NationStates Jolt Archive

Concerned about the continuing revelations of people being wrongfully convicted and,

Recognizing that the judicial system is run by human beings and thus has the potential for flaws and,

Believing that the right to life is a fundamental human right and,

Outraged at the continuing instances of executions of prisoners around the world and,

Concerned by the lack of judicial due process in some nations and,

Aware that some nations have not fully implemented Resolution 21: Fair Trial, passed by the UN on 13, July, 2003, Resolution 27: Due Process, passed by the UN on 13, August, 2003, Resolution 47: Definition of 'Fair Trial', passed by the UN on 14, February, 2004, and Resolution 73: Habeas Corpus, passed by the UN on 10, September, 2004, and,

Recalling Resolution 26: The Universal Bill of Rights, passed by the UN on 8, August, 2003 and Resolution 41: End Barbaric Punishments, passed by the UN on 11, December, 2003,

The United Nations Resolves that:

1. The right to life of all people, defined as all human beings who have been born, be deemed a fundamental human right

2. That all nations reaffirm their commitment to Resolution 26: The Universal Bill of Rights

3. That the death penalty be deemed cruel and unusual punishment

4. That all nations abolish the death penalty for all infringements of the law

I think this is the part of my job I dislike the most. My nation doesn't have the death penalty, not since The Liberation from Church rule. And I and all of my ministers will do our very best to ensure we never have one.

So you would think I would support such a proposal as this.

Well - I can't. Because although we oppose the death penalty, and would actively campaign to stop other nations using it, it is up to the other nations to decide how they punish their criminals.

We won't send anyone back to a country where they would be executed, and we would not execute anyone from a country that has the death penalty, but our laws only exist within our borders - we would not presume to try to enforce them on anyone else.

So I can't support this because I believe it is a national, not an international issue.

1. The right to life of all people, defined as all human beings who have been born, be deemed a fundamental human right


What about the Elves and Dwarves in TilEnca? Do they not class as "people" because they are not human? And so would they still be permitted to be executed if this proposal passes? Cause I think that is a tad unfair.

I put the definition of people in there specifically in order to prevent this resolution contradicting with resolution allowing abortion. If we deemed that a fetus is a human being with a right to life then the abortion law would no longer be valid. Do you have a suggestion which can make it fair to elves and dwarves without it causing a conflict with the abortion resolution?

I put the definition of people in there specifically in order to prevent this resolution contradicting with resolution allowing abortion. If we deemed that a fetus is a human being with a right to life then the abortion law would no longer be valid. Do you have a suggestion which can make it fair to elves and dwarves without it causing a conflict with the abortion resolution?

Firstly I didn't notice the "have been born" thing, because some people would consider those delivered by c-section not to have been "born" in the proper sense.

Secondly - "all sentient, self-aware beings"?

Even if this is cleared up, I still can't support forcing this resolution on the whole of the UN, but at least the Elves and Dwarves that live in TilEnca will feel happy and safe again :}

Well there are resolutions which ban barbaric punishments and the Universal Bill of Rights bans the use of torture and anything that is cruel and inhuman punishment. Should I alter the resolution to simply deem that the death penalty should be deemed cruel and inhuman punishment? This would mean that according to the Universal Bill of Rights, the death penalty would be banned if this was added to the definition of cruel and inhuman punishment. I could go one step further as to also define it as a barbaric punishment which would cause it to be banned under resolution 41

Well there are resolutions which ban barbaric punishments and the Universal Bill of Rights bans the use of torture and anything that is cruel and inhuman punishment. Should I alter the resolution to simply deem that the death penalty should be deemed cruel and inhuman punishment? This would mean that according to the Universal Bill of Rights, the death penalty would be banned if this was added to the definition of cruel and inhuman punishment. I could go one step further as to also define it as a barbaric punishment which would cause it to be banned under resolution 41

Okay - I am only speaking for myself here. I am not speaking for the moderators (I would not have the conceit to do that!) and I am not speaking for any other nation (because I don't know enough about any other nation to do so).

I oppose the death penalty. But I can see how some nations think it is a good idea. If someone rapes a little girl then strangles her and leaves her body in the river, you can see why someone might want to execute the person that did that. They are forbidden from doing anything cruel (such as raping the person then strangling him) but I understand why they think they are justified in gassing the person, or hanging them. I think they are wrong, and would quite happily debate the issue with them until the Lords take us all, but I would not try to enforce my view on them, either by force of arms or by force of laws. It is their nation, their people and their views.

So even if you alter the proposal to say killing someone is inhumane or cruel or barbaric as a punishment, I still could not support it, and I suspect a lot of other UN nations would object as well (especially those that have the death penalty already).

But as I said, this is only my view. And I am only one person. So feel free to ignore me :}

What about the Elves and Dwarves in TilEnca? Do they not class as "people" because they are not human? And so would they still be permitted to be executed if this proposal passes? Cause I think that is a tad unfair.

I'm pretty sure the word "people" is inclusive of all sentient lifeforms if you take it as singular of "peoples".

peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

Well devil's advocate approach for a moment, some nations would deem it appropriate to beat, torture, and chemically castrate someone who did that to a little girl but current UN resolutions deem that cruel and inhuman punishment or barbaric punishment and deem it illegal. This is already imposed on other nations. It is not like banning the death penalty is setting a new precedent in the UN's involvement in these issues, all this resolution does is address one concept the UN has failed to meaningfully address in the previous resolutions.

I cannot support this proposal, and will actively petition against it if it makes it to a vote. How a nation deals with its prisoners is entirely up to that nation. In Neo Portugal, execution has been an excellent way to keep prisons costs down, and it also serves as an excellent deterent. It is not within the UN's right to dictate whether or not we have the right to execute our prisoners.

Again, the UN already has established guidelines for how prisoners should be treated. Whether it is the Universal Bill of Rights or any of the resolutions dealing with fair trials, due proces, etc. The UN has played a role in determining how a nation treats its prisoners in 6 resolutions, it is not a new precedent for the UN to establish standards of humane treatment, etc. This resolution simply addresses a fundamental part of these resolutions which is missing, it is not a new precedent but rather is building on already established standards and norms in order to better protect the rights of all people and deem that all people have the right to life and that the death penalty is both barbaric and cruel and inhuman punishment.

Interesting proposal, of course, it's doomed to fail, but everyone deserved their pipe dream...

But that's not my point... my primary point is a logical problem with the reason behind the proposal, at least the states reason, since I know the actual reason (ie. the reason the person decided to write it is not listed as a reason).....

