NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you guys think of a ban on the death penalty resolution?

While your two choices are a bit extreme, I voted for "I hate it." While the Death Penalty can be a bit extreme in some cases, it is a fitting punishment, if done humanely, for crimes such as homocide.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for various reasons, but there's that whole "national sovereignty" thing, so I picked the second option.

There was a proposal on this that reached quorum. As I remember, it was defeated by a narrow margin. If you word it well and campaign, it should be possible to get it through.

I think it is an excellent idea though I fear you will meet quite a lot of resistance from many who somehow seem to feel government sponsored murder is in some way justified. I will support any resolution to ban the death penalty, it is my hope we can soon put an end to this barbaric, vigilante style justice.

I think we should end the barbaric practice of thinking that the law is for the benefit and rehabilitation of those who have heinously, greivously and provenly violated the innocent.

Capital Punishment is a valid form of legal punishment when redendered equitably by a logical and functional judicial system... The legal system is primarily for redemption, not rehabilitation.

There are certain crimes, such as rape and murder, for which there is no restitution. It's kinda hard to make restitution to a dead guy or undo an utter violation, after all.

The death penalty in my nation is in place for those crimes for which there are no restitution or repeat offenders who have shown that rehabilitation methods, at least the humane ones, don't work. But if you wish, I can put in a system of torture and brainwashing, as that has proven so far to be the only system or rehabilitation that works consistantly.

There are certain crimes, such as rape and murder, for which there is no restitution. It's kinda hard to make restitution to a dead guy or undo an utter violation, after all.

The death penalty in my nation is in place for those crimes for which there are no restitution or repeat offenders who have shown that rehabilitation methods, at least the humane ones, don't work. But if you wish, I can put in a system of torture and brainwashing, as that has proven so far to be the only system or rehabilitation that works consistantly.

You think that even if they do make restitution it makes all the pain and hurt go away? And that seeing someone die for murdering one of the members of your family makes it less bad? Cause you are somewhat wrong about that.

You think that even if they do make restitution it makes all the pain and hurt go away? And that seeing someone die for murdering one of the members of your family makes it less bad? Cause you are somewhat wrong about that.

Make the pain go away? No. It doesn't. The pain is up to the family to heal. The best I can do is make sure they can never do it again. It's a bitter system, but it's part of life.

While some may feel that the death penalty is barbaric in nature, any effort by the UN to ban such a practice would encroach on the sovereignty of each nation. The purpose of this government is not to indoctrinate morality on a people, but to keep the peace.

Because a custom, that has no consequences for citizens of other nations, is practiced in a sovereign nation, there should be no need for the UN to regulate said custom

It's funny. I'm usually pro-death when it comes to touchy issues.

I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-euthanasia. I'm pro any kind of death really. Except of course, the death penalty.

It just doesn't sit well with me. We tell people it's wrong to kill. So what happens when someone does? We kill them. I thought everyone had to follow the rules, even the government.

Whatever the case, I don't think I like the death penalty. Too many flaws. What happens when we find out, woops, we just killed the wrong guy?

"Well, we have to keep them from doing it again." Oh, I didn't know that they were a risk to the public when the person is prison for the rest of their life.

"If a family member of yours was the victim of one of these horrible criminals, you'd want them dead." Well, actually, I'd just want to beat them to a bloody pulp with a wooden baseball bat for a couple of hours every day. "Well, no, you can't do that. You can't just act out on your emotional impuses like that. We can kill them for you, though."

It's a cheesy line, but oh well. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Because a custom, that has no consequences for citizens of other nations, is practiced in a sovereign nation, there should be no need for the UN to regulate said custom

The death penalty is more than just a "custom", my friend, it is something many people have an almost evangilical zeal for to the point where they think anyone against it wants murderers to go unpunished and that the law should be about vengeance. It is a reflection on society.

And it does have consequences for the citizens of other nations. If you commit a serious offence in another country that country can prosecute you and it can put you in prison. And that country can also execute you. The death penalty is practiced in sovereign nations, yes, but so is torture. I'm sure you wouldn't have any qualms about trampling "national sovereignity" to ban torture, which I believe the UN has already done.

Within the confines of equity, as put forth in the law of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, for the purpose of fairness and decency, once a person has been found guilty of a crime, the only person(s) with the right or power to grant mercy to the criminal, is the victim, or in the case of their absence, their direct legal heir... The government has neither the right nor authority to grant mercy to the guilty. As such, assuming one has been found guilty of first-degree (planned and pre-meditated) murder... their punishment, and the equitable penalty of their crime, is the forfeiture of their own life... and as such, prior to the final sentancing, after the pronouncement of judgement, the immediate legal heir has the ability to request the court to grant a lesser sentance... otherwise it is death... by the ruling of law, and of equity.

The idea of the abolishment of the death penalty, because of the plethora of states, including the ones who have been advocating such bannings of CP, are unable, and so dishonest, as to not invest into the creation and maintenance of a proper, functional, and just system of courts, is frankly not a recognition of the problem. The Constitutional Republic of Tekania, has no desire to take part in the pathetic, non-functional and unjust court systems which have been perpeturated by these aforementioned bodies... Courts which are more concerned with theories and rhetoric, than truth, integrity and logic.

If you have in premeditation, and with malice of forethought, planned and ended the life of another person or persons... rehabilitation is of no point, you can never be part of society again, your crime is unforgivable unless by the victim or legal power of such... your life stands forfeit before the people of the Republic... The court can never grant mercy... The court is the arbitrator, not the wronged...

I vote No! Death penalty is great cuz wut if sum1 goes to jail, gets out and kills sum1 else?

It is a reflection on society.

Yes, it is a reflection of a society, but each society should be able to influence how it appears.


And it does have consequences for the citizens of other nations. If you commit a serious offence in another country that country can prosecute you and it can put you in prison. And that country can also execute you.

When traveling to another country, a person is traveling at their own risk, reguardless of international relations. By voluntarily setting foot on the ground of another nation, you have signed an unwritten agreement to abide by the laws and consequences set forth by the governing body. While this penalty is "theoretically" able to be consequental to citizens of other countries, it would not be of any consequence, should they remain in the country of which they are citizens.

How's this for those of you who want the death penalty gone:

It passes in the U.S. The death penalty is gone. Suddenly some guy with more brains than all of the U.S. combined goes wack, stabs a bunch of people to death with a wooden stick, chops up a preschool with a chainsaw, and walks around in a mall shooting people at random with a gun. Then, just or the fun of it, he makes a powerful bomb and uses it to blow up an airport. The government throws in the a maximum security prison, only to have him escape after five years and throw off all chances of tracking him. Then, he goes on a rampage of crucifying your children alive, burning family pets at the stake, and randomly executing regular people by tying them to train tracks. He gets caught, escapes again, and the police can't find him. He then wanders around, murdering entire families by flaying them alive while the other members watch. He gets caught and escapes again. Repeat with as many atrocities as needed until he finally dies of old age or is gunned down by vigilantes

Now, why did all of that happen? Because you couldn't execute him like he deserved.

Within the confines of equity, as put forth in the law of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, for the purpose of fairness and decency, once a person has been found guilty of a crime, the only person(s) with the right or power to grant mercy to the criminal, is the victim, or in the case of their absence, their direct legal heir... The government has neither the right nor authority to grant mercy to the guilty. As such, assuming one has been found guilty of first-degree (planned and pre-meditated) murder... their punishment, and the equitable penalty of their crime, is the forfeiture of their own life... and as such, prior to the final sentancing, after the pronouncement of judgement, the immediate legal heir has the ability to request the court to grant a lesser sentance... otherwise it is death... by the ruling of law, and of equity.

The idea of the abolishment of the death penalty, because of the plethora of states, including the ones who have been advocating such bannings of CP, are unable, and so dishonest, as to not invest into the creation and maintenance of a proper, functional, and just system of courts, is frankly not a recognition of the problem. The Constitutional Republic of Tekania, has no desire to take part in the pathetic, non-functional and unjust court systems which have been perpeturated by these aforementioned bodies... Courts which are more concerned with theories and rhetoric, than truth, integrity and logic.

If you have in premeditation, and with malice of forethought, planned and ended the life of another person or persons... rehabilitation is of no point, you can never be part of society again, your crime is unforgivable unless by the victim or legal power of such... your life stands forfeit before the people of the Republic... The court can never grant mercy... The court is the arbitrator, not the wronged...

The courts of the DRA are both honesty and truthful. I also resent the position you take that nations such as the Democratic Republic of Arturistania some how are dishonest because they do not believe in capital punishment or the death penalty. The DRA's courts are both functional and just and recognize the problems presented by crime. The courts in the DRA also have complete integrity, including moral integrity which is a crucial aspect of the DRA justice system. The DRA is centred around the principles of peace, charity, and compassion. This is exhibited through the social justice and welfare spending by the government as well as the structure of the judicial system, which is designed to take the moral high ground. There areno prisons in the DRA, there are rehabilitation centres, community service programs, and other such programs and institutions. This is how the DRA deals with crime, though since there is tremendous spending on social welfare, healthcare, and education, crime is almost totally unknown. The justice system is seen as the moral highground in the DRA and to stoop to the archaic, vigilante style laws in which the offender recieves treatment literally equitable to that which the victim recieves is deemed as a failure to take the moral high ground. Government sponsored murder, is still murder. What makes the government more justified to kill someone than anyone else. The justice system in your country demonstrates premeditation, forethought, and planning the execution of people. What makes it less malice? It is still the murder of a human being, the government just declares that this murder was more justifiable than the murder the executed person committed. To me this system is a hypocritical form of justice and it scares me to think that the government has the right to determine when it has the right to murder a human being (we are keeping wars out of this, that is a completely other topic so do not create a strawman by leading the argument in that direction.)

My point out of all of that is that your statement that the judicial systems in nations like the DRA lack integrity, truth, and function is both absurd and false.

Also, you use that term equitable again without ever defining it or addressing a point I made earlier on another death penalty thread. What defines equitable. To some murders should be executed. Some think they should brutally tortured. Others believe they should be rehabilitated. Others believe that life in prison is a more severe sentence as it doesn't give the murderer an easy way out where they no longer have to face their crime, doing life behind bars is a way of reinforcing what they did was wrong for years. If you think murders should be executed should rapists be raped? Should assualters be assaulted? How can you really declare what is equitable. Equitable is such a subject term, like justice. What is justice to one is not justice to another.

How's this for those of you who want the death penalty gone:

It passes in the U.S. The death penalty is gone. Suddenly some guy with more brains than all of the U.S. combined goes wack, stabs a bunch of people to death with a wooden stick, chops up a preschool with a chainsaw, and walks around in a mall shooting people at random with a gun. Then, just or the fun of it, he makes a powerful bomb and uses it to blow up an airport. The government throws in the a maximum security prison, only to have him escape after five years and throw off all chances of tracking him. Then, he goes on a rampage of crucifying your children alive, burning family pets at the stake, and randomly executing regular people by tying them to train tracks. He gets caught, escapes again, and the police can't find him. He then wanders around, murdering entire families by flaying them alive while the other members watch. He gets caught and escapes again. Repeat with as many atrocities as needed until he finally dies of old age or is gunned down by vigilantes

Now, why did all of that happen? Because you couldn't execute him like he deserved.

This example is so ridiculously hypothetical, almost entirely impossible, and downright ridiculous that it really doesn't merit a real response. Let's stick to reality shall we?

This example is so ridiculously hypothetical, almost entirely impossible, and downright ridiculous that it really doesn't merit a real response. Let's stick to reality shall we?

Actually, I was sticking with reality. Certain supergeniouses pop up from time to time, and often they have mild to extreme mental problems to counteract their intelligence. I suspect there are even a few who end up like that scenario.

However, it holds another point: There are certain people who cannot be reformed. And leaving them in jail wastes money better spent elsewhere, which is part of the current financial problems of the U.S.

If they have a mental-disability they should not be executed but rather should recieve psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation. They could be placed in a psychiatric hospital even. People with mental-disabilities should never be executed as they are not fully responsible for their actions. In fact, you just gave me an idea of creating a resolution to ban the practice of executing people who are mentally-disabled, regardless of their crimes.

Go ahead and create the bill.

The problem with that scenario is there is no real way to make him a productive member of society. Incarcerating someone who has killed that many people wastes money, medication wastes both money and would leave him incapable of functioning, and there's no guarantees he won't escape again or stop taking the meds and go on another rampage. I have nothing against the mentally ill, but I have to admit there are times when there is nothing that can be done to help. And, the scenario has him just snapping and doing it. In any society in the real world, that'll get you executed or in prison for life.

The question here is not whether or not we agree with the practice. The question here is whether or not we will keep other sovereign nations from choosing their own course of action.

Regardless of whether or not we approve of the practice is irrelevent.

How's this for those of you who want the death penalty gone:

It passes in the U.S. The death penalty is gone. Suddenly some guy with more brains than all of the U.S. combined goes wack, stabs a bunch of people to death with a wooden stick, chops up a preschool with a chainsaw, and walks around in a mall shooting people at random with a gun. Then, just or the fun of it, he makes a powerful bomb and uses it to blow up an airport. The government throws in the a maximum security prison, only to have him escape after five years and throw off all chances of tracking him. Then, he goes on a rampage of crucifying your children alive, burning family pets at the stake, and randomly executing regular people by tying them to train tracks. He gets caught, escapes again, and the police can't find him. He then wanders around, murdering entire families by flaying them alive while the other members watch. He gets caught and escapes again. Repeat with as many atrocities as needed until he finally dies of old age or is gunned down by vigilantes

Now, why did all of that happen? Because you couldn't execute him like he deserved.
I support capital punishment too but that was the best argument I have ever seen and I don't think I would be able to match it.

The courts of the DRA are both honesty and truthful. I also resent the position you take that nations such as the Democratic Republic of Arturistania some how are dishonest because they do not believe in capital punishment or the death penalty. The DRA's courts are both functional and just and recognize the problems presented by crime. The courts in the DRA also have complete integrity, including moral integrity which is a crucial aspect of the DRA justice system. The DRA is centred around the principles of peace, charity, and compassion. This is exhibited through the social justice and welfare spending by the government as well as the structure of the judicial system, which is designed to take the moral high ground. There areno prisons in the DRA, there are rehabilitation centres, community service programs, and other such programs and institutions. This is how the DRA deals with crime, though since there is tremendous spending on social welfare, healthcare, and education, crime is almost totally unknown. The justice system is seen as the moral highground in the DRA and to stoop to the archaic, vigilante style laws in which the offender recieves treatment literally equitable to that which the victim recieves is deemed as a failure to take the moral high ground. Government sponsored murder, is still murder. What makes the government more justified to kill someone than anyone else. The justice system in your country demonstrates premeditation, forethought, and planning the execution of people. What makes it less malice? It is still the murder of a human being, the government just declares that this murder was more justifiable than the murder the executed person committed. To me this system is a hypocritical form of justice and it scares me to think that the government has the right to determine when it has the right to murder a human being (we are keeping wars out of this, that is a completely other topic so do not create a strawman by leading the argument in that direction.)

My point out of all of that is that your statement that the judicial systems in nations like the DRA lack integrity, truth, and function is both absurd and false.

Also, you use that term equitable again without ever defining it or addressing a point I made earlier on another death penalty thread. What defines equitable. To some murders should be executed. Some think they should brutally tortured. Others believe they should be rehabilitated. Others believe that life in prison is a more severe sentence as it doesn't give the murderer an easy way out where they no longer have to face their crime, doing life behind bars is a way of reinforcing what they did was wrong for years. If you think murders should be executed should rapists be raped? Should assualters be assaulted? How can you really declare what is equitable. Equitable is such a subject term, like justice. What is justice to one is not justice to another.

That's where you fail. Neither justice nor equity are subjective terms. Equity merely means that the punishment be equal in proportion to the crime... Capital murder is punishable by death, second-degree murder, rape, and such are lifetime prison sentances, all property crimes require restitution to the victim from the criminal of equal monetary value to the property stolen or destroyed in addition to moneies lost.... etc....

There is a difference between a criminal unlawfully, and with malice of forethought killing a person, and the Republic killing a person for the commital of First-degree murder; the Republic isn't a person, it's an agent of the people... and it is always an agent when it is operating within the delineated authorities the Republic has been granted by the people and its foundational principles. If it acts outside of that, it no longer is an agent, and therefore is subject to execution by the people... Like I said, we're an arbitrational government that exists souly for the purpose of protecting and arbitrating between, our sovereigns, the people.... and its our duty to enforce the penalties imposed by arbitration on behalf of the wronged sovereign, against the one who has violated the rights to his sovereignty...

We don't expect a tyranical dictatoriship of the majority and public whim, brought through brainwashing, as yourself, to understand the principle concept of individual sovereignty of the people, or the purpose and responsibilities the Republic has to her people... But merely a statement of how the people of Tekania run things.

As far as the people of Tekania are concerned, your government is a barbaric, overloarding, regime, bent on the destruction of freedom and truth... which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace to some vague nebulous concept of "higher-morality" (which it constantly redefines based on the whims of passion).

The simple fact is, there is nothing ethical or moral about your system.... it is nothing but a lie, which eventually degrades into stalinism or fascism...... and when it does.... the Republic will still be here.

I am sorry to say that "justice" and "equity" ARE subjective terms.

A single person can define justice. However, having people agree on what justice actually is can be much harder, especially in a situational sense, as people have different ideas on what justice is, especially in regards to their moral positions and their own ideas of equity.

Equity will always be subjective. It may not seem so, but it is and always will be. One apple may cost fifty cents, but how many apples is one hour of happiness worth? Some things can not be measured in a tangible sense, which will always cause the idea of "equity" to be subjective.

And people wonder why dictatorships don't struggle with these concerns...

I am sorry to say that "justice" and "equity" ARE subjective terms.

A single person can define justice. However, having people agree on what justice actually is can be much harder, especially in a situational sense, as people have different ideas on what justice is, especially in regards to their moral positions and their own ideas of equity.

Equity will always be subjective. It may not seem so, but it is and always will be. One apple may cost fifty cents, but how many apples is one hour of happiness worth? Some things can not be measured in a tangible sense, which will always cause the idea of "equity" to be subjective.

Deceit, deceit, lie, lie, deceit, and rhetoric....

An apple is worth an apple.... a persons life is worth a person's life.... a 20,000 dollar car is worth 20,000 dollars... Take your sophisms elsewhere... When someone destroys someones 100,000 dollar house, they owe the person 100,000 dollars.... when someone destroys someones lifelong persuit of happiness, they deserve to have their lifelong happiness destroyed, when someone ends another life through pre-meditation and malice, they deserve to have their life rendered forfiet... it is all equatable and the operation of true justice... we do not care what you perverters of justice want to redefine the term as.

Justice is only enacted when punishment is enacted which equally fits the crime commited... If you do not punish for crime in a way equal to the crime, you have no justice....PERIOD... There is no relativity about it, your claim as such is a lie, your belief is a lie, and you live a lie.

It's the belief of turning everything into relative concepts by the lieing deceitful sophists, that have created your nations problems.

To be just, is to act fairly and honorably in ones dealings... there is no subjectiveness about the act.... the only thing that is subjective is what is just in certain situations.... but in the concept of justice, is that FAIRNESS and equity be rendered by ruling....

The only argument is that the penalty against a crime, on grounds of justice, is that it is rendered unfairly... unless your argument is based upon that... it is nothing but meaningless dribble...... unless your argument against equitable penalty is based on the equalness of worth being not in proportion... your argument is meaningless dribble.... to date, no cp abolitional supporters have done that..... their argument has been continued by trying to redefine terms like JUSTICE, that they don't like, make them relative, and complete change the language because they are unable to stomach truth and fairness.. to perpetuate arguments through meaningless appeals to "compassion" and "mercy" which has no place in rendering justice, unless it is by the wronged party....

IOW... it's all based upon sophist rhetoric, and private assumptions, lies, deceit... and all sorts of other unjust, perverted, concepts.....

-COMPASSION has no bearing on Capital Punishment arguments....

-MERCY has no bearing on Capital Punishment arguments...

-COST has no bearing on Capital Punishment arguments...

-Nebulous terms such as "higher morality" have no bearing on Capital Punishment arguments...

And for the record, Capital Punishment is not murder..... by the very definition of the word. (apparently your educational institutions need to be revamped, as since you represent your people, they must have very poor literacy skills).

Blah blah blah blah.
-COST has no bearing on Capital Punishment arguments...
Blah blah blah.

Actually, I find cost does. It's simply cheaper to execute certain types of criminals than keep them in jail. Need that money to make sure my police have the latest toys.

Actually, I find cost does. It's simply cheaper to execute certain types of criminals than keep them in jail. Need that money to make sure my police have the latest toys.

Not here, criminals in prison must work to support themselves... we feel it imprudent for the people to pay for the crimes of criminals... The criminals are liable for their own crimes, for their own support... as such we work prison inmates to support the system and pay their restitution to the victims.

I have criminals helping work on the orbital space platform over Terrator. The expense is in feeding them and making sure they have space suits. We still lose dozens a day.

I have criminals helping work on the orbital space platform over Terrator. The expense is in feeding them and making sure they have space suits. We still lose dozens a day.

Well, if you think about it in terms of howmuch you are saving on labor cost......... you're saving alot more than that.

We've been toying with the idea of using convict labor for colony construction, for those guilty of financial crimes, with the possibility of settlement upon the payoff of their restitution.

The idea of the abolishment of the death penalty, because of the plethora of states, including the ones who have been advocating such bannings of CP, are unable, and so dishonest, as to not invest into the creation and maintenance of a proper, functional, and just system of courts, is frankly not a recognition of the problem.

There is no perfect legal system, no matter how effective it is. No matter what you put into it, there is still a margin of error you cannot completely eradicate because all systems are inherently fallible. That is why we have the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, so as to err on the side of caution.


If you have in premeditation, and with malice of forethought, planned and ended the life of another person or persons... rehabilitation is of no point, you can never be part of society again, your crime is unforgivable unless by the victim or legal power of such... your life stands forfeit before the people of the Republic... The court can never grant mercy... The court is the arbitrator, not the wronged...

That isn't an argument. It's an opinion. You believe a court cannot grant mercy, while I believe it, as an impartial party appointed to uphold the law, has every right to because it is impartial and, ideally, unemotional. You believe it is unforgiveable and "you can never be part of society again", I believe everyone can change and that any society which considers itself a liberal one should be willing to accept and tolerate everyone. And by way of comment, for someone who considers himself a libertarian, you're very big on criminal apartheid.


To be just, is to act fairly and honorably in ones dealings... there is no subjectiveness about the act.... the only thing that is subjective is what is just in certain situations.... but in the concept of justice, is that FAIRNESS and equity be rendered by ruling....

