NationStates Jolt Archive

The Draft so reads:

Recognizing that the death penalty is often invoked unjustly and disproportionately, and with unacceptable risk to the innocent this act mandates to all UN member nations where capital punishment is currently legal or legal in the future that:

1) The death penalty may only be considered when the defendant:
a) Has committed or conspired in an intentional, premeditated murder or a deliberate act against the victim causing a death that was reasonably foreseeable. They must not have killed the person (or helped kill the person) on the spur of the moment or in self-defense.
b) Has the mental ability to understand the difference between right and wrong on an adult level and to understand the consequences for their actions, as determined by an independent medical practitioner or practitioners.
c) Did not commit the murder under the influence of a psychological disorder that impaired the judgment and/or reasoning of the murderer, as determined by an independent medical practitioner or practitioners.
d) Is above the legal age of adulthood in their home jurisdiction, and no younger than 18 years of age.
e) Was not forced to commit the murder by a 3rd party by way of force or severe threats.

2) If the death penalty is sought against the defendant, they 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. Absolute proof must include physical proof that the defendant killed the victim. Circumstantial evidence alone will not be considered absolute proof.

3) If new evidence is discovered after trial that could potentially prove the defendant’s innocence; the defendant and/or their legal representatives must be permitted access to that evidence for investigation, and be allowed a hearing to decide if a new trial is needed. If the new evidence is determined to prove the defendant’s innocence, the conviction must be vacated.

4) When a convict is put to death, they shall have the right to:
a) A last meetings with family members.
b) A public statement no earlier than 24 hours before the execution. The convict shall also be permitted to make a private statement to 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 manner that is not painful or humiliating. Reasonable requests for religious reasons must be honored, with a court of law resolving any dispute as to what is considered reasonable. The condemned will have the right to a private execution if the condemned so wishes, in the presence of only those persons permitted by the condemned and up to three executioners and two government officials to oversee the process. No video, audio, or photos of such execution shall be released to the public.
d) Have the body given over to the convict’s family after the execution, if the convict so wishes.

5) This body reserves the right of further action restricting or banning the death penalty.


It is to be submited under "human rights", under the name "Death Penalty Guidelines", and its strength will be "significant"

I will edit this proposal (as written above), as suggestions are made.

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

The old proposal died I take it? Thanks for editing it. I'm not sure if my nation will approve (as we're against the death penalty entirely) but this is an admirable proposal.

To the Government of RomeW:

If your country is against the death penalty, then you should be more inclined to accept this legislation. Its attempt is NOT to condone the death penalty, but place restrictions on the nations who use it by setting a standard of when, where and how such things can be done.

To the government of Xerxes855:

As long as your country insists on placing the restrictions on "psychological impairment" in this document, the NSSRC will not be endorsing it. We feel that there is no satisfactory and safe way to exclude any member of society who has murdered multiple victims. Sociopaths worry us the greatest. I can only hope and pray that you never must deal with the true horrors of mental illness, and that you and your family will never be stricken by murder.

Can we still castrate the offenders?

One minor point. Assuming that there's room to add anything to this proposal (blasted character limits), we'd like to see this clause reworded so as to make it clear that the UN remains free to outlaw the death penalty in future:

[i]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

It's just a game mechanics thing - if a proposal appears to set down in stone that the death penalty is legal in UN states (even if that's not the intention), then a future proposal can't rule the death penalty illegal. So it'd be good to clarify that this proposal isn't explicitly ruling the death penalty legal or illegal.

Something like "while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used until such time as the UN may rule it legal or illegal" would do the trick.

One minor point. Assuming that there's room to add anything to this proposal (blasted character limits), we'd like to see this clause reworded so as to make it clear that the UN remains free to outlaw the death penalty in future:



It's just a game mechanics thing - if a proposal appears to set down in stone that the death penalty is legal in UN states (even if that's not the intention), then a future proposal can't rule the death penalty illegal. So it'd be good to clarify that this proposal isn't explicitly ruling the death penalty legal or illegal.

