Submitted: Ban Death Penalty [Archive]

Monte di Procida

30-11-2004, 22:46

Within my viewpoint, Capital Punishment is not wrong; it can be wrong, by circumstance. But is not inherantly wrong.

Governments certainly do have the right to determine if people, who have been convicted of certain heinous crimes, have a right to continued life or not.

My opinion is that life is something so important that cannot be managed by someone else.
I agree with You that for some crimes the person looses all his rights as a citizen and as a man. But MURDERING them brings You on the same level than he is.

My idea is:close him in the worst hole in the ground and put the keys away. No freedom, no civil rights, no possibilityof social life.
But don't touch his life, because it's the only thing You can't decide about!

I answer here also to the people who said that this can't pass because another similar just failed in June. Well, my friends, fighting for what You believe is theonly way to get it.
It failed on June? Let's talk about it again in December. And if it's not enough maybe we will talk again in May... Who knows. We are not talking about free hamburgers on the corner of the streets: we are talking about LIFE!
And I hope that enough delegates will join my position and give their approval to see what the world thinks about this right now!

Greetings.
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Texan Hotrodders

30-11-2004, 22:48

Does this idea come up about every three days or something? I'm beginning to get that impression. :(

Florida Oranges

30-11-2004, 22:50

Actually this has been up for a vote before and it failed.

Personally I don't like this idea why should the UN tell me how to treat my nation's criminals. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has the death penalty because we feel that by eliminating murderers we permently remove any chance that they'll reoffend.

Well the UN tells me I have to legalize abortion, which, if my nation was a Christian theocracy (which I assure you it isn't), would be encroaching on my nation's rights. So why not?

Frisbeeteria

30-11-2004, 22:58

Well the UN tells me I have to legalize abortion, which, if my nation was a Christian theocracy (which I assure you it isn't), would be encroaching on my nation's rights. So why not?
Pleeeeeeease don't turn this into yet another abortion topic. We've got at least two live ones running as it is, and nobody has EVER changed their minds as a result of UN Forum arguments.

Does this idea come up about every three days or something?
Yup. And it's a brand new idea every time!

Shazbotdom

30-11-2004, 22:59

Our world is made up of people from all walks of life. Most of the ancient nations that don't exist anymore have stood by the rules of "An Eye for An Eye".

1st Degree Murder should be dealt with using the Death Penalty.

Nuff Said,
Emporer Shaz Bot

Monte di Procida

30-11-2004, 23:02

Does this idea come up about every three days or something? I'm beginning to get that impression. :(

Dont You think there is a good reason for this?
It's a so important argumento, IMHO...!!!

Greetings.
TheGuardian

Florida Oranges

30-11-2004, 23:02

Nevermind.

Texan Hotrodders

30-11-2004, 23:02

Pleeeeeeease don't turn this into yet another abortion topic. We've got at least two live ones running as it is, and nobody has EVER changed their minds as a result of UN Forum arguments.

Yup. And it's a brand new idea every time!

BTW, I would appreciate you checking a certain UN-related InvisionFree forum that shall go unnamed and a certain topic in particular...

Monte di Procida

30-11-2004, 23:06

1st Degree Murder should be dealt with using the Death Penalty.

Yes, BUT...

What about the killers who murder the murders?
If I was the brother of a Death Penalty killed guy, I would ask for a Death Penalty for the people who murdered my brother too...

Or do You think there's someone who can freely kill other people while "normal people" get killed with Death Penalty?

I don't believe in stuffs like "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" (cit.)

TheGuardian

TheGuardian

Monte di Procida

30-11-2004, 23:07

Why could the argument that this interferes in affairs that should be controlled by a soveriegn nation's government be used on this resolution and no other?

I agree 100%!!!

TheGuardian

Florida Oranges

30-11-2004, 23:10

I'm glad you do. As far right as I may be (anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-guns), I do not agree with the death penalty. I believe in the preservation of life at all costs. I just wish people would apply the argument that "this interferes with my government" in other proposals and repeals.

Shazbotdom

30-11-2004, 23:13

As was stated before, ONCE someone is convicted of MURDER, they become the PROPERTY of the STATE. They have no rights once this happens. It is up to the STATE to decide what happens with the convicted felon's, not the UN's.

I may be a member of the UN but i disagree with this proposal. If a proposal like this one didn't pass before, why do you think it will pass now? IT WON'T. So just give up on this already, the members of the UN have spoken on this matter before and a resolution like this proposal failed before, so it will fail again.

Nuff Said,
Emporer Shaz Bot

The Kingsland

30-11-2004, 23:13

Or do You think there's someone who can freely kill other people while "normal people" get killed with Death Penalty?
Sooo...what your'e saying is that murderers are "normal people"? I don't think so. It is the difference between taking the life of an innocent, and punitive action. If the powers that be, btw which is no single individual, decide that the death penalty should be enacted, then it is the society as a whole. This issue is nothing of the sort, as you represent it that is. Their are actions and there are consequences. If you decide to murder someone then the consequence should equal the action.

BTW, Florida Oranges. You are correct that this should be a nations right to decide. My country would decide for such a measure to ensure that the correct actions would be taken, as to their approval. This could however, be something addressed in the Genocide proposal.

True Heart

30-11-2004, 23:15

Telidia

30-11-2004, 23:20

Does this idea come up about every three days or something? I'm beginning to get that impression. :(

Indeed Ambassador Jones, it does indeed. May I respectfully request UN representatives do a search on previous debates with regard to this topic and other more ‘fundamental topics’ such as abortion, gay rights etc.

This body have been around for some time and there is little chance these ‘fundamental topics’ have not already been debated before. I am not suggesting you never bring these topics to the floor, but rather to do some research to ensure you don’t cover ground already debated. It will also help to ensure that your proposals take into account previous comments and is not immediately rebuffed by members on grounds of repetition.

(This is just a personal request, because I would like to see the wood of my desk sometime soon. It’s been a while…) :)
Right with that out of the way:

The Telidian government see no reason to change our official position that this matter must for the time being, remain in the privy of local government. We unfortunately do not feel this proposal brought to us by the honourable member from Monte di Procida, bring any new arguments to debate.

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

Monte di Procida

30-11-2004, 23:56

The Telidian government see no reason to change our official position that this matter must for the time being, remain in the privy of local government. We unfortunately do not feel this proposal brought to us by the honourable member from Monte di Procida, bring any new arguments to debate.

First of all thanks a lot for this answer about this matter... :)

Of course before proposing this argument again I read all the past discussions, so sorry if I discuss it again, but I use to fight if I believe in something...
In our country we use to say that "when people saw the first automobile onto the streets they said it would never replace horses as a transport supply, but the stroy gave them no reason"...

I feel very angry because sometimes it seems that some States are only interested in keep their own power on some arguments, no matter how importants they are...
Here we are not discussing about how to spend your taxes income, but we are trying to protect the fundament of everthing: LIFE!

If the UN diplomacy requires that, this will be my last words about this argument,I don't want to bore You and let You waste Your time with me... I will only say: if You decided to get into the UN, You should be ready to open Your doors to the UN decisions.

Good night (or good morning for someone else).

TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Tekania

30-11-2004, 23:58

My opinion is that life is something so important that cannot be managed by someone else.
I agree with You that for some crimes the person looses all his rights as a citizen and as a man. But MURDERING them brings You on the same level than he is.

My idea is:close him in the worst hole in the ground and put the keys away. No freedom, no civil rights, no possibilityof social life.
But don't touch his life, because it's the only thing You can't decide about!

I answer here also to the people who said that this can't pass because another similar just failed in June. Well, my friends, fighting for what You believe is theonly way to get it.
It failed on June? Let's talk about it again in December. And if it's not enough maybe we will talk again in May... Who knows. We are not talking about free hamburgers on the corner of the streets: we are talking about LIFE!
And I hope that enough delegates will join my position and give their approval to see what the world thinks about this right now!

Greetings.
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Capital Punishment isn't murder. I've been over this on many past occasions, and I'm not repeating myself. The language you speak stands against you.

Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another. As long as capital punishment is lawful; it is not murder. Merely throwing a word around, in ignorant use; is not going to sway my opinion in this matter; especially since the Tekanian state's use of capital punishment is a derivation of our philosophical principles of individual freedom, liberty, and responsibility. The abolition of properly used capital punishment, is an abandonment of the value of life and liberty of the people.

TilEnca

01-12-2004, 01:11

I am really not in favour of the death penalty - I oppose it with a firey passion and it will never be enacted in TilEnca.

But not every nation is TilEnca, and I am not President of every nation. So I don't feel that I can speak for every nation (unless I invade every single nation and conquer it, which is somewhat unlikely), and I don't believe it is my place to enforce my distate of the death penalty on everyone :}

So, despite the fact I think the world would be a better place for this, it would actually be a lot worse.

True Heart

01-12-2004, 01:46

Capital Punishment isn't murder. I've been over this on many past occasions, and I'm not repeating myself. The language you speak stands against you.

Murder is the unlawful killing of one person by another. As long as capital punishment is lawful; it is not murder. Merely throwing a word around, in ignorant use; is not going to sway my opinion in this matter; especially since the Tekanian state's use of capital punishment is a derivation of our philosophical principles of individual freedom, liberty, and responsibility. The abolition of properly used capital punishment, is an abandonment of the value of life and liberty of the people.
Though capital punishment is not legally considered murder, constructing a defense of capital punishment on the grounds that it isn't murder is pure legalistic sophistry and truly irrelevant to the reason why capital punishment is wrong and must be stopped.

Hiding behind the technical skirts of mnemonic law to condone a violation of the inalienable human right to life that applies to everyone without exception, is an act of administrative cowardice that reveals a hypocritical perspective on the function of law itself.

So called "philosophical principles of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility" pale in comparison to the inalienable inviolable right to life about which any government's truly humane principles were designed to protectively support -- no exceptions. The state's killing of any hand-tied citizen is indeed state-sponsored killing that is like murder in every way that truly matters to the honest heart.

That your principles cannot be equally supported, under a law whereby people are humanely incarcerated to protect others from them instead of killing them, is a sad commentary about the true value of your principles, as, at the moment, they function, not for any grand and glorious benefit they bestow on your people, but merely as an excuse for you to kill.

As I clearly stated in a previous post, capital punishment is truly a cowardly act, and act unbecoming of any nation that calls itself civilized.

DemonLordEnigma

01-12-2004, 02:12

Though capital punishment is not legally considered murder, constructing a defense of capital punishment on the grounds that it isn't murder is pure legalistic sophistry and truly irrelevant to the reason why capital punishment is wrong and must be stopped.

Capital punishment is putting someone to death for a crime too heinous for them to live. These are for cases where the people cannot be rehabilitated and/or pay retribution and have no mental disease legally allowed as a defense.

An example includes a guy breaking in to a family's home late at night, forcing the parents to watch while he rapes the kids, forcing the kids to set the parents on fire to kill them, and then chopping off the arms and legs of the kids so they cannot escape or get help before leaving them all to die. That person obviously is beyond all hope of ever being truly rehabilitated and certainly can't pay retribution.

Hiding behind the technical skirts of mnemonic law to condone a violation of the inalienable human right to life that applies to everyone without exception, is an act of administrative cowardice that reveals a hypocritical perspective on the function of law itself.

Actually, there is where you are wrong. The only universal right of humanoids is the right to die. It is the only truly inalienable right. Everything else is just privilages granted by those in power and nature. With my nation, it is not a case of cowardice, just a case of recognizing them as a waste of money to try to deal with. It's cheaper to execute.

So called "philosophical principles of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility" pale in comparison to the inalienable inviolable right to life about which any government's truly humane principles were designed to protectively support -- no exceptions. The state's killing of any hand-tied citizen is indeed state-sponsored killing that is like murder in every way that truly matters to the honest heart.

Life is not inalienable, inviolable, etc. Life can be taken away so easily, and is for everyone, it's not even a right. And to be honest, if they cannot be put back into use for society, I see no reason to keep them alive.

That your principles cannot be equally supported, under a law whereby people are humanely incarcerated to protect others from them instead of killing them, is a sad commentary about the true value of your principles, as, at the moment, they function, not for any grand and glorious benefit they bestow on your people, but merely as an excuse for you to kill.