The only argument is that the penalty against a crime, on grounds of justice, is that it is rendered unfairly... unless your argument is based upon that... it is nothing but meaningless dribble...... unless your argument against equitable penalty is based on the equalness of worth being not in proportion... your argument is meaningless dribble.... to date, no cp abolitional supporters have done that..... their argument has been continued by trying to redefine terms like JUSTICE, that they don't like, make them relative, and complete change the language because they are unable to stomach truth and fairness.. to perpetuate arguments through meaningless appeals to "compassion" and "mercy" which has no place in rendering justice, unless it is by the wronged party....


That is just a really fancy way of saying you believe justice must be vengeance. Now, if by your reasoning murder must be punished by death, do you think sexual assault is punishable by raping the offender? Do you also believe that people convicted of housebreaking should have their own homes broken into? Monetary restitution would be insufficient, I'd think you'd want to inflict the trauma of coming home to find several of your possessions gone too, right? But as punishments, those are clearly unworkable. Only with murder do you have a convenient, long-established penalty you can carry out. So unless you tell me that your nation ties up rapists in prison and violates them with sticks, you're inconsistent.

As for that capital punishment/murder thing we had so much fun with the last time, let me point out that if you really want to be that strict with your definition, you can't say it isn't murder either because it is illegal in many places and just because it isn't murder in your jurisdiction doesn't mean it's not murder, period.

We can all have our own philsophies of justice and our own ways of applying it. But to say that mercy and compassion have no place in it leads me to believe that your justice system is seriously flawed.

Actually, I was sticking with reality. Certain supergeniouses pop up from time to time, and often they have mild to extreme mental problems to counteract their intelligence. I suspect there are even a few who end up like that scenario.

However, it holds another point: There are certain people who cannot be reformed. And leaving them in jail wastes money better spent elsewhere, which is part of the current financial problems of the U.S.

Incorrect the fiscal problems that plague the US lie in the constant percepted need to imprison moderate drug users. The War on Drugs is even more ambiguous and un-winnable than the war on terror.

As for Supergeniuses they are frequently disturbed but are generally analytical enough to control their own urges. Furthermore reread your post, it is laughably extreme and while a simplified version of it could be plausable it is ridiculous to even assume that a person of his notariaty would be in any situation where escape is feasible... You don't escape from solitary, period.

There is no perfect legal system, no matter how effective it is. No matter what you put into it, there is still a margin of error you cannot completely eradicate because all systems are inherently fallible. That is why we have the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, so as to err on the side of caution.

Blah Blah Blah Blah, same old tired defeatist argument... Innocence till proven guilty is but one of many facets that allow us to create a perfect court system.


That isn't an argument. It's an opinion. You believe a court cannot grant mercy, while I believe it, as an impartial party appointed to uphold the law, has every right to because it is impartial and, ideally, unemotional. You believe it is unforgiveable and "you can never be part of society again", I believe everyone can change and that any society which considers itself a liberal one should be willing to accept and tolerate everyone. And by way of comment, for someone who considers himself a libertarian, you're very big on criminal apartheid.

Impartiality is for fairness not mercy, you appearantly can't distinguish between the concepts... The purpose is to make an arbitrational body that is impartial enough not to act unjustly either in excess (death penalties for parking fines) or in to limited a manner (letting everyone go).

On the second point, you are appearantly ignorant... Libertarians are ROUGH on real crime... we just don't have the cubic butt-ton of "victimless" criminal law that your societies have.


As for that capital punishment/murder thing we had so much fun with the last time, let me point out that if you really want to be that strict with your definition, you can't say it isn't murder either because it is illegal in many places and just because it isn't murder in your jurisdiction doesn't mean it's not murder, period.

Most certainly we have... And by definition, I am right, and you are wrong. But you merely refuse to accept truth, the language, and the lot. Murder is UNLAWFUL killing. Capital Punishment in the Republic is LAWFULL... pure and simple... no if ands or buts... It's called JURISDICTION... IOW... lawfull and unlawfull is defined by my law, not yours.... If you want to insist otherwise, line up your troops, and we're going to war, since you appearantly believe your national laws have jurisdiction over my nation... And therefore indicative of your wish to invade and oppress the people of Tekania... Your law is worth a hill of beans, and has no bearing on the matter... because it LACKS jurisdiction... So put up, or shut up.... And before you spout more of your dribble, remember, it is you who are pushing to abolish it in my nation, and not me forcing it upon yours.... so it is a matter of my jurisdiction, and not yours... If I ever have a brain fart and advocate mandatory CP in all member nations, then you are more than welcome to make your argument about "murder".


We can all have our own philsophies of justice and our own ways of applying it. But to say that mercy and compassion have no place in it leads me to believe that your justice system is seriously flawed.

Mercy and Justice have a place both... And I've stated them before. However, the court itself has no right or authority ITSELF to show mercy in place of justice.

I'd state that your court system is completly imperfect, and most unjust.... to the people as a whole... because there is no justice in it... it's a rancid putrid mess, unable to perform its duty, unable to justly punish, in a nation that has lost, and lacks all accountability... And you have no desire to strive for perfection...

And any form of justice system imperfection comments, comming from a nation like yours, with rampant crime waves, people beating each other up in public display... and no one being held accountable for anything they do to one another...... really holds sway..... Obviously you're not qualified to comment on any of this.... I'm not sure exactly what is sadder, the fact that you are as incompitent as you are, or the fact that you want to make everyone else just as incompitent as you...

In the end you can keep your definition of "murder" if you want... Judging by your policies, you really don't consider murder all that serious of a crime... that of course makes your appeasement towards "CP" as being "murder" less valid of course, logically speaking...

And, as far as I'm concerned, the frequent and random acts of violence in your CP abolishinist nations, is far more barbaric than CP in the Tekanian Republic...

Blah Blah Blah Blah, same old tired defeatist argument...

Well then, I'm sure you can show me a RL legal system that is perfect. That has never once let a guilty person go free or sent an innocent man to jail.

Impartiality is for fairness not mercy, you appearantly can't distinguish between the concepts... The purpose is to make an arbitrational body that is impartial enough not to act unjustly either in excess (death penalties for parking fines) or in to limited a manner (letting everyone go).

Okay, this is a philosophical clash. We can't resolve this. I think the court, in its capacity to uphold and interpret the law, has the right and duty to decide where mercy is called for and to grant it. You obviously don't.

And I did not say impartiality equals mercy. You have to stop seeing what you want to see because you want to be able to call me an idiot.

lawfull and unlawfull is defined by my law, not yours.... If you want to insist otherwise, line up your troops, and we're going to war, since you appearantly believe your national laws have jurisdiction over my nation... And therefore indicative of your wish to invade and oppress the people of Tekania... Your law is worth a hill of beans, and has no bearing on the matter... because it LACKS jurisdiction...

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

it is you who are pushing to abolish it in my nation, and not me forcing it upon yours.... so it is a matter of my jurisdiction, and not yours

That makes a difference how? Granted the burden of proof would be on my side, but that has no bearing on what you consider or do not consider as a murder. It is not a matter of your jurisdiction. We're on neutral ground here.

Mercy and Justice have a place both... And I've stated them before.

The court can never grant mercy

to perpetuate arguments through meaningless appeals to "compassion" and "mercy" which has no place in rendering justice, unless it is by the wronged party....

Hmm?

I'd state that your court system is completly imperfect, and most unjust.... to the people as a whole... because there is no justice in it... it's a rancid putrid mess, unable to perform its duty, unable to justly punish,

Says you.

in a nation that has lost, and lacks all accountability... And you have no desire to strive for perfection...

We do strive for perfection, while knowing it is unattainable. I suggest you address my argument rather than spouting insults.

And any form of justice system imperfection comments, comming from a nation like yours, with rampant crime waves, people beating each other up in public display...

Accidentally pressing the wrong option on an issue does not invalidate my argument. If you want to talk nation pages, I can find you some who have no punishments, no prisons, and zero crime. In any case this is gameplay. It doesn't prove anything.

Obviously you're not qualified to comment on any of this.... I'm not sure exactly what is sadder, the fact that you are as incompitent as you are, or the fact that you want to make everyone else just as incompitent as you...

As I said, you're going to make a much better impression by actually arguing my point instead of spouting insults.

your appeasement towards "CP" as being "murder" less valid of course, logically speaking...

And your defining it as "not murder" is more valid, even when most of the world disagrees?

According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html,
82 have banned the death penalty.
38 have the death penalty but typically do not carry it out.
38 have the death penalty.

So wouldn't it be accurate to say that the international consensus is that the death penalty counts as murder?

Anyway, like I said, this is neutral ground. Let's not get sidetracked from the main issue here.


And, as far as I'm concerned, the frequent and random acts of violence in your CP abolishinist nations, is far more barbaric than CP in the Tekanian Republic...

Ah, so every place without the death penalty is a hotbed of violent crime. That explains why the EU is engulfed in criminal chaos, drive-by shootings take place constantly on the streets of Canada, Australia is in anarchy while Saudi Arabia is a paragon of virtue, people in Thailand don't bother installing locks on their doors, and the United States is a crime-free paradise. It's all so clear now.

Look, how about I come back when you're not in such an antagonistic mood and can make a post not riddled with constant insults? That okay?

That makes a difference how? Granted the burden of proof would be on my side, but that has no bearing on what you consider or do not consider as a murder. It is not a matter of your jurisdiction. We're on neutral ground here.


1. You miss the point still.
2. This is NOT a matter of neutrality

Simple and fundamental fact, you are calling an act in my nation "murder" by YOUR law, which means, you are declaring your law has jurisdiction over mine, in MY own territory... Because none of this has bearing on YOUR law, only my own... You cannot call it murder, you do not possess the power to do so, to continue to do so is nothing more than the further declaration of your idiocy.


And your defining it as "not murder" is more valid, even when most of the world disagrees?

MOST of the world does not agree... I seem to remember the UN voting AGAINST its abolishment not all that long ago. Appearantly you are rewritting the incident to fit your personal desires.

MOST of the world does not agree... I seem to remember the UN voting AGAINST its abolishment not all that long ago. Appearantly you are rewritting the incident to fit your personal desires.

Did you not notice I was talking real world?


According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html,
82 have banned the death penalty.
38 have the death penalty but typically do not carry it out.
38 have the death penalty.


Even if you didn't look at the link, when I have a total of 158 countries, you know it can't be in-game.

1. You miss the point still.
Then what is it?

2. This is NOT a matter of neutrality
What makes you think that? Is the UN part of Tekania all of a sudden? There are many people in the UN with different laws and stances on this issue. What makes yours more valid than mine?

Simple and fundamental fact, you are calling an act in my nation "murder" by YOUR law, which means, you are declaring your law has jurisdiction over mine, in MY own territory...

Simple and fundamental fact, you are calling an act in my nation "perfectly fine" by YOUR law, which means, you are declaring your law has jurisdiction over mine, in MY own territory.

Because none of this has bearing on YOUR law, only my own... You cannot call it murder, you do not possess the power to do so

Neither do you possess the power to do the opposite. If I cannot say it is murder, you also do not have any jurisdiction to say, as far as its legality is concerned, that the death penalty is NOT murder.

There is no double standard here just because passing it would affect you while it would not affect me. I consider it murder. You do not. That is all there is to this, nothing more, yet you insist on pounding on about it. Between that and your constant barrage of insults and personal attacks, it leads me to believe that beyond your rhetoric you don't really have an argument pro the death penalty.

to continue to do so is nothing more than the further declaration of your idiocy.
Still with the personal attacks, I see.

That's where you fail. Neither justice nor equity are subjective terms. Equity merely means that the punishment be equal in proportion to the crime... Capital murder is punishable by death, second-degree murder, rape, and such are lifetime prison sentances, all property crimes require restitution to the victim from the criminal of equal monetary value to the property stolen or destroyed in addition to moneies lost.... etc....

There is a difference between a criminal unlawfully, and with malice of forethought killing a person, and the Republic killing a person for the commital of First-degree murder; the Republic isn't a person, it's an agent of the people... and it is always an agent when it is operating within the delineated authorities the Republic has been granted by the people and its foundationalprinciples. If it acts outside of that, it no longer is an agent, and therefore is subject to execution by the people... Like I said, we're an arbitrational government that exists souly for the purpose of protecting and arbitrating between, our sovereigns, the people.... and its our duty to enforce the penalties imposed by arbitration on behalf of the wronged sovereign, against the one who has violated the rights to his sovereignty...

We don't expect a tyranical dictatoriship of the majority and public whim, brought through brainwashing, as yourself, to understand the principle concept of individual sovereignty of the people, or the purpose and responsibilities the Republic has to her people... But merely a statement of how the people of Tekania run things.

As far as the people of Tekania are concerned, your government is a barbaric, overloarding, regime, bent on the destruction of freedom and truth... which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace to some vague nebulous concept of "higher-morality" (which it constantly redefines based on the whims of passion).

The simple fact is, there is nothing ethical or moral about your system.... it is nothing but a lie, which eventually degrades into stalinism or fascism...... and when it does.... the Republic will still be here.


Alright enough of your holier than now approach. Let's get a few things straight about this and move on to discuss the merits of the death penalty. I am going to address your strawman attack on my nation first and then move on to what this thread is really supposed to be about.

1. My government is not a "barbaric, overloading, regime bent on the destruction of freedom and truth...which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace to some vague nebolous concept of 'higher-morality'". Further "There is nothing ethical or moral about your system...it is nothing but a lie, which eventually degrades into stalinism or fascism" is simply not true!

First off, I fail to see how my nation could ever be describe as barbaric. There is no capital punishment, no jails, torture is not permitted, everyone has equal rights, there is tremendous social welfare, healthcare, and education programs. I fail to see hows this is barbaric. Is the government overloading? Depends on what you consider overloading to be. Yes the government is very large in this nation, most social democracies have large governments to manage large government funded social programs. This is not a bad thing. Bent on the destruction of freedom and truth? Considering that the people of my nation have incredible political freedoms and civil rights I fail to see how the people are not free. What is unethical about this government. Ethics are a top priority of this government. The DRA has very tight laws forcing businesses to have ethical practices, all government ministries are audited yearly, all cabinet ministers and civil servants have their expense accounts audited in order to preserve the ethics and integrity of this government. Nothing moral about this system? A government which provides a cradle to grave society for its people, which ensures no person is left behind, which fights for equal opportunity and provides a very caring agenda of social welfare, universal healthcare, and quality publicly funded education. How is this not moral? This nation will degrade into stalinism or fascism? I certainly would beg to differ. Political freedoms and civil rights are a key part of the government's agenda, the people believe strongly in the principles of human rights. These are not principles of stalinism or fascism. The people of the DRA are not nationalist but rather patriotic. There are multilateralists and believe in the UN. I really do not see how this nation is heading down the path towards stalinims or fascism.

Now enough of discussing your strawman attack. To state that your nation is superior to mine in terms of its government is rather ridiculous in the sense that you believe only your system is the acceptable approach to governance and discount all other options. That alone is a fallacy in your argument, and might I add, one of many.

Once again, justly punish and equitable punishment ARE SUBJECTIVE. There are many different opinions on what is just and equitable. Some people believe the death penalty is just, some believe its the easy way out. Some people feel life in prison is a just means of forcing a criminal to stay behind bars for the rest of their life and deal with their crime everyday. Some would say that lacks the eye or an eye vigilante justice and is an insult to the victim. Some would say that the criminal should be brutally beaten in tortured, others say this is cruel. What is just and equitable varies upon the people's beliefs. You keep arguing the government is merely an agent and not a person. As I argued on another thread, your scientific systems analysis approach to governance is deeply flawed. YOu fail to recognize that a government is made up of people of various ideologies and that the government is a political body. You say majority rule is tyrannical, however, I fail to see how your system is any better. I am assuming that the government takes the recommendations from all elected members and then spits out policy on that to please all people and thus act as an "Agent". But what beliefs take precedance over others Things have to be prioritized, what determines priority? If there is only so much money, which program gets funding and which doesn't? Somewhere in that mess decisions are made and since the government is a political body, some people's interests will be taken into account and some will be ignored.

Alas I have to run to class but I'll be continuing this in a couple hours.

I wish that the question had been phrased differently. My government is opposed to capital punishment, but is likely to abstain on any UN resolution on the subject, because *most* UN attempts to promote a ban on capital punishment have done so via language that is too strong.

Incorrect the fiscal problems that plague the US lie in the constant percepted need to imprison moderate drug users. The War on Drugs is even more ambiguous and un-winnable than the war on terror.

Quite a few nations on here also have anti-drug laws, and many of them have jail times or worse for using or having drugs. And what are you going to do with all of those drug users and dealers? Left alone, they can increase crime through their product and cause other problems. Put in jail, they become an economic burden. Executed and suddenly the international community comes down on you. Thus, the problem.

As for Supergeniuses they are frequently disturbed but are generally analytical enough to control their own urges. Furthermore reread your post, it is laughably extreme and while a simplified version of it could be plausable it is ridiculous to even assume that a person of his notariaty would be in any situation where escape is feasible... You don't escape from solitary, period.

Actually, I find most of them cannot control their mental problems anymore than you or I can, mainly because such problems affect the mind. In fact, there was a movie made recently about one who could not control his until after he realized a simple problem, one thing about his delusions that was incongruous with what he knew about reality. He spent several months after that trying to regain control, and yet suffered from it for the rest of his life. His analytical skills failed him before that because even the implausable explanations he was given by hid delusions seemed plausable to him. And what he had isn't even that severe of a mental problem when compared to some of what is out there.

Or, let's take Einstein, who had multiple problems with both memory and simpler forms of mathematics than what he was doing. IIRC, he couldn't do simple equations, such as 2+2^4, to his dying day. His problem was an incurable brain problem that his analytical skills were useless against. Why is he a good example? Because of one simple thing: It doesn't take much of a change in the brain to produce something that the victim of cannot fight against.

Now, you made one grievous error in your post: You ignored the obvious. The scenario has the guy suddenly snapping and going on a bloody rampage. It happens, and intelligence does not really have that much of an effect. Keep in mind that a mental problem related to extreme intelligence does not, as in the case of that guy who had a movie based on his life I mentioned above, have to set in from birth. It can set in suddenly or gradually, at any point in life, and then ruin or challenge their lives. In this case, we have extreme psychotic tendencies suddenly setting in, and whether or not there is a trigger or what there is a trigger doesn't really matter to the people killed.

And, yes, you can escape from solitary confinement. People have done it. Just get sick or appear to be. They are legally required to send you to the hospital, from which you can escape much more easily.

I think that the death penalty should only be used in do or die situations. Its not our decision to take someones life but if the a person desides it is his/her right to then we can take his/hers life. I dont think it should be banned but i deffenitly dont think it should be viewed as an regular consiquence.

The death penalty is hypocritical, inhumane, and anti-common sense. In the name of trying to hault murderers what do we do? Kill the murderer!? That is absolutely ridiculous!

Instead of bantering on about how the death penalty is perhaps the most barbaric and primitive form of law enforcement, I'll ask the UN Delegates to perhaps consider another plan.

In lue of the death penalty, why not put those charged into prison, and under hard labour for life. I believe in second chances, and I think that once in prison people have a different outlook on life. So here is the plan:

-Every person placed into prison CAN (if they choose) join a rehabilitation program.

-After 30-40 years under this rehabilitation program (AND IF AND ONLY IF THE PERSON HAD STELLAR BEHAVIOUR) he will be considered for release.

-His release MUST be decided by a panel of 20 experts in the field of rehabilitation. ALL 20 EXPERTS MUST VOTE TO RELEASE IN ORDER TO RELEASE ( In other words a unanimous vote).

-if released the culprit will be closely watched for 6 months.


Obviously these plans are preliminary, but it at least gives a second chance. WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES...For all we know that person could STILL make a difference in the world!

As I am not a UN Delegate I would be pleased if another Delegate would be interested in making this an official 'possible' resolution.

G'day

-Glasgowegian

well, there's the problem of flaws in the justice department, corruption and/or flaws in the investigation can lead to an innocent's death. If you implement a life prison sentence with a hearing after doing 3/4 of your sentence people can still have a chance in society. prisons are in the first place institutions to re-educate and re-intigrate criminals in society. It is not a place to opress criminal entities in our society it's a place to deal with them and root them out, you won't achieve this goal by killing people who commited a crime since that just gives other people a justification on "why not commit the crime since society gave up on them anyways." since we promote a democratic point of view we can't alow such an undemocratic act to be promoted or allowed.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

1) See my post on the top of the previous page for an example, though very extreme, of a case where this will not work.

2) Cost. Despite forcing hard labor, in the end this will cost more than it is worth. And let's not forget the extreme ones who you would have to lock up in solitary for the good of themselves and others.

3) The death penalty is barbaric. But so is chopping up a family with an ax, shooting up a school, blowing up buildings, etc.

4) They can still pose a risk to society, unless you feel like letting theiir medical care slack a bit. Then, you're just executing them using a different method.

5) Your panel of experts is both wasteful and too big. Three is enough in most cases. Otherwise, you're paying people who should be advancing your society to do nothing more but determine whether or not some guy who just wiped out a small neighborhood with bombs is ready to enter society and have a chance at doing it again.

6) Six months? Are you kidding me? If you are going to watch these people and make sure they don't do it again, you have to do it for years, not months. Six months is not exactly that hard to fool people for.

7) Actually, the prison outlook isn't accurate. Some people do have a different outlook on life after it. However, there are still quite a few who come out unaffected or being worse criminals than they went in.

well, there's the problem of flaws in the justice department, corruption and/or flaws in the investigation can lead to an innocent's death. If you implement a life prison sentence with a hearing after doing 3/4 of your sentence people can still have a chance in society. prisons are in the first place institutions to re-educate and re-intigrate criminals in society. It is not a place to opress criminal entities in our society it's a place to deal with them and root them out, you won't achieve this goal by killing people who commited a crime since that just gives other people a justification on "why not commit the crime since society gave up on them anyways." since we promote a democratic point of view we can't alow such an undemocratic act to be promoted or allowed.

Ironically, most republics actually have a death penalty. Ever wonder why that is?

No matter how you look at it, there are still those that cannot be reformed while still looking out for human rights. They exist in every society. Putting them in jail just makes them a burden.

I mentioned methods that work to rehabilitate everyone on the first page. What are they? Torture and brain washing.

The death penalty is too easy a way out for punishing serious crime. And it cannot be undone. A little imagination can make the punishment truly awe inspiringly terrifying, whilst having the option to release and compensate an individual if the judgement turns out to be wrong.

Of course in Bahgum we have a Mother in Law prisoner visiting scheme....

1) See my post on the top of the previous page for an example, though very extreme, of a case where this will not work.

2) Cost. Despite forcing hard labor, in the end this will cost more than it is worth. And let's not forget the extreme ones who you would have to lock up in solitary for the good of themselves and others.

3) The death penalty is barbaric. But so is chopping up a family with an ax, shooting up a school, blowing up buildings, etc.

4) They can still pose a risk to society, unless you feel like letting theiir medical care slack a bit. Then, you're just executing them using a different method.