Something like "while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used until such time as the UN may rule it legal or illegal" would do the trick.

Good point, I will add a section dealing with it. What is the character limit, anyway?

IMHO, both ways are a bit awkward. May I respectfully recommend:

- In the preamble, strike the phrase "while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used" entirely;

- In the preamble, insert "wherein capital punishment is legal" after "mandates to all UN member nations"

- Add "5) This body reserves the right of further action regarding the legality of the death penalty."

IMHO, both ways are a bit awkward. May I respectfully recommend:

- In the preamble, strike the phrase "while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used" entirely;

- In the preamble, insert "wherein capital punishment is legal" after "mandates to all UN member nations"

- Add "5) This body reserves the right of further action regarding the legality of the death penalty."

I'm not sure if you saw my clause 5.

The problem with "5) This body reserves the right of further action regarding the legality of the death penalty." is that it may be construed to allow the body to repeal restrictions set by this resolution.

You must have been editing to add your #5 while I was posting - we crossed in the aether, as it were.

I would still offer my suggestions re: tweaking the preamble, though.

You must have been editing to add your #5 while I was posting - we crossed in the aether, as it were.

I would still offer my suggestions re: tweaking the preamble, though.

How about instead of "while allowing the death penalty to continue to be used", that be replaced with "while not baning the death penalty"

Runs into the same problem E. Hackney spotted, IMHO. But that's just my opinion, I've been known to be wrong. :)

Runs into the same problem E. Hackney spotted, IMHO. But that's just my opinion, I've been known to be wrong. :)

I think the 5th clause will take care of it.

In reply to an earlier question, the limit on UN proposals is 3,500 characters. If this is a problem, though, there are various little tricks and tweaks to cut your proposal down, from minor rewordings to removing extraneous spaces and the like (yep, spaces count as characters). I'd be happy to help with this if this proposal turns out to be too long.

In reply to an earlier question, the limit on UN proposals is 3,500 characters. If this is a problem, though, there are various little tricks and tweaks to cut your proposal down, from minor rewordings to removing extraneous spaces and the like (yep, spaces count as characters). I'd be happy to help with this if this proposal turns out to be too long.

Damb it, it is passed the limit. If I eliminate the 5th clause and the part of the preamble "while not banning the death penalty,", its under the limit, so thats what I'm going to do.

Damb it, it is passed the limit. If I eliminate the 5th clause and the part of the preamble "while not banning the death penalty,", its under the limit, so thats what I'm going to do.

It should probably read "while not banning or legalizing the death penalty" or "where the death penalty is legal". You don't want to accidentally legalize the death penalty in nations that simply don't want it.

Xerxes, if you'd like help tightening the language without losing content, I do have some editing background and would be happy to assist.

(If you'd rather I didn't, that's OK - it's your baby after all. :) )

It should probably read "while not banning or legalizing the death penalty" or "where the death penalty is legal". You don't want to accidentally legalize the death penalty in nations that simply don't want it.

The problem is that the word count right now is at 3,488 characters. I only have 12 more before I reach the limit. If I could do it, by either not having the limit or somehow making it more efficant (which I don't think I can without causing problems), I would take you suggestion by saying "while not banning or permanantly legalizing the death penalty".

Jovianica, if you want to make your suggestions I would appreciate it. I may not use all (or any) of them, but would like to hear what they are to see if they will work. Either telegram me (nation the same as user name) or post here, in whatever format you like but I think taking the proposal and making your changes and bolding them will works best.

I know of a great way to expand the character count...

Exclude the line about psychological impairments.

I implemented changes suggested by Jovianica (by telegram) to reduce the word count, and made a few changes of my own, mostly just effecting wording aside from the addition of clause 5. It is now at 2,963 chacters.

And Whited Fields, I appreciate your determination, but I am going to stand by my decision to keep it.

Well, if the clause isn't tightenned so that it does NOT force nations to have the death penalty, then I will support it.

Exclude the line about psychological impairments.

