NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of Desertica has drafted this resolution but has not yet submitted it. I want your input first.

The Governmental Corporal Punishment Ban.

A resolution to ban the use of Corporal Punishment by the Governernment and Schools, not parents.

Whereas, the use of corporal punishment as the punishment for a crime by the government is barbaric and

Whereas, these members of The United Nations no longer wish to engage in this practice,

Resolved, these members of The United Nations ban the use of corporal punishment as punishment for a crime by the governemnts of the members of The United Nations.

Any thoughts?

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

No!!

Unlike the other resolution on this issue, our resolution only applies to CP in the use of punishment for a crime by the governement. There is a big difference.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambasador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

True, to me this seems a different spin of Barbaric Punishments. You say that it is different enough from it and other resolutions to work. I don't know if I think so yet. What is it that seperates this proposal from Barbaric Punishments? How would this add to the UN and (I'm assuming the category is human rights) how does it fit in to that category?

True, to me this seems a different spin of Barbaric Punishments. You say that it is different enough from it and other resolutions to work. I don't know if I think so yet. What is it that seperates this proposal from Barbaric Punishments? How would this add to the UN and (I'm assuming the category is human rights) how does it fit in to that category?

I have read the Barbaric Punishments resolution and I can tell you that mine is completely different. My resolution bans CP being used as a punishment (or sentence) for a crime. Barbaric Punishments is somewhat subjective when it comes to "cruel and unusual" punishment; Whereas my resolution specifically mentions CP. This resolution would prevent member states from using CP as a punishment for a crime, like Singapore and Saudi Arabia. Barbaric Punishments' subjective language does not prevent CP from bing used as a punishment, in my opinion. Please give me your input, everyone.

Is there there any instrest in this proposal?

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the UN, The Republic of Desertica

Nope.

I guess not. :D :D :D

Rod Vanbergen
Ambasador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

I assume that you are referring to flogging, caning etc.
Does 'corporal punishment' also cover solitary confinement etc?
what punishments are not covered by this resolution?
(My apologies if there are formal distinctions which I'm not aware of).

Since Desertica didn't define the terms, it could conveivably be used to cover those acts. However ...

The common definition refers to disciplining a child, student, prisoner or soldier by striking them with a hand, belt, rod, or similar disciplinary device. That's what this resolution appeared to be about, as far as I was concerned.

there is already an issue about this still active at this link http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351265 however CP is more of a concern at national level, not international. different governments run by different policies and customs/traditions so i dont think it will work.

I assume that you are referring to flogging, caning etc.
Does 'corporal punishment' also cover solitary confinement etc?
what punishments are not covered by this resolution?
(My apologies if there are formal distinctions which I'm not aware of).

The resolution refers to any kind of hitting, caning, or whipping as a punishment or sentence for a crime.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

Correct the spelling and I'll support it...I'm not sure if many nations will care about the issue enough to support it though.

The resolution refers to any kind of hitting, caning, or whipping as a punishment or sentence for a crime.
Actually, it doesn't. The only way it would is if you defined your terms IN the resolution. As it stands, it refers to whatever the reader decides it stands for.

Watch for a second draft coming in a few hours. I'll post it in this thread.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambasador to The UN, The Republic of Desertica

As promised, here's the second draft:

A ban on the use of Corporal Punishment by the governing authorities.

A resolution banning the use of Corporal Punishment by the governing authorities.

The definition of “Corporal Punishment” in this resolution is defined by hitting a person with an instrument, in a systematic fashion either as punishment for a crime, or as a form of interrogation. “Governing Authorities” is defined as someone (or an agency) who works on the behalf of the official government of a member nation, including schools. Parents and guardian of children are exempted from resolution as it pertains to administering Corporal Punishment to their children.

Whereas, The Republic of Desertica condemns the use of Corporal Punishment by its fellow Member States and

Whereas, The Republic of Desertica considers Corporal Punishment to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment that violates the human spirit,

Therefore Be It Resolved, that these Member States of The United Nations ban the use of Corporal Punishment by The Governing Authorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, this draft is a completely different animal, with specific definitions. Thoughts?

Ben

You like to see children tortured?

Corporal punishment should be banned as a whole.

You like to see children tortured?

Corporal punishment should be banned as a whole.

Such a thing would never pass, and I don't agree that it should be banned as a whole. Imagaine the implication of a kid saying "Mommy hit me" and then being hauled off to prision. That's not a good thing. Will you support the current proposal?

I quote

The definition of “Corporal Punishment” in this resolution is defined by hitting a person with an instrument, in a systematic fashion


Any mother hitting her child systematically with an 'instrument' is doing something wrong IMO.

A spanking does not involve an instrument and thus is no corporal punishment.

I quote




Any mother hitting her child systematically with an 'instrument' is doing something wrong IMO.

A spanking does not involve an instrument and thus is no corporal punishment.


It may be wrong to you, but why propose something if it will never gain support?
Will you support my resolution?

I support the resolution as it is, but would like to see the ban on corporal punishment go for parents as well.

I support the resolution as it is, but would like to see the ban on corporal punishment go for parents as well.

Well, I submitted the resolution and I would appreciate your support. It's list under "The Corporal Punisment Ban" and is basically the way it was in the post.

I support the resolution as it is, but would like to see the ban on corporal punishment go for parents as well.

I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be banned, though it's probably a matter for individual states to decide.

But with a proposal like this, which is bound to be controversial, it's easier to get each stage through separately. Besides, what the state can do to its citizens and what parents can do to their children are really two separate issues and deserve two separate proposals.

I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be banned, though it's probably a matter for individual states to decide.

But with a proposal like this, which is bound to be controversial, it's easier to get each stage through separately. Besides, what the state can do to its citizens and what parents can do to their children are really two separate issues and deserve two separate proposals.

Agreed on that. I support the motion as it is.

Thank you all very much!!

I support the resolution as it is, but would like to see the ban on corporal punishment go for parents as well.

That seems more an issue for national legislation, a lot of people would get very, very worked up about the UN passing such a rule.

Please support this resolution!!!

I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be banned, though it's probably a matter for individual states to decide.

But with a proposal like this, which is bound to be controversial, it's easier to get each stage through separately. Besides, what the state can do to its citizens and what parents can do to their children are really two separate issues and deserve two separate proposals.


Agreed on that, I support the motion as it is.