Aware that some nations have not fully implemented Resolution 21: Fair Trial, passed by the UN on 13, July, 2003, Resolution 27: Due Process, passed by the UN on 13, August, 2003, Resolution 47: Definition of 'Fair Trial', passed by the UN on 14, February, 2004, and Resolution 73: Habeas Corpus, passed by the UN on 10, September, 2004

Logical falsehood, as we ALL know that all resolutions are automatically implimented by the UN upon the enactment of them as of their passing. So, the concept of "some nations.... not fully impliment[ing]" is an absolute falsehood under the very mechanics of the NS universe, and the power and control the NSUN has over the laws of its membership. And of course you have the inverse principle of the logic..... if indeed you think that NSUN member nations are even capable of "not fully implimenting" those resolutions, it would logically continue that they would be capable of "not fully implimenting" this one should it pass, and that therefore, logically stating the concept of "not fully implimenting" resolutions, is inconsisent as a resoning for the passing of an additional resolution which a nation still will "not fully impliment"....

Of course the NSUN has entertained this topic before, the reason it does not appear they have through resolutions is, because FAILED resolutions are not recorded, only passed ones.... CP has been brought up many times before, it's just never passed..... a reason it has not passed can be deduced from a perusal of the International Incidents area..... people use CP, many nations, regardless of governmental or economic views, you'll see plenty of people being executed.... communists, capitalists, socialists, anarchists, terrorists, the religious, the irreligious, white people, yellow people, black people, purple people with orange pokadots.... for various reasons from comitting some of the most heinous attrocities to stepping on the wrong blade of grass when praying to the third lord of the seventh sun on days beinging with the letter "T" during every forth month after a lunar eclipse....

We in our nation have no problems with the death penalty, our prisons overflow, and personally I don't want my prisons to break out in riot. We don't have the necessary capital to build new ones at the current time. We must thin our criminals or our other option is to put them directly back on the streets.

Humans are sheep, and are expendable like them. If some governments do not feel this way, it is their business. We do and that is that.

Humans will repeat the crimes that they commit after they are released. The idea of the death penalty must be decided by individual nations.

Are you aware that Ban of Death Penalty (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_of_Death_Penalty_(failed)) was debated, proposed, made quorum, and was defeated this past June?

Votes For: 6957
Votes Against: 9288
Voting Ended: Sun Jun 27 2004

Have a glance at Ban of Death Penalty - RESOLUTION AT VOTE (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=334553), all 537 posts, pro and con. If you really want to argue it again, you can ... but it's been done recently enough that most of us are weary of it.

A fundamental right to life implies a fundamental right not to die.

Outside of fantasy how do you justify such a stance?

Agreed Frisbeeteria.
This resolution on banning the death penalty is the shortest and least thought out.

I'm pretty sure the word "people" is inclusive of all sentient lifeforms if you take it as singular of "peoples".

peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

The original line was "1. The right to life of all people, defined as all human beings who have been born, be deemed a fundamental human right" - it specifically listed human beings as the definition of "people".

So while I would agree "people" would be include Elves and Dwarves, the restriction to "human being" takes them out of it.

That was my only issue (with the definition of people, not with the proposal in general) :}

Well I've only been a member for just over a month so I am not aware that this has been debated at length before though it wouldn't surprise me.

The right to life issue, the purpose of including wording along those lines is to make life a fundamental human right and something that a government or person can not violate. There are of course 2 exceptions, euthanasia which is legal under resolution 43, and the course of nature. I can include these in the definition as well.

Ultimately I think I am going to scrap this current proposal and rework it from a different approach.

Our honorable colleagues from the Frisbeeteria point out a very important fact and I am glad the honorable member is going to re-think this proposal. To be honest, I don’t think either my staff or myself has the energy to cover this issue again. Besides my desk is littered with so many repeals currently, I doubt I will see daylight any day soon. :)

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia.

100% oppose it. Why do we not give cruel and unusual punishments to cruel and unusual serial murderers and serial rapists, etc? Why should they have the right to life when they have null and voided one or more other people's right to it? If anything, they have to be removed from society so they have no chance of getting back in and committing more crimes, as has been shown to happen very often.

Because some of the more civilized nations have advanced past the point where they consider the purpose of punishment "vengeance", and where they consider ends justifying the means.

Ends do not justify the means. There are means that cannot be justified whatever the end. Intentionally killing human or other sentient beings is one of them. There is no place for murder other than in the event of direct, immediate lethal danger to you. Killing one who has murdered, in cold blood, long after the fact, is either senseless or a pre-emptive strike (and just as senseless). I am sure you can come up with a combination of social classes and background criteria that fits on people who have far higher chances of committing murder than people who have done so before. Will you kill all of those?

Who has the authority to deal out death? I remember a quote from Lord of the Rings that seemed very appropriate to me - "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life - can you give it to them?"

What do you do with all the guys? Throw them in jail? Your prison costs will increase a lot.
I remember a quote from Lord of the Rings that seemed very appropriate to me - "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life - can you give it to them?"
I too quote from a book. Stranger from a Strange Land. "It is true that people sometimes must die, but it is an insult to their integrity to lock them up in jail."

For some odd reason, I fail to see reason in that quote. How do *you* decide what is an insult to someone else's integrity? Note that what I quoted did not question death, or killing. It questioned the authority over someone's life in another one's hand.

It is okay in my opinion for someone to request euthanasia to evade a jail sentence, or limit suffering from a sickness (guilt can be a sickness too, you know, as could grief), or maybe even for an unspecified reason. But I don't see by what right a government decides this person would be better off killed. Due to another invisible reason, many who support the Death Penalty, also oppose euthanasia. So you are fine with killing people against their will, but get squeasy when they ask you to? Sick.

If you're going to argue the cost issue - look at all the terminally ill. They are a burden on healthcare, and they are dependent on others. They suffer. Why not suppose it's an insult to their integrity to keep them alive, and give them all a painless end? It's wrong! Why are people who commit a crime less human than those who don't? Why do they have less right to life?

Think of it this way. The rule of law and justice are seen as the moral high ground of a modern democratic society. There are laws against kill people as it is deemed a crime. If the government kills prisoners who killed people, isn't it the same thing? By resorting to the death penalty it destroys the moral high ground that justice and the rule of law has. An eye for an eye is not the moral high ground.

Also, does it not seem like a hypocrisy to kill someone for killing someone? Tell me how the government is more justified in killing a human being, where does this slippery slope end?

Think of it this way. The rule of law and justice are seen as the moral high ground of a modern democratic society. There are laws against kill people as it is deemed a crime. If the government kills prisoners who killed people, isn't it the same thing? By resorting to the death penalty it destroys the moral high ground that justice and the rule of law has. An eye for an eye is not the moral high ground.

Also, does it not seem like a hypocrisy to kill someone for killing someone? Tell me how the government is more justified in killing a human being, where does this slippery slope end?


Well, to try to shorten, though I doubt I will very effectively shorten, the differentiating philosophical views which bring about the differences that arrise between the multitude of factions on this issue... I will begin my discourse....