The so-called insanity defense has taken a lot of abuse in the US popular media, but the truth is that it isn't abused in practice. In most jurisdictions, diminished mental capacity or extreme emotional disturbance does not mean the accused goes free - it reduces the degree of the offense, compels the state to include meaningful psychiatric treatment as part of the sentence and may, but doesn't always, reduce the term of the sentence. In fact, it's more often the case that the guilty-but-insane individual will spend more time in confinement in mental hospitals than a guilty, sane individual would have spent in jail.

Xerxes, I'm sorry for the late input, but I had a couple second thoughts after sleeping on it. Two changes I'd like to suggest:

1) In § 1.a., change "reasonably foreseeable" to "more likely than not". It is, after all, reasonably foreseeable that you'll kill somebody if you drive drunk, but capital punishment for DWI is unreasonably harsh.

2) Insert an additional clause, between §§ 4 and 5: "No government shall execute a foreign national whose home jurisdiction prohibits capital punishment." The reason for this has been manifest in the past year, with European nations hesitating to cooperate with extradition of terror suspects wanted in the US.

No hard feelings if you don't want to include these, but I think they enhance the fairness of the provision in a meaningful way.

We all have personal convictions on this matter.

I stand by my reasoning.

The insanity defense is overused, and it has become rather easy for someone to have a doctor somewhere conclude that the defendant is "psychologically impaired" Not guilty by reasoning of mental illness or defect does NOT mean that the person will spend the rest of their life in an institution. In fact, dependent on the state, a not guilty verdict could mean the accused is out of an institution as early as 60 days. To be kept locked away, another competency trial would need to be held, and even then a judge can not sentence long term incarceration within a facility. That is the thing about institutions. Judges are not allowed to set "time to serve" penalties on someone who is being sent there. At any point and time in the future, should the institution find the defendent competent, they must present such findings to the court. It is still the defendent's job to petition the court for a new cempetency trial.

Ex: In the case of the TX mother who drowned her 5 children, the jury did not feel comfortable accepting the claim of insanity and some stated this was because of the weak nature of the law which would allow her to be released into public in the reasonably foreseeable future. So, while I do understand and believe the woman was "psychologically disturbed", the jury effectively said no she wasnt. Then again, I feel that the husband was partially to blame for the conditions. He was aware that his wife had problems. He was warned that motherhood was too much stress on her, and in the family dynamic, HE made the decision to continue having children. As a strong woman, I dont believe I would allow myself to dominated in such a fashion. However, there are some women who are still trained to accept the husband's commands without fail.

Additionally, I am not saying that ALL persons who suffer mental illness should receive the death penalty for committing murder. Like anything else, each case needs to be deliberated on individually. I simply feel that there are some cases where the crime is too brutal and the risk is too great to allow some murderers (read: serial killers) to be kept in the prison system or in an institution. Therefore, I can not endorse this proposal, and will fight it tooth and nail over this one issue. Most of the rest I can deal with. Although I do cringe at the age thing when it comes into conjunction with the psychological impairment, since sociopaths can and do start early sometimes. But before you accept the nature of mental illness as being excusatory there are STILL questions that are pertinent to the issue.

1. Did the person have a clear understanding of the events and actions that took place? (Did they know what they did?)
2. Did the person have a clear understanding of the morality of their actions? (Did they know it was wrong?)

IF the answer to both questions is yes, then I feel the defendent IS competent and is elligible for the death penalty.



BTW: reasonably foreseeable would still be a good term. Alcoholism, and drunk driving would both be considered a psychological impairment and for that reason they would be exempted from the death penalty.

I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. Sadly, you have taken the cases that make the biggest headlines and assumed they are universally representative, which they are not. The "insanity defense" (and as a lawyer who has worked in criminal defense, I abhor that term) is not overused, but when it is used in a high profile case it gets a disproportionate amount of air time.

Texas' law on mental disease or defect is atrociously out of the mainstream, and the Texas legislature has refused to change it because they prefer that juries have no palatable option. In other jurisdictions the verdict would not be "not guilty," it would be "guilty but not criminally liable" or other similar language, and there would indeed be a composite sentence of confinement not less than <length of time> but with release subject to a finding of mental health. If you live in a jurisdiction with a poorly-written mental disease or defect law, and apparently you do, you have my sympathies, but please know that you are not in the majority.