No, they function to benefit my empire. The people understood this when I took power and still understand it. I'm doing it for the empire as a whole, not the individual.

As I clearly stated in a previous post, capital punishment is truly a cowardly act, and act unbecoming of any nation that calls itself civilized.

Cowardly? Uncivilized? Don't make me laugh. You fall under the same utopian dreams I have seen so often from people and don't realize the bigger picture.

Here's the bigger picture: You're going to die. No matter what you do, how much you do, or how you do it, you're going to die. So is everyone else. The people put to death are people who cannot contribute to society anymore in any way. They have violated an important act of survival for the society and the best thing to do is make sure they will not be a burden on the people while they continue to live.

Execution is not a cowardly act. It is admitting there are people beyond your capacity to help who would only be an unfair burden upon the people to keep them isolated. It is also a tactic to discourage others by playing on the instinctive fear of death.

You do not understand civilization. It is not a utopia, but a nation on the edge of either tearing itself apart or withering away, always creating internal strife to cause people to advance while not causing enough to destroy itself, all the while having those it agrees with and those it doesn't and the strife involved there. To understand human civilization, you must understand humanity requires conflict and struggle to advance itself and define who it is. Only then, only with the challenges and dangers and cases of people dying, does it know how to define itself.

Kelssek

01-12-2004, 03:03

I would eagerly jump in but after the last debate, I have the overpowering desire to just smack you guys. Especially Tekania. And the addition of True Heart and his eye-bleeding italics, even if he is on my side of the argument... well... Forget it.

Tekania

01-12-2004, 03:09

Though capital punishment is not legally considered murder, constructing a defense of capital punishment on the grounds that it isn't murder is pure legalistic sophistry and truly irrelevant to the reason why capital punishment is wrong and must be stopped.

That wasn't a defense, it was a complaint...

Hiding behind the technical skirts of mnemonic law to condone a violation of the inalienable human right to life that applies to everyone without exception, is an act of administrative cowardice that reveals a hypocritical perspective on the function of law itself.

Except, to those whom the murder has murdered appearantly... This is where we disagree. There is nothing hypocritical about it. Our law exists to impose the equitable penalty for one person violating the rights of another... And that is all the laws of this Republic exist for... We lack any form of "victimless" crime, for the barbaric concep that it is, that many nations, such as yours, always put forth.

So called "philosophical principles of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility" pale in comparison to the inalienable inviolable right to life about which any government's truly humane principles were designed to protectively support -- no exceptions. The state's killing of any hand-tied citizen is indeed state-sponsored killing that is like murder in every way that truly matters to the honest heart.

Yes, penalty is an extension of rights lost in the commission of a crime, in equitable level to the loss imposed upon the victim. Yes, we support the "right to life" as well as "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness", which your nation finds so easy to remove from your own populace for no other reason but pure pleasure and tyranical imposition... The Republic has no heart, only logic. And it is because of the inherant right to life possessed by our citizenry, that the unlawful removal of that right by another, has an equal penalty imposed.

That your principles cannot be equally supported, under a law whereby people are humanely incarcerated to protect others from them instead of killing them, is a sad commentary about the true value of your principles, as, at the moment, they function, not for any grand and glorious benefit they bestow on your people, but merely as an excuse for you to kill.

Now you engage in strawman arguements... Without actual knowledge of our principles, you create your own from a limited framework, and then attack them. Our laws do not exist to "protect" anyone.... They exist to penalize the violations of the liberties of others. As I have said, this republic lacks all forms of "victimless crime", unlike your nation which goes even as far as making "having too many children" a criminal offense (and which we call barbarism to the extreme). Which is truly as sad commentary about where your values lay.... The Republic takes no pleasure in executing judgement, regardless of penalty, whether restitutional or otherwise...

As I clearly stated in a previous post, capital punishment is truly a cowardly act, and act unbecoming of any nation that calls itself civilized.

Comming from a nation which is so uncivilized as to criminalize parents, I take your words with little or no merit. Your government seeks no other end, but the tyranical stamping out of your own populaces liberties.... Ours exalts personal liberty and responsibility... Which is the difference in where each of our values truly lay....

Monte di Procida

01-12-2004, 07:00

Capital punishment is putting someone to death for a crime too heinous for them to live.

Execution is not a cowardly act. It is admitting there are people beyond your capacity to help who would only be an unfair burden upon the people to keep them isolated. It is also a tactic to discourage others by playing on the instinctive fear of death.

Who are You to decide what's too heinous for a person to get alive?
In my mind I could also think it's enough to steal an apple... In Your mind it could need to be a bloody serial killer... Who knows?

It's just a person judging another person... Who can say FOR SURE what is too heinous or what is not, so to decide to private another person of the precious thing he has got?

Sorry, my friend, but it's not enough to say that if the law permits the murder as a penalty, it's no more a murder...!!!

In Your honorable opinion if tomorrow morning a new UN decides that steal diamonds from jewelries is ok for the law, it means it's a right thing?

Greetings
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

TilEnca

01-12-2004, 12:14

Who are You to decide what's too heinous for a person to get alive?

He is the leader of this nation. Which is, quite honestly, all he needs to be.

Monte di Procida

01-12-2004, 13:42

He is the leader of this nation. Which is, quite honestly, all he needs to be.

And Sooo??!!?

In Your opinion the leader of a Nation has the power of life/death on his citizens? A man who can decide if to kill other men?
He's a leader, not a God...

Sorry but I'm completely on the opposite side of the river...

Greetings.
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Tekania

01-12-2004, 14:20

And Sooo??!!?

In Your opinion the leader of a Nation has the power of life/death on his citizens? A man who can decide if to kill other men?
He's a leader, not a God...

Sorry but I'm completely on the opposite side of the river...

Greetings.
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Those in leadership have the power to declare wars, advocate peace, pass laws; generally to effect everything pertained to the peoples right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... All three rights stand or fall together; there is no logical way of disconnecting them... If you have power over the later two, you have power over the former; if you fo not have power over the former, then you do not have power over the later two... Which is why this Republic refuses to hear against the rights of the people, unless it is in the violation of those rights by another; in which case, the Repubic may, in arbitrational capacity; penalize any of the three rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) in proportion to the right which was removed from the other.... It's similar to the principle of "eye for an eye" judgement, but based within the realm of proportional rights, as opposed to actual physical punishment... And again once anyone, being convicted, has payed by judgement, they are restored to full citizenship and persohood (another principle we have which is at odds with most other nations), even those who have payed with their own lives, are stricken from the record as "criminals"...

TilEnca

01-12-2004, 14:47

Monte di Procida

01-12-2004, 16:16

Please don't misunderstand me - I am not a fan of the death penalty. And so I would rather it were banned.

I'm not misunderstanding You... :o)
This conversation is very interesting, seeing all the different point of view discussing in a civil and polite way.
So nothing is wrong, and also if the resolution proposal wouldn't pass it has been a nice discussion with You all... :o)

Which is a bad thing :}

Veeery bad thing!!! ;opp

Greetings
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

DemonLordEnigma

01-12-2004, 17:35

Who are You to decide what's too heinous for a person to get alive?
In my mind I could also think it's enough to steal an apple... In Your mind it could need to be a bloody serial killer... Who knows?

Who am I? I am the ruler of the DLE Empire, unchallenged mind you, whose job it is to hold up the societal values of my people while at the same time trying to advance the society as a whole. According to society values, the death penalty is not only acceptable but some that would likely cause a civil war if removed. It is one of the few practices the people have from their past and the glory they once held. They won't let that go without a fight.

It's just a person judging another person... Who can say FOR SURE what is too heinous or what is not, so to decide to private another person of the precious thing he has got?

The society as a whole can, and in mine they have.

Sorry, my friend, but it's not enough to say that if the law permits the murder as a penalty, it's no more a murder...!!!

You ever see me dispute calling it murder? Hell, you help in murder everytime you eat a salad. Why was that head of lettuce to be executed just so you can live? Who says you have to impose your values on that carrot? You, my friend, are just as much a murderer as I, except I am not enough of a hypocrite to deny that my actions cause death.

In Your honorable opinion if tomorrow morning a new UN decides that steal diamonds from jewelries is ok for the law, it means it's a right thing?

Greetings
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Actually, that would probably get the UN laughed at in my nation. Diamonds are considered worthless because they are so common and we have harder materials around.

And Sooo??!!?

In Your opinion the leader of a Nation has the power of life/death on his citizens? A man who can decide if to kill other men?
He's a leader, not a God...

Sorry but I'm completely on the opposite side of the river...

Actually, in recent years Enigma has been moving in that direction with how he has been treated. He's been trying his best to discourage it, but as he is the only remnant of the Sarkarasetan empires that is not a massive derelict ship or a bunch of ruins...

Tremaynia

02-12-2004, 03:43

Fellow delegates,

The issue of when, or even if, capitol punishment should be acceptable, is best left to individual states. As an "oversight" organization, the UN would be well within it's mandate to stipulate the specific means and proceedures of execution, but it would overstep it's bounds to dictate if any nation will permit this option to it's judiciary.

In Tremaynia, we have our own form of capitol punishment. A criminal found guility of certain crimes has his "personality" removed. (I am not a liberty to discuss the specific, but suffice that there numerous means to do so...) What is left, is a living being, but with very little free will or creative thought. They are typically then assigned various menial tasks about the kingdom. They are considered "Wards of the State" at their services can be leased by individuals needing low cost, unskilled labor. The majority perform public works such as trash disposal, simple maintance and similar tasks.

However, we still retain on our books, laws concerning certain truly heinous crimes. (high treason being the most notable...) The mandated sentence in such instances, can only be execution; though his Grace, King Loren, in his beneficence, has commuted this sentence in three instances to that of Personality Removal.

Crimes, and the punishments mandated are better left to the delegate nations, as our diversity would prohibt more than very basic prohibitions. Indeed, I'm sure that in the lands of Demon Lord Enigma, there are crimes that would be unheard of in Tremaynia. As such, I would be ill-equipped to dictate the terms of his jurisprudence. Similarly, there are likely a few laws in my own homeland, that are likely beyond the experience of Lord Enigma, and I can confidently state King Loren would be outraged to have someone from another realm attempt to dictate on matters they have no real knowledge of.

The one commonality, if one could be said to exist, would be that of the "sentient" condition. (I use the term here to indicate any being who would qualify for citizenship of their nation...) As such, the UN mandate would be ensure it's member nation oblige with a certain minimum level of "humanity" to it's citizens.

A proposal mandating all executions be performed in an expeidient and as painfree as possible manner, very might pass a vote. I might even consider supporting such a proposal. However, to stipulate when such a sentence may be implemented, presumes a great deal and in truth, is beyond the scope of this organization.

Respectfully
Lord Morgan Sheridan
Duke of the High March
Ambassador for Tremaynia

South Arctica

02-12-2004, 04:22

Nations of the World:

It is the position of South Arctica that the Death Penalty should indeed be banned.

It is a matter of historical fact that accused persons have been executed and later exonerated for their crimes. Life cannot be restored once taken. It is better that a capital offender should live than an innocent person should die.

For this reason, the harshest penalty allowed for a capital crime in South Arctica is lifelong imprisonment.

Those convicted of the most heinous crimes are sentenced as follows:

(1) Lifelong solitary confinement in a climate-controlled room with round-the-clock surveillance.

(2) The necessities of life, including food, water, air, and medical treatment as required to sustain life.

(3) One hour per-week visit with their legal representative.

(4) Two sources of news, the choice of which is left to the condemned.

(5) Re-examination of the case every five years, using reasonable means to determine whether the condemned may have been wrongly convicted.

In conclusion, the Nation of South Arctica will endorse a proposal to ban capital punishment.

Sincerely,

Chad Miller
Ambassador to the World

Speaking on behalf of the First Citizen of South Arctica

Tremaynia

02-12-2004, 04:43

Far beit for me, to dictate the conditions of another countries jurisprudence. However, I find your country's view on the death penalty to be a bit short sighted.