At the forefront is the principle of law and justice. You called it "the moral high-ground". Firstly, you must understand that not all nations, more specifically actual republics, do not view law in terms of morality, but rather ethics... the differentiation between the two concepts relies on their root founding principles... morality is based heavily upon rhetoric and opinion. Ethics are based upon logic. In the viewpoint of ethics based law, justice requires the principle of equity in punishment (aka eye-for-an-eye concept of punishment), that for law to logically be just, the penalty for violation of the law must fit the severity of the crime which was committed. Within this system the law must act to penalize the criminal in proportion (no more no less) to the crime he commited against another (the Republic does not recognize what are known as "victimless crimes"... all crime is in relation to what one or more people do in relation to one or more other people). For the penalty to be proportionally less than the crime, while merciful, would not be just and equitable.... justice and mercy are polar oposites, and it is not within the scope of the government to pronounce mercy, only justice, in the face of a crime. The only logical operative which can satisfy both justice and mercy, is found in the principle of the Law of the Republic to allow the victim or their direct legal power in their absense, the ability to call for a lesser penalty. Such follows from what is known to the Republic as the fundamental rights, rights which can only be penalized at the breaking of the law... Note law is in relation to the impact one person does on the rights of another... These rights include life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.... Under the concept, violations of one persons rights by another, force the government to justly penalize the proportional right of the criminal in relation to the violation he commited to another. Hense the principle of "capitol punishment" for the committing of a "capitol offense"... In effect, if one person were to violate another persons right to life, then in equity their own right to life is penalized.

On the other side is your own stated view of "moral high ground"... in all cases the view is generally based on some rhetorical concept, and most of the time religious based... and can call for either the execution of capitol punishment or its abolishment within the realm of rhetorical and deceptive false reasonings. Some of the basis of moral-high-ground principle of law is rooted in Judeo-Christian morality, secular humanistic, or naturalistic rhetoric, or the like.... This view is the more pervasive, than the absolute purity of logical equity founded in the form and function of The Republic... This view almost always sees "the government" as an entity with rights... as opposed to an agent with no rights, and only responsibilities to the people with which she represents, as seen in the Republic. Hense the concept of "the government having no 'rights' to kill another person... Within this system, even when its democratic, it's always operating under non-equitable principles... tyrany by majority.... in fact, its always found in some level of tyrany. Because the majority can ALWAYS get what it wants, under the sheer fact it is the majority... as opposed to the republic where the majority cannot impede the rights of others, regardless of their numerical difference. Or it can operate by the tyrany of one, a dictator of sorts who does his own will, either with or without the consent of the governed.

In the end, you have to understand, that within the Law and Principle of the Republic, your stated view is absolutely illogical... as it asks the law to be moral rather than equitable... and based on principles which have no ethical basis... to adopt some principle with no logical foundation, except a stated opinion rooted in injustice.

I read the honourable member from Takania’s response with interest, however I see some fundamental flaws in your logic. Specifically when it comes to definition of concepts and the manner in which you build constructs between them.

The word ‘republic’ simply denotes on how a nation is governed in that the citizens are free to elect their government officials or more specifically its leader. It does however not necessarily denote that their legal systems will follow one of ethics rather than morality. In fact the definition of morality is an innate sense of right or wrong, it is also regarded as individual. The argument that to be moral based upon being religious belief is completely flawed. One can consider oneself a moral person without having spent a single day reading any religious scripture or attending any religious organisation.

Ethics on the other hand is closely linked with morality, because it is in fact a branch of philosophy that deals with the distinctions between right and wrong and with the moral consequences of human behaviour. It is more appropriately used as a code of conduct followed by a group such as in the medical profession.

Most legal systems in the world follow two specific foundations, that of Roman law or that of British Common law (others do exist in the form of Orthodox religions, but I will refrain from discussing them here). Both these legal systems have at their heart the concepts of ethics and of morality because the one concept cannot exist without the other. Therefore the law is simply an extension of these two basic philosophical principals combined by logic, which is to seek a true or false resolution to a specific problem in this case, guilty or not guilty. However, modern Philosophy has quite eloquently pointed out that Aristotle linear ideas of true or false (guilty or not guilty) is not always accurate.

You can therefore see that to be equitable and moral can and must in fact exist in the same construct and is not such ‘polar opposites’ as you suggest.

I will refrain from talking about the paragraph detailing ‘tyranny by majority’, but I do find it interesting that you should bring this up considering you are a republic.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

In the end, you have to understand, that within the Law and Principle of the Republic, your stated view is absolutely illogical... as it asks the law to be moral rather than equitable... and based on principles which have no ethical basis... to adopt some principle with no logical foundation, except a stated opinion rooted in injustice.

But none of this matters. The point is that some nations want the death penalty, because they believe it is the best way to deal with crime. I disagree with them, but I don't have to live in their country, and I have no power over their country.

The whole issue is not one of logic, morals, ethics or guesswork - it comes down to the right of a government to decide how to punish it's people, and the "lack of right" of any other government to make that choice for them (even if they think is wrong).

I oppose the death penalty - it won't be adopted in my nation - but I oppose any attempt to ban it across the world on the grounds that I don't have the right to suggest it should be.

I whole-heartedly support this resolution. I'm not sure that the Death Penalty is ALWAYS Cruel and Unusual Punishment, but it violates the right of judicial review. Killing the defendent means they can no longer file appeals, no matter what new evidence may come up.

The basic rules for fair trials has already been established as an area appropiate for UN authority to overrule individual member nations. The soveriegnty question does not arise in this case unless someone is talking about repealing the previous already passed resolutions on this matter.

You appearantly miss my point, many things are called republics, including "representative democracies".... however, in actuallity to the principles of THE REPUBLIC a representative democracy is not necessarily a Republic. I reffer to The Republic, and the origination of the concept under the principles exposed within its form, function, and operation as defined by the originator of the system, namely Plato, and not what the unenlightened have re-defined as the word "republic".

It is in fact not surprising I bring up "tyrany by majority" as that is the inherant problem with democracies, unless they to one extent or another adopt the foundational principles of The Republic. It is not contrary for those who operate as a Republic, to bring up the principles of Tyrany by Majority, it is the raping of the word "republic" which has created that guise when democracies have labled themselves republics and then proceeded to argue against that concept against Monarchial forms of government.

As for your views on ethics and morality, it was very Kantian... and I commend you on your adoptation of that philosophical view, which I however do not agree with, being more Aristotelian and Platonic.

And its not ethics and morality that I listed as polar opposites, but justice and mercy... the body which exists for the soul responsiblitiy of pronouncing justice to grant mercy is no longer acting within the realm of their purpose, and therefore no longer has one, and is a pointless body.

On the point of national sovereignty, I do agree.

And the last thing we need is a bigot, like Arturistania, who has pronounced his 'morality' as 'higher' (a relative term) than all others, on the fact that a group of people have commonly adopted a similarity to it, trying to take control and breed his bigotry on an international scale.

The Republic does not look at our process as "higher" nor "lower", merely logical.

And as all governments exist souly by the consent of who they govern, we allow them their chance to grow and consider them valid.