Also, while it may be rather easy for someone to have a doctor somewhere conclude that the defendant is "psychologically impaired", it is also rather easy for the state to produce a prosecution witness with the contrary conclusion - and the judge or jury must then decide which expert is more credible. (Frex, the state's expert in the Andrea Yates case, who has never found a defendant incompetent in his entire career.)

Another Texas case ought to make us a bit queasy. I don't remember the name now, but Texas executed a young retarded man of such profoundly arrested mental development that, at his last meal, he set aside half the dessert to finish when he got back. Someone like that, who clearly has no understanding of what's happening to him, cannot possibly understand actions and consequences enough to have criminal culpability that merits execution. Just food for thought there.

Your standard for applying the death penalty to the mentally ill was:
1. Did the person have a clear understanding of the events and actions that took place? (Did they know what they did?)
2. Did the person have a clear understanding of the morality of their actions? (Did they know it was wrong?)

IF the answer to both questions is yes, then I feel the defendent IS competent and is elligible for the death penalty.
The proposal requires that the defendant, in order to be exposed to the death penalty:
Has the mental ability to understand the difference between right and wrong on an adult level and to understand the consequences for their actions
Seems like we're on the same page so far. The proposal adds:
Did not commit the murder under the influence of a psychological disorder that impaired the judgment and/or reasoning of the murderer
I understand your reservations, but please understand that the second qualification is not the so-called "insanity defense" the way you mean it. In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, at least, a defense of "extreme emotional distress" or a psychological disorder within the meaning of the second quote from the Proposal (but not the first) reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter or from 1st degree to 2nd degree murder, rather than absolving the defendant from culpability. In other words, no execution but very possibly a life sentence.

Please note as well: The proposal does not say that the guilty-but-insane must go free. It says only that they should not be executed. Nothing in this proposal prohibits, for example, a life sentence without possibility of parole, or lifetime confinement in a mental institution. I hope you'll take that into consideration and reconsider your objection.

Unfortunately, I cant.

While I do know that Texas is out of the mainstream, (after all, the joke is they want to install an express lane), I also know that there are times when it IS justifiable to put a prisoner to death for committing murder even when thry suffer from psychological impairment. The only DSM-IV classification I know off-hand would be that of anti-social personality disorder. However, I also feel that people who suffer from extreme psychosis should not be excluded either. But only in certain cases.
While medicated and sane, a psychotic will likely not pose a threat to anyone in society. However, when that same person STOPS TAKING their meds, they have not only made a personal choice, upheld by free will, but also placed society at risk. In such cases, I see it reasonably forseeable that going off your meds would cause a problem, and if the psychotic has a history of violence when not medicated, it is reasonably forseeable that he/she will commit an act of violence once making this choice by free will.

But once off medication, if a psychotic has an episode that knocks a child into a busy intersection, or pushes someone onto a set of railroad tracks just before a train arrives, he/she has committed manslaughter. There was no real malice intended, and I understand that. But after spending XX number of years in a prison, they are free to go once again. Once free, they can make the free will decision to stop taking their meds again, and place society at risk.

((OOC: Examples such as these are seen often in the RL US, mostly dramatized by television, but existent all the same. When I had my own temporary psychotic break, I knew that I was not thinking clearly and told SEVERAL doctors not to release me from 2 separate hospitals over a 2 week period. When I could not get anyone to listen to me after telling them I couldnt guarantee my own safety, I started telling them I couldnt guarantee it of my child. The system, being overcrowded, released me anyway, and within 2 weeks I attempted to overdose on the same medication I had been prescribed to assist with my problems (I was given 2 weeks walk-out plus 60 day scripts). In fact, part of me believes that it was the merry-go-round of medications that were started/stopped within that 2 weeks as well as the ever increasing dosages of Effexor that caused the psychotic break. I am happy that I maintained enough of my mind to know to seek assistance and to leave my child with family.))

