NationStates Jolt Archive

I am fulfulling a request made to me by one of the nations in my region by annoncing that their proposal, the Family Rights Act, has been submitted.
Here's the text:
The Family Rights Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ebolamerica

Description: There is no way that the legislature of countries deal with personal pain like the rest of their populus. They live sheltered live while their citizens deal daily with the heartache of murder. Some regions live in constant grief due to these abnormalities of society and it is not fair. Even if the culprit were to be caught, the families of the victims would still feel numb. So then why is it up to the state to prescribe method of execution? Shouldn't the families get a voice? That is where this act comes into play.

1. No one subject to death by the state shall be executed in the manner the state prescribes(unless it is a case of treason or terrorism). Instead, the families of the victims shall reserve the sole right to decide how the prisoner meets his/her end.

2. The families of the victims may not participate in the physical deed. They may watch.

3.Should the families herein choose to give up the forementioned rights to the state, the prisoner will be executed by means equal to his crime.

4.In an attempt to avoid inevitable mistakes, all evidence against or for the criminal will be reviewed by six judges of the local appelate court one last time. The review period shall not hinder proceedings significantly and thus shall not exceed a period of more than two weeks or fourteen days. The judges will take a ten dollar pay cut during such deliberations and the money collected from that will go towards a relief fund for the parents of seriously hospitalized children.


This act would not only increase civil rights but provide relief for parents who may not be able to afford treatment for their children.

Any thoughts or opinions?

The DRA will not support this resolution as it allows the the death penalty which the DRA will not support in any way shape or form. The DRA actively campaigns to ban the death penalty. Also, the DRA diagrees entirely with allowing a family to choose how a murderer should die. Execution, if a nation practices it while it is still allowed, should be done in the most humane and painless way possible. This risks the possibility of cruel and unusual punishment to murderers.

Description: There is no way that the legislature of countries deal with personal pain like the rest of their populus. They live sheltered live while their citizens deal daily with the heartache of murder.

Some would argue: if there's no way the countries' individual legislatures can handle such a situation, then what is it doing in the UN legislature pallette?

If you come to Ebolamerica and kill someone we will kill you back.

I am fulfulling a request made to me by one of the nations in my region by annoncing that their proposal, the Family Rights Act, has been submitted.
Here's the text:

Any thoughts or opinions?

Thanks for posting the text. I found that helpful.

An opinion, so please feel free to agree/disagree with it ... but my knee-jerk reaction is that the rights of the families of a crime victim sounds more like a moral decency than a human rights issue.

Here is why: the proposal seems like it is talking giving the decision on capital punishment from the government to individual families. While I do see how that can be considered granting a "freedom" to the families, it also seems like it is really a trade-off and that the freedom to rule of law is being taken from the convicted felon.

And my thought, I honestly pray I never have to face a decision like this. I can imagine that if I and my brother and/or sister had to make a decision like this, that our opinions are different enough that the decision would bring emotional stress to us, the survivors. It is just the way I could see things in my family, and in a way, I think having a third party involved actually might help us. But I just really have a hard time relating to the subject matter of this proposal. It is very serious, without a doubt!

As an aside, it has been a few days since the debate on the last resolution closed. I hope another resolution comes to the UN floor sometime this month. :)

its not taking away capital punishment from the govt, they still get to convict him/her and sentence them to death. The families simply get to choose the way in which the MURDERER is disposed.

its not taking away capital punishment from the govt, they still get to convict him/her and sentence them to death. The families simply get to choose the way in which the MURDERER is disposed.

My apologies, you are right. It is clear that the proposal wasn't taking away the sentencing from governments. I just mis-spoke after reading it.

But I still wonder about what this might do to a family.

the family may choose to give up that right

Any thoughts or opinions?

You are arguing we should execute people under the guise of human rights?

Interesting spin.

Description: There is no way that the legislature of countries deal with personal pain like the rest of their populus. They live sheltered live while their citizens deal daily with the heartache of murder. Some regions live in constant grief due to these abnormalities of society and it is not fair. Even if the culprit were to be caught, the families of the victims would still feel numb. So then why is it up to the state to prescribe method of execution? Shouldn't the families get a voice? That is where this act comes into play.


