NationStates Jolt Archive

I have come up with a proposal on the death penalty that everyone should view. If it gets the necessary support, we can bring it up in front of the whole UN.

Thanks,
King of Mahwah

I have come up with a proposal on the death penalty that everyone should view. If it gets the necessary support, we can bring it up in front of the whole UN.

Thanks,
King of Mahwah

Would it be possible to post a copy here? It is not that we can't go looking for it, but there are (or were) around 35 PAGES of proposals, which, when you are on a slow connection, can take an eternity to look through :}

Thanks,
T

Death penalty is not good. To kill a human because of a crime, is wrong , no matter what the crimes was... ;) But i dont know... Hitler (Stalin) were the worse dictators, well, heck it i dont know... :headbang:

The Death Penalty
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mahwah

Description: In view of the problem with worldwide crime, a criminal who is brought up under extreme criminal charges, will be put to death. These charges are but not limited to:

Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, and Incest

It is only proper to eliminate criminals like this from our world, and to free room in our prisons for others serving time. This can only make our streets safer for the citizens of the world. Criminals who commit henous crimes in every type of nation (whether that be a monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, etc.) are frowned upon and need to be taken care of in a unified way.

The method in which the punishment is carried out is the
responsibility of each individual nation.

We hereby propose to the United Nations that the death penalty be carried out for said charges listed above, and that the method of punishment is at the discretion of each nation.

Approvals: 1 (Mahwah)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 27 2004
How is killing someone going "to improve worldwide human and civil rights"? This should be listed as something else, probably Moral Decency.

Either way, we can't support it. Frisbeeteria doesn't believe in 99% of one-size-fits-all proposals, and (thanks to the inclusion of incest as a capital crime) this one falls well inside the limit.

I support this suggestion, the deathpenalty will lower the crimerate,
but the crime rating should be very high if such a sentence should be delivered.

I don't like the death penalty, for various reasons. I also don't like nations trying to use the U.N. to interfere in the domestic policies of other nations. So considering my views, there's absolutely no redeeming quality about this proposal. Just so you know, I have voted against all the resolutions trying to outlaw the death penalty, too.

I must oppose this. Incest is not a crime worthy of death for any reason short of being part of another crime.

This will sound like a very odd question, but isn't there the posibility that child molestation can cover a huge multitude of crimes, from the obvious (forcing them to have sex) to (as unbelievable as this sounds) stroking the hair of a child who doesn't want it to be stroked?

And incest covers a huge range of actions - including the completely consenual actions of two grown adults (which is protected by a previous resolution).

Should people really be executed for these crimes, no matter what?

I've shot at every proposal on the floor before which tried to outlaw the death penalty in all member nations, and this Republic does use the "Death Penalty" within the line and scope of our views of individual liberties, and individual accountability, as being within equity; However, our principles are based on our own fundamental principles, and we will not support this proposal, as it may account in CP to other nations; but it does so without equitable guide or scale... which we will not back; as it becomes a principle-less enforced action...

1. Murder is murder and there is no way around it...either you didn't do it or you did, so there are no loopholes there. Our courts and crime investigation are sophisticated enough so that nobody will be wrongly convicted of murder, so the only people left to execute...are actual felons. Now, if they are sitting in jail for the rest of their lives, serving who-knows-how-many consecutive life sentences, enjoying their clean sheets, cable tv, library and adequate food, they are only a drain on society's tax money and should be executed for this reason as well as their crime.

2. Rape will have loopholes...has anybody ever seen the movie Rumor (i think it was) where a group of friends tries to investigate the consequences of a tiny fib on campus, by telling only one person that a girl was raped at a party after she passed out intoxicated, being in the same room as her boyfriend. In the end somebody died, I forget who (think it was the boyfriend who committed suicide to avoid the penalty) and nobody lived happily ever after. The movie was on a while stupid and over-exagerrated, but you get the point...I hope...

Women are treated better than guys in society, and you hear false acounts of rape every day by some gold-diggers with nothing better to do with their lives. Just look at the Kobe Briant Case...

3. Same with child molestation. If a babysitter is bathing a child, and the child tells this to his or her parents, the babysitter is screwed, in short. Now is this a crime deserving of the death penalty? Absolutely not. You are thinking more on the lines of intentional child molestation and the running of a child pornography website, no? This would be assumed, but think about the other cases as well.

4. Incest is wrong, I agree, but it should not be punishable by death unless you are living in some sort of corrupt theocracy...

I support this suggestion, the deathpenalty will lower the crimerate,
but the crime rating should be very high if such a sentence should be delivered.


If this is the case, how then is crime totally unknown in places like the Democratic Republic of Arturistania which has no death penalty and is adamantly opposed to this barbaric, vigilante form of so-called justice.

If someone kills another person, why pay to have them locked up, kill them and let god decide what to do with them, we cannot forgive, only forget. I STRONGLY support this! But am no longer a memeber of the UN because the the UN's stance on gay marraige.

If someone kills another person, why pay to have them locked up, kill them and let god decide what to do with them, we cannot forgive, only forget. I STRONGLY support this! But am no longer a memeber of the UN because the the UN's stance on gay marraige.

...which existed a year before you joined.