Knowing that such flaws exist within systems is all the more reason WHY I advocate that there is no guaranteed safety in locking some individuals up.

Now, as someone who is a lawyer, would you say that most states have certain qualifications beyond intent in order to allow the death penalty?

I'm as sorry that the system failed you as I am glad that you have the strength to overcome that failure.

I agree that to truly ensure public safety, the judicial system has to be augmented by a mental health system with an adequate safety net that gives a high priority to follow-up care and monitoring. We need a mental health system that does that anyway, to keep the judicial system from having to be involved. That's a national issue, of course, tangential to this debate but definitely relevant.

Yes, states generally have requirements beyond intent for implementing the death penalty. In the jurisdictions whose laws I have studied, there are 'aggravating factors,' at least one of which the finder of fact has to determine beyond a reasonable doubt. They include planning and/or lying in wait, commission in a particularly cruel manner, torture while the victim was alive, commission for the purpose of financial gain, a particularly vulnerable victim, killing a witness to deter prosecution and a variety of others. Balanced against these are 'mitigating factors' to be considered, including factors in the defendant's background, mental state (including psychological disturbance not meeting the two-question test you mentioned earlier), duress, etc. Some states prohibit the death penalty on only one 'mitigating factor,' others use a balancing test. Mental disease or defect is a very common mitigating factor, but obviously in some jurisdictions it is not sufficient by itself.

And your final statement is my precise point.

I have stated time and time again that a combination of factors are what should exclude the death penalty in ANY case. These factors can be hard enough to wade through as it stands, but it is the sovereign right of nations to weigh them.

Therefore, I feel it inappropriate to carte blanche deny the use of death penalty for age (tell me, how fair is it that one day before 18 means life in prison, and one day over can mean death penalty), mental impairment, or because no matter how many witnesses can place someone running from the scene, if no physical evidence exists to offer conclusive proof, a defendent can not be punished in such a manner.

I feel that these 'guidelines' are taking too much power out of the hands of sovereign states, and the expectation is too great.

It is fair to expect that sovereign nations use the death penalty fairly and humanely.
It is fair to say that semi-private executions be allowed and no press released.
It is fair to say we will follow through with religious requests of the convicted.

These are all things I can agree apon. But to say that some small factors will exclude the death penalty across the board is too much.

Not to mention that such restrictions could make plea agreements harder to secure. DAs have been known to "take it off the table" in exchange for a plea bargain.

Jovianica:
1) I added "against the victim" into that sentence to solve that problem. That way DWI wouldn't fall under the description, because it was not a deliberate act against the victim, but attacking the victim (or blowing up their house, intentionally crashing your car into their car, ect.) and killing the victim even if you didn't intend to kill the victim would fall under it.

2) I like the idea behind your second suggestion. I think "foreign national" is to open, because it could describe someone who has settled in a country and is living their but has not changed their official nationality. Instead I think it would be better to have it apply to temporary visitors only, which will require further detail. How about "No UN nation shall execute a foreign visitor (defined as a foreign national whose residence in the country is not more then 30 days) whose home jurisdiction prohibits capital punishment." I haven't put this in yet.

Whited Fields:
1) If you are worried about flaws in the system, your nation is free to develop a system that you believe does not contain any flaws. Other systems may be flawed, but they are free to do the same.

2) I understand the day after, day before 18 argument. Unfortunutly, the line has to be placed somewhere. Their will be cases very close or on the line, but thats just the way it is (and that is true for any limit you set).

In Gomostan we use death penalty.And we still gonna use it.Its useful for persons that did crimes worser then an human mind can think of.We vote Nay on this foolish law.

How about "No UN nation shall execute a foreign visitor (defined as a foreign national whose residence in the country is not more then 30 days) whose home jurisdiction prohibits capital punishment."
Not bad, but I think 30 days is too short. Frex, US business and tourist visa holders are generally given I-94s good for 90 days. How about:

"No UN nation shall execute a citizen of a foreign nation where capital punishment is prohibited, unless they have resided in the prosecuting nation for at least 90 days or applied for permanent resident status before commission of the offense."