You really believe that letting families chose how the victims die will make them feel better? Cause - personally speaking - that is just plain untrue. Nothing makes the pain go away. And in the meantime justice is totally subverted by the idea of revenge and retribution.


1. No one subject to death by the state shall be executed in the manner the state prescribes(unless it is a case of treason or terrorism). Instead, the families of the victims shall reserve the sole right to decide how the prisoner meets his/her end.


Does this mean if a nation, like TilEnca for example, has no death penalty, this whole proposal won't apply to it?

Also this is possibly in violation of the Barbaric Punishments Resolution.

And again this turns justice into revenge.


3.Should the families herein choose to give up the forementioned rights to the state, the prisoner will be executed by means equal to his crime.


Again - this is in potential violation of the Barbaric Punishments Resolution.

And justice in to revenge again.


4.In an attempt to avoid inevitable mistakes, all evidence against or for the criminal will be reviewed by six judges of the local appelate court one last time. The review period shall not hinder proceedings significantly and thus shall not exceed a period of more than two weeks or fourteen days. The judges will take a ten dollar pay cut during such deliberations and the money collected from that will go towards a relief fund for the parents of seriously hospitalized children.


And if you get six judges who are having an off day, or just don't care, or want to see the guy killed regardless of the evidence?

And funding the health service by killing people is so wrong it defies words.


This act would not only increase civil rights but provide relief for parents who may not be able to afford treatment for their children.

You can't increase the rights of the people (civil rights) by killing some of them. The world just doesn't work that way.


If - and from the way it is phrased I think I am right - this only applies to nations that currently practice capital punishment, then it won't affect me. But for the good of any of my people who might be travelling abroad I think that this should not be supported across the UN.

The Council of Enn has reviewed this proposal, and wishes to clearly state its position.

The Council is of the opinion that capital punishment is not, and can never be, just. It does understand that there are nations in which capital punishment is practiced, but the Council cannot condone such action.

The Council thus cannot support this proposal, and will campaign against it should this reach quorum.

The Council of Enn has reviewed this proposal, and wishes to clearly state its position.

The Council is of the opinion that capital punishment is not, and can never be, just. It does understand that there are nations in which capital punishment is practiced, but the Council cannot condone such action.

The Council thus cannot support this proposal, and will campaign against it should this reach quorum.

I am not convinced that this will enforce capital punishment.

"1. No one subject to death by the state shall be executed in the manner the state prescribes(unless it is a case of treason or terrorism). Instead, the families of the victims shall reserve the sole right to decide how the prisoner meets his/her end."

I have read this a number of times, and all I can take it to mean is that if you are to be executed under the law, then the family gets to decide how to do it.

But if your nation has no death penalty, like mine does (or doesn't?), then this proposal will have no effect cause it doesn't actually state that people should be executed for a crime.

Given the Republics view of our position as arbitrational in relation to people, and our duty to provide, in our capacity, a fair, just and equitable ballance... We would have to disagree with this position. While we do allow victims families in similar circumstances to make appeals to the courts for leniency, we do not feel that families should dictate the possibility of harsher penalities than that which is presented via the unbiased arbitrational judges... As such, we could not support the position of this document.

TilEnca, even though it may not force the death penalty into use, it is still an endorsement of the death penalty as a suitable sentence, and as such it is anathema to _Myopia_, and I suspect many other nations.

Not to mention that many cases of this proposal's implementation would violate prior UN legislation prohibiting torture and cruel and unusual punishment.

If you come to Ebolamerica and kill someone we will kill you back.
This proposal is about vengeance, not law. It doesn't give rights to anyone - it imposes the legal role of executioner on victims, whether they desire it or not. Article 3 doesn't give them the right to transfer their decision to the government, it forces them to accept that the death penalty will be imposed "by means equal to his crime". This is not a choice, this is placing the burden of sentencing on the individual or family, regardless of their wishes in the matter.

If you called it the "Eye for an Eye Act", we might have applauded your honesty. Calling it the "Family Rights Act", when it doesn't give the Family any rights at all, is simply irresponsible. Either way, we will actively oppose any effort to make this proposal a matter of international law.

We cannot put our support behind this proposal. A fair and equal justice system is one of our primary goals and we cannot allow sentencing to be determined by the luck of the mood of the family of the victim instead of an objective system of law.