5) Your panel of experts is both wasteful and too big. Three is enough in most cases. Otherwise, you're paying people who should be advancing your society to do nothing more but determine whether or not some guy who just wiped out a small neighborhood with bombs is ready to enter society and have a chance at doing it again.

6) Six months? Are you kidding me? If you are going to watch these people and make sure they don't do it again, you have to do it for years, not months. Six months is not exactly that hard to fool people for.

7) Actually, the prison outlook isn't accurate. Some people do have a different outlook on life after it. However, there are still quite a few who come out unaffected or being worse criminals than they went in.



Ironically, most republics actually have a death penalty. Ever wonder why that is?

No matter how you look at it, there are still those that cannot be reformed while still looking out for human rights. They exist in every society. Putting them in jail just makes them a burden.

I mentioned methods that work to rehabilitate everyone on the first page. What are they? Torture and brain washing.


So basically you value money, time and death over second chances...mmmk.

"... Otherwise, you're paying people who should be advancing your society to do nothing more but determine whether or not some guy who just wiped out a small neighborhood with bombs..."

Wipe out a small neighbourhood with bombs...wow, havent heard that one before.

"Six months? Are you kidding me? If you are going to watch these people and make sure they don't do it again, you have to do it for years, not months. Six months is not exactly that hard to fool people for."

Hmmmm...Notice I said they would be under a rehabilitation program for 30-40 years...and then the slim chance they would have of actually getting out of prison fromthe panel of experts. Lets think here. I would venture to say that most killers are in their 20's and 30's when they commit these horrendous crimes...so once they get out of prison it would place them nearly in their 60s.

The chance that an elderly man/woman after that much rehabilitation go back out a kill a bunch of people is QUITE SLIM. PLUS, since you care so much about money...well....you would have another tax paying individual on your hands.

So basically you value money, time and death over second chances...mmmk.

Criminals are easy to replace. Law-abiding civilians, on the other hand, are different. Besides, it saves money on jails that goes to having more cops out, who in turn help to prevent some crimes before hand. The money I am saving is going towards prevention of crime.

Wipe out a small neighbourhood with bombs...wow, havent heard that one before.

In some areas, that is an exaggeration. But only in some areas.

Hmmmm...Notice I said they would be under a rehabilitation program for 30-40 years...and then the slim chance they would have of actually getting out of prison fromthe panel of experts. Lets think here. I would venture to say that most killers are in their 20's and 30's when they commit these horrendous crimes...so once they get out of prison it would place them nearly in their 60s.

Which is wasting money. You keep them in jail until they are nearly too old to work, then release them and hope they can help society. What you are doing is ignoring the fact that prison is what they know by this point, and no prison is equal to actual society. Plus, your citizens are paying for these people to be in the prisons when said money could go elsewhere, depending on the crime.

The chance that an elderly man/woman after that much rehabilitation go back out a kill a bunch of people is QUITE SLIM. PLUS, since you care so much about money...well....you would have another tax paying individual on your hands.

Actually, I don't have another tax-paying citizen on my hands. I have a person who has never actually worked while they were in society that is retiring as soon as they get out of prison. National retirement age of DLE: 60.

And, it's not all that slim. What do they know? Hard labor and the crimes they commited, plus their experiences in childhood. By this age, they're either worn out enough from the labor to be another burden on society with the medical bills or are in very good health and easily capable of killing someone half their age. And there have been people in the U.S. that have gone to jail in their 60s and even older than that for murder, rape, statutory rape, arson, insurance fraud, etc. And some of them are career criminals.

Simple and fundamental fact, you are calling an act in my nation "perfectly fine" by YOUR law, which means, you are declaring your law has jurisdiction over mine, in MY own territory.

No I am not... Unless you claim to actually use capital punishment....

If you don't want to be labled an idiot, don't act like one.

My nation has Capital Punishment, yours does not...

I am not attempting to force all nations to mandate capital punishment for capital crimes... where you are trying to outlaw it for all capital crimes...

You're the one trying to force your authority on me, not the otherway around, your act of trying to pass the buck on that blame, and victimize yourself is a pathetic display... It honestly shows just how incompitent you actually are... Try using whatever braincells you have left next time... thinking is an amazing thing. JURISDICTION.... JURISDICTION... Since this is about Capital Punishment, and the status of which is defined by law, and as such I reffer to Capital Punishment as exercized in Tekania... Tekanian law defines it, and no other law, of any other member nation can be set ABOVE my own law in my own nation. Want to contend on it again, punkboy.... I'll be charging your nation with violations of the Rights and Duties resolution.... since you continue to REFUSE to recognize Tekanias own sovereignty over its own territory... Or indeed any other nations sovereignty but your own...

As for the "real world" whatever that is, it's a fantasy, this is NationStates, not the "Real World"... the Real World and what happens in that mythical place does not apply.

I do not appreciate being called a liar and labeled as deceitful. There is a certain decorum here that should be maintained, and throwing about insults will not add to the civility of this discussion.

I will once again make the argument that the terms "equity" and "justice" are subjective terms. When dealing with tangible equations, yes they can be concrete. However, when dealing with the intangible, they are purely subjective. Is the life of a genius employed by a government to research and implement revolutionary energy sciences worth the same as a homeless drug addict? Such things cannot be equated in a solid manner.

Which is precisely why the UN should take no action against capital punishment on the world wide scale. To do so would undermine the cultural and governmental institutions of many nations. Different cultures and nations equate certain things differently. Some cultures value life more than others, while some value property. Let each nation decide this issue on their own accord.

I do not appreciate being called a liar and labeled as deceitful. There is a certain decorum here that should be maintained, and throwing about insults will not add to the civility of this discussion.

I will once again make the argument that the terms "equity" and "justice" are subjective terms. When dealing with tangible equations, yes they can be concrete. However, when dealing with the intangible, they are purely subjective. Is the life of a genius employed by a government to research and implement revolutionary energy sciences worth the same as a homeless drug addict? Such things cannot be equated in a solid manner.

Which is precisely why the UN should take no action against capital punishment on the world wide scale. To do so would undermine the cultural and governmental institutions of many nations. Different cultures and nations equate certain things differently. Some cultures value life more than others, while some value property. Let each nation decide this issue on their own accord.

Which is precisely why law does not deal with the intangible, only the tangible.... Is the life of a beggar worth less than some well known scientist? Most certainly not, the foundational principle of Tekanian law is that each person is sovereign, and lord of their own affairs, their lives are of equal worth... and why there are no intangible "victimless" crimes in Tekania, because anything that does not have one person or persons victimizing other person or persons, cannot be a crime, since no one is being wronged. Law deals with the tangible actions between people, who are inerantly equal, and not intangible aspects... hense, a life is worth a life.... an apple, an apple, 20,000 tekles, 20,000 tekles.... tangibility. Because intangibility is a pointless endeavor to try to equate....

As far as deceit.... if you are trying to create equitability by assigning values to intangible concepts, concepts that do not exist.... yes, it is deceitful, it is no longer equity, but relative worth... equity is based on an exact equal value... not on relative worth based on intangible assets. A persons life, is not intangible, a persons car, or house, is not intangible, a persons savings is not intangible.

As you might note, I do not agree with Demon on this issue... He most certainly has plenty of "victimless crime" being punished in his nation... for some obscure and unknown reasons, which he has invented in his own mind. As, most likely, your respective nations may have as well.... for reasons completely alien and unknown to this Republic.

For example, the Republic would find it odd for other nations to punish or "re-educate"/"rehabilitate" (read brainwash) people for violating something like, a crime for using a certain drug... How would people here feel if I were mandating, let's say, the legalization of marijuana? or heroine? And argue that the fact that your nations don't legalize them, means all of your nations are guilty of inhumane acts against your people? We certainly won't BTW... But that would be a prime example for this shoe to be on the other foot for a change. A policeman arresting, or a judge unjustly and illegally passing judgement upon a recreational drug user, would definite be unjust and inhumane under Tekanian law. Do we consider laws as such in other nations "illegal", even though they are illegal under tekanian law? Most certainly not. However, tekania is a victim of having its law attemptedly being held subject by other UN member nations...

I am not going to partake in this debate because I have already commented on CP in other debates. However I have noted that temperatures are somewhat rising in this debate, in fact when I opened the door I half expected to find a roast chicken all ready for Sunday! No, instead I found a few roasted diplomats. :D

Good diplomats, I am sure we can continue this discussion with a sense of decorum that is fitting of UN diplomats. Name calling and the such is not going to help anyone’s cause or further any nations agenda. So I appeal for a little calm so this debate can continue without the need for roasted diplomats. :D

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

As you might note, I do not agree with Demon on this issue... He most certainly has plenty of "victimless crime" being punished in his nation... for some obscure and unknown reasons, which he has invented in his own mind. As, most likely, your respective nations may have as well.... for reasons completely alien and unknown to this Republic.

Not right now. It's kinda hard for people to disobey a dictator with a powerful military and a well-funded police force. Most of my crime is of the violent variety.

Good diplomats, I am sure we can continue this discussion with a sense of decorum that is fitting of UN diplomats. Name calling and the such is not going to help anyone’s cause or further any nations agenda. So I appeal for a little calm so this debate can continue without the need for roasted diplomats. :D

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

I think all of us should take this this advice before continuing wit this discussion.

Now in regards to soverignity. Tekania, by joining the UN your laws and soverignty are superceded by the resolutions of the United Nations. I get the impression that you don't appreciate many of these resolutions, which you have the right not to. But ultimately the principles of this organization may run contrary to principles in your country, that's the risk you pay with being in the United Nations. Barbaric and cruel and inhuman punishments are already banned. I personally think that the resolutions against barbaric punishment and the bill of rights, which bans cruel and inhuman punishment, already ban the death penalty but I think it is important that a resolution be passed to specifically state that the death penalty fits into the catergory of barbaric, cruel, and inhuman punishment.

I am going to put this as diplomatically as possible. Tekania, if you want to debate whether or not to ban the death penalty that is fine. But preaching your holier than now beliefs of how your nation's system is the only system which has truth, legitimacy, integrity, justice, freedom, etc. is quite frankly sickening, annoying, and completely false. I suggest that we move away from the ridiculous sidetracks that you keep putting forward and stick to the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be banned, or should be defined as a barbaric punishment which is already banned.

To the representative from Tekenia, I blieve that we are having a miscommunication issue.

It is only a matter of time before the government is forced to deal with intangible assets and metaphysical equity.

How much money is a life worth?

Some things can not have a definite value placed upon them.

How much is one hour of time worth to a person?

These are all subjective and relative. This is not a deceitful statement. Everything in these questions is relative to the point of view of a person. Peoples' view points are always different, which makes each view point subjective in nature. Therefore, equity is subjective and relative to the view point of each individual. This is why people will pay more than other people for an item and why people have different salaries.

No I am not... Unless you claim to actually use capital punishment....

YES, YOU ARE. We're only talking about it because you want to be obsessed with the semantics of my argument rather that my argument itself. And frankly it appears that the reason you're so obsessed with it is because you can't answer my argument itself.

If you don't want to be labled an idiot, don't act like one.
Excuse me? I've been reasonable throughout, and I have not been calling you a barbaric nation. I haven't resorted to labelling you an idiot or slagging off pretty much everyone's legal system. I haven't been acting like I have a lock on the definition of justice, then saying to people who argue with you, quote, "your claim as such is a lie, your belief is a lie, and you live a lie." I'd say your behaviour is much more idiotic than mine.

You're the one trying to force your authority on me, not the otherway around, your act of trying to pass the buck on that blame, and victimize yourself is a pathetic display...

It honestly shows just how incompitent you actually are... Try using whatever braincells you have left next time... thinking is an amazing thing. JURISDICTION.... JURISDICTION... Since this is about Capital Punishment, and the status of which is defined by law, and as such I reffer to Capital Punishment as exercized in Tekania... Tekanian law defines it, and no other law, of any other member nation can be set ABOVE my own law in my own nation.

I like how you keep misspelling "incompetent".

Don't you get it? If I don't have the authority to say the death penalty is murder, you don't have the authority to say it is NOT murder. Yes, if a resolution to ban the death penalty passes, it would be "forced" on to you unless you leave the UN.

It's like you're trying to argue against a resolution which says "Ducks are small aquatic birds." by saying, "NO! My nation defines ducks as amphibious birds."

Want to contend on it again, punkboy.... I'll be charging your nation with violations of the Rights and Duties resolution.... since you continue to REFUSE to recognize Tekanias own sovereignty over its own territory... Or indeed any other nations sovereignty but your own...

Uhm, I'm violating the Rights and Duties resolution? You don't seem to notice this little bit:
the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Whether capital punishment is murder or not is a debatable issue and rooted purely in semantics. Now I suggest we stop this futile, tangential line of argument and get back to the actual issue at hand.

As for the "real world" whatever that is, it's a fantasy, this is NationStates, not the "Real World"... the Real World and what happens in that mythical place does not apply.

Actual evidence, as opposed to made-up evidence, doesn't agree with you, so you discount it entirely?... Then what are we supposed to use to prove our points? I can then say in accordance with my nationpage that my nation, excepting rampant minor mischief offences by adolescents, is completely crime free despite having no prisons. I can pretty much say anything I like. I can say my nation is populated by tentacle demons from the planet Omicron Persei 8 which can suck your brains from 1000km away.

Look, we clearly have to have some roots in reality here. Besides, as I recall, you have never had any problems bringing in real-life evidence. The last death penalty issue you kept saying Virginia had a perfect judicial system.

And while I'm on that topic, DemonLordEnigma, your example is completely ridiculous. Firstly, a dangerous offender would be in maximum security and I assure you that no matter how smart the guy is, it would take some serious security negligence for him to escape, even if he was taken to a hospital, in fact, especially if he was taken to a hospital. And if he did escape, you can bet there would be serious media coverage of it and people would be actively looking for him.

None of the victims would yell for help? None of the victims would call the police? The prison guards would ignore the fact that he escaped once before and go lax on security? "Some guy with more brains than the entire US combined"? It's completely nuts to be presenting such an extreme and unrealistic scenario as something that could actually happen.

The death penalty is hypocritical, inhumane, and anti-common sense. In the name of trying to hault murderers what do we do? Kill the murderer!? That is absolutely ridiculous!

Ridiculous, last time I checked if someone is dead they don't do much besides rot (unless your nation has a problem with zombies)

I would like to take this opportunity to state that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does have the death penalty, and will oppose any attempt to ban it.

3) The death penalty is barbaric. But so is chopping up a family with an ax, shooting up a school, blowing up buildings, etc.


This is where I have the biggest problem with the death penalty arguement.

Someone has done something truly inhumane - strangled his girlfriend because he was jealous and scared he would leave her.

The whole nation is outraged - it's an appalling crime and no decent person would ever do that.

But the nation is quite happy to gas this person to death, because it's justice. Never mind that gassing someone to death is also inhumane. Never mind that it is quite obviously premeditated with malice aforethought. The nation is happy because this person has been killed. And the fact that every person in the nation has sunk to that level by participating in (or doing nothing to stop) the murder of this man.

On another thought - a life taken is not balanced out by taking another life. It just means two people are dead instead of one.

Actually, I find cost does. It's simply cheaper to execute certain types of criminals than keep them in jail. Need that money to make sure my police have the latest toys.

(ooc)

I could be wrong, but I am sure I read a study that says executing someone in the USA costs FAR more than it would to keep that person in jail for life. Because of the appeals, further appeals and even more appeals.

Just a random thought :}

Now in regards to soverignity. Tekania, by joining the UN your laws and soverignty are superceded by the resolutions of the United Nations. I get the impression that you don't appreciate many of these resolutions, which you have the right not to. But ultimately the principles of this organization may run contrary to principles in your country, that's the risk you pay with being in the United Nations. Barbaric and cruel and inhuman punishments are already banned. I personally think that the resolutions against barbaric punishment and the bill of rights, which bans cruel and inhuman punishment, already ban the death penalty but I think it is important that a resolution be passed to specifically state that the death penalty fits into the catergory of barbaric, cruel, and inhuman punishment.

You miss my point, my SOVEREIGNTY in this matter is not in question. Because THERE IS NO RESOLUTION. As such, it is INVALID, by present UN law, to classify it as "murder" since it is perfectly legal. That is my point. Appeals to your OWN laws, in relation to MY laws, is a violation of MY jurisdiction in the absense of any UN resolution stating otherwise.

The Resolution you cite defines "barbaric, cruel, and inhumane" punishments, and the usage of Capital Punishment is not within the definition supplied in the text of that law. As such, your argument is INVALID by that resolution. My law stands in the absense of any UN resolution which says otherwise... Which is again backed up by rights and duties... As such, you are forced to ABIDE by that resolution (which you do not, everytime you classify capital punishment as murder, when it is rightly executed within my territories). As such, Art. you are in violation of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations, for failing to recognize my sovereignty, and as of this point I place you and Kelssek on notice, for failing to abide by UN Resolutions... and the attempted coup, and refusal to recognize the sovereignty and rights of a fellow UN nation within the confines of its own territories... Simple fact is, NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY IS A VALID CLAIM WHEN YOUR LAW IS ALREADY BEING CLASSIFIED ILLEGAL BEFORE THERE IS ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH SAYS OTHERWISE...

Simple fact is, I could care less what you want, or what your dreams are.... untill they are law, they are nothing. Untill there is a UN resolution banning Capital Punishment in UN member nations, you cannot classify Capital Punishment in a UN member nation as illegal... You don't have to, and never will have to abide by Tekanian law in your territories, but you are forced to recognize, and respect Tekanian law in Tekanian territories... And such respect, untill UN resolution says otherwise, includes our use of Capital Punishment...


I am going to put this as diplomatically as possible. Tekania, if you want to debate whether or not to ban the death penalty that is fine. But preaching your holier than now beliefs of how your nation's system is the only system which has truth, legitimacy, integrity, justice, freedom, etc. is quite frankly sickening, annoying, and completely false. I suggest that we move away from the ridiculous sidetracks that you keep putting forward and stick to the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be banned, or should be defined as a barbaric punishment which is already banned.

I'm going to put this as diplomatically as possible... The simple fact is, as far as you are concerned, you can stomp on anyone you want, and disrespect their systems, but when the tides are turned, you can't handle it. From your very FIRST post, you have done nothing but preach... (remember your nebulous and undefinable "higher morality")...


YES, YOU ARE. We're only talking about it because you want to be obsessed with the semantics of my argument rather that my argument itself. And frankly it appears that the reason you're so obsessed with it is because you can't answer my argument itself.


Symantecs are the core by your lable. Once again, murder is the unlawfull killing of one person by another. Therefore the term itself is defined by law, and that is of course law which has jurisdiction over the territory of the occurance. By you labling it as "murder" by your law, you therefore consider your law supreme over everyone elses.


Don't you get it? If I don't have the authority to say the death penalty is murder, you don't have the authority to say it is NOT murder. Yes, if a resolution to ban the death penalty passes, it would be "forced" on to you unless you leave the UN.

When we are talking about an activity in my nation, in absence of international law, I have the jurisdiction and authority to define it by my own law, you don’t possess the authority to lable anything in my nation by your law, as I don’t in yours.

I could care less if you want to adopt the "higher morality" religious views against it, or what not, or say, I think killing is wrong, or etc… As soon as you use the term murder however, you overstep your authority.

In relation to my sovereignty being subject to the supremacy of international law…. THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL LAW COVERING THIS, so my sovereignty IS NOT SUBJECT to anything but Tekania and her people, itself. UN law is absent, my sovereignty on this matter in my territory is absolute, and not subject.

I find the panderings of the right and left wingers on that principle clause as funny, righties always want to use it to break the international laws, and lefties always want to use it to make others subject to laws that don’t even exist… Both sides are idiots. The simple fact is, our laws are subject to international law, but in the absence of international law on a subject, our laws are supreme in our own territories, and unquestionable.


Whether capital punishment is murder or not is a debatable issue and rooted purely in semantics. Now I suggest we stop this futile, tangential line of argument and get back to the actual issue at hand.

Whether it is murder or not is not debateable, by present international law, because there IS NO law….it is not murder… There has to be a law in existance, of which I am subject, in order for it to be so, in the absense of it, I have every right to lable it within the confines of my nation, according to the sovereignty of Tekanian law. Seeing as how we are dealing with an activity occuring in my nation, and not yours, its status is defined by my own law in the absence of UN law on the issue. UN Law is absent, my sovereignty stands.

The issue at hand is the declarartive reglious statement "by not using capital punishment you operate on a higher principle of morality"… as of yet, what and why that principle is, has yet to be explained logically or defined.


It is only a matter of time before the government is forced to deal with intangible assets and metaphysical equity.

Actually, it is not. If the abolishin were to come in, it would not either, as equity doesn’t even factor into these peoples laws, and would not, as consquence be in their drafting of international laws. Our principle is not to assign tangible asset to the metaphysical, and it is the observation of the Republic, that whenever a government involves itself in the metaphysical, it always becomes unequitable and tyranical in its dealings. As such, we choose not to go down that path. As such, we only deal with each other directly, in arbitration, with the physical and not the metaphysical.

Not to say any particular government has no right to do so in their own borders, of course… But within its borders, governments most certainly have the right to the passage of their own choice.

Untill there is a UN resolution banning Capital Punishment in UN member nations, you cannot classify Capital Punishment in a UN member nation as illegal

The passing of that UN resolution is what we are talking about. You have to tell us why the death penalty should be legal, and why the resolution should thus not pass.

What you are doing is saying the death penalty should be legal because it's legal in your country. And you're saying the resolution shouldn't pass because it hasn't been passed yet. Effectively, I'm saying "why not?" and you are saying "just because".

As I said in my previous post, it's as if you're responding to a resolution saying "ducks shall hereby be classified as aquatic birds" by screaming "YOU CAN'T DEFINE IT LIKE THAT BECAUSE IN MY COUNTRY WE CALL THEM AMPHIBIOUS BIRDS!! IT'S NOT YOUR JURISDICTION!"

Can we actually talk about the death penalty now? Or, to be more accurate since you've been going off on multiple tangents since the discussion began, can you actually talk about the death penalty now?

I am opposed to the death penalty, as a Bohemian I believe that life is a gift and should be valued.

You miss my point, my SOVEREIGNTY in this matter is not in question. Because THERE IS NO RESOLUTION. As such, it is INVALID, by present UN law, to classify it as "murder" since it is perfectly legal. That is my point. Appeals to your OWN laws, in relation to MY laws, is a violation of MY jurisdiction in the absense of any UN resolution stating otherwise.