1. I am not a bigot. I may be very passionate about certain issues but I am not closed-minded or intolerant of differing opinions, views, etc. I did not say my system was higher, I was saying that philosophically the justice system has been seen as the moral high ground. We don't down people on the street who commit crimes. We don't kill those who commit crimes against us. We take them to the courts and the courts which have legitimacy as they are recognized as having legal authority and as being the moral high ground of the land. I didn't say my nation is morally superior to any other nation, I said that justice and law and order need to take the moral high ground and avoid the slippery slope, circular, and hypocritical arguments which are used to justify the taking of a human life. I find it quite interresting that you throw out that strawman at the end of your statement to completely muddle the whole point of my previous statement.

2. Justice and mercy are not polar opposites, indeed the judicial system can be merciful depending on the circumstances of the case in front of the court. Merciless justice is flawed because it fails to take into account all the circumstances relative to the crime, it is so black and white that relativism can be neglected sometimes. I ask you, in your system of merciless, logical justice, do you execute minors and the mentally-disabled?

3. The purpose of the UN is to promote the betterment of humanity. That means wokring to erradicate poverty, social-injustice, intolerance, hatred, illitiracy, barbarity, injustices, discrimination, inequality, war, violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide, violations of human rights, violations of human dignity, and lack of compassion. This organization has passed two resolutions condemning barbaric punishments as well as cruel and inhuman punishment. This resolution builds upon this accepted values and specifies that executions fall into this catergory as well.

4. This proposal as I mentionned early is being withdrawn for the moment so I can work on passing my proposal to repeal resolutions 18 and 43 as well as pass the Global Education Initiative. I will be tabling a new version of this from an entirely different approach later.

Because some of the more civilized nations have advanced past the point where they consider the purpose of punishment "vengeance", and where they consider ends justifying the means.

The death penalty is not "vengeance". It's a deterrant. It's a punishment. It's preventing the criminal from committing more crime. It's saving your jails money. Why are you giving murderers rights(especially the right to live) after they have wiped out other people's rights? It doesn't make sense to reward them, or at best, do nothing to them. You send someone to jail, they get out, they do it again. All it does is cost your jails money. Higher taxes. Buy a gun and some shells and you just saved yourself from more crime in the future and wasted tax $$$.

Ends do not justify the means. There are means that cannot be justified whatever the end. Intentionally killing human or other sentient beings is one of them. There is no place for murder other than in the event of direct, immediate lethal danger to you. Killing one who has murdered, in cold blood, long after the fact, is either senseless or a pre-emptive strike (and just as senseless). I am sure you can come up with a combination of social classes and background criteria that fits on people who have far higher chances of committing murder than people who have done so before. Will you kill all of those?

Self defense is one issue. Punishment is another. You don't kill a class of people because they are more likely to commit crime. That's insane and I have no idea where you got that from. After they commit the crimes such as murder, rape, molestation, or other serious crimes, you have to send a message to others that would be willing to commit a crime, and stop the criminal at hand from doing it again and/or living freely after he has ruined someone's life.

Who has the authority to deal out death? I remember a quote from Lord of the Rings that seemed very appropriate to me - "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life - can you give it to them?"

For a start, if the family of the victim wants to do it, let them. If not, get someone else to. I'm sure there would be people to apply for the job. If not, then fine, waste more tax money and let them back out on the street to continue with their malicious behavior. If they have been proven guilty of a serious crime, you have to seriously punish them. A slap on the wrist is only an incentive to do more.

The death penalty is not "vengeance". It's a deterrant. It's a punishment. It's preventing the criminal from committing more crime.

Would you like me to list the ways that that is not true?



Self defense is one issue. Punishment is another. You don't kill a class of people because they are more likely to commit crime. That's insane and I have no idea where you got that from. After they commit the crimes such as murder, rape, molestation, or other serious crimes, you have to send a message to others that would be willing to commit a crime, and stop the criminal at hand from doing it again and/or living freely after he has ruined someone's life.


And you can't send that message by putting them in jail?


For a start, if the family of the victim wants to do it, let them. If not, get someone else to. I'm sure there would be people to apply for the job. If not, then fine, waste more tax money and let them back out on the street to continue with their malicious behavior. If they have been proven guilty of a serious crime, you have to seriously punish them. A slap on the wrist is only an incentive to do more.

So the family of the victim gets to kill the person who committed the crime, and you still maintain that is not vengance?

The purpose (at least to my mind) of detaining a criminal is to bring them back to society as a "useful" member (and by useful I mean someone who will not rape and kill people). And you detain them until that is the case. If they stay detained for the rest of their life, so be it. But by killing them as soon as they are convicted you don't give them a chance to reform and do good, which is (again, in my mind) a crime in itself.

Would you like me to list the ways that that is not true?




And you can't send that message by putting them in jail?



So the family of the victim gets to kill the person who committed the crime, and you still maintain that is not vengance?

The purpose (at least to my mind) of detaining a criminal is to bring them back to society as a "useful" member (and by useful I mean someone who will not rape and kill people). And you detain them until that is the case. If they stay detained for the rest of their life, so be it. But by killing them as soon as they are convicted you don't give them a chance to reform and do good, which is (again, in my mind) a crime in itself.


Another point we agree on... Certainly the principle of law is not deterence, but equity. And within the scope of The Republic, we don't accept the concept of using law as deterence being a logical construct for penalities imposed. (A view with which the Republic differs on with the typical right).

However, now expanding in relation to other speakers:

In relation to the principle of appelate review. Within the construct and purpose of the law, CP is executed after appelate review is ended. New evidence is a non-consequence, mostly in relation to the operation of the law. As the principle you so state is operative in the present Republic, in that, given that the court is temporal, the application of capitol punishment for capitol offenses can only be attained when the evidence is irrefutable, including as a neccessity the presence and testimony of two or more credible eye-witnesses, otherwise it is prosecuted as a non-capitol offense, namely second degree murder, in the context of the topic. And I know this will bring about a plethora of but but but buts from the opposition on the left... but my first but is that law is supposed to operate on fact, and not sophistry (another difference we have between both the leftists and rightists). Which I raise as a point of defeat to the rightists out there, as I see your so-called "law" as injust and baseless as well. If one of the republic's agents, prosecuting on an offense were to use theory to try to win a case, he would lose.

Secondly, Mercy and Justice are polar opposites. If you think otherwise, then you have appearantly redefined one or the other to suit your needs. At the core of justice is equity... not compassion. And justice is to be compasionless, however also not to be tyranical, but merely equitable. As for your example, you fail to understand the principle that it is only when justice is compassionless and logical, that it factors in all circumstances. Merciless justice does not discount anything, it makes a factor of everything. As for your insuing example, you bring up a vaguity... Most certainly minors could be, by the law, as could the "mentally disabled" however, an understanding of the capitol nature of murder, in relation to the premeditative aspects would indicate the need of an understanding. So your definition of "mentally-disabled" which is a broad term, would need to be scoped and questioned.... in operation it is very implausible that those with sever mental handicaps, or the signiicantly young minors can ever be charged with a capitol offense... which is not to say that it is not possible for older minors, and those with less sever mental handicaps can't...