You're granting a life replete with outside information (ie, contact), food, shelter, et al, for taking the life of one of your citizens.

What is to prevent a homeless, destitute person, from killing someone, and being granted a vastly improved lifestyle? That would be a viable option over a slow, cold starvation death on the streets.

Life has a value. When someone deprives another of their life, they should be denied something of comesurate value. Under your system, it would seem the convicted murderer, would be handed a standard of living envied by many. Guranteed food. Guranteed shelter. Guranteed outside contact. All in return for doing absolutely nothing all day long, but sitting around in a cell, watching a TV.

In Tremaynia, we place a great deal more value on the lives of our citizens.

Respectfully
Duke Morgan Sheridan
Duke of the High Marches
Royal Ambassador for Tremaynia

Kelssek

02-12-2004, 09:06

This is just so ridiculous I just can't resist.

Far beit for me, to dictate the conditions of another countries jurisprudence. However, I find your country's view on the death penalty to be a bit short sighted.

You're granting a life replete with outside information (ie, contact), food, shelter, et al, for taking the life of one of your citizens.

What is to prevent a homeless, destitute person, from killing someone, and being granted a vastly improved lifestyle? That would be a viable option over a slow, cold starvation death on the streets.

Don't kid yourself. Assuming a normal economic situation, someone who was begging for money would need about 10 people giving him about twenty cents each for him to afford a meal. Granted that sleeping on the streets isn't a very desirable lifestyle, but I assure you people value their freedom enough not to want to be in prison, and it takes exceptional desperation to kill someone for no reason. That also assumes a complete lack of any social welfare, which would provide the person with at least a safe place to sleep and food... hey, problem solved.

Life has a value. When someone deprives another of their life, they should be denied something of comesurate value. Under your system, it would seem the convicted murderer, would be handed a standard of living envied by many. Guranteed food. Guranteed shelter. Guranteed outside contact. All in return for doing absolutely nothing all day long, but sitting around in a cell, watching a TV.

"Envied by many"? Whatever you're on, I want some of that. If you think it's so great, well, why not stab someone and get yourself put in prison then? But somehow I don't think you're in prison, are you? Nor do you want to be. Because you, as well as everyone else, knows prison isn't the picnic you say it is.

In Tremaynia, we place a great deal more value on the lives of our citizens.

As do we, which is why we don't have the death penalty. It seems we agree on a key belief but disagree on how this belief should be manifested.

Anti Pharisaism

02-12-2004, 09:11

Anti Pharisaism

02-12-2004, 09:17

Capital punishment is the premature ending of a human life. Thus capital punishment is wrong.

He who advocates capital punishment is someone who kills out of revenge, and revenge killing is a shallow jump to a quick-fix conclusion, an emotional excuse to avoid mourning the loss the killer caused, and a coward's way of exacting revenge on all who ever hurt him simply by executing a surrogate.

He, who recognizes that killing must be stopped, that killing severely damages those who commit capital punishment, who has compassion even on the psychologically damaged who kill, and who recognizes that no one is a born killer, is indeed someone who truly honors the victim, by saying the killing buck stops here!

He who has the courage to say no to capital punishment affirms life for all, and is a most courageous person.

That or a biological oddity prone to altruism such that he endangers his own life.

What happened to logic, a premature ending, ergo it is wrong. Ignorant of justification or any form of reasoning for that matter. At least you are partly consistent. Value of life holds true from thread to thread, use of logical reasoning does not.

Like Kelssek, this is a tiring debate. If it reaches quorum, vote on it. No point arguing value judgments.

Monte di Procida

02-12-2004, 09:48

Life has a value. When someone deprives another of their life, they should be denied something of comesurate value. Under your system, it would seem the convicted murderer, would be handed a standard of living envied by many. Guranteed food. Guranteed shelter. Guranteed outside contact. All in return for doing absolutely nothing all day long, but sitting around in a cell, watching a TV.

In Tremaynia, we place a great deal more value on the lives of our citizens.

Life has a value for the murder exactly as it has for the murdered!!
Think about this...

For the rest I think that once banned the Death Penalty, each country should be free to decide what to do with their guilty citizens...
Maybe they will give soft punishment because they believe in redention, and maybe they will choose lifelong detention in a ugly cell with rats and few foods... Who knows? That's should be the Nations choice. But never touch oteher people's life!

Greetings
TheGuardian - Monte di Procida

Tekania

02-12-2004, 14:46

Life has a value for the murder exactly as it has for the murdered!!

Yes, it does; which is why this Republic takes the fair, just, and equitable use of Capital Punishment in a very serious and solemn manner.

Think about this...

Ok...

For the rest I think that once banned the Death Penalty, each country should be free to decide what to do with their guilty citizens...

Except that which we want... I am no longer "free" to decide; your proposal would remove my freedom to decide what to do by my own laws.

Maybe they will give soft punishment because they believe in redention,

What is "redention"? Neither me, nor 5 other dictionaries at my disposal seem to be familiar with that word.

and maybe they will choose lifelong detention in a ugly cell with rats and few foods... Who knows?

So appearantly, maltreatment over long periods is more humane than quick executions? One begins to wonder where yours and other values really lay... They seem to defy all logic and ethics, and approach the realm of some sort of religious morality.

That's should be the Nations choice.

Or the choice to execute a heinous offender with equal judgement to the sentence he passed upon his victim in lieu of his offense... Appearantly, within your realm, we should be open to every choice except fairness and justice. Hate to tell you; but I really want no part in "your world".

But never touch oteher people's life!

Why? What is so sacred about "life"... UN precedent has already settled upon the belief that "life" has no inherant sacricity...

If women are free to have the choice to end the life of another under certain circumstances....

and, if families can choose to end the life of a relative under certain circumstances....

The People of a nation/state can have the choice to end the life of another under certain circumstances....

The concepts and ethics of each are irrevocably connected... Acceptance of one or more must mean a consistent acceptance of all.

DemonLordEnigma

02-12-2004, 19:43

Life has a value for the murder exactly as it has for the murdered!!
Think about this...

If the murderer valued life so much, he wouldn't have taken it. Since he obviously doesn't value life that much, it is up to my courts to decide whether he keeps his.

To be honest, we do not take it likely have two methods of execution that are as humane as possible. The third, which is far from it, is saved for people who have done things so heinous that not even a humane death can be justified for them.

For the rest I think that once banned the Death Penalty, each country should be free to decide what to do with their guilty citizens...

So, limiting what we can do with them and then allowing us to do what we want? Kiss your nation goodbye. I'll just arm them with military weapons more advanced than you have, drop them off in your nation, and offer a case reward to the person who causes the most death, destruction, and chaos. And if you decide to complain, I'll bomb the cities they are not in from orbit to make sure they can't terrorize those.

Maybe they will give soft punishment because they believe in redention, and maybe they will choose lifelong detention in a ugly cell with rats and few foods... Who knows?

I know exactly what I'm going to do with them. Also, define "redention".

That's should be the Nations choice. But never touch oteher people's life!

They shouldn't have touched other people's lives as well. If they hadn't, I wouldn't have to.

Also, a little secret: If I don't kill them, the honest citizens in my empire will.

Texan Hotrodders

02-12-2004, 19:46

Also, a little secret: If I don't kill them, the honest citizens in my empire will.

OOC: That's pretty much how it works in Texas. :D

DemonLordEnigma

02-12-2004, 20:37

OOC: That's pretty much how it works in Texas. :D

OOC: That is also why I issue my citizens assault rifles. Before that, the prefered method of execution was burning at the stake. I find shooting someone to death more humane.

TilEnca

02-12-2004, 21:30

If the murderer valued life so much, he wouldn't have taken it. Since he obviously doesn't value life that much, it is up to my courts to decide whether he keeps his.

If you value life so much, why are you willing to take someone's?

Monte di Procida

02-12-2004, 21:49

What is "redention"? Neither me, nor 5 other dictionaries at my disposal seem to be familiar with that word.

Well, the right word was of course redemption
Sorry but sometimes the lack of time makes bad jokes...
:o)

TheGuardian

South Arctica

03-12-2004, 23:53

...You're granting a life replete with outside information (ie, contact), food, shelter, et al, for taking the life of one of your citizens.

What is to prevent a homeless, destitute person, from killing someone, and being granted a vastly improved lifestyle? That would be a viable option over a slow, cold starvation death on the streets.

...In Tremaynia, we place a great deal more value on the lives of our citizens.

Respectfully
Duke Morgan Sheridan
Duke of the High Marches
Royal Ambassador for Tremaynia

Your Excellency:

In our country, we also place a great deal of value on the lives of our citizens. This is why we provide state-sponsored welfare programs that are available to those who fall to such a state that they might consider lifelong solitary confinement to a preferable alternative.

In short, there are better ways to get a bed and a meal than killing someone, in my country and (I assume) in yours.

It has been the consensus of the Citizens of South Arctica that murderers often do not consider the consequences of their actions should they be caught, and that those who do consider them do not feel death to be a significantly greater deterrent than lifelong imprisonment.

Finally, were it possible to know beyond doubt that every convicted murderer is guilty, then our country would consider the use of capital punishment, if only to save the cost of housing the offenders for the rest of their lives. It is because of this ever-present possibility of an offender's innocence that they are permitted contact with the outside world. The people of our nation do not wish the government to have the legally sanctioned power to make anyone "disappear" into a prison system from which they have no recourse whatsoever.

Having debated the matter, it remains the consensus of the Senate that the risk of executing an innocent person is too great. A falsely imprisoned person may have their freedom restored - a falsely executed person has no recourse. This argument has proved irrefutable in our legislature.

With respect for your great nation,

Chad Miller
Ambassador to the World
South Arctica

DemonLordEnigma

03-12-2004, 23:57

If you value life so much, why are you willing to take someone's?

The standard of the society. And no one said I slept well after it.

Lanesbuoro

04-12-2004, 04:32

DEATH PENALTY...

This is a horrible thing. Life is precious. No crime deserves death, if the crime is really that bad, death is too good for them. Put them in a life long labor camp prison, or something, don't kill them. A person should not be "repaid" the same "credit" they did. If a person cuts off anothers ear, will we be saying cut off their own ear. Come On people. Support this anti death penalty resolution. I support life, even the life of those who may not deserve it

Tekania

04-12-2004, 04:38

Winged Hussars

04-12-2004, 04:59

I would just like to say that being from Texas I am damn proud that we are the nations leader in ridding the world of human garbage. Yes I am fully aware of the innocent that may be killed which is a horrific travesty. This is why there is absolutley positivly no doubt through unflappable evidence that if the suspect did it then I say put them to the sword! and be quick about it dammit! Hell, put it on pay per view! not since the age of the Romans, has the populace's lust for bloodshed been stamped out. Is violence wrong? of course! Is taking someone's life wrong? yes it is. But there are times in our lives when taking someone's life for pure revenge is necessary. If your wife or husband was brutally raped or killed and you knew w/o any doubt at all who was responsible I have a hard time believing that if you had the power to do something about it you would turn the other cheek. Some things are just unacceptable and need to be dealt with a severly heavy hand. Either that, or we will eventually be a nation of pansies, or worse yet, resemble the ideals of France! :mp5:

Frisbeeteria

04-12-2004, 05:29

I would just like to say that being from Texas yadda yadda yadda ...
You DO realize this is a game; that Winged Hussars is from the Renegade Islands Alliance and not Texas; and that France and the nation's leader that you are so fond of do not exist in this place?

Either comment on things relevant to the NationStates UN, or join the conversations in the General Forum. This isn't the place for comments like you just posted. Thank you.

Dresophila Prime

04-12-2004, 05:31

that being from Texas I am damn proud

HO RAH!

Yes I am fully aware of the innocent that may be killed which is a horrific travesty.

Juts how many? Nowadays you need an overwhelming amount of evidence to convict somebody, and even then, they are apt to get away due to a loophole, lie, or race card...or strawberry stains with human DNA. SO...it would be pretty hard to give somebody the death penalty if they really did not commit the crime.

If your wife or husband was brutally raped or killed and you knew w/o any doubt at all who was responsible I have a hard time believing that if you had the power to do something about it you would turn the other cheek.