While the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has the death penalty (and we use it too). We cannot support this resolution as we feel that this is an issue best left to individual nations to decide upon for themselves.

If there is one type of resolution that would guarantee Ecopoeia's exit from the UN, it is one mandating the death penalty. I'm not even interested in debating the efficacy of or 'moral' justification for the death penalty; there is simply no possibility of it ever being legalised in Ecopoeia. If the state has an individual in a position where they can kill them in a calculated manner, then the danger presented by that individual is already neutralised and any action to take his or her life is murder.

Rejected.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Yes, the death penalty should be decided by each individual nation. The U.N should have no say in this. We [Goryeo] only kill our criminals when they have commited a serious crime against the nation.

Lydia walks in to the debate and almost turns right back. “Another debate on the death penalty? I thought we’d reached consensus a while back.”

Lydia looks up and simply states.

We echo the sentiments of our learned colleague from Ecopoeia and reaffirm our belief that the death penalty should remain a matter of internal policy in member states.

Walks off shaking her head…

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

I believe that if you want true consensus, you can bring it before the UN. If you believe that the majority believe it to be wrong, this resolution will be voted out of the sky. Put your beliefs to the test.

I will admit that the right to administer the death penalty is better suited as a national choice rather than a mass implication for all nations in the UN. Probably because a nation may have personal issues that make it lean towards such punishment. Also the basing of of a crimes punishment, on the situation at hand would be better.

1. Murder is murder and there is no way around it...either you didn't do it or you did, so there are no loopholes there. Our courts and crime investigation are sophisticated enough so that nobody will be wrongly convicted of murder, so the only people left to execute...are actual felons. Now, if they are sitting in jail for the rest of their lives, serving who-knows-how-many consecutive life sentences, enjoying their clean sheets, cable tv, library and adequate food, they are only a drain on society's tax money and should be executed for this reason as well as their crime.

2. Rape will have loopholes...has anybody ever seen the movie Rumor (i think it was) where a group of friends tries to investigate the consequences of a tiny fib on campus, by telling only one person that a girl was raped at a party after she passed out intoxicated, being in the same room as her boyfriend. In the end somebody died, I forget who (think it was the boyfriend who committed suicide to avoid the penalty) and nobody lived happily ever after. The movie was on a while stupid and over-exagerrated, but you get the point...I hope...

Women are treated better than guys in society, and you hear false acounts of rape every day by some gold-diggers with nothing better to do with their lives. Just look at the Kobe Briant Case...

3. Same with child molestation. If a babysitter is bathing a child, and the child tells this to his or her parents, the babysitter is screwed, in short. Now is this a crime deserving of the death penalty? Absolutely not. You are thinking more on the lines of intentional child molestation and the running of a child pornography website, no? This would be assumed, but think about the other cases as well.

4. Incest is wrong, I agree, but it should not be punishable by death unless you are living in some sort of corrupt theocracy...

I agree 100%. There are so many loopholes today that it is unreal...I personally believe that the Death Penalty should be on a nation by nation base. This should not be implimented to each and every nation in the UN. The reason being, that not every nations views on "child molestation" and "rape" are the same. As afore mentioned there are MANY loopholes in these two cases in particular. If you want to impliment some kind of death penalty at all you are going to have to specify the excact cases in which these "acts" would be in efffect.


Respectfully Yours,
King of The Seven Judgements

I believe that if you want true consensus, you can bring it before the UN. If you believe that the majority believe it to be wrong, this resolution will be voted out of the sky. Put your beliefs to the test.

I assume this comment was directed at myself, if not I apologise in advance. Firstly, a resolution to ban the death penalty has already been brought before this body, which was rejected. In this lengthy debate every conceivable argument was discussed and the only absolutely apparent outcome was the inability of diplomats to move from their respective positions. The only consensus that could be reached was that the matter was best left to individual states.

Secondly, this debate appears very often within this body and having taken part in many over my tenure as Ambassador I can assure you very little is achieved. The issue is simply too fundamental to the respective beliefs of this body’s members and neither side is prepared to accept the others interpretation.

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

Now normally, I'm all in favour of UN 'interference'; my usual justification being that the UN is here to give people the choice on matters, and let them make their own minds up. However, on this one I am forced to disaprove, as it is actually removing choice, the choice of a country to decide whether they deem execution right or not. The choice of the individual is irrelevant here, as the crim has no say in his sentence. If this was banning the death penalty I'd make the same argument

Who said Incest's a crime? Hyuk!
*frantic banjo playing*

Ha Ha

Don't come to Vastiva. Banjo-playing is a Death Penalty offense.

(/silly) :p

let the respective states decide this, its the easiest solution

We can't support this proposal. The right to life is embedded in any human being and we humans are not allowed to judge people that harshly. If only one of 1000 criminals is killed while being innocent, the death penalty will be a great mistake.

Therefore, we suggest you leave the task of crime prevention to each nation, so that there is room for other decisions. We shall never forget that each human being has the right to live, even murderers. A "fits-all-cases-law" like this will fail and create a world of fear and terror - sooner or later.

This is our position concerning this subject. Thank you for your attention.

-- Arthur Macintosh, Lord Chancellor and Head of State of The Holy Republic of Magyra --