As for bigotry, that was processed through the context of your remarks. And therefore your bigotry is plain in the case, even though you may try to talk around it at this stage..... In the original thought, you imposed the idea of law taking the "moral high ground" and finished with the concept that killing cannot be the moral hight ground, founded in a rhetorical base which you imposed mid-thought, to reach the ensuing result. I will of course bring about problems with your logic, in response to your own question... asking if a government kills someone for killing someone, is it the same thing? In response, no, it is not, depending on the concept you set forth. At the root of your problem is the associated introduced idea that "killing is wrong".... as a blanket statement, you would be hard pressed to prove that statement logically, as there are plenty of situations when it is most certainly the right thing to do, even in the scope of your other responses. So therefore, logically, the princple of "killing is wrong" is an incorrect assumption which must be altered if you wish to reach an ethical and equitable end. The first principle is government is not a person... and should never be treated as such, treating government as its own person with its own rights and its own desires is an old and archaic concept that must vanish if we wish to attain further advancement... government is an agent, not a person... it posses no rights, and no disire, it only possesses responsibilities, and that is responsibilities to the governed. When someone commites murder they do so for personal and selfish desires, and generaly in the violation of more fundamental rights that merely the persons life.... when the republic is forced to execute a criminal for murder, they do so because of the just demands of equity... as the government cannot, as a non-person and agent, be selfish.... since it has no "self" to be selfish of....

There also obvioualy lies a discontinuity between the relationship of government in Tekania and its people, and that of your own and its people... it is obvious that your government is ruler, and king, and that the populace is subservient.... whereas here the government is a servant and agent of the people.... (not merely those in civil service, but the government as an agent is the servant)... which most likely relates to the oppositition of views and philosophies.... It is most certain that the left, right, and moderate states are still adhering, even if its in a disconnected way, to the old principle of the "divine right of kings".... which, Tekania will lable, within the scope of your own opinions, as "the moral low ground".

Tekania: You should write a book. It would be a good read.

"Arturistania
Think of it this way. The rule of law and justice are seen as the moral high ground of a modern democratic society. There are laws against kill people as it is deemed a crime. If the government kills prisoners who killed people, isn't it the same thing? By resorting to the death penalty it destroys the moral high ground that justice and the rule of law has. An eye for an eye is not the moral high ground."

Think (critically, please) about what you are saying. Then explain yourself instead of using rhetorical questions. Review litterature on law and you will discover that, no, the rules of law and justice are not seen as the moral high ground of a modern democratic society. I recommend anything by Williston on promises the law will enforce. Kant if you are interested in practical law.

The core of justice in the republic is restitutional and not reformative.... It is not the purpose or responsibility of the government to reform the governed.... Our purpose is to act on behalf of the people of the republic towards the agents of other states... and to arbitrate between the individual citizens of the republic, when conflict arrises.... We are an arbitrational agent on behalf of the people, and not a dictatorial power over them. (Hense why alot of our operation would be detested by those on the left and right)... The republic does not legislate on marriage, so we do have gay marriage, and even polygamous unions.... We do not legislate upon recreational drugs... We have neither social nor corporate "Welfare" programs... the right to bear arms is tantamount, as is freedom of speech and press.... we do not legislate on religion, period.... We have a strong, and approaching utopia pure and unbridled republic, with open civil rights, open political freedoms, and a thriving economy.... And as our system works into a close and progressing utopia, and does so under the logical principles and ideals I have been stating again and again here... you can argue all you want within the scope of your "moral high grounds" and what you wish to deem as moral or not under your various world-views from judeo-christian morality, to secuar humanism.... but the fact remains, it works progressively, to the absolute benifit of our people, in both its logical extrapolation and actual operation. At this point you would need to proove, based on factual evidence of our operation, that the principle is wrong... and that, given the numerous examples of the utopian freedom my people possess, have to proove that the Constitutional Republic of Tekania's government and/or people are in some way inferior.... As such, within the realm of fact and logic you cannot...

But...?

When the government arbitrates between the individual citizens of the republic, as conflicts arrise, does providing restitution not inform the citizenry that certain actions are not tolerated, thereby instituting reform in that if the act is not tolerated it should not be committed/ is not accepted?

To be Utopian means, in part, to have a society without conflict. Ergo, reformation should be expected from arbitrated restitution. Otherwise you have continued arbitration providing restitution for the same wrongs in perpetuity-which means conflict in perpetuity-which means Tekania can not, by definition be a Utopia.

However, if AP is wrong, being right is a National hobby and the NS would appreciate feedback.

A society entirely without conflict is stagnant, and will grow decadent and die. To maintain a stable society that does not stagnate, a balance must be found between the order that is proposed by totalitarian regimes, and the chaos that is supported by anarchies.

The conflict itself must be harmless. But the potential for disagreement must always be there.

That is why Aeruillin pictures the Utopian society as not an armed and brainwashed nation, but a unilaterally disarmed, and conflicting nation of critical thinkers. Take away the means by which the conflict takes lives, don't take the conflict itself.

"Take away the means by which the conflict takes lives, don't take the conflict itself."

So, long as you have a functioning body and brain, conflict can lead to the taking of lives.

Would you like me to list the ways that that is not true?

Yes, please. Tell me your sympathetic, bleeding-heart reasons why a criminal would not be deterred if he would be executed after murdering someone? For some people, it is not a deterrent, but why do we need these people that don't even care for their own life wandering around ready to kill people at random? How does it not stop them from doing it again?




And you can't send that message by putting them in jail?

No, that's the whole point. Jail doesn't have an effect on too many people. If these murderers want to murder, they'll do it. When you put them in jail for a few years or until they say they've changed, he'll do it again, this time he'll do something extreme to make his next time in jail worth it. You can keep them locked up for however long you want hoping they'll change but it's all wishful thinking and wasted money on your end.

So the family of the victim gets to kill the person who committed the crime, and you still maintain that is not vengance?

You asked how/who they would be killed (by). If the family/friends want to do it, let them. For them it could be vengeance. Not for anyone else if anyone else had to do it. They should get priority to ruin the life of the criminal that ruined or destroyed the life of the innocent family member/friend. You simply asked who would have the authority to. If he is a proven serious offender, he has given up his rights of a human by doing inhuman things to other humans. After that, death is a viable option.

The purpose (at least to my mind) of detaining a criminal is to bring them back to society as a "useful" member (and by useful I mean someone who will not rape and kill people). And you detain them until that is the case. If they stay detained for the rest of their life, so be it. But by killing them as soon as they are convicted you don't give them a chance to reform and do good, which is (again, in my mind) a crime in itself.

Again, wishful thinking trying to reform a hardened, dedicated criminal. How do you know when they'll be ready to go back into society? By killing them as soon as they are convicted also is denying them the chance of doing what they were just convicted of, or worse. Now I really would like to know how you plan on getting inside that criminals mind to find his true thoughts. I find it amazing you give so many rights and privileges to these people that have no regard for anything, even other life, even after denying someone else their right to life for no reason. It's insane. Well, I guess that's socialism.

unilaterally disarmed

How are your people "disarmed"?