It sickens me, but heroism is dead. We are in a progressive era, where conflicts are solved with words, and that criminal who raped and killed your wife will sit in jail, living in better conditions than you are. "violence doesn't solve anything..."

HA!

South Arctica

04-12-2004, 05:44

If your wife or husband was brutally raped or killed and you knew w/o any doubt at all who was responsible I have a hard time believing that if you had the power to do something about it you would turn the other cheek.

(OOC) Under such circumstances, I would kill the bastard who did it and feel justified. I would not take the moral high ground, nor turn the other cheek; I would do everything in my power to make the one who did it suffer Hell before he died, just in case he didn't afterward. And that death would be as gruesome and painful as I could imagine, preferably by dipping him into a vat of seething acid an inch at a time, applying certain measures to make sure he doesn't bleed to death before he's in up to his neck.

This does not mean that I believe in the "rightness" of capital punishment, torture, or brutal revenge. It means that I acknowledge that in that situation, my objectivity and sense of morals would be destroyed. Just because I would gladly kill one who murders my wife doesn't make it right - it means I wouldn't care anymore whether it was right or not.

Tekania

04-12-2004, 06:50

Isn't it funny... If someone murdered my wife, some people would find it wrong for him to be sentenced to death... On the otherhand, let's say I managed to find my wife about to be murdered.... if these people were consistent, or even logical (which they are not) they would also find it wrong for me to shoot his ass, in defense of my wife's life...

I'm sorry, but quite frankly, this "moral high-ground" crap, is utter and complete non-sensical bullshit... "moral high-ground" is a completely relative term, that has no actual meaning past what is inside the sick and demented mind of the person using the term.... the word "moral" and "morality" is relative, and the term "high" is relative.... neither have any absolute and concrete meaning... I'm sorry, but the description of the culture the anti-CP'ers offer, is a complete degredation of all humanity, to the point of complete unjust lawlessness.

Anti Pharisaism

04-12-2004, 08:52

Vastiva

04-12-2004, 09:20

We of Vastiva still see the rule of Self-Responsibility the only reasonable way.

If you attempt a crime, you accept the possibility of the results of that crime, be it success or failure.

We find nothing incongruent about our belief that many people deserve death, and receive it. We see much incongruent about keeping people fenced up forever - is that not "cruel and unusual"?

As such, we declare ourselves in ownership of "the moral high ground", which has been set aside as landfill.

Fitting, we believe.

Tekania

04-12-2004, 09:32

Anti Pharisaism

04-12-2004, 09:34

*silence*

Tekania

04-12-2004, 09:38

*silence*

I think maybe I'll start using that tactic :D

"What, you want to propose resolution (X)!... We cannot do this... We need to take the moral high ground!"

"What, you want to repeal resolution (X)!... We cannot do this.... We need to take the moral high ground!"

"What, you're not voting for resolution (X)!... We have to... we need to take the moral high ground!"....

Hell, I can be on both sides of the fence, and on top of the damn thing, all at the same time!!!

Kelssek

04-12-2004, 10:13

Isn't it funny... If someone murdered my wife, some people would find it wrong for him to be sentenced to death... On the otherhand, let's say I managed to find my wife about to be murdered.... if these people were consistent, or even logical (which they are not) they would also find it wrong for me to shoot his ass, in defense of my wife's life...

Why would it be inconsistent to be against the death penalty, and accept murder in self-defence in cases of imminent threat? And even if the two do contradict, what bearing does it have on the issue at hand? Ban the death penalty means you have to get rid of the self-defence laws? That makes no sense at all.

I'm sorry, but quite frankly, this "moral high-ground" crap, is utter and complete non-sensical bullshit... "moral high-ground" is a completely relative term, that has no actual meaning past what is inside the sick and demented mind of the person using the term.... the word "moral" and "morality" is relative, and the term "high" is relative.... neither have any absolute and concrete meaning... I'm sorry, but the description of the culture the anti-CP'ers offer, is a complete degredation of all humanity, to the point of complete unjust lawlessness.

Ah.

Anti Pharisaism

04-12-2004, 10:30

Let's see: you value the lives of all your citizens.
And, it is quite hard to value life, so let us say you value individual lives equally.
One life then equals one life so to speak.
If one life equals one life, then one life does not equal two lives.
So, the lives of the many outweigh the life of the individual.

Let us say that the life of one poses an imminent threat to the life of another. Is the one in imminent danger justified in ending the life of the one who threatens his/her life?
Yes, it is self defense.

Let's say the life of one is an imminent threat to the life of others (members of society).
Are the members of society justified in ending the life of the individual to save their lives?
Yes, that is self defense.

Now, let us say that government represents the rights of society against that individual who is an imminent threat to their lives. Is it entitled to end the life of that individual to save the lives of members of the society it represents?
Yes, that is self defense.

So, can you allow self defense but not allow capital punishment, and claim consistency?

New Hamilton

04-12-2004, 10:46

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monte di Procida

Description: Life is the first and untouchable human right.

No matter how horrible the crime committed is: nobody in the world can decide if another person can live or not.

According to this resolution all the States must ban the Death Penalty in their countries, changing the penalty for very horrible crimes into very hard prison reclusion or other penalties they prefer.

******

N.B.: This is Monte di Procida first proposal. We tried to follow all the rules of the UN before submitting it, and we apologize is something still went wrong with it.
All suggestions and remarks about it will be very appreciated.
Hope it will pass.

Greetings.

I would change the title to either Death Penalty Ban or The Right to Live.

An eye for an eye leaves us both blind.

TilEnca

04-12-2004, 13:50

The standard of the society. And no one said I slept well after it.

Fair enough :}

DemonLordEnigma

04-12-2004, 16:28

Hell, I could call porking donkies in public the "moral high ground" if I wanted...

I could call letting a prisoners loose in a 10m x 10m steel cage with 8 staving lions the "moral high ground".

I could even say that to be in the "moral high ground" you can only drink RC Cola....

In fact, I could dredge up anything from the dark recesses of my mind, no matter how absurd, demented or sick it is, and attach it to the "moral high ground"...

I think that's why so many people like this "moral high ground"... it lets them think they are making an argument, when in reality they aren't saying a damn thing....

You're wrong. Moral high ground is when you take a sleeping man, have a rope going from one leg to a concrete pole, the other to a rock, throw the rock out the window, and then accuse him of trying to break the tenets of Bob everytime he reaches down to untie the ropes. That's moral high grounds in action.

Kelssek

04-12-2004, 16:49

Now, let us say that government represents the rights of society against that individual who is an imminent threat to their lives. Is it entitled to end the life of that individual to save the lives of members of the society it represents?
Yes, that is self defense.

So, can you allow self defense but not allow capital punishment, and claim consistency?

No, the death penalty is not self defence. There is no imminent threat when you execute someone. An imminent threat is when someone is about to kill you or cause you injury. There is no such threat present when you execute someone.

It's a very different situation when you open your front door to see a guy pointing a gun at your wife to when you're strapping someone to a table and injecting three lethal chemicals into him.

And in the "pointing a gun" example there are such considerations as "reasonable force". Just because it was in self defence doesn't mean you can necessarily kill the guy. You can't, for example, knock the guy out and then shoot him "to make sure". Or, if you had effective non-lethal means at your disposal, like pepper spray, killing him could still get you prosecuted, if not convicted of murder.

Maybe it's just compassionate, soft-and-fuzzy me. I do not like the idea of killing anyone in any situation. Point a gun at me and I think of how to stop you without killing you. I'm just stupid that way, I guess. But still, I'm sure you can see that killing in self-defence isn't what you're doing when you execute people.

DemonLordEnigma

04-12-2004, 17:02

No, the death penalty is not self defence. There is no imminent threat when you execute someone. An imminent threat is when someone is about to kill you or cause you injury. There is no such threat present when you execute someone.

The imminent threat is they escape from jail and go off to commit more murders. No jail is truly secure, no matter how many ion cannons you use to defend it with.

It's a very different situation when you open your front door to see a guy pointing a gun at your wife to when you're strapping someone to a table and injecting three lethal chemicals into him.

You use that barbaric punishment? The majority of mine involve sedating them heavily and then either putting a bullet through their brain or tossing them out an airlock. Though, we have one equally barbaric...

The situation in this case is you know he commited a crime, have determined no restitution is possible, and won't waste the money on keeping him in luxury.

And in the "pointing a gun" example there are such considerations as "reasonable force". Just because it was in self defence doesn't mean you can necessarily kill the guy. You can't, for example, knock the guy out and then shoot him "to make sure". Or, if you had effective non-lethal means at your disposal, like pepper spray, killing him could still get you prosecuted, if not convicted of murder.

Depends on the nation. In my own, we have no evidence of whether or not he was unconcious when you emptied that assault rifle into him.

Knocking a guy out is not a sure thing. For one thing, you don't actually know he's unconcious. For another, he can wake up and take you by surprise, followed by a painful death for you.

Maybe it's just compassionate, soft-and-fuzzy me. I do not like the idea of killing anyone in any situation. Point a gun at me and I think of how to stop you without killing you. I'm just stupid that way, I guess. But still, I'm sure you can see that killing in self-defence isn't what you're doing when you execute people.

Actually, you're right. It's not. It's the closest thing to restitution some people can make.

South Arctica

04-12-2004, 18:51

...if these people were consistent, or even logical (which they are not) they would also find it wrong for me to shoot his ass, in defense of my wife's life...

Not necessarily so. There is a difference between prevention and retribution.

The right to defend oneself or others exists.

If a dangerous killer is locked away for life, in a situation whereby he REALLY can't get out (unlike in some entirely fictional countries I could name that have make-believe states like "Texas" and "California") then the issue of self-defense no longer applies. The killer is effectively removed from society and no longer a danger. There is no need to destroy his life in self-defense.

If I came across a man about to kill someone, and I felt I could stop him without killing him (for instance, if I had a choice between a Taser and a Glock) I would use the non-lethal alternative. If my wife or child were in danger, that might be a different story, but as I've said before, that would be because I might not be able to think rationally. That is why it is a false argument to say, "what if it were someone you loved?" The way we behave changes when objectivity vanishes.

DemonLordEnigma

04-12-2004, 18:58

Not necessarily so. There is a difference between prevention and retribution.

What's the difference? You're still killing the guy for the crime. The only difference is whether or not he has commited it yet.

The right to defend oneself or others exists.

If a dangerous killer is locked away for life, in a situation whereby he REALLY can't get out (unlike in some entirely fictional countries I could name that have make-believe states like "Texas" and "California") then the issue of self-defense no longer applies. The killer is effectively removed from society and no longer a danger. There is no need to destroy his life in self-defense.

Ever hear of prison riots, jail breaks, security failures, etc. that plague prisons? Even the best prison in the world is vulnerable to power outages. And there's no guarantee that the geniuses you had design the prison were smarter than the guy you just put in it. People manage to escape from maximum-security prisons in real life more often than anyone cares to admit.

If I came across a man about to kill someone, and I felt I could stop him without killing him (for instance, if I had a choice between a Taser and a Glock) I would use the non-lethal alternative. If my wife or child were in danger, that might be a different story, but as I've said before, that would be because I might not be able to think rationally. That is why it is a false argument to say, "what if it were someone you loved?" The way we behave changes when objectivity vanishes.

Objectivity doesn't have you locking these people away for life to be a burden on the system. Objectivity has you executing them for what they have done. I've been objective in my reasons.

South Arctica

04-12-2004, 19:02

We find nothing incongruent about our belief that many people deserve death, and receive it. We see much incongruent about keeping people fenced up forever - is that not "cruel and unusual"?

In our nation, a person's life is considered their sole, inviolable property. Any adult citizen of sound mind therefore has the right to terminate his or her own life. Therefore, if a condemned criminal comes to the conclusion that death is a preferable alternative to lifelong imprisonment, they may choose euthanasia.

There is, in fact, legislation on the floor of the South Arctican senate to provide lethal capsules in the cells for a life-condemned prisoner to swallow at will. These capsules would be kept in a locked box which only the prisoner may open using a retinal scanner. Delegates from other nations with whom we have good diplomatic standing (which includes all the nations of the world at this time) are welcomed to contact the Senate to express their views on this matter.