The Resolution you cite defines "barbaric, cruel, and inhumane" punishments, and the usage of Capital Punishment is not within the definition supplied in the text of that law. As such, your argument is INVALID by that resolution. My law stands in the absense of any UN resolution which says otherwise... Which is again backed up by rights and duties... As such, you are forced to ABIDE by that resolution (which you do not, everytime you classify capital punishment as murder, when it is rightly executed within my territories). As such, Art. you are in violation of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations, for failing to recognize my sovereignty, and as of this point I place you and Kelssek on notice, for failing to abide by UN Resolutions... and the attempted coup, and refusal to recognize the sovereignty and rights of a fellow UN nation within the confines of its own territories... Simple fact is, NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY IS A VALID CLAIM WHEN YOUR LAW IS ALREADY BEING CLASSIFIED ILLEGAL BEFORE THERE IS ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH SAYS OTHERWISE...



Resolution 26: Universal Bill of Rights

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

1. The argument you bring forward essentially states that since that article does not specifically define what is cruel and inhuman, that the death penalty is still allowed. You are obviously exploiting a loophole by interpreting this article to meet with your needs instead of fulfilling the spirit of the resolution. NS forces all nations be compliant with all resolutions, since your nation obviously twisting this resolution around, it would appear to me that yet another resolution plugging these flagrant distortions needs to be passed in order to force nations to comply with these principles. Anyone who is interrested in assisting me in a definition to close the loopholes that nations such as Tekania attempt to create in order to avoid compliance with the Universal Bill of Rights, please telegram me so we can work together on a resolution to define cruel and inhuman punishment and thus end this barbaric practice once and for all.

2. I attempted a coup of your soverignty? By your definition any resolution which causes nations to do anything within their own nations is a coup of your soverignty. If you don't like it, leave the UN.

3. Nations have the right to condemn the practices of other nations. The DRA and other nations have condemned your use of death penalty as a violation of the principles of current UN resolutions and as a practice that needs to end. UN nations have a right to speak out. By condemning the death penalty, nations are not taking part in a coup against your soverignty, they are utilizing their right to express outrage at these acts. None of us are in violation of Resolution 49: Rights and Duties of UN States, unless of course you manage to distort these principles to state that nations shouldn't debate, speak out, and condemn acts which they deem violate current UN resolution or are contrary to the basic principles of the UN. We are not intervening in your affairs, we are simply condemning your affairs. Therefore you have no case that the DRA and other nations have violated Resolution 49.



Simple fact is, I could care less what you want, or what your dreams are.... untill they are law, they are nothing. Untill there is a UN resolution banning Capital Punishment in UN member nations, you cannot classify Capital Punishment in a UN member nation as illegal... You don't have to, and never will have to abide by Tekanian law in your territories, but you are forced to recognize, and respect Tekanian law in Tekanian territories... And such respect, untill UN resolution says otherwise, includes our use of Capital Punishment...



Resolution 26: Universal Bill of Rights

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Refer to point one above for the same argument if you failed to understand it the first time.



I'm going to put this as diplomatically as possible... The simple fact is, as far as you are concerned, you can stomp on anyone you want, and disrespect their systems, but when the tides are turned, you can't handle it.



1. Last I checked I refuted the outrageous remarks you made about the DRA and also responded with some accurate observations about the flaws in your argument and the flawed analysis you use on your system. I certainly can handle the insults, outrageous remarks, and lies you spit out about this nation. As a matter of fact, on both threads we have had this discussion you have yet to come up with a response to many of my points. I am still waiting to see you try to refute them, unless of course you conviently ignored my posts.

2. I certainly have not disrespected your system. I have asked some questions about it and criticized your systems analysis approach to governance but I haven't disrespected your system. Have I have condemnded parts of your judicial system? Absolutely. Have I expressed concern about your government? Absolutely. But unlike you, I have not disrespected your nation. Look back at the outrageous comments you made about my nation, who is the one doing the disrespecting?

3. I am not stomping on your system, I am stomping on your very flawed arguments, your insults, your red herrings, your lies, and your fallacies. There is a difference though you seem unable to see it. Perhaps you should move from a simpleton approach to one of complex analysis, after all, the real world is far from simple.




Both sides are idiots.


We don't expect a tyranical dictatoriship of the majority and public whim, brought through brainwashing, as yourself


your government is a barbaric, overloarding, regime, bent on the destruction of freedom and truth... which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace


there is nothing ethical or moral about your system.... it is nothing but a lie, which eventually degrades into stalinism or fascism


apparently your educational institutions need to be revamped, as since you represent your people, they must have very poor literacy skills


we just don't have the cubic butt-ton of "victimless" criminal law that your societies have.


It honestly shows just how incompitent you actually are... Try using whatever braincells you have left next time... thinking is an amazing thing.

And you have the audacity to say I am disrespectful while you spit out lies and insults about us personally and our nations?



The issue at hand is the declarartive reglious statement "by not using capital punishment you operate on a higher principle of morality"… as of yet, what and why that principle is, has yet to be explained logically or defined.

No the issue is whether or not there needs to be a definition to specific define cruel and inhuman punishment into to prevent nations like yours from exploiting and twisting resolutions to avoid compliance. I fail to see how you are unable to grasp the real issue at hand. Stop creating red herrings and stick to the issue.

As in regards to the lies and falsities you spit out about other nations instead of addressing the issue:


As far as the people of Tekania are concerned, your government is a barbaric, overloarding, regime, bent on the destruction of freedom and truth... which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace to some vague nebulous concept

I have already addressed the lies about this point.


1. My government is not a "barbaric, overloading, regime bent on the destruction of freedom and truth...which seeks over time to enslave its entire populace to some vague nebolous concept of 'higher-morality'". Further "There is nothing ethical or moral about your system...it is nothing but a lie, which eventually degrades into stalinism or fascism" is simply not true!

First off, I fail to see how my nation could ever be describe as barbaric. There is no capital punishment, no jails, torture is not permitted, everyone has equal rights, there is tremendous social welfare, healthcare, and education programs. I fail to see hows this is barbaric. Is the government overloading? Depends on what you consider overloading to be. Yes the government is very large in this nation, most social democracies have large governments to manage large government funded social programs. This is not a bad thing. Bent on the destruction of freedom and truth? Considering that the people of my nation have incredible political freedoms and civil rights I fail to see how the people are not free. What is unethical about this government. Ethics are a top priority of this government. The DRA has very tight laws forcing businesses to have ethical practices, all government ministries are audited yearly, all cabinet ministers and civil servants have their expense accounts audited in order to preserve the ethics and integrity of this government. Nothing moral about this system? A government which provides a cradle to grave society for its people, which ensures no person is left behind, which fights for equal opportunity and provides a very caring agenda of social welfare, universal healthcare, and quality publicly funded education. How is this not moral? This nation will degrade into stalinism or fascism? I certainly would beg to differ. Political freedoms and civil rights are a key part of the government's agenda, the people believe strongly in the principles of human rights. These are not principles of stalinism or fascism. The people of the DRA are not nationalist but rather patriotic. There are multilateralists and believe in the UN. I really do not see how this nation is heading down the path towards stalinims or fascism.

When you addressed Nostre Patrus:

It's the belief of turning everything into relative concepts by the lieing deceitful sophists, that have created your nations problems.

Can you prove his nation has problems and can prove this is caused by what you deem are relative concepts by "lieing deceitful sophists"?

When you addressed Kelssek:

And therefore indicative of your wish to invade and oppress the people of Tekania

You can of course prove he wants to invade Tekania and oppress it?

And lets not forget the long list of gross distortions, exaggerations, and basely accusations you have posted against the DRA and others. Your arguments are filled with these and are thus fallacious and can be discounted until you provide constructive accurate critique instead of throwing out insults and creating red herrings.

YES, YOU ARE. We're only talking about it because you want to be obsessed with the semantics of my argument rather that my argument itself. And frankly it appears that the reason you're so obsessed with it is because you can't answer my argument itself.

Ahem. Semantics are extremely critical to any argument. If there is no agreed upon definition of terms, you're just talking past each other. Just a little note.

I believe personally that there are some crimes which deserve a death penalty but any nation which chooses to adapt this into their own laws must be extremly careful. Where there is any doubt at all in the evidence against such criminals alternative methods of punishment should be opted for instead.
But I think for such people as murderers etc. who show no remorse at all and who boast that they will do it again in the future (as indeed some have done in the past) then it shold be considered an option where no other sort of punishment would be effective enough to dissuade them from furthur offences.

This is where I have the biggest problem with the death penalty arguement.

I was wondering when someone would get around to it.

Someone has done something truly inhumane - strangled his girlfriend because he was jealous and scared he would leave her.

Crime of passion, life sentence of hard labor helping to work on Terrator. Expected life span: 20 years.

The whole nation is outraged - it's an appalling crime and no decent person would ever do that.

But the nation is quite happy to gas this person to death, because it's justice. Never mind that gassing someone to death is also inhumane. Never mind that it is quite obviously premeditated with malice aforethought. The nation is happy because this person has been killed. And the fact that every person in the nation has sunk to that level by participating in (or doing nothing to stop) the murder of this man.

Nope. No gasing in my nation. There are cheaper methods of execution that are just as effective. Not all nations use poisonous gases to execute with.

The action is typically taken because they view there can be no hope for this man. He cannot pay restitution, as the victim is dead. Plus, you have to remember that a lot of nations base their laws on the U.S., which got part of its ideal of a life for a life from certain interpretations of the Bible and a long history of execution certain nations have had. There are those of us who vary from these for our ideals. For me, execution is to be used on the ones who cannot be reformed and cannot pay restitution. The rest are used as cheap labor until their sentence is served or they die, whichever comes first.

Also, executions are used as a deterrant. To know that action might cause you to die if they catch you is supposed to make people think before acting.

On another thought - a life taken is not balanced out by taking another life. It just means two people are dead instead of one.

Nothing is ever balanced. It's just showing that barbarism results in barbarism and trying to deter future crime.

(ooc)

I could be wrong, but I am sure I read a study that says executing someone in the USA costs FAR more than it would to keep that person in jail for life. Because of the appeals, further appeals and even more appeals.

Just a random thought :}

The US is too concerned about trying to be humane and make sure they got the right people. What they don't tell you is that the investigation mostly stops once the police are satisfied, so it's really wasting money and time. I cheat and use a simpler method that results in it being cheaper.

The passing of that UN resolution is what we are talking about. You have to tell us why the death penalty should be legal, and why the resolution should thus not pass.

No, what I am saying, is in the absense of law, you can not make a declaratory statement that "Capital Punishment is murder"... You can make a statement that "Within Kelssek, Capital Punishment is considered murder."


What you are doing is saying the death penalty should be legal because it's legal in your country. And you're saying the resolution shouldn't pass because it hasn't been passed yet. Effectively, I'm saying "why not?" and you are saying "just because".

No, what I have said, is that the Death Penalty (or Capital Punishment as we call it in Tekania) is the only equitable penalty imposed for a capital crime. And by that, it should not be banned, we would however, most certainly be behind limiting the use a Capital Punishment (the Death Penalty) to Capital Crimes (First-Degree Murder and treason being the only Capital Crimes)... But we would never be behind completely abolishing it, as it would be a devaluing of human life, and a loss of the principles of accountability and responsibility of the people... and a complete devaluing of human life across the board, as no longer would "murder" be considered as serious a crime as it actually is. Amongst a responsible and mature people, murder must be considered and treated as the worse crime imaginable, and must be punished as the worst crime imaginable. Capital Crimes are the only crimes that are completely without any form of personal redemptive aspects, the damage caused can never be undone, and can never be healed. Thus, we consider the idea of "rehabilitation" as laughable, because it has nothing to do with the criminal's future acts, or making them a functional part of socierty, it has to do with them be held directly and permanately accountable for their choices and decisions... and the thought of allowing people like that to live out their lives, is francly, disgusting, and devaluing to the life they stole from their victim. Is this harsh? Most certainly. But punishment should never be designed and operated to be easy on the punished, fair yes, easy no... And neither the righties, nor the lefties operate very intelligently or with responsible intentions... Righties want to make punishment unfair and cruel and far from equitable... and Lefties, flip to the far extreme on the other side, and make it easy and unresponsible.


As I said in my previous post, it's as if you're responding to a resolution saying "ducks shall hereby be classified as aquatic birds" by screaming "YOU CAN'T DEFINE IT LIKE THAT BECAUSE IN MY COUNTRY WE CALL THEM AMPHIBIOUS BIRDS!! IT'S NOT YOUR JURISDICTION!"


I didn't respond to things written in a proposal, I responded to things you personally said in declatory manners, outside of any proposal or law. So your above example is worth donkey-do. And in that aspect, what I am saying, is that in the absence of international law, the nationstate of Kelssek cannot make a declatory statement in conjuction with the actions or operations of another UN member, in the exercizing of the Death Penalty, as that of the unlawful killing of another (aka "murder")... To do so, is a statement that you do not consider the other nation a sovereign, and therefore subject to the laws of your nation.... The only such valid place FOR those statements is IN the text of a proposal or draft, in which case it is non-declatory till it's passage by majority UN vote... Delcatory statement outside of the text, towards the internal operation of other nationstate UN members, within the context of your law defining actions in another state, is a violation of the Rights and Duties resolution... Since you are violating the right of NSUN members to have sovereignty over their own territories, when their is no UN resolution which governs the particular operation.


Can we actually talk about the death penalty now? Or, to be more accurate since you've been going off on multiple tangents since the discussion began, can you actually talk about the death penalty now?

I have talked about it... And I've explained what it is... Why it is done... What its purpose is... along with tons of other cursory aspects of the entire system.

The only declatory statement I will make, is that under the governance of the language we are speaking in, mercy, operated by a court system, is unjust, as it no longer applies impartiality and fairness to all parties, within the operations of law. Not a single person here has challened that the imposition of Capital Punishment for the commision of Capital Crime is "unfair"... instead the topic has gone to the metaphysical and undefined ideas (such as meaningless and pointless discourse on some undefinied and nebulous 'higher morality'), or has asked questions like "what the difference between a person killing another person in cold blood, or the government doing it", of which I have answered, or has made declatory statements outside of the rights of law... No actual and reliable defense of Abolishment, nothing but religious statements, and dictatorial appeals to private interpretations....

And no appeals to unfairness, or "innocent till prooven guilty" we are taling about the fair and functional operations of law, and a penalty imposed upon someone already found guilty, be the court, beyond a shadow of a doubt.... Considering within this republic at least, that in order for Capital Punishment to be imposed, under the concept of First-Degree Murder (that is planned and pre-meditated) we require actual eye-witness' to the crime, physical evidence of the persons premeditation (letters, etc.) and physical scene evidence connecting the person to the crime, if that is not the case, they are charged with SECOND degree, which is not punishable by death only life imprisonment... or another comparible lesser crime... ( and trust me, if you all wanted to draft as much evidentiary requirements within the scope of UN resolutions to the operations of court cases against Capital offenses in UN member states, I would be more than willing to support and approve of such proposal, and hell, throw as much evidentiary requirement text into it)... If that is not good enough, then I can't help you, and you'll be at the end of my big stick for quite some time...

I would however find that of no surprise, when I do recognize, probably close to 90% of the speaking proposal writters, left or right, are extremists running around like chickens with their heads cut off, unwilling to compromise, or consider any opposition... It really is funny, when you stand back abit, how identical the left and right really are...

Fellow delegates, I believe that this dialogue has fallen off track.

This is not an issue of morality. This is an issue of sovereignty.

There is no UN resolution making it illegal to NOT have a capital punishment sentence as a consequence for certain crimes. In your respective nations, your governments can decide to have or not to have such a sentence.

Such an issue is not for the UN to decide for separate nations. Country A can flourish with out the death penalty while country B can also flourish while having such a sentence in place.

For those of you wondering: No, The Empire of Nostre Patrus does not have a capital punishment sentence in place. We do, however, feel it would be wrong to support the banning of capital punishment in a world wide sense.

We will co-exist with other nations peacably, even if we have a different point of view on certain issues. It is not our nation's policy to force another nation to change ideals that are working for them.

We would hope that other nations would agree that this is a most proper course of action.

Matthew Anderson
Representative for The Empire of Nostre Patrus

As of yet, I fail to see in any way how the proper, and fair use of Capital Punishment is classified as "inhumane", "barbaric" or "cruel"

Given there is much deliberation on the matter.
The person is provided with adequate defense.
It is required that the evidence be far beyond a shadow of a doubt.(previous post lists the evidentiary requirements)
The person has many rights of appeals on technical issues to challenge any descrepancies or unfairness in the system.
And the person is killed quickly and with as little pain as possible (firing squad is used in the Republic of Tekania)...

Our concern, in the republic is with making the court system as accurate and logically fair as possible, to be equitable, and that the punishment be carried out as swiftly as painless as possible.

Our concern is with the removal of the potential of error in the system, instead of lowering the standards of results, to conform with the system. We find, it is impossible for a government to advance, unless it seeks to repair its system in the face of error... And we dislike and condemn the tendancy of UN member nations, to concentrate on the results, rather than the process. We really don't consider "lowering the standards" to be a valid argument for errors in the system, rather, the system and process itself must be changed, which allows those errors in court... Ignoring the problem is does not make it go away, and lowering the standards does not make it go away. If you don't exercize Capital Punishment, for a murder, and you employ some other penalty such as rehabilitation or imprisonment, you still cannot restore to the person any loss occured by the error, so the idea of the imposition of a lesser punishment than is equitable, on the principle that the system is error prone, is no way a defense or a correction of the root problem. If a pipe has a leak in it, and therefore you loose water pressure, increasing the pressure to compensate for the leak might give you the pressure you want, but it is no way an actual and functional repair of the problem. You patch the pipe. In fact, in that illustration, the jerryrig of the result, creates more problems, in the pipe, more water leaks, in the courts, the potential for more error occurs. Error becomes "no big deal"... In our courts, because of the concern, errors are a VERY big deal. We have laws imposed and crimes imposed for Judges, Prosecutors and Defenders, we deal with people who bring false testimony under oath in court very harshly. If a judge enters a verdict which is later found to be in error, he is penalized with the ruling he ruled upon for the criminal. (Which even occurs were a judge to impose a Death Penalty which is in error because of lack of the evidientiary requirement... Basically the principle that if the defendant were not guilty of First Degree Murder, yet was pronounced as such falsly by the judge, against the requirements of the law, then the Judge is guilty of the crime, in the attempted murder of the defendant). Agents of the Republic are held to massively higher standards than those who they act on behalf of... You can't say we do not take error seriously, we take it far more seriously than most other states.

I would argue, that if you consider this barbaric, then logically you must consider any war barbaric, defending yourself barbaric, defending anyone else barbaric, justice barbaric, striving for perfection barbaric...

I love it how you fail to address issues I bring up everytime I refute your points and prove how flawed your arguments are.

Also you created yet another red herring to divert us from the discussion at the end of your statement. Stick to the topic and stop throwing out these red herrings.

Here's my take on it:

Why do we kill people to show that killing people is bad?

It sends a simple message: You do it, we kill you. Now, ask yourself this: Do I want to die?

People answering "No" to that question is how it is supposed to work.

It sends a simple message: You do it, we kill you. Now, ask yourself this: Do I want to die?

People answering "No" to that question is how it is supposed to work.

Well, then that must be why the United States, which has the death penalty, has a higher homicide rate than Canada, which does not.

If you're going for deterrance, I'd think life imprisonment is just as good as the death penalty. Besides, very few people commit a crime intending to get caught. So what use is deterrence?

I'll answer Tekania's argument later.

Well, then that must be why the United States, which has the death penalty, has a higher homicide rate than Canada, which does not.

Deterrence does not work.

Then what is the point of having police? Or even laws at all? After all, if deterrence doesn't work, then all of the laws put into place, and the punishments they hold (which are also primarily deterrents), are perfectly useless. So, why hasn't crime everywhere skyrocketed to 100-200%?

How about deterrence does have some effect. And you have to remember that the U.S. is not the only nation with a death penalty and has other factors affecting its people.

Well, then that must be why the United States, which has the death penalty, has a higher homicide rate than Canada, which does not.I believe that the US also has more citizens that Canada, which could easily account for the difference.

If you're going for deterrance, I'd think life imprisonment is just as good as the death penalty.On the other hand very few dead people commit crimes.

Vastiva has the death penalty. We also have no crime. Then again, we also use police snipers extensively, police can "shoot to kill" if fleeing the police, and we have cameras everywhere.

We also have no consensual crimes. Prostitution is legal. So is drug use. So is "vandalism" with few exceptions.

We believe everyone can do to themselves and their property whatever they like. We also believe no one can do anything to someone elses person or property without their permission.

Responsibility being our cornerstone, the people are peaceful.

Executions are simple, concerning either a bullet to the head or removal of the head with a large bladed instrument. These are swift as possible, with no "cruel and unusual" part of it. We also have no waiting period, which we believe would be torture - mental torture - and we do allow the condemned to be drugged out of their gourd if they choose to be so, with whatever they choose to be drugged with.

Elegant, simple, effective.

I have just realised that there's a crucial miscommunication here - Tekania thinks I am RPing. I don't roleplay in the UN. I'm not defining the legality, or lack thereof, of the death penalty when I call it murder, because I am speaking my view, not RPing as a representative of my nation. I am stating a personal opinion that if it isn't illegal, it should be. Are we clear on that?

No, what I am saying, is in the absense of law, you can not make a declaratory statement that "Capital Punishment is murder"... You can make a statement that "Within Kelssek, Capital Punishment is considered murder."

The same applies to you, because the legality of the death penalty is the issue here. It is up for debate and it is what we are in fact debating. We are talking about changing it because we think it's wrong, so you can't say that the old way should be kept because that's the way it is. It would be like an appeal judge denying every appeal that came before him on the grounds that the guy was already found guilty, so he is guilty.

Finally, I pretty much can toss everything Tekania has said on that issue right back at him. That's my final word on this.

No, what I have said, is that the Death Penalty (or Capital Punishment as we call it in Tekania) is the only equitable penalty imposed for a capital crime. And by that, it should not be banned

Which is subjective, despite your strident objections to the contrary. Whether something is equitable, just, right, etc. is subject entirely to personal belief. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

And what about multiple murderers? A guy can kill two people, he can kill ten people, but he can only be killed once. Doesn't that become, by your philosophy, inequitable and unjust? You only repaid one murder.

Capital Crimes are the only crimes that are completely without any form of personal redemptive aspects,

Again, I beg to differ. The recividism rate for murder is low. On the other hand, the rate for sex crimes is high. Forced to choose, I'd let the murderer go and keep the sex offender in jail. This doesn't agree with that statement at all. Granted, from a moral point of view I would agree murder is a worse crime than rape, but weren't you railing against... what did you call it?

...metaphysical and undefined ideas (such as meaningless and pointless discourse on some undefinied and nebulous 'higher morality')

Yet you saying murderers are unredeemable is itself a matter of "nebulous higher morality".

Thus, we consider the idea of "rehabilitation" as laughable, because it has nothing to do with the criminal's future acts, or making them a functional part of socierty, it has to do with them be held directly and permanately accountable for their choices and decisions...