Again, I note the honourable member from Tekania’s comments with interest. However, I believe that I have made my comments on morality and ethics quite clear previously and I feel since we are at ‘polar opposites’ (forgive the pun) there is little chance of us agreeing on Philosophical ideas. I am also not going to take up the honourable member’s challenge to find fault with Tekania’s governmental systems since no method of government can ever create the utopia you speak of. To quote a simple thought “The fact that utopia is nowhere, incites the search for it”.

Let us try to refrain from debating Philosophy in this debate and get to the ‘nitty, gritty’. I am sure the honourable member would agree that the only certainty about philosophical debate is that the variances and interpretations are endless.

The fact remains that a previous vote on this issue was defeated, sending a clear message that member states felt, individual nations will have to grapple with this complex issue internally. We can therefore carry on this debate to infinity, but the irrefutable truth is. It is unlikely to pass, making this discussion pretty much superfluous.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

First off, a brief note about this post. I will make an initial response to your comments now and a much more indepth one later. I just thought I'd throw in an introduction of sorts before I run to class.

The ideology your government follows largely reflects the vision of the state put forward by John Locke. A minimalist government concerned solely with dealing with other nations, running the military, and ensuring law and order and domestic stability. That is merely one theory as to how the state should be run and to pronounce it as the only interpretation as the definition of the republic would be to discount other approaches and ideologies.

I will not even attempt to declare or prove your government and/or people is inferior. I won't take that bait and turn this into an ugly argument with people who believe their government is holier than thou. No government and/or people are inferior. That being said, governments have very different ideologies and most nations have different political cultures, some have subtle differences some are fundamentally different.

Your analysis of the role of the government seems to derive from the expanded systems analysis approach created by Eastons and built upon by Almond. By your definition, the government is simply a blackbox which computes information it recieves and spits it out in some logical means. The same is true of the justice system you advocate. There is a fundamental flaw in this approach however. By treating the government as simply a logical entity which maintains order within the state and who's justice system relies solely on the basis that justice and mercy are polar opposites, you completely discount the fact that government is politicized as it is represented by people who have different views and what what is beneficial to one person is not beneficial to someone else. The very utopian aspect that you advocate of your "progressive" government is fatally flawed. You say there are no corporate or social welfare programs. This may be beneficial to some but not to all of your people. The only way this could theoretically work is if your economy had full employment, there is perfect equal opportunity, economic growth is enough to match population growth, wages rise at parity with inflation, and if you somehow managed to stamp out anyone in the population with low intelligence, disabilites, and other such problems which make them unable to work in your welfareless society.

The scientific method of your approach to the republic, which is a strong characteristic of a systems analysis, fails to account for these problems. You say that I am wrong in viewing government as a person. Government is not a computer with logical thought, it is made upof people of different ideologies reflectedto represents the interests of all the people. Government is a body of people and because of this, the decisions governments make are decided by the people elected to represent the population. People have different beliefs, values, and ideologies. The irony of your system is that it seems to reflect that all people in your nation believe the same thing is in the benefits of all the people, but by having such a utopia of freedom, you are much more likely to generate political dissent. This is the problem with analyzing the role of government in such a scientific fashion. It fails to take into account these factors. You completely discount the role of the people within government, why they are there, who they represent, and the fact that governments are political and thus have competing views and ideology of what is best for society. Ultimately, some views are going to be chosen over others and what is put into place will benefit some and not others. So do say your country works solely to benefit all its citizens is simply utopian to the point that it fails to reflect much of reality. Now of course, in NS, you can create these utopian nations but since we are debating concepts of the real world, let's add a dose of reality back into this.

In regards to the death penalty and justice vs mercy. In your utopian society, you first fail to consider alternatives to the view on the death penalty. Since laws are made by the government which you claims works to the absolute benefit of all people. You discount the possibility that the people may not believe the death penalty is their absolute benefit and since these people are represented by their elected officials who make laws, you discount the possibility that your "progressive" government could deem the death penalty as not being in the absolute benefit of the people. The same can be said about merciful law. Again, you discount the option that your system of logical and equitable law may not be in the absolute benefit of the people. This goes back to the initial problem with your analysis of the role of government, you discount the fact that it is representative of the people and thus politicized. You simply argue that because the death penalty is an equitable punishment for death is on the most literal terms equitable. To say my beliefs are archaic and then to promote such draconian and archaic principles yourself strikes me as a tad hypocritical. We live in a more moral, civilized world where beliefs in CP of varying forms have changed. In the literal sense it is equitable but since laws aremade by governments who are electedby the people, equitable is a relative concept which means different things to different people. Some wouldargue thedeath penalty is the easy way out and that criminals should suffer by severing the rest of their life behind bars. To them life in prison is equitable. To others the death penalty is equitable. To some torture and mutilation is equitable. To some rehabilitation is equitable. The death penalty is only equitable in the most literal sense but again, what is equitable is relative to the representatives of the people who design the laws. Now I am almost positive you will say well this is why this is an issue of soverignity and the UN has no role in determining this but this is not true. By being a member of the UN your government subjects itself to the fundamental beliefs and principles of the UN which may or may not be of your ideology and who's beliefs in everythingfrom social welfare to justice take on a different shape relative to your own. The principles of this organization as stated earlier is to promote compassion,tolerance, equality, social justice, human rights, freedom, etc. and to fight hatred, intolerance, poverty, disease, disparity, discrimination, etc. By being in the UN the resolutions passed supercede the laws of your government (in the NS system which forces compliance).

To assert the my government takes the approach of ruler and king over the subservient is proposterous. The government in the DRA is an agent of the people, it is elected by the people and it represents all of the people. The people are not subservient, in fact the government represents the interests of all people to create a more fair and equal society. There is tremendous spending in welfare, education, and health care in order to eliminate economic disparity. You take a Friedman approach to running your nation, we take a modified Keynesian approach. I would argue this system benefits more people than your as it leaves no person behind, it takes care of the elderly, the disabled, etc. It takes what ever steps necessary to create a more compassionate and equal society while still maintaining a balanced budget and steady economic growth. This system works to the absolute benefit of all its people as it remedies the fiscal disparity caused by a Friedman approach to the government's role in the economy.

Anyway I have to run to class, I apologize if some of this does not flow, I have left many thoughts incomplete and will elaborate further so if you feel the need to jump on some incomplete thoughts know a follow up is coming in a few hours. I will also respond to the fact that my early comments were not bigotry, you are either misinterpreting what I said or are trying to make links to acuse me of bigotry that doesnt exist.

"Take away the means by which the conflict takes lives, don't take the conflict itself."

So, long as you have a functioning body and brain, conflict can lead to the taking of lives.

Utopia (n.): A vision of future too good to be true or just heavily over-optimistic.

