NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of Desertica has just submitted "The Corporal Punishment Ban", this resolution bans the use of corporal punishment by the member states. We ask the support of all regional delgates in this process. The resolution reads as follows:


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 (or operates, as it pertains to an agency) 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.

Please support this improtant human rights resolution.


With sincere thanks,
Thaddeus Larouche
President, The Republic of Desertica

Bahgum will support this proposal, as we have no need for corporal punishment. We have a far greater terror to keep our populace in check.....the dreaded Bahgumian mother in law.......

Vastiva embraces corporal punishment.

The alternative would be to feed the buggers to the Polar Bears. And yes, we have polar bears, some ninny imported the "cute things" years ago. Damn cute things...

This is another example of a proposed resolution that goes skipping over the bounds of what the United Nations should legislate on. Unless another nation is abusing your citizens via corporal punishment, you have no right to demand they give up their methods. Some cultures embrace a Spartan lifestyle, or similar societal models where this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable. Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why you have the right to intervene (and no, "getting hit is wrong" is not compelling), then this resolution is an abuse of the power of the UN.

:headbang: We had submitted a similar proposal last week, and it fell short by about 100 votes, even though the proposal went across the board, for school, home, the military, and corrections.

If this passes, Azzion will vote yay.

This is another example of a proposed resolution that goes skipping over the bounds of what the United Nations should legislate on. Unless another nation is abusing your citizens via corporal punishment, you have no right to demand they give up their methods. Some cultures embrace a Spartan lifestyle, or similar societal models where this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable. Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why you have the right to intervene (and no, "getting hit is wrong" is not compelling), then this resolution is an abuse of the power of the UN.

here here, agreed. I will vote nay.

here here, agreed. I will vote nay.
Your nation would vanish in a puff of logic were this proposal to pass.

We wish for clarification of this law - would it ban the Death Penalty? And the law really doesn't make sense - most countries have already made it illegal for one person to hit another person...

We believe that this part of the motion is so vague:

"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,"

that it could stop the police force from using truncheons as a form of riot control. We urge delegates to vote against the proposal.

We believe that this part of the motion is so vague:

"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,"

that it could stop the police force from using truncheons as a form of riot control. We urge delegates to vote against the proposal.


Whoops!! There will be a second draft of this. I would like to make clear I did not mean riot control of police self-defense.

We wish for clarification of this law - would it ban the Death Penalty? And the law really doesn't make sense - most countries have already made it illegal for one person to hit another person...

No, this would not ban the Death Penalty. This resolution would ban Saudi and Singapore style caning and whippings.

I would'nt vote for it in its present form. I like the idea, but it needs clarification, exceptions for crowd control, death penalty references, parental discipline references, governing bodies to oversee implimentation of this proposal, and does it apply within a country, or only in warfare between countries?

No, this would not ban the Death Penalty. This resolution would ban Saudi and Singapore style caning and whippings.

And WHY would you want to ban such things? They're monsterously efficient at removing the "oooh, gotta try this" from children.

... and adults.

And WHY would you want to ban such things? They're monsterously efficient at removing the "oooh, gotta try this" from children.

... and adults.

Don't you think it's barbaric?

I would'nt vote for it in its present form. I like the idea, but it needs clarification, exceptions for crowd control, death penalty references, parental discipline references, governing bodies to oversee implimentation of this proposal, and does it apply within a country, or only in warfare between countries?

Stay tuned for a second draft!! The government of each country would ensure that the resolution was carried out. Thise applies within the country, and does mention warfare. There will be a second draft.

Don't you think it's barbaric?
Surely for crimes like vandalism it's actually less barbaric then to jail a sixteen year old for two years with hardened criminals?

Don't you think it's barbaric?
No. Barbaric is hurting someone for your own amusement or entertainment.

Corporal punishment uses the body's reaction to pain as a teaching device. You probably only touched a hot stove once or twice before you learned it was a dumb thing to do. CP, applied in a non-sadistic manner, has the same effect.

Obviously it has the potential for abuse, and there are plenty of folks who go beyond non-sadistic into anger or even brutalism. We already have national laws dealing with abuse, so that's covered. CP laws aren't necessary here.

The CP laws needs to be incredibly carefully crafted, lest they also be abused by the very people they're trying to protect. Frisbeeteria doesn't believe that this draft meets that test. We'll look at your second draft, but nothing we've seen so far inclines us to support this proposal in any form.

No, this would not ban the Death Penalty. This resolution would ban Saudi and Singapore style caning and whippings.

So in other words, cruel and unusual punishments?

I would clarify that it be banned if it is against the will of the victim. Because you know, there are kinky people out there that like that sort of thing.

Either way, I'd soon rather see this as an issue then a proposal. Because you know, some kinky leaders like that sort of thing.

What happens in the bedrooms of the member states is not my concern. :D
My sincere thanks to the 19 delegates who have endorsed my proposal.