Gomostan:
We're not saying you can't have the death penalty. We're only saying that there should be standards, to make sure it's only applied to the worst crimes where the evidence of guilt and responsibility is clear.

Why does a line need be drawn anywhere?

The NS UN, having now accepted the proposal ensuring a fair trial, and working on proposals to define a fair trial, as well as Habeus Corpus, and Right To Appeal, has already placed certain standards into place.

Should this proposal deal only with the nature of the penalty (being humane), and securing the rights of the convicted, then it would be a good proposal and worthy of my endorsement.

However, we feel that the decision to use the death penalty can not and should not be arbitrarily removed from any section of people within our society. That is why we place learned people in the role of judge, give proper argument with law between the prosecutor and defense, and weigh the decision of penalty against the particulars of the crime committed.

We also feel that Justice is not served by a "speedy trial" sometimes, but this is most felt in the cases where the use of the death penalty is considered. Serious application of the death penalty must seek judicial review and approval before it may be implimented. All aspects of the crime are considered and weighed against the reasonable expectation of rehabilitation within the correctional system.

I could make good argument that the current standards for accessing mental impairment are flawed, not only within my own country, but within others. In examination of the DSM and its history, we will find that homosexuality was considered a psychological impairment until the 1970s. In examination of our fellow nations, I recall hearing the practices for determining mental illness to be that of having water poured over someone's head while their medical practitioner chanted were used by at least one country.
Shall you next attempt to impose legislation that would require their practitioners to attend medical school? Shall you require that those medical schools be accredited? What if this is practice is tied to their religious code? Will you then tell them they have no right to practice it as they wish?

When it comes to mental illness or impairment, there IS no system that does not have flaws, nor can there be. Scientifically, we are not advanced enough to say with certainty what causes some illnesses. If we can not identify its beginnings, how can we accurately determine that the course of action will treat it? The DSM gives a certain standard, based on empirical data, about various mental disturbances, but it is by no means perfect, nor is it even used in all countries.

Still, with these flaws, our nation feels the neccessity to put to death some convicted criminals for their crimes. We will not approve any legislation that would seek to remove the weight of key mitigating factors in the decision of that punishment.

Its useful for persons that did crimes worser then an human mind can think of.
My human mind is reeling from this logical black hole.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: You have my admiration, WF. It's really uplifting to see that someone can have the strength to recover from such trauma. Gives me hope.

Whited Fields, once again you prove to be a fool. We must seek to use a monumental waste of time when a person who has committed a crime such as rapine, murder, or molestation?! If the facts are indesputable then the criminal must perish! If they have a mental disability then they must also perish! Many folks who have mental diabilities do not resort to violence so why should we tolertate it when they do?

I disagree with a section in clause 4 which states that the convict has the right to a private execution. I believe that the victims family has gone through the pain of losing a loved one and trials and hearings they should be allowed to see the execution. If the convict does not want the shame of his/her family seeing them being executed then fine, but the victims should be able to impead on the convicts requests. Now i am not talking of making it a big production of aunts, uncles, cousins, jim bob being able to watch, but just the imediate family,spouses, children, siblings, parents. If the convict wants it can be through a tinted screen, but it should still be an option for a victim's familes.

I see that my NOT SO LEARNED COLLEAGUE, Polish Warrior, has not seen fit to read that MY statements are that we SHOULD NOT exempt mental impairment or illness from the death penalty. I have been arguing since first reading this proposal that even with mental illness or impairment, there are times that the death penalty is warranted.

Additionally, THIS RESOLUTION would seek to deny States the ability to use the death penalty on persons who are classified as mentally or psychologically impaired. My nation will NOT endorse this proposal until it has been re-written and the exclusive restrictions on impairment and age are stricken from this legislation.

Apparently, we are foolish for not having read your reply more closely. *running away* we apologize

I am submitting a new topic with a second draft.