If it worked, it wouldn't be Utopian, would it? The way it is, Aeruillin has to try its best to come as close to this ideal as possible, but it will never attain it.

Yes, please. Tell me your sympathetic, bleeding-heart reasons why a criminal would not be deterred if he would be executed after murdering someone?

If these murderers want to murder, they'll do it.

Wow, that one was easier than I thought.

When you put them in jail for a few years or until they say they've changed, he'll do it again, this time he'll do something extreme to make his next time in jail worth it. You can keep them locked up for however long you want hoping they'll change but it's all wishful thinking and wasted money on your end.

Firstly, I am not talking about psychotic killers. I am talking about those who conciously murder people. So do not come back at me with psycho serial killer examples.

Not all murderers kill because they just want to. Murder itself is a means to an end, and not an end in itself, which is why recidivism rates for it are so low. On the other hand, sexual offenders have high recividism because the crime itself is the ends. Premeditated murderers, on the other hand, kill in order to get something, whether they did it out of hatred, for money, what have you, and hope they don't get caught. If you had to choose between letting a rapist and a murderer go free, you'd be safer with the murderer, because they rarely repeat their crimes when paroled - contrary to your portrayal.


You asked how/who they would be killed (by). If the family/friends want to do it, let them. For them it could be vengeance. Not for anyone else if anyone else had to do it. They should get priority to ruin the life of the criminal that ruined or destroyed the life of the innocent family member/friend.

Why do you assume the murder victim's family must want vengeance? And if I read you right, if they don't want to take revenge or if they want to forgive, you do the vengeance for them regardless.

Okay, look, vengeance is not and should not be the point of the penal system. The point is rehabilitation and always has been. The great majority of criminals are not career criminals and if you give them a chance they do go on to become productive members of society. This isn't idealism or wishful thinking. It's a simple fact.

You simply asked who would have the authority to. If he is a proven serious offender, he has given up his rights of a human by doing inhuman things to other humans. After that, death is a viable option.


That's where we have an immovable fundamental disagreement.

Again, wishful thinking trying to reform a hardened, dedicated criminal. How do you know when they'll be ready to go back into society? By killing them as soon as they are convicted also is denying them the chance of doing what they were just convicted of, or worse. Now I really would like to know how you plan on getting inside that criminals mind to find his true thoughts. I find it amazing you give so many rights and privileges to these people that have no regard for anything, even other life, even after denying someone else their right to life for no reason. It's insane. Well, I guess that's socialism.

That's not "socialism". That's "common sense". You run on the assumption that people cannot change. You also run on the assumption that murderers kill for the joy of it. I won't deny you have the occasional psycho who does, but both those assumptions are plain wrong.

You say that a murderer has no regard for anything. Do you really think that's true? Almost all murder victims were killed by someone they knew. What does that tell you? It means that (I'm speaking generally here) murderers don't kill for pleasure, they kill people for a reason. If murderers killed because they just want to kill, then most victims would be strangers and that is not the case.

Again, I note the honourable member from Tekania’s comments with interest. However, I believe that I have made my comments on morality and ethics quite clear previously and I feel since we are at ‘polar opposites’ (forgive the pun) there is little chance of us agreeing on Philosophical ideas. I am also not going to take up the honourable member’s challenge to find fault with Tekania’s governmental systems since no method of government can ever create the utopia you speak of. To quote a simple thought “The fact that utopia is nowhere, incites the search for it”.

Let us try to refrain from debating Philosophy in this debate and get to the ‘nitty, gritty’. I am sure the honourable member would agree that the only certainty about philosophical debate is that the variances and interpretations are endless.

The fact remains that a previous vote on this issue was defeated, sending a clear message that member states felt, individual nations will have to grapple with this complex issue internally. We can therefore carry on this debate to infinity, but the irrefutable truth is. It is unlikely to pass, making this discussion pretty much superfluous.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

On that point we can agree, it is most certainly been decided, over and over again, that this is an issue best left in the hands of member nations, and the Republic most certainly has no desire to extend any form of legislative rulership on this matter outside those who have elected to consent to our government.. And that rather than concentrate on the process of punishment, rather work on reformations of the legal system of members to be up to the standards of logical, consistent and honest operations of law. (Right to Fair Trial, UBOR, Habeus Corpus, etc.)

It is also most certain that the feeling of this as a national issue, and societal issue of the individual societies which take part in this body, is not going to change, regardless of the frequency of proposal.

And as a warning to the author, rather than garner support, frequent re-proposal, will most likely lead into a weakening of support, as more reach the opinion of this is an independant national issue... leading the support to turn into a dis-enfranchised interest group, hell bent on accomplishing goals against the overwhelming will of the governed... Leading to bitterness and strife in its ranks...

As towards Arturistania...

Dissent is in no way contrary to utopian freedom. Indeed, ultimate freedom includes the freedom of dissent. The issue has come up many times with the legislature on the openess of dissenting viewpoints. As such, the foundation requires that they be allowed, regardless of their content.

The Republic is not concerned with majority rule. The principle is tyranical and flawed under the assumption that merely because most people want something, even at the behest and penalizing of others, that they should get it. Republics do not follow that concept.

As for the principle of social and corporate welfare, then general mentality that people are injured by not getting that which they never had is flawed. Welfare in itself seeks to boost some and the penalty of others, regardless if it is corporate or social (and this is to the left and right here, however, at least the left is more consistent in their extrapolated views on welfare than the right).The entirety of the point of a free society, is for its members themselves to work towards their own betterment... and therefore free to make their own decisions, with as little as possible governmental interfereance. Yes this is minimalist government... However, our concentration is on defense, primarily, as the major purpose of our existance is to protect the people from other agents... and secondly to law and order and general education... We find the general concept of handouts to be non-functional and futile in operation. We would rather concentrate on the education of the general populace.... "If you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime." A simple logical truth the left nor right actually accepts, even though it is proven operatively through countless times. Your logical failure lies in that simply giving fiscal handouts, in no way actually "betters" the people... in fact, it is more in line to make the situation worse over time. As such, in general principle, we believe in leaving individualized assistance in the hands of the populace.

As for appeals to the "national sovereignty issue"... once against you draw a strawman... I have made no refference to this, except in the context of past NSUN decisions. As have others. Our appeals are based on the precedent of the NSUN lawmaking body, and therefore in its context, a valid issue on this area of discusion... Your operative clause is correct as that is a "non-issue" generally among members, however in the case of this draft, wherein the idea has been entertained recently by vote, and has also been frequently before the members, the refference of precident is valid. The simple fact lies in that this has been before this body recently, and we, as a body, voted no.

Yes, please. Tell me your sympathetic, bleeding-heart reasons why a criminal would not be deterred if he would be executed after murdering someone? For some people, it is not a deterrent, but why do we need these people that don't even care for their own life wandering around ready to kill people at random? How does it not stop them from doing it again?


