Aeruillin
27-10-2004, 13:11
The proposal "Outlaw the Death Penalty" that is currently waiting for endorsement is in a form that appears inappropriate to the matter. Seeing as the Neutral Republic of Aeruillin has condemned the Death Penalty for any crime, and would immediately support a UN resolution against it, we of Aeruillin see this as an especially grave problem. This resolution, if passed, may well close the floor to all other resolutions against the Death Penalty, without truly solving the problem.
I ask my fellow UN members to review it:
Outlaw Death Penalty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: BOttaH
Description: I propose that we outlaw the death penalty in our countries as a punishment for any crime, and force an increase in Law and Order spending by at least 25%.
Reasoning:
1: It is immoral to punish people by taking their life. If you kill a murderer for their crime, does it make you any different to them just because you've gone through court to do it? I say no.
2: It does not dissuade criminals from carrying out the sorts of crimes that merit the death penalty. They just become more desperate and violent while trying to escape, because they know what they'll get if they are caught. Look at RL USA! And NS, many countries have little or no crime, I can speak for BOttaH, without the death penalty. They have a very efficient police force.
3: The increase in spending for the police force will cut crime in many countries that are sorely in need of it.
4: If you lot don't get this through, I'll be back with, oh, 1,2, maybe three more proposals, and you wouldn't want that, would you?
First point: The category it is entered into - "Restrict Civil Rights in Favor of Decency" is totally unsuitable. The banning of the death penalty is made for the purpose of strengthening and confirming the rights of every individual citizen. It is a civil right to not be killed by the government you live under.
The nation of Aeruillin would suggest that instead, the Category of "Human Rights" - thus, the "Improvement of World-wide Human and Civil Rights" would be far more fitting.
Second point: "Increase in law & order spending" is an addendum to this resolution that has nothing to do with the original purpose. We accept that the intention may have been to "compensate" for the Death Penalty, but that is based on the misconception that crime will increase with its ban. The decision of how to compensate should be left to the nations - education and social services are just as effective, and would be equally justified instead of the law & order boost. That decision should be either a separate resolution, or left completely up to the individual members.
Third point: The reasoning involved in the resolution is correct, but it is formulated vaguely and inappropriately for an international body. To maintain credibility, I ask member nations to stick to a serious, formal terminology, to avoid addressing the reader in second person, to avoid rethorical questions, [[OOC: to avoid references to the real world]], to avoid exclamation marks, and other errors in the style and format suitable for a new resolution.
Fourth point: Threatening to filibuster the United Nations with continuously repeated proposals in case of rejection is a - dare I say it - childish, immature and generally unacceptable behaviour for any member. Without regards to the worthiness of the cause.
I suggest to my like-minded colleagues in favor of abolishing the Death Penalty that this proposal not be endorsed, and that rather a more well-formulated resolution like the one already drafted by Arturistania here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368520) be lent the necessary support.
I ask my fellow UN members to review it:
Outlaw Death Penalty
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: BOttaH
Description: I propose that we outlaw the death penalty in our countries as a punishment for any crime, and force an increase in Law and Order spending by at least 25%.
Reasoning:
1: It is immoral to punish people by taking their life. If you kill a murderer for their crime, does it make you any different to them just because you've gone through court to do it? I say no.
2: It does not dissuade criminals from carrying out the sorts of crimes that merit the death penalty. They just become more desperate and violent while trying to escape, because they know what they'll get if they are caught. Look at RL USA! And NS, many countries have little or no crime, I can speak for BOttaH, without the death penalty. They have a very efficient police force.
3: The increase in spending for the police force will cut crime in many countries that are sorely in need of it.
4: If you lot don't get this through, I'll be back with, oh, 1,2, maybe three more proposals, and you wouldn't want that, would you?
First point: The category it is entered into - "Restrict Civil Rights in Favor of Decency" is totally unsuitable. The banning of the death penalty is made for the purpose of strengthening and confirming the rights of every individual citizen. It is a civil right to not be killed by the government you live under.
The nation of Aeruillin would suggest that instead, the Category of "Human Rights" - thus, the "Improvement of World-wide Human and Civil Rights" would be far more fitting.
Second point: "Increase in law & order spending" is an addendum to this resolution that has nothing to do with the original purpose. We accept that the intention may have been to "compensate" for the Death Penalty, but that is based on the misconception that crime will increase with its ban. The decision of how to compensate should be left to the nations - education and social services are just as effective, and would be equally justified instead of the law & order boost. That decision should be either a separate resolution, or left completely up to the individual members.
Third point: The reasoning involved in the resolution is correct, but it is formulated vaguely and inappropriately for an international body. To maintain credibility, I ask member nations to stick to a serious, formal terminology, to avoid addressing the reader in second person, to avoid rethorical questions, [[OOC: to avoid references to the real world]], to avoid exclamation marks, and other errors in the style and format suitable for a new resolution.
Fourth point: Threatening to filibuster the United Nations with continuously repeated proposals in case of rejection is a - dare I say it - childish, immature and generally unacceptable behaviour for any member. Without regards to the worthiness of the cause.
I suggest to my like-minded colleagues in favor of abolishing the Death Penalty that this proposal not be endorsed, and that rather a more well-formulated resolution like the one already drafted by Arturistania here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368520) be lent the necessary support.