But you yourself said you'd be fine with executing only murderers. Clearly you believe that rehabilitation of a criminal is possible, or you'd execute everyone convicted of a crime. If other criminals are rehabilitable, what is so different about a murderer that makes them unrehabilitatable?

and the thought of allowing people like that to live out their lives, is francly, disgusting, and devaluing to the life they stole from their victim. Is this harsh? Most certainly. But punishment should never be designed and operated to be easy on the punished, fair yes, easy no...

See what I said above. Additionally, I would think that saying that you have to kill people to avoid devaluing life is self-contradictory.

Not a single person here has challened that the imposition of Capital Punishment for the commision of Capital Crime is "unfair"

Well I'll say that it is unfair because of the unfixable flaws in any legal system . There is always a bias you cannot erase, especially when you expose the judge, or jury depending on how things work, to media coverage. And once again, all systems are fallible.

You can call me defeatist for that and claim you have a perfect legal system. But I would say you are delusionary because as a matter of common sense, it is impossible to have a perfect system. That is why you have the margin for error, and that is why the death penalty is unfair.

What message do we send with the death penalty? We say that killing is right sometimes, instead of the message we should be sending, which is killing is never right, the only exception being unless it's the only way to save yourself from immediate death. You say to everyone, "Killing is very, very bad. To prove it, we will kill people who kill people."

You are also saying that vengeance is an excuse. Oh, I'm sorry, you're calling it equity. Here's a question Tekania hasn't answered. If you believe in what is effectively the eye for an eye doctrine, do you sentence people convicted of sexual assault to be raped themselves? Do you literally carry out eye-for-an-eye punishment in assault cases? You don't, do you? You put those offenders in prison. So why is having an exactly equal punishment for murder so much more important than an exactly equal punishment for other crimes? Isn't that inconsistent? Isn't that unfair?

In the end it comes down to your values. I value mercy and compassion, and you obviously prefer a self-righteous form of justice. I feel vengeance is not right, and I feel that the death penalty is unnecessary and wrong because it fixes nothing and it cheapens human life when you take one, even one of a murderer, just because you think you should.

Then what is the point of having police? Or even laws at all? After all, if deterrence doesn't work, then all of the laws put into place, and the punishments they hold (which are also primarily deterrents), are perfectly useless. So, why hasn't crime everywhere skyrocketed to 100-200%?

How about deterrence does have some effect. And you have to remember that the U.S. is not the only nation with a death penalty and has other factors affecting its people.

Apologies for my edit, I didn't think there would be a reply that fast. I believe my edit answers your point.

In regard to the homicide rate, take note this is a rate, not a total. I believe Canada's rate is 1.9 per 10,000 people and the US is at 5 per 10,000 people. So the statistic is comparable.

By proportion the US has a much higher homicide rate. 350 homicides for 31 million people in Canada. In the US it was 12500 for 280 million. That is very disproportionate.

"Death penalty is a crime with in a crime"
It is used to resolve a situation quick and easy
as to be honest we as in "all" think it would help
make the situation go away.
Revenge is only sweet for fools...

"Death penalty is a crime with in a crime"
It is used to resolve a situation quick and easy
as to be honest we as in "all" think it would help
make the situation go away.
Revenge is only sweet for fools...
Looks like somebody passed national legislation mandating the use of recreational drugs.

Apologies for my edit, I didn't think there would be a reply that fast. I believe my edit answers your point.

Nope. It doesn't even touch my point. Why? There are those who don't mind prison. Prison can be pretty comfortable if you know what you are doing. Plus, it's already failed as a deterrent in more crimes than I can count, far more than the death penalty has.

In regard to the homicide rate, take note this is a rate, not a total. I believe Canada's rate is 1.9 per 10,000 people and the US is at 5 per 10,000 people. So the statistic is comparable.

The U.S. rate for everything involving death, when compared to Canada, is dispropotiately higher. Also true in just about every form of crime. However, I would risk it and say that they are proportionate when you compare the general role of the two nations in the world and their populations.

Looks like somebody passed national legislation mandating the use of recreational drugs.

:sniper: i Laugh at you

Ultimatly it all comes down to one word, morals, this is the main problem with this issue, people think that the death penalty is inhuman and i laugh at the irony, because no death penalty meanslife in prison, which means that said prisoner will ALWAYS look at that same cell, the same thing over and over and over until he dies of old age, and personally if offered a choice i'd rather die then spend my life in prison, it also seems as though people who do things like peeling random lare peices of skin while their alive, just for the fun of it must surely deserve to die, if your family had a member be a victim of some horrid crime, such as being raped then murdered wouldnt you want the one who commited said crime punished by death???? would you be able to get on with daily life knowing that your sister's killer is still alive, enjoying himself in prison? so i say on with the death penalty, those who kill deserve to be killed

Once again, this is NOT an issue of morality. This is an issue of whether or not the UN is willing to set a precedent.

There is no precedent to set, the UN has already set this precedent. This is merely an expansion of those precedents and a redefinition of terms to prevent nations for manipulating and exploting these resolutions.

The fact that murder is non-redeemable is not one of subjective morality, it is one of absolute truth. It is impossible for the murderer to redeem himself of the crime, because the single person capable of reception of pay for the damages no longer exists in life. (Remember, our entire basis of government is the principle of personal freedom) which translates out into the massive amount of political and civil liberties the Republic of Tekania's populace have at their disposal. Inline with the principle of PERSONAL freedom, is also the interoperability between the individual free peoples, and as such, with personal freedom becomes PERSONAL responsibility. The impact of one person, removing the freedoms of another, is to be dealt with harshly, once found through independant arbitration. Through murder, the person permanately removes, forever, all the personal freedoms of the other... and therefore, since those freedoms can never be restored, his crime is UNREDEEMABLE (unpayable, nonrestorative). It's not a matter of whether or not he CAN become a free and functional part of society, it's that he, through his own choices, have given up all right to ever possess any personal freedom, for the permanate removal of all of the personal freedom of the other(s). Regardless of what he were to do, should he be returned to society, even if they became another Ghandi, or Mother Theresa, none of it can redeem his previous crime, because the crime was permanate, and not temporal...

As for your reponses Art, I have argued against your vague higher morality, little else of it is actually refutable as it is all groundless concreteless statements of relativism... Answer these...

1. If there is no difference between a murder who ends the life of another, and a government who executes the murderer, please explain WHY you believe that. IOW, why is there no difference.

2. Why is "killing wrong"?

3. If government has no right to execute a murderer, and should never do it, why should murder even be punished or be a crime at all? What is the reason behind making "murder" a crime?

Not to say you don't have your reasons, you've just never explained the WHY of them... only the declatory WHAT's... Your views are alien to the philosophical principles of a People's Constitutional Democratic Republic, so please explain them to us from their very foundationable principles.

However, I would risk it and say that they are proportionate when you compare the general role of the two nations in the world and their populations.

It's a rate. It's the number of murders divided by the population, times 10,000. What it means is that there are 5 homicides for every 10,000 people in the US, and slightly less than 2 for every 10,000 people in Canada. The population makes no difference because the statistic is designed to be comparable between different population sizes. And what would the relative world power of the two nations have to do with their crime rates?

I should add that putting murderers in prison puts the guards and other prisoners at risk. If someone is a cold-blodded murderer and they're put in prison for life, what's to stop them from murdering again? At the very least, the death penalty should be an option for prisoners who choose to rape and kill their inmates. Of course, it'll be a cold day in hell before the people of Battery Charger submit to the whims of foreigners.

The fact that murder is non-redeemable is not one of subjective morality, it is one of absolute truth.

Nope. To you, maybe. You've got to qualify that with the words "I believe".

It is impossible for the murderer to redeem himself of the crime, because the single person capable of reception of pay for the damages no longer exists in life.

So why pile death upon death? What purpose could possibly be served by strapping him into a chair and injecting three lethal chemicals into him? Or whatever your mode of execution is? Justice? You consider that justice? You leave no room for mercy. You leave no room for compassion. You may say that it's up to the victim's family to grant compassion, but then you bring in a party which has a clear bias. You destroy the impartiality of the legal system.
That's why the judges decide sentences, and not the victims.

I have my own answers to these questions.

1. If there is no difference between a murder who ends the life of another, and a government who executes the murderer, please explain WHY you believe that. IOW, why is there no difference.

Looking beyond the obvious, there is no difference because it's still killing someone.

2. Why is "killing wrong"?

You have answered that for yourself, and though I agree with the basic reasoning, I have a much more philosophical view of it and I definitely don't see a life and say "what a great bunch of personal freedoms"!

Through murder, the person permanately removes, forever, all the personal freedoms of the other.

3. If government has no right to execute a murderer, and should never do it, why should murder even be punished or be a crime at all? What is the reason behind making "murder" a crime?

I'm very sure no one here thinks murder isn't a crime. And just because you don't execute someone doesn't mean you don't punish them. Wrong question to ask.

In the end I think it comes down to what your values are and I'll tell you what I believe and value. I believe that all life has worth, and I believe people can change. I value mercy and compassion. I believe vengeance has no place in the legal system and while understandable, is undesirable. I definitely agree with Gandhi when he said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Thus, I believe the primary function of the prison system is reformation and rehabilitation and that punishment is secondary. If you simply punish and make no effort to reform, you don't solve the problem. Rehabilitation may not always work, but it usually does and it's better than doing nothing. So I think changing lives for the better is an infinite return on the investment you put into a prison system.

The main problems I have with the death penalty is that it gains nothing and it's a cop-out. You cannot fix anything. You cannot bring the victim back to life and you can't restore what's lost. So why pile death upon death? There's nothing to gain and you just add another tragedy. Don't the loved ones of the murderer deserve the same consideration as the loved ones of the victim, who you use to fuel your case for revenge? What does the death penalty fix anyway? Are we safer because Timothy McVeigh was executed instead of being imprisoned? What difference would it make?

And it's a cop-out. It's easy to kill a murderer. But you don't even want to try to change the man. You don't even want to try to reform him. You give up before you even begin. You just say, "It's unredeemable" and kill him.

Then there's the common-sense conflict. How is it possible to uphold life, however you think of it, by taking it? How does the state send a message that killing people is wrong by itself killing people? Isn't that self-contradictory?

I'll end off with this quote from Clarence Darrow.

"Cold-blooded? Why? Because they planned, and schemed. Yes.

But here are the officers of justice, so-called, with all the power of the State, with all the influence of the press, to fan this community into a frenzy of hate; with all of that, who for months have been planning and scheming, and contriving, and working to take these two boys' lives.

You may stand them up on the trap-door of the scaffold, and choke them to death, but that act will be infinitely more cold-blooded whether justified or not, than any act that these boys have committed or can commit.
Cold-blooded!

Let the State, who is so anxious to take these boys' lives, set an example in consideration, kindheartedness and tenderness before they call my clients cold-blooded...

...I know your Honor stands between he future and the past. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that some time may stand where these boys stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by reason and judgement and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man."

It's a rate. It's the number of murders divided by the population, times 10,000. What it means is that there are 5 homicides for every 10,000 people in the US, and slightly less than 2 for every 10,000 people in Canada. The population makes no difference because the statistic is designed to be comparable between different population sizes. And what would the relative world power of the two nations have to do with their crime rates?

Quite a bit in one sense, none in another. It depends on whether you want to compare the two cultures as a whole or just go for the more easier, but far less accurate view, of just number comparisons. But as a free hint: Think of how much of an opportunity that much power would present to some people, the pride the people must have at being so powerful, and the ego the people must have after all of these years.

Let's compare Canada to Iraq. Iraq, right now, has far more deaths per 10,000 than Canada does. Going by just a numbers scenario and using , that high number of homicides must be due to their death penalty. Wait, let's take any of a dozen African nations with higher-than-normal death rates, usually due to internal problems. Going by your logic, those must have those higher death rates because of the death penalty.

My point: Sheer number comparisons of homicides is a bad arguement to use against the death penalty. The reason why: It's not accurate and ignores quite a of what is really going on.

My point: Sheer number comparisons of homicides is a bad arguement to use against the death penalty. The reason why: It's not accurate and ignores quite a of what is really going on.

I picked the two because of their similarities and the ease at of getting at the statistics. They have similar cultures, similar ethnic composition, similar urbanization level (both at 77% according to http://www.unhabitat.org) similar access to weapons (less so in Canada but that's never deterred murderers when a knife can do the job) and definitely a lot more similarities than between Canada and Iraq. I'm not saying the death penalty increases the homicide rate. I'm using it to argue against the effectiveness of deterrence, because while Canada has a liberal attitude towards crime as opposed to the much more intolerant attitude in the United States, generally Canada has less crime.

Edit:

You can say it's a cultural thing, and I won't disagree, but I think the culture is manifested in the fact that most of the United States have the death penalty and Canada doesn't. I could then make the point that the death penalty is a manifestation of a culture which breeds violence, or vice versa. Perhaps it does go hand in hand, and then my point comes through again - society makes the difference, not the severity of punishment you can impose.

I picked the two because of their similarities and the ease at of getting at the statistics. They have similar cultures, similar ethnic composition, similar urbanization level (both at 77% according to http://www.unhabitat.org) similar access to weapons (less so in Canada but that's never deterred murderers when a knife can do the job) and definitely a lot more similarities than between Canada and Iraq. I'm not saying the death penalty increases the homicide rate. I'm using it to argue against the effectiveness of deterrence, because while Canada has a liberal attitude towards crime as opposed to the much more intolerant attitude in the United States, generally Canada has less crime.

Main Entry: de·ter·rence
Pronunciation: di-'t&r-&n(t)s, -'ter-; -'t&-r&n(t)s, dE-
Function: noun
: the act or process of deterring : as a : the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment b : the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack

If Canada has any form of jail or punishment for crime, your use of Canada as an example automatically throws it into using deterrence and undermines your own point.

Actually, the U.S. and Canada are similar, but not similar enough. I have found too many possible differences between the two, but that is far off-topic and likely to result in a flame war if used with what has happened recently.

Edit:
You can say it's a cultural thing, and I won't disagree, but I think the culture is manifested in the fact that most of the United States have the death penalty and Canada doesn't. I could then make the point that the death penalty is a manifestation of a culture which breeds violence, or vice versa. Perhaps it does go hand in hand, and then my point comes through again - society makes the difference, not the severity of punishment you can impose.

But the U.S. is not the only nation that uses the death penalty. Take a look at all of the ones that due and tell me if there is a trend towards a culture that breeds violence among all of them.

Since you have answered, Kelssek, I will also recompense.

1. If there is no difference between a murderer who ends the life of another, and a government who executes the murderer, please explain WHY you believe that. IOW, why is there no difference.

Within my nations POV. There is a difference between the two concepts. And it is relation to the answer for question #2. Mostly in relation to Agent vs. Person POV of government. But in relation...

2. Why is "killing wrong"?

Killing is in itself not wrong. Killing can be a valid and legal act. If one person kills another in an act of self-defense, it is not considered "wrong" even in the case of some of the staunchest liberals. The same applies to soldier during wartime, when a soldier is fighting for his country, you do not punish or criminalize him for murder, he is an agent of a state, acting on behest of that state for the defense of that state. As in the case of the Euthanasia legalization, it is valid and legal for a sick person to be killed, if it is in their wish (the same can be argued for the case of suicide). A police officer, also under the principle of self-defense, as an agent of the state and therefore the people, can shoot and kill a fleeing criminal, if he is a threat to the people around him... So, adopting a base principle of killing is wrong, is inherantly errant of true operation. Obviously there are many situations where it is the only RIGHT thing to do. But, this is where it comes between the distinction of the concepts, murder and kill. While the two words are related (kill is a basis for the definition of murder) the two words are not interchangable. When an invading army is assaulting the state, and a citizen or soldier shoots the invader, it is not a murder. When a doctor, operating under legal orders of the patient to euthanize them, it is not murder. When a person commits suicide, it is not murder. When a police officer shoots an assailent threatening the lives of the public, and kills him... it is not murder. If someone jumps out in front of a moving automobile and is killed, it is not murder.

So there are, in many cases, situations where killing, either by a person, or a state, cannot be classified as murder. Hense the distinction I have brought up on many situations. In fact, one of the states duties, is in fact to kill. So in connects into the result, in a free and equal society, why is it the duty of the state to rehabilitate criminals? From my perspective it is not, it is the peoples duty to rehabilitate themselves... Otherwise you are providing prefferential treatment to a specific class or catagory. Indeed, with the present of free and open education systems, and free economies, the people all have the same options and education presented to them in youth and rearing, and therefore, mistakes, criminal behaviour, and the like are the personal accountability of the individual, and not the state. The person is responsible for the rehabilitation of themselves, and no more or less programming for rehabilitation by the state will change the percentage of actual people cured of their crime, than the absense of such programs. It is quite common, regardless of how much rehabilitation is available to criminals with nations, close to 50% of them are back in the same predicament within 5 years of their initial release, and with 10 years, almost 70%. Which is indicative that the PROGRAMS DO NOT WORK. It is impossible to rehabilitate ANYONE, except those who themselves CHOOSE to rehabilitate themselves... The programs, of themselves, are worthless endeavors, and a waste of the people's money.

In fact, within the Republic, we have found crime DECREASES, not from IN PRISON rehabilitative programs, but from increases in the form and function of PRIMARY education, and also our use of military conscription, in addition to dealing with crime in a tough and fair manner (the two concepts are not exclusive of one another).

3. If government has no right to execute a murderer, and should never do it, why should murder even be punished or be a crime at all? What is the reason behind making "murder" a crime?

I have of course addressed this from my POV, murder is a crime as a result of my view of free and responsible people. This extrapolates into all forms and function of crime in Tekania, while people are free to make their own choices, they are held accountable when their choice destroys or damages the freedoms of another. In a truly free society, this is the only form of crime their can be. And the impact of punishment, the penalty applied to the freedom of the person who violated the freedom of another, is in direct proportion to the freedoms by which they violated of the victim. Maybe its just me, but FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY must all be cohabilitable, one without the other results in the destruction of society as a whole. I find in most nations, one or two of the three is destroyed at the behest of the others, in more liberal societies, FREEDOM is presented at the damage RESPONSBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY... in more statist nations ACCOUNTABILITY is presented at the damage of FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY, in the more conservative nations RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY is presented at the damage of FREEDOM. None of them have reached a point of ballance where society is capable of functioning for any extended period of time.

The question that must allways be asked, is not, will this work now? Most certainly not, the success of society as a whole, the success of a nation, is not the impact a policy has over a year, or a decade, or even a handfull of decade... It is, what impact will it have over centuries, over millenia. If we remove the accountability of the people, or their responsibility, or their freedom, what impact will this have on our descendants... It we remove citizen militias, will this benefit the people in the long run? Suppose the government becomes corrupted, and the people no longer have the ability to forcibly replace that government? What impact will rehabilitation have on people in the long run? Without punishment for crime, what would be the people's view of crime without the principle of accountability in place? If a penalty is to be lessened for a specific offense, how much? What is the eventual impact of this? Or, what of parental discipline of children? Should spanking become a crime? What impact will this have amongst the nation in the long run, centuries from now. These problems may not mean much to other nations, but within our POV they are essential and important questions behind ever policy we make. From economics, to politics, to social policy. No single policy should be bassed as a short term solution, but should be sustainable for centuries.

In the end, we find the concept of the removal of capital punishment, as we utilize it in Tekania to be as ridiculous and foolish as you seem to think our ideas for keeping it are. We are certain, that it will eventually lead to the downfall of society, and the destruction of personal freedom, and personal responsibility. Maybe you don't see it that way.... I do. And we would never take part in the destruction of such.

We have done our part in the International Community of nationstates, to insure and protect peace. And we will continue to do so, with or without the United Nations. (As the scope of International Community is much larger than the mere United Nations). And we will never let the "stronger" prey on the weaker... We have lost countless citizens at the defense of the weak.

I would make consession, to an extent, but the Republic will not bend over backwards at the behest of any nation or nations, when we are firmly convinced of our principles.... My offer of consession still stands...

If Canada has any form of jail or punishment for crime, your use of Canada as an example automatically throws it into using deterrence and undermines your own point.

I'm not saying deterrence is completely useless. I'm just pointing out that the death penalty offers no further deterrance and thus no additional benefit. I'm saying you don't have to kill murderers to deter others because jail works just as well.

But the U.S. is not the only nation that uses the death penalty. Take a look at all of the ones that due and tell me if there is a trend towards a culture that breeds violence among all of them.

Point conceded. Clearly, violence occurs no matter what the status of the death penalty is. But as I said, I think the death penalty is symptomatic, rather than causatory, of what a particular society values. Does it lead to violence? Theoretically, I'd say yes, but I honestly don't know.

Hense the distinction I have brought up on many situations. In fact, one of the states duties, is in fact to kill. So in connects into the result, in a free and equal society, why is it the duty of the state to rehabilitate criminals? From my perspective it is not, it is the peoples duty to rehabilitate themselves... Otherwise you are providing prefferential treatment to a specific class or catagory.

But criminals are not a "specific class or category". They are simply people who have fallen afoul of the law. Does that somehow change their status? No, or at least I don't think so. If you offer the same opportunity to everyone who commits a crime, you're not really giving them preferential treatment if every criminal is treated the same way, because anyone who who finds themselves in that situation will get the same chance to reform.

Indeed, with the present of free and open education systems, and free economies, the people all have the same options and education presented to them in youth and rearing, and therefore, mistakes, criminal behaviour, and the like are the personal accountability of the individual, and not the state.

Then you have a society where people walk a tightrope without a safety net. The moment they fall you consider them fallen forever.

It is impossible to rehabilitate ANYONE, except those who themselves CHOOSE to rehabilitate themselves... The programs, of themselves, are worthless endeavors, and a waste of the people's money.

I'd like to see the evidence for the statistics you use because I've been told quite differently. As for it being a waste of the people's money, well, prisons don't actually cost much when you compare it to other budget items, and I don't believe it's a waste of money at all. In any case, is it better to waste money or waste people?

In fact, within the Republic, we have found crime DECREASES, not from IN PRISON rehabilitative programs, but from increases in the form and function of PRIMARY education, and also our use of military conscription, in addition to dealing with crime in a tough and fair manner (the two concepts are not exclusive of one another).

Like I said, RPed stats are useless and besides, the UN is not an RP forum. You need real stats because otherwise we could just pull any number from our ass to make any point we like.

As for the whole "killing = wrong" thing, we must work from the basis that killing is wrong, with a few extenuating exceptions, that being self defence.
While euthanasia can be considered killing, I think of it as suicide, which doesn't really count as killing because the context that we are using the word implies an action by one deliberately causing the death of another.

To elaborate, unlike you, I think war, even for the right reasons, is always wrong, and the actions of a soldier still must be subject to the idea of killing in self-defence. In the case of a war, actions against an enemy are justifiable because it is self-defence. But killing civillians is still wrong because it is not self-defence, no matter what terms you want to put on it (like "collateral damage") to make it easier to stomach the fact that people who posed no threat got in the way of your bombs.