South Arctica

04-12-2004, 19:23

Ever hear of prison riots, jail breaks, security failures, etc. that plague prisons? Even the best prison in the world is vulnerable to power outages. And there's no guarantee that the geniuses you had design the prison were smarter than the guy you just put in it. People manage to escape from maximum-security prisons in real life more often than anyone cares to admit.

That is an accepted fact. Another is that no court system is perfect, and innocent people are sometimes condemned. Having weighed the alternatives and considered the risks, our nation has chosen this path. The price of assuring that the law does not terminate an innocent life is the risk that a killer may escape from prison.

I could go on about measures we take to ensure that our prisons are as "escape proof" as possible, but it would not change that there is always a chance, however small, that an ingenious prisoner will circumvent our safeguards. We would point out that that chance exists even in a system whereby the condemned are executed, unless they are shot dead the moment charges are brought.

Neither system is perfect. The risks of both are clear.

When execution is used, there is a chance that innocent people may be killed.

When imprisonment is used, there is a chance that innocent people may be killed.

Having considered both risks, we the people of South Arctica have determined that we do not want our government to be the entity directly responsible for killing those innocent people. The State does not have the right to claim the life of any citizen.

(Those who must occasionally kill in service of the State, such as police officers and soldiers, are judged as individuals. Of course, circumstances of the killing, such as the defense of self or others, is taken into account, but EVERY case where a police officer kills in the line of duty is given a hearing and he/she is judged by the same criteria as any citizen.)

With all regard for the differing opinions of your sovereign nation,
Chad Miller
Ambassador to the World
South Arctica

Winged Hussars

05-12-2004, 02:52

We resolve that the death penalty is a correct measure. If and only if scientific evidence is overwhelming or they are caught red handed. Going way back in this conversation, I know full well the price to pay for my brand of justice. Easy for me to say now but...SO BE IT! If it were my family member or wife then I would slaughter them hands down. There is a line from a good movie called "The Jack Bull" that says "Lots of people want justice, few are willing to pay the price for it." Well I can safely say that I am. If this community were left up to the pansies, we would all bend over and take it real good. I do not relish that idea, so I go with action and not words which after all is what defines the human condition.

Kelssek

05-12-2004, 03:36

The imminent threat is they escape from jail and go off to commit more murders. No jail is truly secure, no matter how many ion cannons you use to defend it with.

That's not imminent at all; that's a remote future possibility. It'd be like Scott Peterson defending himself by saying, "Well, she likes to drink, so it's a good thing I killed her, she could've done drunk driving and run over someone!"

You use that barbaric punishment?

IC: Kelssek does not have the death penalty. In fact, it is explicitly banned by our Constitution.

The situation in this case is you know he commited a crime, have determined no restitution is possible, and won't waste the money on keeping him in luxury.

I love how everyone thinks life in prison is "luxury".

Knocking a guy out is not a sure thing. For one thing, you don't actually know he's unconcious. For another, he can wake up and take you by surprise, followed by a painful death for you.

Let's not get too far into the remote possibilities here like we did the last time.

What's the difference? You're still killing the guy for the crime. The only difference is whether or not he has commited it yet.

You do know what "law" and "court" and "a legal system" is, right?

Texan Hotrodders

05-12-2004, 04:06

Not necessarily so. There is a difference between prevention and retribution.

There certainly is. If Tek were to shoot the person about to kill his wife, he would have killed a person before they had committed a crime and been convicted of it. In the case of capital punishment, that same person is killed after being convicted of the crime.

The right to defend oneself or others exists.

The NSUN has not codified it, though I have written a proposal to address it. TG me if you would like to help support such a proposal.

South Arctica

05-12-2004, 05:10

(regarding the right to defend oneself)

The NSUN has not codified it, though I have written a proposal to address it. TG me if you would like to help support such a proposal.

South Arctica is a new nation, and we don't know what "TG" is. :confused: (OOC) I assume it's a way of private messaging, but I don't know how to do that either.

I was speaking of the right to self-defense in generic terms, not referring to a UN resolution. However, since we support the codification of such a right, we would most likely support such a resolution - though it would have to be carefully worded so as not to permit the use of force under any circumstances but those that call for it.

For instance, a verbal threat is to be taken seriously, but does not always call for deadly retribution. A resolution codifying the right of a citizen to respond with force, especially deadly force, must be worded such that it grants to right to kill only for those times when it is unquestionably warranted. Occasions that fall into a "gray area" need to be left to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. As a nation, we feel that UN resolutions should be minimal in their effect and generically worded.

In other words, sometimes it's appropriate to shoot the guy who's after you, and sometimes it isnt. Perhaps one way to look at it would be to ask the question: If there were a police officer present, would he be justified in dropping the hammer?

We look forward to seeing your UN Proposal regarding Self-Defense.

Sincerely,

Chad Miller
Ambassador to the World
South Arctica

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 06:07

That is an accepted fact. Another is that no court system is perfect, and innocent people are sometimes condemned. Having weighed the alternatives and considered the risks, our nation has chosen this path. The price of assuring that the law does not terminate an innocent life is the risk that a killer may escape from prison.

I could go on about measures we take to ensure that our prisons are as "escape proof" as possible, but it would not change that there is always a chance, however small, that an ingenious prisoner will circumvent our safeguards. We would point out that that chance exists even in a system whereby the condemned are executed, unless they are shot dead the moment charges are brought.

The chance exists, but it is lesser when you execute them the following day (enough time to file an appeal in my nation).

One of the risks is people busting them out of jail, in which case escape-proofing it is not enough.

Neither system is perfect. The risks of both are clear.

When execution is used, there is a chance that innocent people may be killed.

When imprisonment is used, there is a chance that innocent people may be killed.

Having considered both risks, we the people of South Arctica have determined that we do not want our government to be the entity directly responsible for killing those innocent people. The State does not have the right to claim the life of any citizen.

(Those who must occasionally kill in service of the State, such as police officers and soldiers, are judged as individuals. Of course, circumstances of the killing, such as the defense of self or others, is taken into account, but EVERY case where a police officer kills in the line of duty is given a hearing and he/she is judged by the same criteria as any citizen.)

So you do sponsor killings. Interesting.

After examining it, I would rather it be sponsored by the state. Why? The state can make sure the execution is as humane and painless as possible. In prison, that is not always a guarantee. In addition, there is the cost of keeping those people in prison, which would rise dramatically in many nations should this pass. So both sides also have thier costs.

That's not imminent at all; that's a remote future possibility. It'd be like Scott Peterson defending himself by saying, "Well, she likes to drink, so it's a good thing I killed her, she could've done drunk driving and run over someone!"

Can you guarantee they won't escape five minutes after putting them in jail? No. That sounds pretty imminent to me.

IC: Kelssek does not have the death penalty. In fact, it is explicitly banned by our Constitution.

It was the way you talked about that style of execution that got me to thinking you used it.

I love how everyone thinks life in prison is "luxury".

That's because it is that way in many nations. Also, consider I view life as a luxury, as it is not universally guaranteed. Nor will it ever be.

Let's not get too far into the remote possibilities here like we did the last time.

I'm not talking remote possibilities. Among humans, there is a wide range of resistances and immunities. There are people highly resistant to the stunning effect of electricity, a few people who have developped a near-immunity to mace, and people who regenerate or naturally resist damage enough to either wake up before they should or not be knocked out at all. Of those, some choose to fall down and pretend to be knocked out in order to regain the element of surprise. I'm not talking about supermen, but about your average people.

The problem is that, realistically, the only thing that can truly give you safety is to kill them. The rest of the time, the adaptive nature of the human physiology still leaves you in danger of very real, and not uncommon, factors that may or may not be present.

You do know what "law" and "court" and "a legal system" is, right?

You do know what "a rose by any other name" is, right?

Ignoring the smoke and mirrors, the fact is the criminal is being executed for their crime. Who, when, and how doesn't matter. It's still the same thing.

United Cultures

05-12-2004, 06:18

Heresy, Treason, and murder will alwyas be punishable by death in United Cultures.

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 06:20

Heresy, Treason, and murder will alwyas be punishable by death in United Cultures.

Not if this passes and you are a UN member.

United Cultures

05-12-2004, 06:27

It will not pass. Even if it does there are others in my region who will take them and administer the Death Penalty. It is not in my eyes, but in the Eyes of the Covenant.

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 06:30

Not if they are in the UN and this passes.

Whether or not non UN members continue it doesn't matter. This only affects the UN.

Texan Hotrodders

05-12-2004, 06:34

South Arctica is a new nation, and we don't know what "TG" is. :confused: (OOC) I assume it's a way of private messaging, but I don't know how to do that either.

TG is an acronym that represents the word "Telegram". Just view the page of the nation you wish to contact and you will see a menu that will enable you to send a telegram to that nation.

We look forward to seeing your UN Proposal regarding Self-Defense.

Sincerely,

Chad Miller
Ambassador to the World
South Arctica

It's in an old thread. Wait a minute and I'll get it for you...

Edit: Found it. Clicky. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358162)

Flibbleites

05-12-2004, 07:21

Can you guarantee they won't escape five minutes after putting them in jail? No. That sounds pretty imminent to me.

Or they could possibly kill a guard or an inmate while in jail.

Vastiva

05-12-2004, 07:57

We like the death penalty. Keeps the prison population low. And well controlled, seeing as the penalty for attempted escape is also the death penalty, as a form of treason against the State.

Anti Pharisaism

05-12-2004, 09:24

No, the death penalty is not self defence. There is no imminent threat when you execute someone. An imminent threat is when someone is about to kill you or cause you injury. There is no such threat present when you execute someone.

You appear confused with respect to terminology.
Although imminent and immediate are similar, they are not the same.

Imminent: threatening to happen.
Immediate: happening or done at first, at once, or without delay.

So, yes, the death penalty is self defence so long as the individual being executed is an imminent threat to the lives, safety, and well-being of society.

Anti Pharisaism

05-12-2004, 09:39

And in the "pointing a gun" example there are such considerations as "reasonable force". Just because it was in self defence doesn't mean you can necessarily kill the guy. You can't, for example, knock the guy out and then shoot him "to make sure". Or, if you had effective non-lethal means at your disposal, like pepper spray, killing him could still get you prosecuted, if not convicted of murder.

Maybe it's just compassionate, soft-and-fuzzy me. I do not like the idea of killing anyone in any situation. Point a gun at me and I think of how to stop you without killing you. I'm just stupid that way, I guess. But still, I'm sure you can see that killing in self-defence isn't what you're doing when you execute people.

I respect that you are consistent.

Your first scenario would be vengeance, not self defence, as the person would have already defended themself by knocking out the other.

Your second scenario is thus, you are allowed to use force commensurate with that threatened. So, if you have pepper spray and a knife in your pocket while walking through a bad neighborhood, and someone pulls a gun on you, you can stab him with the knife. That you have pepper spray is not relevant. That mortal danger has been threatened a person is justified in defending himself with mortal force.

Maybe it's just compassionate, soft-and-fuzzy AP. But the Empire does not like the idea of subjecting any member of society to dealing with someone who will kill anyone in any situation.

Serapindal

05-12-2004, 16:13

Perhaps a way we can change that, is the have it so that the prisioner can choose whether to take the death penalty, or another punishment.

TilEnca

05-12-2004, 16:18

Perhaps a way we can change that, is the have it so that the prisioner can choose whether to take the death penalty, or another punishment.

Would that not just be suicide in his cell?

And even though TilEnca opposes the death penalty, this is actually one of the better ideas. As long as the prisoner is permitted to kill himself, and does not ask anyone else to do it for him. Otherwise I am going to have to go back to opposing it again :}

Kelssek

05-12-2004, 16:52

Can you guarantee they won't escape five minutes after putting them in jail? No. That sounds pretty imminent to me.

"Imminent" means "about to happen", this is the Oxford dictionary I'm using. It implies an immediate threat, as in, in the next few seconds. Even if they did escape in five minutes, which isn't very likely, and once again let's please not get into these terrifically unlikely what-if scenarios, there isn't a guarentee he's going to kill someone.