1) You go out and shoot someone. You know you will be executed. What is to stop you then going on a rampage shooting everyone in sight? Twenty people end up dead, but you can only be executed the once. Where as if you knew you would spend longer in jail for every death, you might not feel the urge to kill twenty people, and just stop at the one.

2) Most criminals do not set out thinking they will be caught. They wouldn't commit the crime if they thought they would be caught. So telling them they will be executed if they are caught won't have an affect.

3) Crimes of passion - one commited in the heat of the moment. No diminished responsibility - the person knows what they are doing, but they do it anyway because they don't think about the consequences. The death penalty would not prevent these crimes.

4) Terrorism. People who are commited enough to the cause that they are willing to blow themselves up are probably not going to be scared of being executed by the state.

5) Drug Lords and other professional crimnals. They probably have way more bloody and brutal deaths waiting for them if they don't go out and kill someone, so they are probably not scared by being executed by the state.

None of these are bleeding-heart liberal reasons. They are all pretty logical and sensible (to me at least).



No, that's the whole point. Jail doesn't have an effect on too many people. If these murderers want to murder, they'll do it. When you put them in jail for a few years or until they say they've changed, he'll do it again, this time he'll do something extreme to make his next time in jail worth it. You can keep them locked up for however long you want hoping they'll change but it's all wishful thinking and wasted money on your end.


My money, my choice to waste it.


You asked how/who they would be killed (by). If the family/friends want to do it, let them. For them it could be vengeance. Not for anyone else if anyone else had to do it. They should get priority to ruin the life of the criminal that ruined or destroyed the life of the innocent family member/friend. You simply asked who would have the authority to. If he is a proven serious offender, he has given up his rights of a human by doing inhuman things to other humans. After that, death is a viable option.


I don't think I did ask that, but I might be wrong.

And your whole arguement is logically flawed. Someone has acted in a way that stops them having rights. Because they killed someone. So if you now step up and kill them, do you not deserve to lose your rights as well?


Again, wishful thinking trying to reform a hardened, dedicated criminal. How do you know when they'll be ready to go back into society? By killing them as soon as they are convicted also is denying them the chance of doing what they were just convicted of, or worse. Now I really would like to know how you plan on getting inside that criminals mind to find his true thoughts. I find it amazing you give so many rights and privileges to these people that have no regard for anything, even other life, even after denying someone else their right to life for no reason. It's insane. Well, I guess that's socialism.

Yeah - but we are not talking about hardended criminals. We are talking about someone who found out his girlfriend was cheating on him and shot her in a fit of rage. Should that guy be executed? Or helped to see that maybe it wasn't the right way to approach relationship problems and talking is better?

I believe that everyone, no matter how heinous their crimes, has the right to be treated like a human being. Because the moment that the state stops treating it's people like human beings, the state loses the moral authority to govern.


The thing is I am opposing this resolution. But not because I support your position - I think your position is as insane as you think mine is - but because I think this should be a nation issue, not a global one.

Yes, please. Tell me your sympathetic, bleeding-heart reasons why a criminal would not be deterred if he would be executed after murdering someone? For some people, it is not a deterrent, but why do we need these people that don't even care for their own life wandering around ready to kill people at random? How does it not stop them from doing it again?

I might remind you, while Tekania does practice CP, we in no way consider punishment in general on the basis of "deterance". If you wish to be consistent, the basis should be on equity, rather than trying to make punishments so harsh on a misguided principle that it prevents crime. Such eventually leads to as just a non-equitable situation as the opposing side of the matter... Once against, The Republic does not agree with the foundational of both the leftist and rightist principles of either side. We so both as inherantly flawed.


You asked how/who they would be killed (by). If the family/friends want to do it, let them. For them it could be vengeance. Not for anyone else if anyone else had to do it. They should get priority to ruin the life of the criminal that ruined or destroyed the life of the innocent family member/friend. You simply asked who would have the authority to. If he is a proven serious offender, he has given up his rights of a human by doing inhuman things to other humans. After that, death is a viable option.

Not very arbitrational, as the "family" would more likely act by passion, rather than logic... so also not a valid basis of law. And a situation which would create areas were crime is further perpetrated. As passion does not seek for logic or reason through its course, but acts on impulse. Justice is blind, not stupid... She uses facts and logic... not feelings. As such, justice can only be carried out, by those who logically, have no connection to the crime, and therefore no other motivational course, but the ballance of scale on the law.

What the DRA feels benefits society and what your nation feels benefits society are two very different ideas from two very different ideological camps. The DRA belives in the principle of social justice, decreasing the disparity of wealth, etc.

You failed to address the point I made earlier about your minimalist government system. I pointed out that it was flawed in thinking that no social welfare benefits all people. You failed to address how to deal with the mentally-disabled and others who are unable to better themselves solely on their own. Also, is your society genetically the same? If not how do you deal with racism and oppression to ensure everyone has equal opportunity to better themselves? What do you do about children growing up in low income or homeless families. Do you believe that children should simply grow up on the street? Your utopian government is theoretically possible but not practically possible as long as these issues exist. Also do you have maternity rights for women? What about unemployment insurance? How are people supposed to live if they can't find a job or if your economy goes into recession. Do you achieve full employment? What about healthcare, how is a low-income familysupposed to afford to have their child access proper healthcare? The point I am making is that your government takes a very idea based approach to the betterment of society. As long as people are completely free society is better. You said your nation believes in the principle of education. So does the DRA. That is why I put forward an Global Education Initiative. Education is one of three things at the heart of the DRA's social policy. Social welfare, healthcare, and education (including childcare which has an early education programs) are the three key priorities of the DRA. I completely agree that education is an essential role of the government. The DRA takes a different approach, by providing social programs, a great level of equal opportunity can be created which benefits all. Universal healthcare is not a handout, neither is childcare, public housing, etc. It is government simply doing its duty to help and protect its citizens, its their social responsibility. You believe in minimalist government, the DRA believes in compassionate governance. Both ones have their merit, both have their problems. But the question needs to be asked, which is better, leaving the citizens alone or fighting for social justice?

You failed to address my comments about the death penalty directly which I find rather interresting but I will wait for your follow up.

In regards to the strawman, you really don't have much right to comment considering how many you've drawn yourself. Let's both try to limit them eh?

Tekania I just noticed you talk about equitable justice. I'm going to reply by pasting the following from a previous statement.

"You simply argue that because the death penalty is an equitable punishment for death is on the most literal terms equitable. To say my beliefs are archaic and then to promote such draconian and archaic principles yourself strikes me as a tad hypocritical. We live in a more moral, civilized world where beliefs in CP of varying forms have changed. In the literal sense it is equitable but since laws aremade by governments who are electedby the people, equitable is a relative concept which means different things to different people. Some wouldargue thedeath penalty is the easy way out and that criminals should suffer by severing the rest of their life behind bars. To them life in prison is equitable. To others the death penalty is equitable. To some torture and mutilation is equitable. To some rehabilitation is equitable. The death penalty is only equitable in the most literal sense but again, what is equitable is relative to the representatives of the people who design the laws."