You have to work from the basis that killing is wrong and tag on exceptions from that, and not the other way round as you did.

I'm not saying deterrence is completely useless. I'm just pointing out that the death penalty offers no further deterrance and thus no additional benefit. I'm saying you don't have to kill murderers to deter others because jail works just as well.

You said deterrence isn't effective. That was what lead me to post the dictionary quote. You're right in that regard. I just execute them because, for me, it is cheaper.

Point conceded. Clearly, violence occurs no matter what the status of the death penalty is. But as I said, I think the death penalty is symptomatic, rather than causatory, of what a particular society values. Does it lead to violence? Theoretically, I'd say yes, but I honestly don't know.

Even I admit it is barbaric. I called it that in one of my posts. And some of the methods of execution are extremely violent as well. In some areas it leads to violence, while in others it may prevent it. No one is entirely sure how it works like that.

So many subjective terms....."murder", "wrong", "truth".

The problem here is how we are thinking. Look at the issue of killing/murder from and objective point of view.

Using concrete terms:
Killing without authorization of the government is known as murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, killing without the authorization of the government is illegal.
Governmental executions are not murder, as they are the killing of an individual as authorized by the government.

In war, we do not murder. We kill because our government has authorized us to do so under certain conditions. We do not murder an governmental enemy. We kill them. The same would go for any enemy of the state.

A criminal can be declared "An Enemy of the State"

It is each national government's job to decide whether or not they can actually authorize the killing of humans.

As each national government is made of individuals with unique psychological dispositions, it could be cruel and unusual punishment to force them to kill humans. On the other hand, it would also subvert some cultures to not allow them to kill a criminal, due to the cultural context of the crime and it's traditional consequence determined by the culture.

No one has really addressed this point yet. As DNA testing and other forms of forensic investigation have evolved, several old murder trials have been re-opened, with the result coming out to be that the person was wrongfully convicted.

Like it or not, people do get wrongfully convicted, the judicial system is not perfect or flawless. Who here wants to take the risk of executing a person which might possibly have been wrongfully convicted? Are you will to risk that you might kill an innocent person? Does a government have a right to take this risk?

Tekania you argue that only your system allows complete accountability. How can the government attempt to be accoutable to the family of someone who lost their loved one because of a wrongful conviction?

Tekania, how can it not be a Governments duty to rehabilitate a criminal, when in fact, it is a Governments policies that foster the situation where delinquency can exist?

No one has really addressed this point yet. As DNA testing and other forms of forensic investigation have evolved, several old murder trials have been re-opened, with the result coming out to be that the person was wrongfully convicted.

Like it or not, people do get wrongfully convicted, the judicial system is not perfect or flawless. Who here wants to take the risk of executing a person which might possibly have been wrongfully convicted? Are you will to risk that you might kill an innocent person? Does a government have a right to take this risk?

Tekania you argue that only your system allows complete accountability. How can the government attempt to be accoutable to the family of someone who lost their loved one because of a wrongful conviction?

Of course, DNA testing is needed as part of the physical evidentiary requirements. So we are not dealing with cases where DNA testing becomes available.

Of course, from the bulk of our evidentiary requirements, the chance of error in the manner becomes infantesimal... Maybe one error out of every 5,000,000 or so executions, given the fact that only about 100 or so people a year even meet the evidentiary requirements of Capital Murder, and out of that, only 30 or so are convicted of it, and even then only between 15 to 20 make it through appeals... with an execution rate such as that, we would suffer one error every 250 to 300 thousand years. Most cases of murder are tried or reduced to non-Capital (second degree) murder, either from start, or due to lack of evidence.... which only carries life imprisonment.

As for Kelssek, I am not sure who told you this forum was non RP... It most certainly is. And may I quote from the official FAQ...


The second common mistake is to put forth a proposal which is not entirely within the NationStates world. UN proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features. Proposals should also not address events, things, or people in the "Real World".

Given that, it is a logical extrapolation that it applies to DEBATE on such proposals as well.

Domnonia....

It is not the responsibility, because government does not foster policy, at least not this government. Policy is formed from our foundational documents, and acted by the people towards the government... The problem with any argument with you is in definition of governmental views, this nation holds to the view of limited government, not limitless government, the only thing our government does is handle common defense, law and order, and education... Everything else is in the power and pervue of the individuals alone. The principle of freedom is not merely in letting people choose, but in the pervue of choice, they always have the ability to make the wrong decisions... So legality is defined by the scope and intention of the decision made, and not merely the act performed, as it acts towards another. Hense why involuntary manslaughter exists at a much lower tier of law than Capital Murder. The idea of government "fostering policy" which can lead to things only exists in despotic limitless government which can entertain the will of any simple majority by its own pervue... Republics consider such ideas as this as disgusting, to say the least.

As for Kelssek, I am not sure who told you this forum was non RP... It most certainly is. And may I quote from the official FAQ...


Given that, it is a logical extrapolation that it applies to DEBATE on such proposals as well.


No, it doesn't. If the UN was supposed to be RP it would have a "[In-character]" tag on it. Observe.

NationStates
Where nations come together and discuss matters of varying degrees of importance. [In-character]

International Incidents
A staging-point for declarations of war, international trade, and other major diplomatic events. [In-character; role-playing etiquette enforced]

Gameplay
Talk about nation management, regional politics, and why llamas are a cooler national animal than squirrels.

The United Nations
Where UN members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

See what I mean?

In any case, like I said, if you can just pull any stat "from my country" you like, all discussion becomes futile because it degenerates into godmodding - "My country has no crime because of the death penalty!" "Oh yeah? My country doesn't have the death penalty and we have never had any crime ever!", etc.

Let me also point out that threads in here asking for UN intervention in RPs have been deleted.

The idea of government "fostering policy" which can lead to things only exists in despotic limitless government which can entertain the will of any simple majority by its own pervue... Republics consider such ideas as this as disgusting, to say the least.

Another thing, I've just let it slide up to now, but I think we'll all be happier if you can all the immature, condescending arrogance. We've all just about had it with you calling us despotic/corrupt/undemocratic/irresponsible/dishonest/unjust, especially when my civil rights rating is the same as yours, as is Domnonia's and Arturistania's. Quit posturing and bandying about the word "republic" as if you have the licence to define it and then insulting anyone who argues against you at every opportunity.

No, it doesn't. If the UN was supposed to be RP it would have a "[In-character]" tag on it.
There is no official ruling on the subject, but generally accepting practice says otherwise. Roleplay is neither enforced nor excluded in the UN. If nations want to respond in-character or players prefer to respond OOC, that's fine.

Once you start quoting real-world statistics and facts (almost unavoidable in contentious arguments like this one), the concept that you're responding IC becomes less tenable. It's generally considered polite to reply to topics in the same way as most other posters, but no one enforces this.

No one has really addressed this point yet. As DNA testing and other forms of forensic investigation have evolved, several old murder trials have been re-opened, with the result coming out to be that the person was wrongfully convicted.

Not a problem. My nation uses DNA, fingerprints, retinal scans, dental records, and every type of device for forensic examinations possible, including a few not invented on Earth yet. It would take one hell of a coincidence or a very good conspiracy involving at least half a police department to have you found guilty of a crime you did not commit.

Like it or not, people do get wrongfully convicted, the judicial system is not perfect or flawless. Who here wants to take the risk of executing a person which might possibly have been wrongfully convicted? Are you will to risk that you might kill an innocent person? Does a government have a right to take this risk?

I'm willing to take the risk. So are quite a few other nations. I take the risk to help my society, and so far I have no evidence that my justice system has executed an innocent person.

Tekania you argue that only your system allows complete accountability. How can the government attempt to be accoutable to the family of someone who lost their loved one because of a wrongful conviction?

That's easy, as I do have a law for that. A complete investigation is launched and the person who failed in their job is given the financial responsibility of that family. What they can't provide I do. The resulting attempts at fraud don't carry punishments with them because they help keep my forensic forces in practice. I think the record for one person being reported dead is 172 times in one year, but someone may decide to beat that.

I'm willing to take the risk. So are quite a few other nations. I take the risk to help my society, and so far I have no evidence that my justice system has executed an innocent person.

But if you didn't utilize the death penalty and instead gave them life in jail, there is a 100% guarantee you will never execute someone who is wrongfully convicted. It is a riskfree way to ensure that an innocent life isn't lost because of an overzealous government willing to execute them if convicted.

But if you didn't utilize the death penalty and instead gave them life in jail, there is a 100% guarantee you will never execute someone who is wrongfully convicted. It is a riskfree way to ensure that an innocent life isn't lost because of an overzealous government willing to execute them if convicted.

Which is ignoring prisoners shot while trying to escape, prisoners killed by other prisoners, prisoners killed by accident, prisoners killed by disease, prisoners killed by medical legligence, and a hundrd other ways people die in prison. It is also ignoring the skyrocketing costs of me building prisons and transporting these people to the prison worlds. Plus, every prison is several police officers off the street and not preventing crime. So, I'll lose the chance of accidentally killing people at the cost of increasing crime and increasing burdens on the taxpayers, which will probably in turn lead to even more crime. And let's not forget the land issue, as I don't exactly have many places for all of the prisons your utopia requires.

In effect, getting rid of the death penalty is an unrealistic and expensive solution to a problem that has yet to even exist in my nation.

Which is ignoring prisoners shot while trying to escape, prisoners killed by other prisoners, prisoners killed by accident, prisoners killed by disease, prisoners killed by medical legligence, and a hundrd other ways people die in prison.

Here you go again with the exaggerations, making it sound like your entire prison population is killed off by accident by the end of every month. Just because there's a whole bunch of ways you can die in prison doesn't mean you WILL die in prison. Hell, going by that prison's safer, cause auto accidents are a major cause of death and prison rules that out.

In any case, prisoners dying on accident is a very different matter than taking them out to a yard and shooting them.

It is also ignoring the skyrocketing costs of me building prisons and transporting these people to the prison worlds. Plus, every prison is several police officers off the street and not preventing crime.

Prison guards are not police officers. Depending on the structure, they are a part of the police force, yes, but normally police officers who actually fight crime get different training than those who work in the prisons service, because they serve different functions and do different, though similar, jobs.It's like the difference between a neurosurgeon and a psychologist.

So, I'll lose the chance of accidentally killing people at the cost of increasing crime and increasing burdens on the taxpayers, which will probably in turn lead to even more crime. And let's not forget the land issue, as I don't exactly have many places for all of the prisons your utopia requires.

The amount of money spent on prisons pales into insignificance when compared to other budget items, like the military. And in many cases the legal challenges and appeals that the person sentenced to death invariably invokes end up costing the taxpayer much more than if you just shut them in prison for the rest of their life.

And this idea of a country without the death penalty isn't a "utopia", it's something almost all of the developed world does.

Why do I get the ones who miss the obvious?

Here you go again with the exaggerations, making it sound like your entire prison population is killed off by accident by the end of every month. Just because there's a whole bunch of ways you can die in prison doesn't mean you WILL die in prison. Hell, going by that prison's safer, cause auto accidents are a major cause of death and prison rules that out.

In any case, prisoners dying on accident is a very different matter than taking them out to a yard and shooting them.

I was responding to a certain sentence of that post, which I will quote.

It is a riskfree way to ensure that an innocent life isn't lost because of an overzealous government willing to execute them if convicted.

If you stop and look at the ways in which people can die in jail, you can see that is not true. It is not risk-free.

Also, I never stated a rate of death, just options of it. I want you to provide evidence of your baseless accusation of me exaggerating the death rate of my prisons. I want an exact quote of where I stated a death rate.

Prison guards are not police officers. Depending on the structure, they are a part of the police force, yes, but normally police officers who actually fight crime get different training than those who work in the prisons service, because they serve different functions and do different, though similar, jobs.It's like the difference between a neurosurgeon and a psychologist.

They are paid from the same budget. Every security guard is one less policeman salary. And that's ignoring the cost of the actual prisons and the weapons to keep them defended. Which is stuff so obvious I shouldn't even have to state it.

The amount of money spent on prisons pales into insignificance when compared to other budget items, like the military. And in many cases the legal challenges and appeals that the person sentenced to death invariably invokes end up costing the taxpayer much more than if you just shut them in prison for the rest of their life.

I have a different legal system than the U.S. Stopping and taking a look at my posts of how I deal with crime should have revealed that. One appeal, must have a very good reason and evidence to support it. Once they are convicted, the burden of proof moves off the police and onto them. If the appeal succeeds, they go free. If it fails, they die. Better have a good arguement.

And this idea of a country without the death penalty isn't a "utopia", it's something almost all of the developed world does.

I was being an ass. But, it is something I cannot afford. I have neither the land space to build enough prisons on my homeworld, the development level on my colony worlds to hold the needed prisons, or the internal security against terrorist groups to make it worthwhile to even attempt. The internal security reason and colony world reason will change, but the first requires a war and the second won't go away for decades. Finally, my people have a bad habit of killing people when I can't or won't, which is due to years of being under terrorist attacks and my finally giving in to them and issuing assault rifles to prevent them from burning someone alive again (check my posting history).

Edit: Why am I using myself in this argument? Simple. It allows me to demonstrate that not all nations fit into the ideal of being a carbon-copy of a real nation that seem so popular today. It also shows that not all nations can afford the results this would have and for some this is not only impractical but quite possibly damaging to their nation. You have to consider that not everyone has U.S.-sized amounts of land to play with.

i have just one question. those of you who are for the Death Penalty are you also for euthenasia, it is wrong to say that the state/government have the right to take lifes, but people who have no chance in living, only dieing a long painful death have no right in taking their own lifes

I am for it. I allow it in my nation. Just because I'm a dictator doesn't mean I'm not humane (human, however, has been disproven, but that's another story).

i have just one question. those of you who are for the Death Penalty are you also for euthenasia, it is wrong to say that the state/government have the right to take lifes, but people who have no chance in living, only dieing a long painful death have no right in taking their own lifes

Agreed...

I am pro CP

I support Euthanasia

The allowance of "recreational drugs"

I'm pro freedom.

For personal involvement in government.

Pro defense and deterance.

Pro free-market economy.

I'm for letting prostitution to continue legally.

---

IOW, I'm neither "right" nor "left" on all issues...
In fact, IMHO those on the right and left, are merely two sides of the same worn out old nasty coin.

Also, I never stated a rate of death, just options of it. I want you to provide evidence of your baseless accusation of me exaggerating the death rate of my prisons. I want an exact quote of where I stated a death rate.

You were replying to someone who said that with life imprisonment instead, you would not run the risk of killing a innocent person. Your implied meaning is that this concern is moot because even if they weren't executed they'd probably suffer an accidental death in prison.

You have to consider that not everyone has U.S.-sized amounts of land to play with.

Alright on the matter of your security situation. But the thing is you don't need the 4th-largest landmass in the world; Mauritius doesn't have the death penalty and that's a country that some people think won't exist in a few decades thanks to rising sea levels. San Marino has 61 square kilometers of land and no death penalty, or maybe they send prisoners to Italy, but anyway, what I mean is, prison space can't really be that big a problem. It's not like you have 1,000 murder convictions every year. Or maybe you're going to tell me that you do.

Official Dhulus Empire response to the ongoing discussion of the death penalty.

Emissary Paula Fitzgerald.
Division of Human rights and security
Sandis Government block
Block 32 Suite 1204
Herat 155568-8978

Dear colleagues and representatives of the UN and those of the Non members who look to the UN for guidance as a bar of success and stability. Though your concern for the abuse of the death penalty for tried criminals of egregious effects is understandable, our nation under the guidance of the Empress Laur Kaeil, wish to make our view and resolution open to all to review.

If the UN brings for this resolution to be placed in queue to vote upon, the Empire of Dhulus will respond at all times with a resounding "No" regardless of the argument. The reason for our staunch decision is based on the need to protect the life and health of fellow inmates that have not deserved the threat of dangerous roommate in their cell nor that of the people who may feel the repercussions of prisoners who escape or find parole before they are returned to the status of safe citizens. Our death penalty sentence will be mandated fr the following convicted crimes in addition to those who's acts so egregiously offend the vow of sanctity of life that they are to be included in the additional sentence of Death.

Pedophilia: Any person(s) involved in the sexual violation and/or abuse of our youth (determined as under the age of 18) will be terminated.

Repeat offense: Any person(s) that are involved in the purposeful act of terminating the life (Non self defense) of more then one person on more then one occasion forfeits all claim on life and will be terminated.

Traitor: Any person that acts overtly hostile towards the government and attempts to cause harm to the people of this nation by supporting or aiding another nation that is currently declared as a combatant, or undermines the government with the end result of creating a situation where a foreign nation will benefit and gain advantage with the harm caused by the person(s) will be deemed a enemy of the government, and since such a person is not a representative of another nation, will be terminated.

If the UN feels the need to enact regulation as to undermine the sovereignty of the Empire of Dhulus, we will be forced to resign from the body and resume our original practices. Which will reintroduce the Seven days of Presence in addition to the termination of the convicted.

Regards and salutations,

(Seven days of Presence: The is a 7 day event of preparation of the convicted with torture, concluded on the last day with a 10 hour festival, where the convicted's termination will be prefaced with games, rides, and entertainment by our biggest celebrities. The last act of the finale will be in front of a crowd filled stadium where the convicted chooses his form of death by a spin of a large wheel with various methods explained in colorful cartoonish pictures.)

You were replying to someone who said that with life imprisonment instead, you would not run the risk of killing a innocent person. Your implied meaning is that this concern is moot because even if they weren't executed they'd probably suffer an accidental death in prison.

Uh huh. You obviously need to go back and read through my posting history. It might help save you some trouble looking for things in my posts.

If I had meant to imply it, you would have seen more indications of it than what you mostly added. My exact quote started with the word "Ignoring" and listed several ways in which a person can die in jail, which is no more implicative of me hinting that it doesn't matter than a person listing weapons someone else forgot to include on a list is implicative of them owning the weapons and wanting to shoot up a shopping mall.

Alright on the matter of your security situation. But the thing is you don't need the 4th-largest landmass in the world; Mauritius doesn't have the death penalty and that's a country that some people think won't exist in a few decades thanks to rising sea levels. San Marino has 61 square kilometers of land and no death penalty, or maybe they send prisoners to Italy, but anyway, what I mean is, prison space can't really be that big a problem. It's not like you have 1,000 murder convictions every year. Or maybe you're going to tell me that you do.

200 murder convictions, 900 terrorism convictions carrying sentences of life in jail or outright executions (remember: neighboring nations that want me gone), and a few others like that. Maybe 200 of people native to my nation go to prison. Deporting those who are not natives is pointless because they end up back in my nation, doing the same exact thing, a few months later.In fact, I have a war today to fight over that.

And the inhabitable areas of my nation amount to the size of Rhode Island. The rest isn't exactly habitable, but the total really doesn't have enough room to support the necessary prisons.

San Marino is much, much smaller than Rho... Alright, DemonLord, I give up. We'll send the souls of two unborn children by UPS.

The reason for our staunch decision is based on the need to protect the life and health of fellow inmates that have not deserved the threat of dangerous roommate in their cell nor that of the people who may feel the repercussions of prisoners who escape or find parole before they are returned to the status of safe citizens.

First, murderers are no more dangerous than other violent criminals, and those who are dangerous are often put into solitary confinement. Second, normally murderers are incarcerated seperately from other criminals in different security conditions, more often in different prison facilities altogether. So someone in jail for perjury is not going to have a serial killer as their cellmate.

As for your concern about escapes, well if a serious criminal does escape, it would be pretty hard to imagine them just walking around in a populated area while the police force is searching for them and their faces are on TV accompanied by newscasters continuously repeating "He is dangerous, call the police if you see him." It's also incorrect to assume that they break out to troll for victims to satisfy some desire to kill - those are almost exclusively mental cases.

Sure, you have people who escape and repeat their crimes, but if that does happen, it's not because you should've executed him, it's because you need to tighten up prison security.

And I don't even need to get into parole, because a prisoner is only paroled when a tribunal decides he doesn't pose a threat and is rehabilitated.

If you really want to torture people, go ahead and leave. Why'd you join the UN for? Did you really think using that as a threat will work? That's just childish.

If you really want to torture people, go ahead and leave. Why'd you join the UN for? Did you really think using that as a threat will work? That's just childish.

It was RP'd as the nation that I thought up, and not intended to do anything beyond explain a little about the the country. This is a game and I intend to have fun and enjoy myself as I try to think up interesting things. If you can't see it as that, that is your choice.

I thought the bit of the torturing was funny as a characature of bad movie and would make a more interesting post. You don't like it? Your opinion, I had fun writing it.

I am playing this as a new nation that still has ties to its past and its traditions. I am not playing me. If you want to play yourself in the nation you run... That your decision.

i dont think it should be banned

it should be used very little though. it really depends on the severity of the crime. if it is possible to rehabilitate the person, then that should be done.

life in prison seems like torture though.

San Marino is much, much smaller than Rho... Alright, DemonLord, I give up. We'll send the souls of two unborn children by UPS.

Actually, if you had decided to continue with that point, you probably would have forced me back and undermined at least half of my arguement. I would rather be proven wrong after a hard-fought arguement than win with false info.

It was RP'd as the nation that I thought up, and not intended to do anything beyond explain a little about the the country. This is a game and I intend to have fun and enjoy myself as I try to think up interesting things. If you can't see it as that, that is your choice.


Well, you brought it up, and that's not the point; if your nation really wanted to retain its practices, why join the UN which outlaws them?

Actually, if you had decided to continue with that point, you probably would have forced me back and undermined at least half of my arguement. I would rather be proven wrong after a hard-fought arguement than win with false info.

Which is why I quit, because I was afraid of it degenerating into me saying things while you just come up with something unique to your nation's situation to contradict it.

Which is why I quit, because I was afraid of it degenerating into me saying things while you just come up with something unique to your nation's situation to contradict it.

Pretty much all I have said so far has been established elsewhere in some form. In fact, I've run out of established items that deal with this, and thus must default to a different, in this case US-like, model.

As there are multiple valid thoughts on this, why not just leave it alone, thereby leaving it up to the individual Nations?

*wow - simple and effective*

...except that you could say the same for almost every UN resolution that has ever been passed.

Today we look back with disgust on the times when common theives were hanged publicly and left to rot as a warning to others. We look back on widespread torture in the same way. At some point in the future, however, the death penalty will be seen as an anachronistic barbarism. Further on in the future, maybe even imprisonment may be seen as barbaric and community service will be the punishment.

No, I'm not calling anyone barbaric, any more than people in the medevial times who preferred to kill the criminals before feeding them to wild dogs could have called those who wanted them fed to the dogs alive barbaric. All I'm saying is, for better or worse, we're not there yet.

Well, you brought it up, and that's not the point; if your nation really wanted to retain its practices, why join the UN which outlaws them?
I see, so you don't want any country to join the UN that would willingly give up some of its practices, under the ospice that they would gain greater benifit from being part of the group?

