NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal 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 the defendant knew had a reasonable chance of seriously injuring or killing the victim. 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.


Title: Death Penalty Guidelines

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Please support this proposal, either by endorsing it or suggesting it to your regional delegate.

The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855
Regional Delegate to SMEYC

Resubmited again. It got 29 approvels last time (a day before it ended, the last time I was able to check)

The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields continues its objections to clause 1, section C and D and will not be endorsing this proposal.

Firstly I have concerns with the wording in

“causing a death that was reasonably foreseeable”

It has been established in a number of real world cases that is wording is very poor, it is similar to that in the English case DPP v Smith 196, therefore I oppose this wording as it would lead to a much larger number of convictions which I doubt is the intention of this proposal.

Alternative and improved wording would be found in the case of R v Nedrick (1986) which states “If jury satisfied that the defendant recognized that death or serious bodily harm would be a virtually certain result of his act, then they may infer that defendant intended to cause that result.”

C & D could do with a bit of better definition but I’m ok with that part, but I have a problem with E, the basis for this is the defense of duress yes?

If it is then the basis of duress is that the evil which is perpetrated is LESS than the evil which you yourself inflict upon others, therefore “severe threats” should be much more strictly clarified. The threat of death to yourself should not be less as we ourselves have no right to judge our worth against another, if it is a group of your friends and family or one other person it may be argued that there is lesser evil.

Even if you don’t want to take my alterations to E I would suggest that there is some redrafting of the text so it is more legally sound.

Firstly I have concerns with the wording in

“causing a death that was reasonably foreseeable”

It has been established in a number of real world cases that is wording is very poor, it is similar to that in the English case DPP v Smith 196, therefore I oppose this wording as it would lead to a much larger number of convictions which I doubt is the intention of this proposal.

Alternative and improved wording would be found in the case of R v Nedrick (1986) which states “If jury satisfied that the defendant recognized that death or serious bodily harm would be a virtually certain result of his act, then they may infer that defendant intended to cause that result.”

C & D could do with a bit of better definition but I’m ok with that part, but I have a problem with E, the basis for this is the defense of duress yes?

If it is then the basis of duress is that the evil which is perpetrated is LESS than the evil which you yourself inflict upon others, therefore “severe threats” should be much more strictly clarified. The threat of death to yourself should not be less as we ourselves have no right to judge our worth against another, if it is a group of your friends and family or one other person it may be argued that there is lesser evil.

Even if you don’t want to take my alterations to E I would suggest that there is some redrafting of the text so it is more legally sound.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am not very familiar with what is legally sound.

I feel that if the defendant was being threatened with death over injury, and commited the murder out of fear, that they should not be subject to the death penalty. I agree that we do not have the right to determin that our life is worth more then anothers, however, not everyone has the courage to risk their own life for another.

I am not familiar with DPP v Smith 196. I like the 1st wording better, because the 2nd wording would elminate cases that I feel that goverments should have the right to executed people for. This would include things such as arson, you know that could kill the victim, but death or bodily injury is not certain. Or beating someone up, where you did not intend to seriosly injure or kill them.

The people of Caesario recognize the death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment and will not participate in advancing this legislation.

Caesario: this proposal does not do anything to advance the use of the death penalty. It does not force nations to use it, nor keep the UN from banning it in the future.

I accidently left out the preamble when submiting this, when it gets resubmited (if it doesn't reach quorum), the preamble will be reincluded. It states:
"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:"

"I am not familiar with DPP v Smith 1961. I like the 1st wording better, because the 2nd wording would elminate cases that I feel that goverments should have the right to executed people for. This would include things such as arson, you know that could kill the victim, but death or bodily injury is not certain. Or beating someone up, where you did not intend to seriosly injure or kill them."

This is not true, the test I proposed is from English law and is used without objection within out legal system, your test sets the level of proof too low, it is possible to argue that everying is "reasonably foreseeable" this is very vague aswell and worrys me could head towards "natural consiquence".

"I am not familiar with DPP v Smith 1961. I like the 1st wording better, because the 2nd wording would elminate cases that I feel that goverments should have the right to executed people for. This would include things such as arson, you know that could kill the victim, but death or bodily injury is not certain. Or beating someone up, where you did not intend to seriosly injure or kill them."

This is not true, the test I proposed is from English law and is used without objection within out legal system, your test sets the level of proof too low, it is possible to argue that everying is "reasonably foreseeable" this is very vague aswell and worrys me could head towards "natural consiquence".

The problem with your text is the "virtually certain result of his act". Someone could commit an act such as arson or beating someone up (with out the intention of serios harm), which does not have a "virtually certain result" of harm to the victim, but the criminal knew that their actions had a good chance of killing the victim.

How about instead of "was reasonably foreseeable", I replace it with "that the defendant knew had a reasnable chance of seriosly injuring or killing the victim"

The proposal has been resubmited.

This proposal has been resubmited.