If you go by "threatening to happen" then like I said, you could justify killing pretty much everyone because anyone is capable of killing anyone, so thus everyone could be threatening to kill other people. But that's clearly insane, right? Right?

The problem is that, realistically, the only thing that can truly give you safety is to kill them. The rest of the time, the adaptive nature of the human physiology still leaves you in danger of very real, and not uncommon, factors that may or may not be present.

Once again we're getting into the myraid what-if scenarios which are not going to help us in this argument. Whether it's self-defence or murder usually ends up being decided by the police or a jury anyway. Of course it could be legally justifiable.

But if someone is unconcious on the floor, you can always disarm him, you can kick his gun away for instance. If he's playacting, he's not going to be in a good position to cause you harm. You do not need to kill him. If you've got your attacker tied up, disarmed and handcuffed, you cannot kill him and say it's self defence because there's a chance he might break free and attack you, although you seem to suggest otherwise.

This is an individual thing. It varies from case to case and you just can't come out with a blanket statement like that. You're thinking in absolutes when in reality, there rarely are absolutes in something like this.

Ignoring the smoke and mirrors, the fact is the criminal is being executed for their crime. Who, when, and how doesn't matter. It's still the same thing.

What you said was to the effect of "we're killing him because he is going to commit a crime in the future." Did you watch Minority Report? Pretty good movie I think. It has not happened yet, so it hasn't happened. You can certainly take preventive measures, but you can't and shouldn't be pre-empting it.

If you have information that a specific person is going to put a bomb on a train, you can beef up security at train stations. Or you can arrest the person, preventing him from planting the bomb, though of course you'd have to let him go since he wouldn't have commited a crime. But what you CAN'T do is send the special forces into his apartment to assasinate him, or charge him with a crime he hasn't committed. Note the past tense. If it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't happened.

Justifiying the death penalty by future possibility is the flimsiest and the shakiest excuse.

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 17:45

"Imminent" means "about to happen", this is the Oxford dictionary I'm using. It implies an immediate threat, as in, in the next few seconds. Even if they did escape in five minutes, which isn't very likely, and once again let's please not get into these terrifically unlikely what-if scenarios, there isn't a guarentee he's going to kill someone.

And when is it "about to happen?" In five minutes? In five years? "About to happen" doesn't mean in the next five seconds.

And you're also bringing up the what-ifs, so stop committing hypocrisy by complaining about them when others use them.

If you go by "threatening to happen" then like I said, you could justify killing pretty much everyone because anyone is capable of killing anyone, so thus everyone could be threatening to kill other people. But that's clearly insane, right? Right?

Actually, you can't. You have to use logic and realize most humans are afraid of that side of themselves or try their best to control it. Once they threaten or actually commit the crime, then they are a danger of it.

Once again we're getting into the myraid what-if scenarios which are not going to help us in this argument. Whether it's self-defence or murder usually ends up being decided by the police or a jury anyway. Of course it could be legally justifiable.

Once again, hypocrisy by complaining about a what-if scenario after using one.

But if someone is unconcious on the floor, you can always disarm him, you can kick his gun away for instance. If he's playacting, he's not going to be in a good position to cause you harm. You do not need to kill him. If you've got your attacker tied up, disarmed and handcuffed, you cannot kill him and say it's self defence because there's a chance he might break free and attack you, although you seem to suggest otherwise.

Disarming doesn't equal making less dangerous. Most people actually don't know how to properly tie a knot to prevent a person from escaping and handcuffs are not that difficult to pick the lock on. Plus, a house can provide weapons for him to use.

I'm not suggesting otherwise, which you would know if you actually read what I am saying in its entirety. I'm pointing out how a blanket statement of "tie them up and they're not going to cause harm" is wrong. Part of what I am doing is pointing out the flaws in your blanket statements.

This is an individual thing. It varies from case to case and you just can't come out with a blanket statement like that. You're thinking in absolutes when in reality, there rarely are absolutes in something like this.

The pot calling the kettle black.

If you checked my posts, you would find I'm pointing out problems with your blanket statements. After all, I don't see you pointing out how some people are resistant to the stunning effects of electricity.

What you said was to the effect of "we're killing him because he is going to commit a crime in the future." Did you watch Minority Report? Pretty good movie I think. It has not happened yet, so it hasn't happened. You can certainly take preventive measures, but you can't and shouldn't be pre-empting it.

Okay, now you're not even paying attention and are instead dancing with lollipops in Lala Land. This is not even close to what I said or even the context of what I said. Anyone paying attention and reading the posts could see that.

You said:

No, the death penalty is not self defence. There is no imminent threat when you execute someone. An imminent threat is when someone is about to kill you or cause you injury. There is no such threat present when you execute someone.

It's a very different situation when you open your front door to see a guy pointing a gun at your wife to when you're strapping someone to a table and injecting three lethal chemicals into him.

And in the "pointing a gun" example there are such considerations as "reasonable force". Just because it was in self defence doesn't mean you can necessarily kill the guy. You can't, for example, knock the guy out and then shoot him "to make sure". Or, if you had effective non-lethal means at your disposal, like pepper spray, killing him could still get you prosecuted, if not convicted of murder.

Maybe it's just compassionate, soft-and-fuzzy me. I do not like the idea of killing anyone in any situation. Point a gun at me and I think of how to stop you without killing you. I'm just stupid that way, I guess. But still, I'm sure you can see that killing in self-defence isn't what you're doing when you execute people.

I'm pointing out how I won't accept your excuses for an individual executing someone for a crime they have yet to commit when you oppose the death penalty.

If you have information that a specific person is going to put a bomb on a train, you can beef up security at train stations. Or you can arrest the person, preventing him from planting the bomb, though of course you'd have to let him go since he wouldn't have commited a crime. But what you CAN'T do is send the special forces into his apartment to assasinate him, or charge him with a crime he hasn't committed. Note the past tense. If it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't happened.

Justifiying the death penalty by future possibility is the flimsiest and the shakiest excuse.

Congrats. You just posted a successful arguement against something you said. You have the individuals as being allowed to kill someone for a crime they have yet to commit when it directly threatens them and then turn around and make the blanket statement that no one should kill for a possible crime.

When you are ready to argue against my arguement and not your own, or at least get to the reality of what I have said and the context I have said it in, let me know. If you cannot, do me a favor and don't reply.

United Cultures

05-12-2004, 19:18

It will not pass. Even if it does there are others in my region who will take them and administer the Death Penalty. It is not in my eyes, but in the Eyes of the Covenant.
Do you know what happens to those who commit crimes that lead to the death penalty and it is administered to them? They are given to the Flood.
Now, let's say this is passed. Do you know what it's like to be alive and infected with a Flood form? You feel pain. All the pain the parasite should feel is felt by you. Your neck is put out of place and you fell every bit of it. And what's worse? Your memories are searched through and those memories that you may hold precious are deleted. Everything useless to the Flodd is deleted. You want to scream out, but you can't. You want to be killed there and then but there's no way anyone can hear you. Now if the Death Penalty stays the person will be killed then given to them. If it goes then I'll have to given the Flood living hosts. Would you really like that?

South Arctica

05-12-2004, 21:50

All of this splitting of hairs, all the bickering over precise definitions and hypothetical situations, all of this is futile.

The arguments boil down quite simply.

ARGUMENT #1:

In a state where execution is not used as punishment, there is a chance that those who commit capital crimes may eventually attain their liberty, and could commit further crimes, thus resulting in the loss of innocent life.

In a state that uses execution, there is a chance that innocent people may be wrongly convicted and killed by the state, thus resulting in the loss of innocent life.

There is no way to solve the first problem. No matter how swiftly the state reacts to a crime, the criminal can escape justice.

The second problem can be solved. The state can choose not to use execution as a form of punishment.

We, the people of South Arctica, choose to alleviate these problems insofar as we are able to do so, and so elect not to use capital punishment.

ARGUMENT #2:

The most practical alternative to execution is lifelong imprisonment. This exacts a price on the state in terms of cost of prisoner upkeep and prison security, as well as whatever appeals process may be in place.

In the case of execution, there is still a cost involved in holding the condemned until their sentence is carried out, though this is likely to be a lesser cost. The cost of the appeals process still applies.

Minimizing any of these costs carries a corresponding risk to the peoples' security, either because the state fails to adequately hold a prisoner or because the appeals process fails to identify a falsely accused prisoner.

It is in the interests of the people to have a detailed and throrough appeals process, so that the falsely accused may have a greater chance at exoneration. Taken to its logical extreme, the appeals process can be carried out until the natural end of the condemned prisoner's life.

Either course of action involves the cost of prison security and appeals, but only one carries the risk that the state may execute an innocent person.

The first problem can never be entirely solved except at a terrible cost to justice. As long as the accused are given a chance to defend themselves and appeal their convicitons, there will always be a cost involved in the incarceration of suspected and convicted criminals.

The second problem can be solved. The state can choose not to use execution as a form of punishment.

The people of South Arctica choose once again to alleviate these problems insofar as they can be, and elect not to use capital punishment.

ARGUMENT #3:

The people have the right to defend themselves and others from imminent threat, including the use of deadly force when necessary. It can be argued that state-sponsored executions are a logical extension of this right.

It is the position of South Arctica that an incarcerated prisoner does not represent an imminent threat for as long as the prisoner is held in custody. Should the prisoner escape from custody, he/she could then be viewed as a threat. The state, and the people, would then have the power to react accordingly.

Since an incarcerated prisoner represents only a potential threat, and not an imminent threat, it is the position of South Arctica that response with deadly force is unwarranted, and we elect not to use capital punishment.

ARGUMENT #4:

It can be argued that the victims of a capital crime (or their next of kin) will demand equivallent retribution for the crime committed and have the right to see it done. It is the position of South Arctica that the victims of any crime are inherently non-objective about the matter, and they should therefore not have sole discretion over the menner of punishment.

The primary responsibility of the justice system is to protect and serve the people. It is not to be used as an instrument of vengeance. Therefore, the state rejects the use of execution as a form of retribution, and we elect not to use capital punishment.

ARGUMENT #5:

Execution can be viewed as immoral. The failure of the state to exact retribution for a capital crime can likewise be viewed as immoral. The Nation of South Arctica chooses not to press any argument along these lines, recognizing that it is a futile practice to legislate morality.

In light of the first four arguments with the fifth notwithstanding, it is the position of South Arctica that the practice of state-sponsored executions is not in the best interests of society, and we elect not to use capital punishment.

In the interest of the inherent human rights shared by all the people of the world, South Arctica will support any UN resolution that prohibits the practice of capital punishment. Should the UN at any time pass a resolution that requires the use of capital punishment in any form, South Arctica will regrettably be compelled to dissolve our association with this organization.

(If and when that day comes, we will of course alert the press to cover the inevitable celebration to be held in the nation of DemonLordEnigma ;) )

Sincerely,

Eugene Q. Hugo
Official State Philosopher
South Arctica

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 22:51

Should the UN at any time pass a resolution that requires the use of capital punishment in any form, South Arctica will regrettably be compelled to dissolve our association with this organization.

I didn't bother posting your arguements because, mainly, yours deal with something I came up with an even more simplistic solution to: There is a greater burden of proof on the prosecutors and police. With all of the technology they have at their disposal, if they can't find evidence to support their claim then they have wasted the court's time. Sentencing is handed down at the end of the trial.

To be honest, I don't want the UN forcing it either way on this issue. Don't ban it and don't force it.

(If and when that day comes, we will of course alert the press to cover the inevitable celebration to be held in the nation of DemonLordEnigma ;) )

Nah. I'll miss our arguements. They're so much fun.

Anti Pharisaism

05-12-2004, 23:15

All of this splitting of hairs, all the bickering over precise definitions and hypothetical situations, all of this is futile.

The arguments boil down...

To 5 Value Judgments. To which there is no simple dispute resolution. Circumstances dictate the outcome. Seeking to lower Type I errors for applicable instances encourages an increase to type two errors for applicable instances, and vice versa. In such cases where the dispute is over logical, competing value judgments, definitions and hypotheticals are not futile, they are necessary to illustrate how each actor has reached their judgment. Nor is the argument simple.