If you wish to argue this further please create a thread, and either argue away IC or OOC. I would prefer IC but I will grant you your preference. Feel free to direct me to the thread so I know if you have done this or not. But this no longer has anything to do with the debate on the death penalty.

Please do not respond further on this already cluttered board in specific regards to me, or my country's comment.

I see, so you don't want any country to join the UN that would willingly give up some of its practices, under the ospice that they would gain greater benifit from being part of the group?

Well, that's the point I was trying to make, clearly you have decided that the benefits outweigh the cultural disadvantage, if you see it that way, of giving up your old practices. You have made that decision, so threatening to reverse it, and then on top of that, re-institute your old practices because the UN does something you don't like is just pointless. That is all.

The justice system should be an instrument of retribution, not rehabilitation.

The death penalty will remain in Josenia, and if the U.N. bans it we will simply disregard the resolution, or walk out.

The justice system should be an instrument of retribution, not rehabilitation.

That's already been discussed in this thread, but could you care to explain why you think that way? Many of us, myself included, hold the exact opposite view.

if the U.N. bans it we will simply disregard the resolution, or walk out.

If it passes you can't disregard it, which leaves walking out. Though happily for you, the last time it reached the floor it was defeated.

Well, that's the point I was trying to make, clearly you have decided that the benefits outweigh the cultural disadvantage, if you see it that way, of giving up your old practices. You have made that decision, so threatening to reverse it, and then on top of that, re-institute your old practices because the UN does something you don't like is just pointless. That is all.

Yes, possibly I was in too lousy a mood to write without a bit of humor (As obviously would have been more suitable), but the point really wasn't about my opinion, but that people are effected by the resolutions. And this proposition really doesn't take into account that segments of certain cultures would find the restrictions as a call to war. I can easily see a coutry from the middle east writing a letter to the UN that would read a bit more harsh then that.

To simply pass something becuase you feel that it is in the best interest of society, doesn't mean that you are doing the right thing. I don't fault your logic one bit. I just feel that my country might get a bit offended that every resolution sees aimed at taking away the sovereinty of their traditions and replacing it with the views of a segment of the population that doesn't exist within their borders.

Whether I agree or not is not a concern, nor a factor, but I look at my country as a nation similar to, say, Pakistan or India, and if you were to place these restrictions on their country they would not only walk but feel like the west is a bunch of insane loons who make nice things.

There are many ways to skin a cat, and although it seems my country is making more money then the US (No idea why, but it's just a game), I still wish to treat Dhulus as a third world nation when it comes to taking care of IC matters.

Don't look too deep, the gene pool over here is pretty shallow.

As for Josenia comment about retribution; it is all a matter of what your culture is based on. I can easily see my country respond the same way.

In 1987, French 16-year-old Patrick Dils was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was accused of the murder of two young boys. Under the pressure, he admitted the murder, but then repeated that he was innocent some time later. But it was too late: though lacking proof, the french judiciary system condemned young Patrick to spend the rest of his life in prison.
15 years later, after new facts concerning the murder had been found out, and after many demands for a new trial, French justice finally recognised its mistake, and, at 31 years old, Patrick Dils was finally released. 15 years of his life were wasted due to a mere error.

Many similar mistakes happen all over the world. Now imagine if he had been sentenced to death. An innocent life taken away because of a mistake?
That is one of the many reasons why I am against death penalty. The death of the murderer will not make the victim's family feel better. It will of course prevent him from commiting another crime, just like prison for life would.
And anyway, it's just inhuman... Responding to a crime by another crime is just not the answer.

In 1987, French 16-year-old Patrick Dils was...

Amayzing. I find it hard to beleive that the French would send a minor to prison for life for such a typical murder (don't read into that, I don't know the case, nor why he received the life in prison sentence, but in the US he would probably get out in 30 years at worst). I also find it quite imposible that any country outside of a thrid world nation would exectute minors. But that is not your point, I think you are refereing to extreme sentences for prisoners that have not warranted it, or are convicted wrongly.

Speaking for my country: I do not wish to be denied the ability to execute a "Jeffrey Dommer" type person, or an adult who feels that raping a 10 year old is ok. If you feel that they still deserve life, I will not stop you, but I think a country is well within its right to execute such a criminal.

There are many more situations that would well justify the termination of a criminals life, but I don't think a list is necessary since I have (hopefully) made my general point.

Amayzing. I find it hard to beleive that the French would send a minor to prison for life for such a typical murder (don't read into that, I don't know the case, nor why he received the life in prison sentence, but in the US he would probably get out in 30 years at worst). I also find it quite imposible that any country outside of a thrid world nation would exectute minors. But that is not your point, I think you are refereing to extreme sentences for prisoners that have not warranted it, or are convicted wrongly.

Speaking for my country: I do not wish to be denied the ability to execute a "Jeffrey Dommer" type person, or an adult who feels that raping a 10 year old is ok. If you feel that they still deserve life, I will not stop you, but I think a country is well within its right to execute such a criminal.

There are many more situations that would well justify the termination of a criminals life, but I don't think a list is necessary since I have (hopefully) made my general point.


(OOC)
I believe that the USA executes people who were children when they committed the offence. Which is something I find deplorable as a human being. The only reason I mention this is that sending a 16 year old to jail for life doesn't seem so bad when you put it in perspective!
(/OOC)

Speaking for my country: I do not wish to be denied the ability to execute a "Jeffrey Dommer" type person, or an adult who feels that raping a 10 year old is ok. If you feel that they still deserve life, I will not stop you, but I think a country is well within its right to execute such a criminal.


And I believe that someone who feels that raping a 10 year old is okay needs help - serious help, not execution. Same with serial killers.


There are many more situations that would well justify the termination of a criminals life, but I don't think a list is necessary since I have (hopefully) made my general point.

It still leaves the problem of people being wrongly convicted. If Mr Smith was executed, then it was found he was innocent, would you agree that the person who executed him (not the person who sentenced him, but the person who pulled the switch, dropped the pellet or opened the trapdoor) should be put to death for the murder of an innocent person? Or does the person who committed the execution just get to say "sorry" and go on with their life?

(OOC)I believe that the USA executes people who were children when they committed the offence. (/OOC)

OOC: (I should use this tag. :) ) Huh, never heard of such a thing ever happening. You will have to name a case because all criminals are tried as minors until they reach 18 in the US. Have been for a long time.

Wow. I've not paid attention to this thread, but I'm impressed by the usefulness on the poll. There are enough nations that have replied that I think we can see that the UN (and non UN members) are split on this issue.

FYI:Gigatron (now deleted IIRC) attempted a UN Death Penalty Ban back in late June (right when the old forums were dropped).

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/HumanRights.pdf

Goto page 25 (I need to fix the adobe link and will tonight).

What I find interesting is that both this poll and the vote on that resolution kinda both show that the political opinions of NS UN members hasn't changed that much since June, 2004.

Anyway, thanks for starting and replying in this thread.

Certain people give up their rights to life when they commit crimes. There ar too few resources available to our nation of Dhulus to waste money and time on what is so obviously inexcusable as cannibalism, mass murder, pedophilia, and treason, to name a few. That it is well fair and just to practice such means as execute the lives of those found guilty without a doubt. The understanding that death sentences are a trial in and of themselves must be understood. You are perhaps under the assumption that the Empire of Dhulus has great prisons where the criminals are kept stashed away, but that is a misunderstanding. The great majority of able bodied prisoners are put to manual labor to develop the country's infrastructure, clean up the parks and roadsides, and perform industrial work where they can find skills to rehabilitate themselves once they are finished with their sentences.

The Dhulus Empire spends over 13 billion Ein each year to protect and maintain civility in the streets of our kingdom of only 14,000,000 people. At 22% of the Government budget, there is no dispute that Dhulus views law and crime as the most important issue to the peoples of our country. And every effort in prosecution is used to keep the innocent from being caught up in process of sentencing.

But there are situations which are so obviously inhumane, and inspired by the devil, that execution is the best method of sentencing. It is understood that some nations that do not understand our culture, and see this as barbaric, but that is probably because you have great reverence for life and great faith in human nature to overlook all evils to make all attempts at saving everyone.

The Empire of Dhulus views rehabilitation as a luxury. There are many instances in all our pasts where a person has turned to the abyss of madness and forfeited their rights as humans. We intend to reserve the right to determine these instances, and execute those who are no longer human beings.

General speech to the assembly.

(OOC: The country's view is simply: It all depends on how the sentence is arrived at. To take it away because some are reckless is punishing those who are responsible. The analogy an be made to many similar situations like voting, prescription drugs, firearms... Just because a few can nt handle the responsibility does not mean that an all or nothing conclusion is the only recourse.)

OOC: (I should use this tag. :) ) Huh, never heard of such a thing ever happening. You will have to name a case because all criminals are tried as minors until they reach 18 in the US. Have been for a long time.

(OOC) We are really getting off topic, but I just thought I would clarify my position. I did not mean to imply that the USA executes children. Only that - from what I have heard (and I will try to find some supporting evidence) is that a person who commits a crime as a child can be held until they are an adult, then executed.
(/OOC)

Hate it.

I believe that a better punishment for criminals is prison. Think about it. What would you rather have? Life in prison, and dieing from extreme mental boredom, or to be killed by a firing squad?

(OOC: Off topic? I am not so certain. I have read many posts to indicate that people think that the justification for execution is based on either their own laws, or that of say, the US (Only picking on the US specifically since it is so pervasive in the posts). If the standards were different for this form of sentencing, many would probably drop their reluctance to allow others to act in this way. Just my .02 Ein.

These opinions are brought to you by the letter 'A', it's more then just first in line. And the number '19', Yeah it's a lot, but we all want a lot, don't we?)

My "justification" is simple.

Dead people don't commit more crimes (except in Chicago, where they commit voter fraud).

Bullets are cheap. So is rope.

People in prison don't commit crimes either. And don't come back at me with "What if they escape?", because I have dealt with that.

Undoubtedly, actually executing people is a simple matter. But that doesn't mean the death penalty itself is simple. It's literally a thorny morass of the philosophy of the justice system, personal values, societal consequences, human rights... I could go on.

I realise that I can't argue this at all because I seem to be working on completely different value systems than those who support the death penalty. Argument on both sides is thus futile because neither seems to be willing to accept the other's underlying beliefs.

I am against the death penalty in all circumstances. For instance, I will agree that Hitler deserved death. I will agree that what he did during World War 2 was inexcusable. It's human nature to see vengeance as justice. But that doesn't mean, given a choice, that it would be right to kill or execute him. Not in my view, at least. Feel free to launch vitriol at me.

It's my profound hope that years from now, my grandkids will be horrified at what you said, in the same way we are horrified by the Spanish Inquisition.

Agreed, this is ultimately a value judgment.

However, AP knows from: living near a correctional facility, knowing correctional officers, reading international newspapers, watching international televised news and documentaries, and from reports on correctional facilities throughout the world that...

People in prison don't commit crimes either.

is a statement made either out of ignorance, or a reluctance to re-evaluate the premises leading to a value judgment.

It is perfectly fine to disagree out of differing values, but to fabricate circumstances in light of one's value system is not acceptable. And will also be looked down upon disgracefully by future generations.

People in prison don't commit crimes either.

Yeah, the whole prison rape... prison blackmarket... prison murder... totally hype, created by the media to sell sneakers.

:rolleyes:

And do you expect me to keep them in prison forever? THAT is inhumane.

is a statement made either out of ignorance, or a reluctance to re-evaluate the premises leading to a value judgment.


Sure, you have people stabbing other inmates with sharpened plastic forks and the like, but I was addressing the point that murderers should be killed because they might repeat their crimes outside of prison. A person in prison can't exactly commit an armed robbery.

May I also add that prison escapes are similar to plane crashes in that they make news because they are so unusual, but at the same time it happens often enough that people tend to get the wrong idea.

Yes, but, a murderer in Prison can still commit murder-whether they be other prisoners or GUARDS.

If a person has a natural propensity to kill, AP will not subject guards to unnecessarily risk their life attending to such a human. To do so goes beyond the scope of employment. They understand there is a risk of harm, not a certainty of death when handling an inmate.

The alternative is solitary confinement for life. Which still exposes GUARDS to danger when transporting the convict between yard and cell. Also, it is without academic doubt a cruel and unusual punishment.

Granted it may be felt that AP devaluates life by taking it. But it will not equally weight the life of one whose sole pleasure in life is to take that of others with the life of those who already place their lives, to a certian degree, in harms way by working at correctional facilities. To do so is recklessly endangering the lives of innocent government employees.

Sure, you have people stabbing other inmates with sharpened plastic forks and the like, but I was addressing the point that murderers should be killed because they might repeat their crimes outside of prison. A person in prison can't exactly commit an armed robbery.

May I also add that prison escapes are similar to plane crashes in that they make news because they are so unusual, but at the same time it happens often enough that people tend to get the wrong idea.

Bluntly, why keep them alive? And don't go to the cost arguement, bullets are less then fifty cents each, my nation seizes everything they own, and we dump them for shark food.

If a person has a natural propensity to kill, AP will not subject guards to unnecessarily risk their life attending to such a human.

One, wouldn't such a person be in a prison for the insane?

Two, if he is a dangerous prisoner, how is he going to get weapons to kill people with? Conceiveably you'd stop him from getting access to items which could be used as weapons. Couldn't you also arm guards with tranquiliser guns when dealing with such a prisoner? Some prisons do that. Anyway, what happens in prison comes down to your security measures.

Also, cost analysis do not account for fear associated with the criminals existence. I.E. Decreased tourism due to a terrorist, or costs of medical prescriptions, incorporate those factors and the cost benefit could could shift greatly.

One, wouldn't such a person be in a prison for the insane?

Two, if he is a dangerous prisoner, how is he going to get weapons to kill people with? Conceiveably you'd stop him from getting access to items which could be used as weapons. Couldn't you also arm guards with tranquiliser guns when dealing with such a prisoner? Some prisons do that. Anyway, what happens in prison comes down to your security measures.

All this is expensive - to what end?

Beheading is cheap. Rope is cheap. Bullets are cheap.

Prisons are expensive and expose people to violence and inhumane conditions.

Are you ever going to let them out of prison? No.
Isn't sealing them in a box inhumane?

So kill them, let them get on with their next life, and everyone is happy.

Bluntly, why keep them alive? And don't go to the cost arguement, bullets are less then fifty cents each, my nation seizes everything they own, and we dump them for shark food.

We keep them alive because we believe it's wrong to kill them. I could tell you why, but I'd just be rehashing everything. We're perfectly willing to stump up the insignificant amount, compared to an average national budget, for the prisoner's incarceration.

In any case, cost isn't the issue. If you abolish the death penalty because it costs more you're completely missing the point.

One, wouldn't such a person be in a prison for the insane?

Two, if he is a dangerous prisoner, how is he going to get weapons to kill people with? Conceiveably you'd stop him from getting access to items which could be used as weapons. Couldn't you also arm guards with tranquiliser guns when dealing with such a prisoner? Some prisons do that. Anyway, what happens in prison comes down to your security measures.

There is no treatment for such a person. Anyway, then you are endangering the lives of those individuals.



With respect to two:

Sure, you have people stabbing other inmates with sharpened plastic forks and the like, This is called doublethink.

So long as they have hands or the ability to move they are dangerous. Put them in a padded room completely restrained and without contact to others. Yeah, that is a humane alternative alright. But if that is alright a re-evaluation of the value system not permitting death should be conducted.

When those in charge of administering the security measures are in danger when doing so, the problem becomes paradoxical or circular.

The Domini people say there is no amount of retaliatory deaths that would compensate the inestimable value of a loved ones life, nor would they restore them to our arms or keep others from committing murder. To say that the death of any person would be just retribution is to insult the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims.

There are two truths about the human person: human life is both sacred and social; and regardless of human merit or worthiness, a person is entitled to exist and hold a to chance for rehabilitation. Distressingly, a person sentenced to death is deprived from his natural self worth, his ability to rehabilitate, his potential, and some kind livelihood. Realistically, when a human commits a crime, he should be punished for his crime in an appropriate manner which deprives him of certain pleasures, but not of everything life has to offer, which is what the death penalty ensures. Nor should we punish a person in a cruel and unusual way, but provide a sentence that requires the criminals to be punished by a severe method; which life in prison does. The value of a human life is immeasurable with all other values, and therefore the equating punishment for murder, the death sentence, does not give provide retributionism, because value of one’s murdered life does not equate to the value of another.

Prisons are expensive and expose people to violence and inhumane conditions.

So does television.

But seriously, not if you fund them properly, though for obvious reasons not all governments are willing to. If your prisons are meant for simple punishment, then sure it's inhumane because that's how you want it.

Are you ever going to let them out of prison? No.

So what? I'm sure most people would prefer that fate to being executed.

Isn't sealing them in a box inhumane?

It would be inhumane, but the fact is that's not actually what happens in a prison, though I'm speaking from a developed-world perspective and that might not be true everywhere, though if that happened in a UN nation it would probably consititue a violation of "cruel or unusual punishment" (it's our opinion that this covers the death penalty as well, but that's not the issue right now).

There is no treatment for such a person.

Unless you're a psychiatrist, I don't think you have the authority on that.

Anyway, then you are endangering the lives of those individuals... So long as they have hands or the ability to move they are dangerous.

Heard of handcuffs?

People's jobs put themselves in danger all the time. I'm thinking firefighters? Policemen? If someone's willing to put themselves in danger that's their choice. If a psychiatrist or whoever is willing to go in to treat the guy, then in they go. If he wants the guy put in a straitjacket, in a straitjacket he goes. Handcuffs? Muzzle? Whatever the person needs to feel safe in the same room with the prisoner.

Now we're just going into the commonsense specifics of things that the prison and correctional services deal with all the time. There's no reason you can't handle a dangerous inmate, and besides, the fact is most inmates, even murderers, rapists, what have you, are not dangerous.

Put them in a padded room completely restrained and without contact to others. Yeah, that is a humane alternative alright. But if that is alright a re-evaluation of the value system not permitting death should be conducted.

Did I ever say that's what I would do? As I said, with common sense security measures, extreme things like that are not necessary and besides, these are exceptional cases.

Put them in a padded room completely restrained and without contact to others. Yeah, that is a humane alternative alright.
The value of life itself is uncomparable to standards of living.

All murder is killing, not all killing is murder.

Furthermore, you are assuming the death penalty affects human persons. It may not. There are characteristics that make a human being a person, which a human eligible for death may not possess. Therefore, your value system does not apply, nor should it be imposed.

What is your justification for endangering the lives of others out of hope for rehabilitation. Are we to weight speculation against life. What you say may make you feel good, and that is alright. But it lacks real substance, or solution to the problem.

Also, it is a tennant that punishment be surmountable to the crime. When that crime is taking the life others, without the ability to feel remorse or and each death fulfills an unending desire-death is a just punishment, and is society's method of self defense. It is justice and the safety of members of society, not retribution, that the death penalty provides.

The value of life itself is uncomparable to standards of living.
So long as you are consistent, this is a value judgment. That there is inherent value in just being is debatable as it undermines societal advancements such as rights and government.

Furthermore, you are assuming the death penalty affects human persons. It may not. There are characteristics that make a human being a person, which a human eligible for death may not possess. Therefore, your value system does not apply, nor should it be imposed.

That is what YOU think. You feel fine in conveniently deciding a person suddenly isn't a person. That doesn't make it a fact, that's still your opinion, just as it is my opinion that you cannot arbitarily decide someone is not a person because of what he did.

What you say may make you feel good, and that is alright. But it lacks real substance, or solution to the problem.

I can say exactly the same thing to you re your enthusiasm for the death penalty.

Also, it is a tennant that punishment be surmountable to the crime.

And how, exactly does an execution surmount the crime of murder? You'd need something worse than death, but that would probably entail cruel punishment and would be illegal if you're in the UN. What of multiple murderers? You can't kill a person more than once, how do you propose to have a punishment surmounting the crime?

I might be wrong but I think you meant that punishment should be proportionate to the crime, as in not putting a guy in jail for 20 years because of a parking violation. "Surmountable" means the punishment must be greater than the crime and that's not really a tenet of justice. Most nations without the death penalty have life imprisonment for murder, and I'd say that's a pretty severe punishment, certainly enough to be proportionate to murder.

When that crime is taking the life others, without the ability to feel remorse or and each death fulfills an unending desire

That's a very, very exceptional case. Personally I don't think if there's even ever been such a case before.

death is a just punishment, and is society's method of self defense. It is justice and the safety of members of society, not retribution, that the death penalty provides.

Self defence? How, exactly, is it self defence when you kill someone who is in prison? Lead them in shackles to a scaffold, yard, chair, however you want to do it, and then kill them? When that person is statistically unlikely to repeat his crime? How is that self-defence? Self defence implies an immediate threat. What immediate, direct threat is there to society at large from someone in jail?

Sure, a murderer deserves death, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean it's right, and neither does that mean it's justice. Maybe that's a subjective matter, but the same can be said for whether torture is right or just.

Use of surmountable was incorrect recollection, what you saly sounds more familiar.

Even if there is an absence of evidence to such a case that is not evidence of absence that there never will be such a case.

Again, by placing such a person in jail that person is still capable of inflicting harm to others. So, do is the threat to be eliminated, or are other members of society, prisoners-Guards, to be jeopardized?

AP's solution is the death penalty. It has offered substantive claims that are both valid and sound, defended them, and refutiated those of others. However, since we both agree this is a value judgment you are in no position to disallow use of the death penalty in the this NS.

A person is again, a value judgment. One NS can not claim that all Human Beings are persons and thus worthy of life. In AP personhood could be based not on their criminal act but on their previous acts, how they view committed acts, their ability to reason etc...

Switch from right to wrong and; is it wrong to subject society to the constant threat of death from one who does not value life and has taken it from others, and fully intends to do so again, when that threat can be completely eliminated through the use of capital punishment?

This is all speculation. But on one end there is a possibility that no one else is killed, on the other, another innocent person will die-even a prisoner is innocent when killed without justification by another prisoner.

So, it is a value judgement on saving life. You feel saving the life of the criminal is warranted and yields good benefit. AP feels killing the Criminal saves and improves the quality of far more lives than that of the criminal.

In either event, without a UN Ban your value judgment can be enforced, with one other NS value judgments can not. Neither one of us is capable of saying what is right, and all reasoning leads to stalemate (value judgment). So, there is no qualified reason to force this beleif on other nations via a UN resolution.

AP said may or may not. It is thus not arguing a belief system onto others. A big difference from what it was written in response to. If you can prove all human beings are persons; fine, collect a noble prize and you will be one the better. AP stated an opinion, yes, but it is not saying all NS must enforce a Death Penalty. Thus imposing its value judgment on other NS.

Are not the majority of NSUN Resolutions value judgements?

OOC: By the way, in the "real world" all circles of acceptable law define a person as a human or organization with legal rights and duties.

