I don't want to go into defining what a docter is or what qualifies for one, or what qualifies for one that a court can base a decision off of. Even if I knew enough to do so, it would and should be part of another resolution. I think we will have to accept this loophole, thats the best this resolution can do by itself. It may be a good idea for another resolution to be submited to define medical standards.

Though "While under Duress" may sound more elequont, not many people know what it meens (I didn't before this). "Coercion" may be more widely known, but I think "force or threats" is more specific, and less likely to be open to loop holes.

I think you misunderstand my arguments.

The argument for not excluding the minors and particularly, PERSONS WITH SEVERE UNTREATABLE AND UNCONTROLLABLE psychological disorders applies only to cases where a murder has been committed by someone fitting either catagory.

I was not the one who made the sarcastic remark about preventative death measures. In fact, I believe that such things ARE sanctioned murder, and morally reprehensible. On the same note; IF either catagory of person commits a heinous crime of murder, (I do feel that the nature of the crime for either catagory must be extended beyond the means of a traditional death penalty case and show extreme violence/torture/disregard for human life) the death penalty should not be excluded from those cases arbitrarily due to age or impairment.

Statistically speaking, sociopaths will have a history of legal troubles before they EVER kill someone. Psychotics are a bit harder to pin down with specifics. So, how about a compromise...

Let it be said that in cases of extreme psychological impairment, regardless of age, the state can APPLY to an independent judiciary council for the right to seek the death penalty. They would need to show that the person was:
a: particularly heinous in the nature of the crime.
b: shown a history of violent behavior
c: can not be reasonably treated by medication to control violence.
This would be after an independent medical practitioner has already classified the person as suffering from a severe psychological disorder.

However, if this psycological disorder is what is causing them to commit these crimes, a past history should not condone their execution, because it is likely to be that same disorder that caused the violent history. Instead, they need to be taken to an insane asylum, where they can be treated for their disorder and hopefully eventually cured, or at least be in control of their disorder so they may lead a normal life. And if they can't be cured, then they are well out of harm's way, in no danger of threatening society again, and are still alive and kicking.

The problems with such argument is:

a: certain severe psychological disorders (like the ones mentioned repeatedly in my posts) are not treatable. The only way to keep some severe psychotics and sociopaths from being "dangerous" is to keep them so pumped full of medication that they are barely conscious.
b: should, at any time, the person develop a tolerance to medications used to keep them incapacitated, they could become a severe safety threat to others in the institution.
c: Institutions for the Criminally Insane would be required, and prisoners there would be pratically treated like animals. You can not offer comfort items to them; since for the severely disordered, any item can become a weapon.
d: At this time, and at no point in the forseeable future, will some mental illnesses ever be considered curable.

With this bleak outlook, it can be more humane to execute said person.

Life without quality of living is not alive.

I would suggest that this issue not be addressed by the proposal, and the guidelines involving the treatment of the criminally insane be left to the government of each nation.

The problem is you are not executing them because of the crime, you are using it because they have a mental disorder that puts others in danger. I don't see the diference between executing someone who has a mental disorder that makes them extremely dangerous because of a disorder and likely to kill someone though they haven't yet, and executing someone who is extremely dangerous because of a mental disorder who has killed someone because of a disorder.

This act is meant to limit the death penalty to those who were fully aware of what they were doing and who's judgement was not impared because of either age or psycoljical imparment. If someone commits the crime under the influince of a disorder, it is not fair to kill them because they did not have full control of themselves. You are advocating killing them because of the psycoljicall imparement, not because of the choice they made to kill someone. Theirfore it has nothing to do with the death penalty for commiting a crime, because you aren't penalizing them for a crime.

I agree with Pila here, the actions the goverments take in dealing with the mentally insane does not have should be dealt with in this proposal. It should either be dealt with by another proposal or by the national goverments.

You are the one who placed the restrictions on the death penalty to exclude psychological impairments.