In the interest of the inherent human rights shared by all the people of the world, Anti Pharisaism will not support any UN resolution that prohibits the practice of capital punishment when justified. Should the UN at any time pass a resolution that prohibits the use of justified capital punishment in any form, Anti Pharisaism will regrettably be compelled to dissolve our association with this organization.

Anti Pharisaism

05-12-2004, 23:28

If you go by "threatening to happen" then like I said, you could justify killing pretty much everyone because anyone is capable of killing anyone, so thus everyone could be threatening to kill other people. But that's clearly insane, right? Right?

Did you study at the Dave Brower school of logic?:)

That everyone is capable does not mean that everyone has done so, or threatens to do so (as you assume), or, if they have, will do so again. Your making assumptions niether AP nor DLE has made.

Justification requires more than fear and speculation. It is based on past activity, desire or propensity to do so again (as ascertained by trained, objective, professionals that represent society's best good faith effort to conduct such analysis), and the ability of the criminal to do so again even if constrained.

DemonLordEnigma

05-12-2004, 23:33

Did you study at the Dave Brower school of logic?:)

That everyone is capable does not mean that everyone has done so, or threatens to do so (as you assume), or, if they have, will do so again. Your making assumptions niether AP nor DLE has made.

Justification requires more than fear and speculation. It is based on past activity, desire or propensity to do so again (as ascertained by trained, objective, professionals that represent society's best good faith effort to conduct such analysis), and the ability of the criminal to do so again even if constrained.

The real comedy is when you get to the bottom of his post. In that area, he goes off on a tangent that is barely even remotely related to the conversation in any way.

Anti Pharisaism

05-12-2004, 23:47

Oh wow, Your right.
Not even consistent within itself, which really chaps my hide.

Well, so long as there is a straw to grasp for, Kelssek will reach for it.;)

In fun:Hey, did you see that one movie that I think helps illustrate a point I am trying to make that contradicts a point I made earlier. Which reminds me, I really don't like it when you do what I do, because that just illustrates how much of a hypocrit you are.

Kelssek

06-12-2004, 06:08

DemonLordEnigma - You seem to not understand that self-defence and the death penalty are very different things. You are certainly justified in using reasonable force to protect yourself from someone who is attacking you. Attacking. That is self-defence.

I'm not bringing up an improbable what-if scenario. You are the ones who are starting it all. AP was the one who brought up the case of "what if you have some guy who wants to kill everyone and can't be cured". I can't remember who brought up "oh, what if he's immune to pepper spray or electric shocks", but it wasn't me. Of course I recognise that there are always exceptions. But you're just trotting out every exception you can think of. And I don't think I'm the one grasping at straws here.

Self-defence is acting to defend yourself against an immediate threat. It is not the same as executing someone on the justification of "what if he breaks out and kills someone". There is no inconsistency here.

Justification requires more than fear and speculation. It is based on past activity, desire or propensity to do so again (as ascertained by trained, objective, professionals that represent society's best good faith effort to conduct such analysis), and the ability of the criminal to do so again even if constrained.

And you're saying I'm being self-contradictory? First you say that you need more than fear and speculation. But then you justify everything ON fear and speculation based on the past. Now, you can have a very good idea of what will happen in the future. But you can never accurately predict it. You might like to make fun of my reference to "Minority Report", but it does show the problems with predicting the future - chiefly, the future can change. And no matter how "objective", competent, or professional this judgement is, the basic motivation behind your execution of the person is still speculation and fear, albeit perhaps a little more well-founded, which you yourself say is not adequate justification.

Fine, you may have illustrated that there are some people you cannot rehabilitate. But that does not mean they have to be killed. It is a cop-out on your part. Why go to all the trouble of guarding and treating the guy? Why bother to even try? Just say he's uncurable, unrehabilitabable, unredeemable, etc. etc. etc., poses a threat to everyone, is going to kill other people, is going to escape, use all your other excuses, and kill him. This is, of course, purely my opinion, but to me that is disgustingly immoral.

Anti Pharisaism

06-12-2004, 09:39

Correct.

Full viewpoint is that unfounded, unsupported, speculation and fear does not justify capital punishment. Without that, what I said is awkward, as professional speculation is speculation. what seperates it form the lay person is degree and method of analysis, and knowledge supporting the conclusion.

Killing people who's very existence is a threat to the existence of others is not a cop-out, nor is any other society or individauls who defend themselves moral cowards. They are excercising their rights in defence against those of another.

DemonLordEnigma

06-12-2004, 17:01

DemonLordEnigma - You seem to not understand that self-defence and the death penalty are very different things. You are certainly justified in using reasonable force to protect yourself from someone who is attacking you. Attacking. That is self-defence.

That distinction is just smoke to help people sleep better at night. Plus, your scenario does not hold an actual attack, so you're not even arguing that until this post. I'm not going to accept the lies people tell themselves to sleep at night. The fact is it doesn't matter if you kill him to prevent him from committing the crime or the state kills him for committing it; he's still being executed for it.

Lie to yourself as much as you want, but I'm not going to accept it.

I'm not bringing up an improbable what-if scenario. You are the ones who are starting it all.

Neither am I bringing up something that is improbable. A few people have managed to escape from prison before their first hour of being in it, using methods that will shock you. Hell, I know how easy it is to escape out of a maximum security prison. All it requires is brains, acting skills, and to pay careful attention in the hospital.

AP was the one who brought up the case of "what if you have some guy who wants to kill everyone and can't be cured". I can't remember who brought up "oh, what if he's immune to pepper spray or electric shocks", but it wasn't me.

You brought up the guy breaking into your home and pointing a gun in your face. And I brought up resistance to electricity and immunity to pepper spray. I was pointing out how your scenario does not account for every possibility or even common variances among human resistances and immunities.

Of course I recognise that there are always exceptions. But you're just trotting out every exception you can think of. And I don't think I'm the one grasping at straws here.

Actually, I find that you are. You could not argue something in context, so you purposefully misinterpreted it and took it as far out of context as humanly possible. That is grasping at straws as well. I have yet to bring up something unrealistic or, considering the number of people who have jobs as electricions, even improbable.

Self-defence is acting to defend yourself against an immediate threat. It is not the same as executing someone on the justification of "what if he breaks out and kills someone". There is no inconsistency here.

Self-defense doesn't require killing. Yes, it requires a lot of violence to do, but you don't have to kill the guy (no guarantees he'll ever walk again...). By killing him, you are executing him, either for a crime he has commited or one he will commit.

There is consistancy. It's me not accepting the lies people tell themselves.

Anti Pharisaism

06-12-2004, 23:17

It's me not accepting the lies people tell themselves.

You mean other people have to accept that just because they think therefore they are, it does not follow that if they think something that does not make it fact?

I am not sure that concept will be well received;)

Kelssek

07-12-2004, 14:11

I brought it up as an example to illustrate the different circumstances in self-defence and executions, and you turned it into the focus of the argument. Alright, my bad. You got me there.

That distinction is just smoke to help people sleep better at night. Plus, your scenario does not hold an actual attack, so you're not even arguing that until this post. I'm not going to accept the lies people tell themselves to sleep at night.

If you want to keep insisting that the death penalty is equivalent to self-defence, or vice versa, then you will have to show that every person being executed poses an immediate threat. I'm talking the guy lashing out at people and fighting and attacking other people as you're about to execute him, not "he's going to escape and kill people" or "at some point he might attack a guard".

You also have to show that by not hanging/shooting/lethal injecting/whatever the person, that person is about to cause harm to someone else, in the same sense that (WARNING! EXAMPLE PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ILLUSTRATION ALERT!) a person pointing a gun at you is about to cause harm to you.

You have not done that and you can't, because that is, and here I use this word just to preclude whatever new scenario you're going to dream up, almost never the case.

The fact is it doesn't matter if you kill him to prevent him from committing the crime or the state kills him for committing it; he's still being executed for it.

It does matter. There is a difference between acting in an understandable purpose of self-preservation in the heat of the moment and acting with premeditation in a calm and reasonably secure environment to end someone's life. Justified or not, there is a difference and you are the one lying to yourself if you refuse to recognize it.

Additionally, "executed" and "killed" are different.

Lie to yourself as much as you want, but I'm not going to accept it.

Neither will I.

DemonLordEnigma

07-12-2004, 14:46

I brought it up as an example to illustrate the different circumstances in self-defence and executions, and you turned it into the focus of the argument. Alright, my bad. You got me there.

Actually, we both moved it there.

If you want to keep insisting that the death penalty is equivalent to self-defence, or vice versa, then you will have to show that every person being executed poses an immediate threat.

All you have to do is prove he poses a continued threat against the society or portions of it. That's not hard. What's hard is proving he did the crime.

I'm talking the guy lashing out at people and fighting and attacking other people as you're about to execute him, not "he's going to escape and kill people" or "at some point he might attack a guard".

Actually, you were talking about a guy who broke into your home and was holding a gun to your face and how there is a difference between self-defense and execution.

You also have to show that by not hanging/shooting/lethal injecting/whatever the person, that person is about to cause harm to someone else, in the same sense that (WARNING! EXAMPLE PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ILLUSTRATION ALERT!) a person pointing a gun at you is about to cause harm to you.

That's easy. They cause a strain on society, harming people as they have to pay higher taxes.

You have not done that and you can't, because that is, and here I use this word just to preclude whatever new scenario you're going to dream up, almost never the case.

You forget the multiple meanings of harm and the multiple ways to cause it. A harm in the form of an extra monetary duty also counts.

It does matter. There is a difference between acting in an understandable purpose of self-preservation in the heat of the moment and acting with premeditation in a calm and reasonably secure environment to end someone's life. Justified or not, there is a difference and you are the one lying to yourself if you refuse to recognize it.

No, I'm not the one lying to myself. I'm looking at the reality of the results. You're looking at the situation beforehand and trying to use that to argue against the reality of the results.

The reality of the results is the criminal is, in both cases, being executed for a crime. The difference between them is whether or not he has committed the crime yet.

All of that stuff about "self-defense" is what people tell themselves afterwards to justify the fact they just killed a person so they can feel better about themselves later. Before that, they're not thinking about it, about the legal results, or about the person they are killing being a person. They're thinking about themselves and how they can survive. The justification that comes afterwards is so they can live with themselves.

I'm not the one lying to myself.

Additionally, "executed" and "killed" are different.

Executions are a type of killing.

Kelssek

07-12-2004, 15:14

That's easy. They cause a strain on society, harming people as they have to pay higher taxes.

You forget the multiple meanings of harm and the multiple ways to cause it. A harm in the form of an extra monetary duty also counts.

Not necessarily. By that reasoning, any increase in tax is "harming people" when common sense tells you that the reverse is usually true since overwhelmingly tax money benefits the nation as a whole, in the form of roads, healthcare, subsidising power and water supply, etc.

And though of course this is arguable, from my point of view tax money spent on prisons also benefits society by helping to reform criminals into people who can contribute to society instead of stealing from it.

The effect on you as a taxpayer is also very, very indirect. Add on the fact that on an individual level the cost is negligible, characterising any increased taxes from incarcerating people who would otherwise be executed as "harm" is a very wide stretch. So no, I don't think it counts.

All of that stuff about "self-defense" is what people tell themselves afterwards to justify the fact they just killed a person so they can feel better about themselves later. Before that, they're not thinking about it, about the legal results, or about the person they are killing being a person. They're thinking about themselves and how they can survive. The justification that comes afterwards is so they can live with themselves.

Perhaps you have explained your own reasons for wanting to equate the death penalty and self-defence.

Executions are a type of killing.

My point exactly - they are not the same thing.

EDIT:
Considering that I said,

"You also have to show that... that person is about to cause harm to someone else, in the same sense that (WARNING! EXAMPLE PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ILLUSTRATION ALERT!) a person pointing a gun at you is about to cause harm to you."

Your responding to that by saying that he is causing harm by costing tax money is pretty funny.

Additionally, in your response,

All you have to do is prove he poses a continued threat against the society or portions of it. That's not hard. What's hard is proving he did the crime.

