NationStates Jolt Archive

To all regional delegates!!

Please support The Death Penalty Ban!! We have 21 endorsements, and we're going to 114 more!! Please spread the word and vote!!

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the UN, The Republic of Desertica

The Death Penalty Ban

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Whereas, our systems of justice are flawed, due to human fallibility,

Whereas, innocent people may die due to a death penalty used by our flawed systems of justice and

Whereas, no person of conscious would approve of killing a human being;

Resolved, That we member nations of the United Nations hereby abolish the death penalty.

The United Nations has no business dictacting policy on what is flagrantly an issue of internal policy, with no international significance whatsoever. The decision of your neighbors to execute their citizens will not affect your people, nor will your decision not to execute your citizens affect their people. Furthermore, a daily issue already exists to address this topic, cementing it even more in the arena of domestic policy where UN interference would be ill concieved.

We are already forced by UN resolution to alow abortion and gay marriage, two policies the Republic of Desertica disagrees with, and furthermore, are domestic issues that do not effect every nation. We may as well further the cause of human rights with a resolution like ours.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the UN, The Republic of Desertica

Ahh, the 'two wrongs make a right' chain of logic.


No.

I generally agree that resolutions should be international issues, as opposed to regional issues globally applied. I think you might be able to handwave arguments about abortion (there are RW cases of people going across international borders to have abortions) and marriage (because married people do cross international borders and expect to remain married) but baring the execution of foreign nationals this is clearly a regional issue globally applied.

For this reason I'm not enclined to enthusiasticly support it. I'm not opposed to it, however. It might even be passable more or less as written.

Ahh, the 'two wrongs make a right' chain of logic.


No.

The Republic of Desertica wishes to affect policy through the democratic process. The FAQ describes UN membership as "a double-edged sword". We in The Republic of Desertica realize that, and we wish to do good for the cause of human rights, despite what it costs us policy-wise.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

The Republic of Desertica wishes to affect policy through the democratic process.
You have that right. Just as we who oppose this as international policy have the right to oppose it.

If you can convince 134 of your fellow Regional Delegates that this is a good idea, then it will appear before the General Assembly for a vote. Meanwhile, those of us who oppose will probably be telegramming Approvers and asking them to withdraw their support. That's another part of the aforementioned double-edged sword.

Frisbeeteria doesn't even have the death penalty, but we choose that for ourselves. We didn't need an international mandate to make that choice, either. We realize that not everyone shares our worldview, and we don't attempt to impose our morals on our neighbors.

This has been proposed many times before, and the combined wisdom of the UN delegates has kept it from becoming law. Participate in the process, but don't keep bringing it up after it fails. We're not ignoring it, we're rejecting it.

You have that right. Just as we who oppose this as international policy have the right to oppose it.

If you can convince 134 of your fellow Regional Delegates that this is a good idea, then it will appear before the General Assembly for a vote. Meanwhile, those of us who oppose will probably be telegramming Approvers and asking them to withdraw their support. That's another part of the aforementioned double-edged sword.

Frisbeeteria doesn't even have the death penalty, but we choose that for ourselves. We didn't need an international mandate to make that choice, either. We realize that not everyone shares our worldview, and we don't attempt to impose our morals on our neighbors.

This has been proposed many times before, and the combined wisdom of the UN delegates has kept it from becoming law. Participate in the process, but don't keep bringing it up after it fails. We're not ignoring it, we're rejecting it.


Fair enough. But the UN seems only to be about mandates.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

A better approach to take would be to support resolutions that would forbid the more awful abuses of the death penalty - inhumane methods, capital punishment of minors or the mentally disabled, capital punishment for minor crimes; that sort of thing. This would, I think, earn widespread support from most of the sovereignty-defending nations, and probably even from many who have the death penalty.

A better approach to take would be to support resolutions that would forbid the more awful abuses of the death penalty - inhumane methods, capital punishment of minors or the mentally disabled, capital punishment for minor crimes; that sort of thing. This would, I think, earn widespread support from most of the sovereignty-defending nations, and probably even from many who have the death penalty.

I'll admit, I'm new at this. I wanted to try my hand at putting a resolution toghether. I am actually an American conservative, who happens to oppose the death penalty. In real life, I have a great disdain for the UN, but in this game, the UN is a lot of fun!! I completely understand, and agree with, those who complain about their soverign rights as nations. I saw other reesolutions that have passed, with policies I disagree with. I figured if abortion and gay marriage can be one-size-fits-all issues for this UN, I would try to turn Desertica's position (not yet official) into the law of the land for everybody too. As of now, I no longer urge the support of this resolution. The Republic of Desertica regrets if any feelings have been hurt.

Thaddeus Larouche
President, The Republic of Desertica

The death penalty is so abusive to human rights that UN intervention to prevent it is justified, IMO.

The death penalty is so abusive to human rights that UN intervention to prevent it is justified, IMO.
... and I can respect your opinion, and your right to that opinion, without agreeing with that opinion. However ...

A Resolution similar to this, Ban of Death Penalty (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=334553), was fairly recently defeated here.
Last UN Decision
The resolution "Ban of Death Penalty" was defeated 9288 votes to 6957.
536 posts in the main topic, and several dozen spawned and locked minor topics. Do we have to dig through it all again? Or can we accept that NationStates has spoken, and perhaps put off pushing another one through for say, six months or a year?

I just feel strongly enough that it's worth repeated tries - also remember, each proposal is going to have at least slightly different measures, arguments and general approaches.

I did not endorse this proposal because it has already been up for vote and rejected. I flip-flop between supporting a complete ban and supporting strict restrictions on it. The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855 does not have the death penalty. I think that nations should have the right to use the death penalty in a restricted sense.

I am resubmiting my "death penalty guidelines" resolution, which does what Rehochipe wanted, allowing the death penalty (though not stopping a future ban on the death penalty), but placing restrictions on it to prevent abuses.