I would like you to be aware of this though. Anti-social personality disorder in NO way prohibits the sufferer from being fully aware and cognitive of his/her actions. They simply have NO conscience that would normally preclude such behaviors. A sociopath not only knows what they are doing, but usually are combined with extremely high intellegence. They can be very personable and charming, making it difficult to sometimes even try them for their crimes. They often know a great deal about law and science to assist them in not getting caught.

Not all sociopaths will ever kill someone, which is why preventative is not the answer. I am not advocating that all sociopaths be placed to death even when they commit a murder. I am saying that the state should have the right to execute a criminal for murder REGARDLESS of the fact he/she may suffer from a psychological disorder.

Lets put this into real world terms here.
Does anybody wonder WHY they never just put Hannibal to death?

I disagree. If someone suffers from a disorder that takes away their concious, they should not be put to death for murder. They do not understand what they are doing in a moral sense. If their is a reasnable chance that they would have not have commited the murder had they not had the imparment, they should not be put to death. If a psycoljical disorder causes someone to commit murder, it is not that persons fault that they commited the murder (they at least did not have enough control to merit getting put to death).

Tommorow I am going to post the draft for the resubmision, seeing as their aren't any new comments (besides the argument over psycoljical disorders).

The "psychological impairment" of anti-social personality disorder has already been defined within the RL US, and it is found that persons suffering from this disorder are not exempt from the death penalty.

Firstly, there is argument, which is being backed by science, that says that people suffering from this particular disorder are "born" this way. The argument of nature vs nurture is strong here. Unlike many other forms of psychological impairment, the suffering person understands not only what they did, but that it was wrong. The fact that they could not "help" themselves is still to debate. Believing that all persons have free will, I feel that a person who has this particular mental illness are still held accountable for their crime.

Seeing as how someone who has this particular disorder understands their crime, and why it is wrong, I feel they are competent enough to stop their actions. The simple fact is, sociopaths do not CARE to stop their actions. Since they have no conscience, they lack the ability to connect to others, thereby giving them an emotional response to their actions. That is why a sociopath is one of the most dangerous expressions of "mental illness".
Their only emotional connection is to their gratification, and the seeking of it. Some sociopaths seek to kill others because it offers them some small thrill. They know what they are doing is wrong, and despite the logic, have no fear of continuing with their actions. That is what offers the thrill. Once a sociopath has killed once, they are often like dogs who get a taste for blood. They can not be stopped or rehabilitated. Their urge can not be dimmed or stopped. They will continue to kill until they are incapacitated or dead. Along the way, they develop narcicism and cunning. They are the true chameleons of society, blending in with others.
The worst of the worst serial killers in history have been shown to suffer from this disorder. It is a tragic thing. However, the SAFETY of fellow citizens REQUIRE us to ensure that these people NEVER HARM AGAIN. The only real assurance of this is through the implementation of the death penalty.

I am not saying that all murderers suffering from mental illness be put to death. I am saying that your restrictions on the matter are too restricting to the State and not giving enough to allow the State to punish its own criminals. The UN will NOT be the one paying for the cost to punish these criminals. Therefore, aside from the requirements of humane treatment, and a couple of other points, I see no reason why the rest of your proposal is even worth my consideration.

((OOC: All this being said, I would like to share with you the fact that I have suffered from mental illness, and as such, have felt the irrational thought patterns that ~could~ lead one person to harm another. But I understand free will, and I fear consequences. Sociopaths have no such fear. My greatest fear now is the emergence of specific behaviors indicating my own child may be one of them someday. And as much as I love him, and wish to protect him, I will not keep him from his consequences.))

If they are caught, a nation can still give them life in prison, so they will not "blend in" with society. Someone who murders because of a mental disorder was not functioning at full capacity, and they should not be punished with the death penalty for a decision they made without their full mental capacity (including a concious).

Anyway, these provisions are in their to ensure: a) A humane exeuction, b) That the convict is guilty c) That the convict (if proven guilty) deserves the death penalty.

Anyway, a new thread is being started with another draft.