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. The victim’s immediate family will have the right to view live video and audio of the execution.
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"

If no changes are needed I will submit this as a proposal. If you have sugestions please make them. However, I am not going to remove the limit about age or psychological disorders, so it is not worth your time to bring it up (leave that debate for the previos thread).

The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855
Regional Delegate to SMEYC

This is very good indeed. We'll be commending it to our regional delegate.

Very very well done!

I like it a lot, and can't wait until it is submitted.

Thank you Jaminme and Rehochipe for your support.

If no major changes are needed, then I will submit this proposal tommorow (likely at night).

Looking good...my concerns have been addressed.

*thumbs up*

Section 1 b) states that:

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.

To a certain extent, the lack of mental capacity to understand ones crimes allows a crime to be 'forgivable', in that, for some smaller crimes, punishments should certainly be restricted for such people. It is, however, the opinion of the PRRSF that in the case of the murder of more than 5 people at one time, or in the case of serial murder, then under no circumstances should the crime be forgiven. An amendment to the resolution somewhat to that effect would be, in our view, much more appropriate.

Section 1 b) states that:

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.

To a certain extent, the lack of mental capacity to understand ones crimes allows a crime to be 'forgivable', in that, for some smaller crimes, punishments should certainly be restricted for such people. It is, however, the opinion of the PRRSF that in the case of the murder of more than 5 people at one time, or in the case of serial murder, then under no circumstances should the crime be forgiven. An amendment to the resolution somewhat to that effect would be, in our view, much more appropriate.

I disagree. I do not feel that it is about "forgiving". In many cases involving the mentally deficant I do not feel that the convicted deserves a punishment for the reason of it being a punishment. Nations should have the power to lock them up, because they may deserve some punishment, and they could be a threat to society if they are set loose. But since life in prison without parole is very nearly as safe as the death penalty in keeping them from striking again, I do not feel that it is just to kill them.

I am submiting this proposal.