A value judgment is typically that which valid and sound reasoning in support or opposition is indeterminable. Other UN resolutions are based on sound premises and valid conclusions.

No they do not. It is a philosophical debate. A braindead individual is a human, but typically no longer considered a person in the eyes of the law. Children and the severely mentally disabled have guardians and so forth. A fetus is biologically a human, but it is a fetus, not a person.

If you want to go into law if you place me in a reasonable apprehension of a mortal, harmful, or offensive touching and are capable of doing so, myself or a third party can do the same to you in defense. Again, the law is philosophy.

AP said may or may not. It is thus not arguing a belief system onto others.

It read like a statement of fact to me so that is how I handled it.

No they do not. It is a philosophical debate. A braindead individual is a human, but typically no longer considered a person in the eyes of the law.

It's one thing to decide that someone who is unable to function in a critical aspect isn't a person as far as the law on murder goes. It's a completely different matter to rescind a fully functioning person's status as a "person" because of something they did. It's arbitrary. You're deciding that someone isn't a person so as to allow you to kill them.

If you want to go into law if you place me in a reasonable apprehension of a mortal, harmful, or offensive touching and are capable of doing so, myself or a third party can do the same to you in defense. Again, the law is philosophy.

No, self defence comes in when there's an immediate threat. Executions are not justified by self defence.

If you can prove all human beings are persons

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
person, n 1. human being as an individual with distinct characteristics 2. (fml or derog) human being

Dictionary.com:
person (n), 1. a living human

merriamwebster.com
1: human, individual

Is that good enough for you?

I think this is going beyond a little, because you're talking "person" for the purpose of laws, and, sorry if I misread you, you're defining this by whether or not killing such a person (normal meaning) would be considered murder.

Here's the thing. If you think capital punishment is right, you don't need such justifications. There's no need to go into all this "person" thing becuase it just confuses things. If I read you correctly, your position is that a person convicted of a murder forfeits his rights and killing him is therefore okay. My response is that no, he does not forfeit his rights, and even if he did, executing him is still wrong. Clearly this is another conflict in underlying beliefs.

A value judgment is typically that which valid and sound reasoning in support or opposition is indeterminable. Other UN resolutions are based on sound premises and valid conclusions.

A resolution wanting to ban the death penalty has similar premises and conclusions as a resolution wanting to ban torture, and such a resolution has in fact been passed (The Universal Bill of Rights, Article 5). These being, the death penalty (or torture) is morally wrong, the death penalty (or torture) is cruel and thus detrimental to the dignity of human society, and not being subjected to the death penalty (or torture) is a human right. These are value judgements, yet I doubt you disagree on them as they apply to torture, and I doubt you'd dismiss them as being invalid conclusions based on unsound premises.

A resolution wanting to ban the death penalty is based on principles and premises as valid as any other resolution advancing human rights.

"It's one thing to decide that someone who is unable to function in a critical aspect isn't a person as far as the law on murder goes. It's a completely different matter to rescind a fully functioning person's status as a "person" because of something they did. It's arbitrary. You're deciding that someone isn't a person so as to allow you to kill them."

AP stated personhood is based on many factors, and does not establish a human as not being persons for the purpose of killing them. It was another NS that stated it is wrong to kill prisoners because they are persons; AP illustrated that is debatable. A person who relentlessly commits heinious crimes would also qualify for death.

You are correct AP is discussing Person in reference to the ethical question of personhood, and in small part the law-but the law says little on ethics. In this respect dictionaries are a moot source.

AP is concerned with those cases where so long as the individual is alive he or she poses an immediate threat-thought that had been elaborated, sorry if that was an incorrect assumption. Irregardless of escapable restraints such as handcuffs and body suits-in which they are still capable of harming others.

There are studies on torture and Solitary confinement that illustrate the pain and suffering associated with those methods are cruel and inhumane. Thus, capitol punishment can be carried out so that the pain and suffering is not such that it exceeds that of the crime performed, or can be conducted as quickly and without so much pain that would be considered cruel and unusual.

Capitol punishment itself is not cruel and unusual so long as the method employed does not bring about pain and distress seeing that killing is not unusual, and methods can be employed that are not painful so as to cause distress (causing more discomfort than the average person feels at the doctors office for example).

AP stated personhood is based on many factors, and does not establish a human as not being persons for the purpose of killing them. It was another NS that stated it is wrong to kill prisoners because they are persons; AP illustrated that is debatable. A person who relentlessly commits heinious crimes would also qualify for death.

There is no need to use "personhood", or lack thereof, as a justification for executions; I understand them.

If you really believed that someone who is a person has the right not to be killed, you wouldn't have the death penalty. Just say you want to execute them because you think it's okay. Many people feel the same way.

It's also yet another philosophical matter of whether someone's "personhood" is something that can be revoked. We won't get anywhere with this, because it'll be an endless loop of "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!".

There is no need to use "personhood", or lack thereof, as a justification for executions; I understand them.

If you really believed that someone who is a person has the right not to be killed, you wouldn't have the death penalty. Just say you want to execute them because you think it's okay. Many people feel the same way.

It's also yet another philosophical matter of whether someone's "personhood" is something that can be revoked. We won't get anywhere with this, because it'll be an endless loop of "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!".

AP has never stated it is against the killing of a person, or that killing violates a right to life-nor does AP acknowledge an inherent right to life. That would imply a right not to die via unnatural causes, or to never die. AP believes there are justifications for the use of capital punishment and killing-has illustrated them-and therefore believes a ban is not warranted.

Though when its use is justified may seem so extreme that no one would qualify; that does not warrant its abolishment. It means its use will be rare, if ever. That other countries may not use such guidelines does not warrant the UN Disallowing AP from continuing its practices. It means that perhaps guidelines are neccessary for administering the act.

Is Too!!!!! :)

I am one for tough-on-crime policies, and allow more police and prosecutor discretion but I believe the Death Penalty is too 'final' of a punishment. It leaves no room for mistakes in the off-chance that you are wrong. Also don't you find it more of a punishment to be in solitary confinement 24/7 for the rest of your life?

-- Endorse me for Delegate..... AJ

Moving on...

AP is concerned with those cases where so long as the individual is alive he or she poses an immediate threat-thought that had been elaborated, sorry if that was an incorrect assumption. Irregardless of escapable restraints such as handcuffs and body suits-in which they are still capable of harming others.

And how do you define "capable of harming others"? Everyone is capable of harming others. I could just go outside, find someone, and kick him/her. I've harmed them. Anyone who is alive can pose a threat. Sure, some may pose more of a threat than others, but how do you know the nice, quiet little nerd in jail for hacking a bank computer system won't be the one who sticks a sharpened spoon in someone's neck?

There are studies on torture and Solitary confinement that illustrate the pain and suffering associated with those methods are cruel and inhumane.

That's why they're illegal. So you can't argue that you're "saving" them from a lifetime of solitary confinement.

Edit: I should say, if as a UN nation you decide that a method of punishment is cruel and unusual over and above the generally accepted ones, you'd be obliged to ban them under the Universal Bill of Rights, so they'd be illegal.

Thus, capitol punishment can be carried out so that the pain and suffering is not such that it exceeds that of the crime performed, or can be conducted as quickly and without so much pain that would be considered cruel and unusual.

Isn't killing an essentially defenceless person, with premeditation and possibly malice, cruel in itself?

That everyone is capable of harming others is duly noted. However, AP is concerned with those who take every opportunity to do so, with lethal intent. Again, rare, but, if their life's purpose is to destroy life AP cannot, with good conscious, allow such an individual to exist, knowing that so long as he/she does, others lives are in immidiate danger. Also, note, not every murderer/other heinous villian gets the death penalty, the qualifications are strict.

A malice method should not be employed. And a capital punishment program need not be considered cruel.

Again, maybe guidelines on how a system should be ran is more prudent than an outright ban.

:mp5: however you must look at it from a different point of view, "do we really want someone who killed someone to get time alone in prison to think of way to make a more perect crime." and even if time is not served do we want to know that there are mass murderers, rapists, and thieves out there?

This thread is still here?

I demand that the thread be allowed to die... It is a horible violation of the Legalize Euthanasia bill, that it be allowed to continue on in its pitiful state...

however you must look at it from a different point of view, "do we really want someone who killed someone to get time alone in prison to think of way to make a more perect crime." and even if time is not served do we want to know that there are mass murderers, rapists, and thieves out there?

Paranoid and incoherent... see kids, this is why cocaine is bad.

Again, rare, but, if their life's purpose is to destroy life AP cannot, with good conscious, allow such an individual to exist, knowing that so long as he/she does, others lives are in immidiate danger.

Like I said, wouldn't someone with a pathological desire to kill be considered insane and therefore have a good defence against a charge of murder? And an insane person like that would also be put in a prison for the criminally insane, would he not?

With appropriate and common-sense precautions, no one's life would be in any danger. A situation like that is much too exceptional to use as an argument against a ban on the death penalty.

Our disagreement is in that no one can be protected from such a person.

Since common sense approaches to eliminate any and all threat from such a person are cruel and inhumane (placing that person in an environment devoid of any and all contact with another human being) AP chooses the life of the innocent over that of the Criminal.

Insanity is a legal term for a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder. If the condition is treatable, i.e a mental reaction brought about by environmental influences that can be reversed, AP attempts to provide such treatment. Hower, if treatment fails, and the individaul continues to harm others with an intent to kill, or is successful, for the safety of society the threat will be premanently eleiminated.

On the other hand, if the psychiatric condition is a result of a genetic mutation leading to a brain abnormality beyond the individuals control, and beyond any realm of treatment, AP will terminate the individual. This presents three interdependant moral dilemas, the first, is right to do this to an individual whose actions are beyond their control? The second, should others be subject to the threat of such an individual? The third do the rights of the many outweight the rights of the individual in this circumstance?

AP does not feel it is right to punish a person for actions beyond their control(no free will). However, nor does AP feel it is right to subject society to the certainty of death that results from an individual incapable of controlling such actions. Thus, AP's judicial system adjudidactes that the next los of life that results from that individual being alive is his/her own.

Such a decision, where the result of such policy has the adverse affect of threatening the safety and security of a NS' citizenry, should be left to the NS.

Since common sense approaches to eliminate any and all threat from such a person are cruel and inhumane (placing that person in an environment devoid of any and all contact with another human being) AP chooses the life of the innocent over that of the Criminal.

I meant things like locked doors, straitjackets and handcuffs when someone else is in the room, stopping the guy from getting any weapons, that kind of thing.

You've also got to wonder just how often that kind of thing happens. It's much too hypothetical.

Yes, it is understood what you meant by common sense. But to place the individual in such a contained state would require other persons to do so. WHich places them in danger. Also, it would be inhumane to leave the indivicual in such a state continuosly, and you can not trust them to place themselves in such apperatusses (asssuming locking yourself in a straight jacket is possible).

As for psychopaths unable to control their tendencies, or to be treated, it is more of a highly rare reality than a hypothetical since research indicates the problem is due more to hard to treat or untreatable Neurobiological disorders than environmental factors (chemical inbalances possibly treatable v physical deformality). So, it is not so much hypothetical as it is highly rare. Again even Edward Gein may not qualify for death in AP, but someone with a neurobiological disorder who posed a continuos threat to both male and female human beings when the urge presented itself, would. Read Riverman by Robert Keppel for a look at an individual who most likely would.

Why is this even an issue, why would it be a neccesity to ban something like the death penalty, if the people have nothing to fear what will keep them in line?

Yes, it is understood what you meant by common sense. But to place the individual in such a contained state would require other persons to do so. WHich places them in danger. Also, it would be inhumane to leave the indivicual in such a state continuosly, and you can not trust them to place themselves in such apperatusses (asssuming locking yourself in a straight jacket is possible).

*sigh*

Of course I don't mean put the guy in a straitjacket 24/7. But why must the guard taking it off or putting it on necessarily be at risk of his life? Presumably the guard would be able to defend himself if the prisoner did try to attack him, and knowing he was dealing with a dangerous inmate he would be on his guard, pun not intended, wouldn't he? Additionally, that doesn't rule out backup measures. You could station a second guard with a tranquiliser gun or something like that.

The "places them in danger" argument doesn't fly because a prison guard's job already places them in danger to begin with. Prison riots happen, sometimes inmates get out of control, etc. Plenty of jobs place people in mortal danger, much more so than dealing with a dangerous inmate in the controlled environment of a prison. Firefighters? Bomb defusal experts? Soldiers? Policemen?

Okay, so some psychos do kill for the fun of it. If you're going to bring up Ted Bundy, well, he doesn't seem to have gone on a warden-killing rampage while in jail, in fact according to my quick research a guy from the FBI as well as Keppel talked to him on a regular basis. Granted, such a person might pose a risk to the community, but wouldn't the person's imprisonment would make that risk almost non-existent? And if you're going to say what if he escapes, well he shouldn't escape, that's the point, you can't use security lapses to say "But our prison guards are incompetent! They'll escape and kill again! So the death penalty shouldn't be banned!"

Keep in mind that while you may have stringent criteria for who you can execute, not all nations do and some do apply the death penalty fairly liberally, both in NS and real life. Regulations aren't really the answer, because even if you did limit the death penalty to first-degree murders... well, think Texas. Nations would find ways to get around it too, for example, pressuring judges or juries to "upgrade" their verdicts or other manipulations of their legal system, thus rendering it ineffective.

What I don't understand is why some people believe the death penalty is a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, rape, etc. By killing them, your giving them the easy way out. Their names have already been shattered, and chances of being released back into society are null. Death by lethal injection is not painful. For those who support the death penalty, is it because you think they will suffer and pay more for their crime? Hellz no! Giving them life in prison means they have to live with what they did for the rest of their life- pondering it every day, night, and time they drop the soap in the shower. Isn't this a more pungent punishment?

What I don't understand is why some people believe the death penalty is a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, rape, etc. By killing them, your giving them the easy way out. Their names have already been shattered, and chances of being released back into society are null. Death by lethal injection is not painful. For those who support the death penalty, is it because you think they will suffer and pay more for their crime? Hellz no! Giving them life in prison means they have to live with what they did for the rest of their life- pondering it every day, night, and time they drop the soap in the shower. Isn't this a more pungent punishment?

Why should we pay for their survival?

Death by exposure works. So does death by shark.

The problem with the death peanalty is that those responsible for judgement must be entirely uncorrupt.

This includes:

the media
the judges
the jury
the witnesses
the executioner
the government

Any chance that theses bodies/people are corrupt means that there is a chance that an innocent person may well be exectued. It is my belief that this will never be the case; that within any body, group and organisation of any size, there is corruption. Those with power: men and women, more often than not, abuse it.

Therefore to say "yes" to a death peanalty means saying yes to "legal" murdering innocent people, as you can never gaurantee their guilt.

That not all nations apply the standards imposed by AP is no reason for the UN to BAN the Death Penalty. A more effective and acceptable measure would be one that sets criteria for such a punishment if a UN Nation has a system of Capital Punishment. Not saying AP would support it, as it would be an infringement on Sovereignty, but it would not be a usurption.

The Standards you speak of are currently used in California Correctional Institutions. Correctional Officers are still Harmed by Inmates, and, though rare, have been Killed.

*sigh*
In AP, prison guards are considered part of society, ocuppation is part of a citizen's role in the community, it does not dissolve him or her of being considered a member. I understand where you are coming from with respect to benfits offerred for the risk posed to correctional officers. However, AP will not put the lives of innocent CO's in immenent mortal danger for an unreasonable period of time, until a convict reaches the end of his natural life, because the government has taken out insurance policies on their lives in order to compensate their families should they be killed in the line of duty.

They consent because it is understood that measures are taken to lower the risk posed to them, and they are priviledged to use force when neccessary. In cases where convicts qualify for the death penalty in AP, to best lower the risk, the government conducts the execution within a reasonable time period (based on circumstances of individual cases).

The point with people such as Ted Bundy, which Keppel and the FBI talk about, is that yes, he could act like a Normal Person. The danger is identifying when the urges would come, and when he would act on them. With an individual such as that, it impossible to tell when he would attack.

"Most countries are trying to abolish the death penalty. My country is putting in an express lane."

Here's the problems.

Vastiva has omnipresent cameras. Most places do not.
Vastiva has professional juries. Most places do not.
Vastiva has advanced pathology techniques. Most places do not.
Vastiva has as a basis of law "self-responsibility". Most places do not.
Vastiva believes in the good of the whole. Most places do not.

If you kill someone in Vastiva, we eliminate you. We do not keep you around, we do not attempt "rehabilitation", we do not endanger our prison guards or potentially endanger our people later. We kill you and feed you to the sharks.

When this occurs is limited in nature, and the "certainty" clauses apply. However, we still end up with plenty of individuals who manage to feed the fish every year.

Do we consider this a bad thing? No. But we do consider it an effective deterrent. Why? Because no one who receives the death penalty bothers anyone else after that point.

We do not, however, believe our system would apply effectively to everyone else - nor would we attempt to do so.

The problem with the death peanalty is that those responsible for judgement must be entirely uncorrupt.

This includes:

the media
the judges
the jury
the witnesses
the executioner
the government

Any chance that theses bodies/people are corrupt means that there is a chance that an innocent person may well be exectued. It is my belief that this will never be the case; that within any body, group and organisation of any size, there is corruption. Those with power: men and women, more often than not, abuse it.

Therefore to say "yes" to a death peanalty means saying yes to "legal" murdering innocent people, as you can never gaurantee their guilt.

There is a large difference between protecting all innocent people, and protecting society.

There are also methods which preclude corruption to a reasonable extent, and there are cultures which accept honor as more meaningful then corruption.

However, the world will not.

As such - if you come to Vastiva and kill someone, we will kill you back and feed you to the sharks.

We are not responsible for the actions of anywhere else.

In AP, prison guards are considered part of society, ocuppation is part of a citizen's role in the community, it does not dissolve him or her of being considered a member.

I never meant to imply that they aren't counted as part of society. All I'm saying is, they know the dangers of their job and they do what they do willingly.

The danger is identifying when the urges would come, and when he would act on them. With an individual such as that, it impossible to tell when he would attack.

If you're taking those security precautions, that threat is minimal. Of course you should take precautions to minimise the risk. Just like you should make sure that your firefighters' equipment works before sending them into a burning building. That's the point. If you take those precautions, there's no reason that a psycho killer should pose an unreasonable risk.


Vastiva believes in the good of the whole. Most places do not.

I think the good of the whole is better served without the death penalty when the state doesn't send a message consistent with revenge. And I think the good of the whole is better served when people know that if the legal system fails, as it invariably and inevitably does, at least they won't be killed for a crime they're innocent of. I think the good of society as a whole is better served by advancing human rights.

Most nations without the death penalty impose lengthy terms of imprisonment instead. Is that somehow going to encourage people to commit murder?

How many people have actually said, "Hmm, I was afraid I might be executed if I killed that guy, but now it's just spend the rest of my life in prison! I'm going on a killing rampage!"

If you don't care about rehabilitation, why bother with prison at all? Why not kill everyone who gets convicted of something which involves prison? But I doubt there's more than a tiny minority of nations who do that, right? That would involve some severe depopulation. Besides, not many nations do think it's right to be executing everyone who commits an indictable offence.

Rape is not, in most places, a capital offence. Neither is armed robbery, or other violent crimes I could think of. Or other crimes which imply a reckless disregard for human life, like impaired (drunk) driving. First-degree murder is special. I don't mean to say it's not a heinous, despicable crime. It is. But what makes it so extreme that you have to kill people for doing it, and not some other equally heinous offences, like rape? Rape is a pretty nasty thing, and extremely traumatic for the victim. Not to mention that rapists often repeat their crimes. That's why some places have sex offender registries.

In the past, we used to hang thieves, and even minor offences could be punishable by death. But we don't do that now. Or, I should say, since somewhere within the tens of thousands of nations out there there's probably someone to disagree, most nations don't do that now.

Why? Because we don't think it's the right thing to do. We don't think it's right to execute robbers, drunk drivers, rapists, child molesters... even, in most cases, second-degree murder. In which case, the only reason a killer is being executed is because he planned it. Burglars plan their robberies too, but do those who plan them out get a worse sentence because of it? Not really.

What makes murder, or first-degree murder, so special that so many other despicable, violent, reckless crimes are not punished by death, but it is? I have my own answers to this question. But I'd like you to think for yourself. Maybe even flame me and call me someone who doesn't care about personal responsibility, call me someone who doesn't care about greater good, call me someone who advocates unjust punishment, or simply insult my parentage, whatever. But maybe you'll understand why I simply don't think the death penalty is right. And I hope you'll come around.

Howdy Kel,

He poses an unreasonable risk because of the certainty that he/she poses with respect to mortally atacking guards when the uncontrollable urge represents itself. IN AP, with those sentenced to death, the risk associated with them is when a mortal attack occurs, not if it will occur. That the attack will occur is a certainty. No precautions can safeguard against will and determination. Therefore, the threat must be eliminated in a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, the guard is being placed in unreasonable danger.

Fireman are not required to fight a fire to their death. It is examined, and if extinguishment or safe containment is feasible, it is fought. If not, they either wait until it is feasible, or let the fire exhaust its fuel source. Firemen are capable of letting a fire burn by taking precautions that can result in no one, including themselves, being hurt, when doing their job. That the guard is doing his job in these cases, that risk is constant and continuos so long as the prisoner is alive.

This argument is at impasse. It has illustrated, if anything, that this is an individual nations decision.

If there are any international implications, i.e. it inherently violates UN Human Rights Resolutions, that is a feasible argument. That it is an immoral act on the part of government is so slippery, not all reaonable persons, not even a mojority for that matter, would buy into it. Complete protection of citizenry is an ideal government strives for. This means protections for the whole against the individual if the need presents itself.

You are trying to transform a maxim into a practical law where one can not exist.

I believe that the death penalty is a good idea. Yeah people will die and yeah it is cruel but in order for them to get the death penalty they have to do something cruel. Its an eye for an eye here ladies.....if we kep them alive even if in prision they will more than likely do something like it again ....think about it.


The Death penalty stays

I am personally against the death penalty. However, I voted "I hate it" thinking it means "I hate the death penalty". If this means "I hate the death penalty ban", then I messed up. Capital punishment is one of those issues were both sides can be debated pretty fiercely. On one hand, the government saying "You shouldn't have killed that person, now I'm gonna kill you" isn't very humane or right. However the other arguement for the issue is the basic "This person killed a guy, so why shouldn't we treat him how he treated others? Although I hate to say this, the issue is simply going to come down to state's rights, or in this case country's rights. Each country should have the right to choose how they conduct themselves, unless you're a UN member. I say that because UN members like myself decided to ban with other countries and act on the whole, not with the "everyone for themself mentality". Basically, treat others how you want to be treated.

If a train injury to the brain leads to my becoming a crazed killer, I would rather be put to death than continue posing a threat to innocent others. Just a value judgment nonethess. But one based on an untreatable condition.