You completely ignored what I said.

DemonLordEnigma

07-12-2004, 17:06

Not necessarily. By that reasoning, any increase in tax is "harming people" when common sense tells you that the reverse is usually true since overwhelmingly tax money benefits the nation as a whole, in the form of roads, healthcare, subsidising power and water supply, etc.

Actually, common sense says neither. Common sense says we should not even be arguing about this and that the arguement should have ended on the previous page.

Tax is a harm on people, but a necessary one. It is a harm in that it is money they earned that I am taking away. The fact it is necessary is what keeps them from complaining overly much.

And though of course this is arguable, from my point of view tax money spent on prisons also benefits society by helping to reform criminals into people who can contribute to society instead of stealing from it.

That arguement can be used for justifying the execution of everyone who breaks a law, as you are preventing them from stealing from society. However, I use them as forced labor to build and repair my orbital platforms (which are, coincidentally, the safest places for them in my empire, despite the fact that average lifespan from moment of entry is only twenty years). The ones I execute are people too dangerous to leave unsupervised by guards.

The effect on you as a taxpayer is also very, very indirect. Add on the fact that on an individual level the cost is negligible, characterising any increased taxes from incarcerating people who would otherwise be executed as "harm" is a very wide stretch. So no, I don't think it counts.

Not entirely true. For one thing, every prison means twenty fewer police on the street just for the cost of the prison (assuming the cheapest) and also means at least ten less police on the street for the cost of the guards. The direct, observable harm in this case is a lessened presense of law enforcement on the streets. Plus, those taxed pay for it directly in my nation.

It comes across as a harm because 99% of my law-enforcement budget is towards getting cops on the street and investigating crimes. Banning the death penalty means I have to divert 35% of the entire budget towards prisons. That is a very observable lessening of police presense, which can lead to more crimes being committed and fewer crimes being reported.

Perhaps you have explained your own reasons for wanting to equate the death penalty and self-defence.

I have. I have repeatedly. It's the fact that, at the base level, they amount to the same thing in results. That is what my nation focuses on.

My point exactly - they are not the same thing.

No, but one is a part of the other.

EDIT:
Considering that I said,

"You also have to show that... that person is about to cause harm to someone else, in the same sense that (WARNING! EXAMPLE PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ILLUSTRATION ALERT!) a person pointing a gun at you is about to cause harm to you."

Your responding to that by saying that he is causing harm by costing tax money is pretty funny.

Not really. I have to try to keep tax rates as low as I can in order to keep my population happy. I can't exactly put down a revolt without using weapons of mass destruction on them and slaughtering millions in the process.

It's not a case of it being funny. It's a case of you laughing at it because you don't face the reality of what taxes are. Plus, I expanded on it above as to why. In order to keep my police levels constant, I have to raise taxes.

Additionally, in your response,

You completely ignored what I said.

Actually, no I didn't. You said,

If you want to keep insisting that the death penalty is equivalent to self-defence, or vice versa, then you will have to show that every person being executed poses an immediate threat.

A continued threat is also an immediate threat. You did not say what they had to be a threat to, so technically I could have replied that they posed a threat to some cow because the cow has to be slaughtered in order to feed them and the arguement would have been valid.

Kelssek

08-12-2004, 10:54

Tax is a harm on people, but a necessary one. It is a harm in that it is money they earned that I am taking away. The fact it is necessary is what keeps them from complaining overly much.

It's not a case of it being funny. It's a case of you laughing at it because you don't face the reality of what taxes are. Plus, I expanded on it above as to why. In order to keep my police levels constant, I have to raise taxes.

I know all to well what the "reality" of taxes are. But it is clear we have very different perspectives on tax.

I have no answer to the statswank, because it is statswank. Though your assertion about each new prisoner yanking 10 policemen off the street is pretty questionable to me, given the scale of a national budget.

A continued threat is also an immediate threat.

Not necessarily. Example, throughout the Cold War there was a continued threat of nuclear war, but it was not, for the great majority of that period, an immediate one. Even now, there is still a continued threat of nuclear war. But obviously it isn't an immediate one because if it were we'd all be in bunkers.

I defined what I and most other people would consider an immediate threat. If you disagree with that, at least say why.

Anti Pharisaism

08-12-2004, 11:10

I disagree with your idea of immediate threat. I believe it is an immediate threat if it puts people in a reasonable apprehension that mortal harm will occur so long as the individual posseses the capability to inflict mortal harm to others. In cases of those warranting capital cases the capability exists so long as they are alive.

DemonLordEnigma

08-12-2004, 16:25

I know all to well what the "reality" of taxes are. But it is clear we have very different perspectives on tax.

I have no answer to the statswank, because it is statswank. Though your assertion about each new prisoner yanking 10 policemen off the street is pretty questionable to me, given the scale of a national budget.

So we disagree on taxes then. And you have no proof of the statswank claim.

I spend quite a bit on each police officer. I am using information from NSEconomy for my budget information and decisions. I'm currently struggling to get my tax rate below 10%.

Right now, I am spending nearly 600 billion on law enforcement. 99% of that goes to the actual investigate of crime and keeping police officers on the street. That means I am still spending billions on trials.

A prison will cost anywhere from 500,000 to nearly a billion, depending on security and other concerns. The average police officer in my nation makes 54,000, not including equipment and training. Since I cannot take this money from the courts or from the funds to process evidence without causing problems, I have to fire the average police, meaning ten of them are gone. Then there is the money for the prison guards, their equipment, security systems, upgrading the jails, etc. Of course, most of that can be factored into the cost of the actual prison. The only thing I cannot justify putting into the cost of the prison is the salary of the average prison guard, which will probably be equal to the average police officer. Assuming the cheapest prison with only ten guards (about the absolute minimum you can have and call it a prison anymore), I've already fired twenty police officers.

Now then, going back into my posts, time to notice something: I never said it was the prisoners who I would have to fire police for. I said it was the prisons.

Not necessarily. Example, throughout the Cold War there was a continued threat of nuclear war, but it was not, for the great majority of that period, an immediate one. Even now, there is still a continued threat of nuclear war. But obviously it isn't an immediate one because if it were we'd all be in bunkers.

During the Cold War, people also trained and built and acted as though a nuclear war was going happen sometime within the next week.

Now, there is actually not a continued threat of nuclear war. People are not as worried because most of the nations who have nuclear weapons are too afraid to use them, while those who would are bullied into not using them by bigger nations. No threat exists.

I defined what I and most other people would consider an immediate threat. If you disagree with that, at least say why.

Hell, someone else said it before I could. Let me quote them.

I disagree with your idea of immediate threat. I believe it is an immediate threat if it puts people in a reasonable apprehension that mortal harm will occur so long as the individual posseses the capability to inflict mortal harm to others. In cases of those warranting capital cases the capability exists so long as they are alive.

The above is pretty much true of the reality of how people act.

From watching how people act, what AP stated is what they really believe. They may say they believe otherwise, but actions speak far louder than words and actions tend to be closer to the truth.

Kelssek

09-12-2004, 03:34

A prison will cost anywhere from 500,000 to nearly a billion, depending on security and other concerns.... I have to fire the average police, meaning ten of them are gone. Then there is the money for the prison guards, their equipment, security systems, upgrading the jails, etc.

So what you're saying is that you don't have any prisons and you'd have to build one. There are other options besides raising taxes. You could raise money from lottery tickets or bond issues - money for many public buildings is raised this way. I realise you don't want to do it, but you should know that there are other government income sources besides tax.

During the Cold War, people also trained and built and acted as though a nuclear war was going happen sometime within the next week.

Now, there is actually not a continued threat of nuclear war. People are not as worried because most of the nations who have nuclear weapons are too afraid to use them, while those who would are bullied into not using them by bigger nations. No threat exists.

The threat is lessened, but it's still there. That is how I see your idea of "continued threat" - as analogous to the current threat of nuclear war. As you said, practically, there isn't one. So it is with criminals in my view. I see you considering "continued" and "immediate" threats as the same thing and I find it a tad paranoid.

From watching how people act, what AP stated is what they really believe. They may say they believe otherwise, but actions speak far louder than words and actions tend to be closer to the truth.

Now you're inching towards a personal attack. Everything here is words. If you want to judge by IC actions, okay, fine - this is how we do it.

1. Kelssek law allows self-defence as a defence for homicide under similar provisions as English common law.

2. The death penalty has been explicitly banned.

Self defence doesn't necessitate killing the attacker. In most cases that isn't what happens. I believe that while you can partially justify killing a person, killing is always wrong. But I recognise that when you are in danger, you don't have any time to consider things like that. And as a matter of common sense, I don't think that you shouldn't defend yourself when you're attacked. Nevertheless, you seem all too content to attack me for being "inconsistent" and happily define the death penalty as self-defence when clearly it is not that. Before you jump at me again for that, maybe you should look around for the legal definition of self-defence.

DemonLordEnigma

09-12-2004, 05:45

So what you're saying is that you don't have any prisons and you'd have to build one. There are other options besides raising taxes. You could raise money from lottery tickets or bond issues - money for many public buildings is raised this way. I realise you don't want to do it, but you should know that there are other government income sources besides tax.

Yes, there are other sources. Trade is pretty much eliminated as enough a resource due to a combination of laws and the independent nature of Sarkarasetans. This makes shopping for ship technology interesting.

I would state the other problems, but right now I do not feel like dredging all of that up. Let's just say most options are eliminated for a couple hundred NS years.

The threat is lessened, but it's still there. That is how I see your idea of "continued threat" - as analogous to the current threat of nuclear war. As you said, practically, there isn't one. So it is with criminals in my view. I see you considering "continued" and "immediate" threats as the same thing and I find it a tad paranoid.

Hmm. Differing views, no way to argue each other out of it.

Now you're inching towards a personal attack.

Wasn't intending to. That was a real-life observation of people and I forgot to mark it.

Everything here is words. If you want to judge by IC actions, okay, fine - this is how we do it.

1. Kelssek law allows self-defence as a defence for homicide under similar provisions as English common law.

2. The death penalty has been explicitly banned.

Self defence doesn't necessitate killing the attacker. In most cases that isn't what happens. I believe that while you can partially justify killing a person, killing is always wrong. But I recognise that when you are in danger, you don't have any time to consider things like that. And as a matter of common sense, I don't think that you shouldn't defend yourself when you're attacked. Nevertheless, you seem all too content to attack me for being "inconsistent" and happily define the death penalty as self-defence when clearly it is not that. Before you jump at me again for that, maybe you should look around for the legal definition of self-defence.

Actually, I am looking at the results of what happens for my judging. I find self-defense to always be thought up as an excuse after the fact, never before it, and have found most people use it as a way to help themselves sleep at night and justify what they did. So is the idea of calling the death penalty retribution. In the end, they amount to the same thing: The criminal was executed for the crime. Whether by the government or the individual, it still has the same results.

Thgin

09-12-2004, 07:43

My opinion is that life is something so important that cannot be managed by someone else.
I agree with You that for some crimes the person looses all his rights as a citizen and as a man. But MURDERING them brings You on the same level than he is.

But what, exactly, is murdering? Playing the devil's advocate, but hear me out. Where is the distinction between killing and placing an individual in a situation with a high likelihood they will die?

My idea is:close him in the worst hole in the ground and put the keys away. No freedom, no civil rights, no possibilityof social life.
But don't touch his life, because it's the only thing You can't decide about!

Suppose it's a very high voltage hole. Or one that happens to contain poison gas. Suppose it's just very cold and not particularly sanitary, and the prisoner dies of pneumonia. Clarify your distinctions.

I answer here also to the people who said that this can't pass because another similar just failed in June. Well, my friends, fighting for what You believe is theonly way to get it.
It failed on June? Let's talk about it again in December. And if it's not enough maybe we will talk again in May... Who knows. We are not talking about free hamburgers on the corner of the streets: we are talking about LIFE!

I'll give you that, it's never wrong to try again.

Anti Pharisaism

09-12-2004, 08:10

Hmm. Differing views, no way to argue each other out of it.

Come on now.... actually, DLE, yes you can. The two are anologuos in being imminent threats, however, if you are trying to sentence someone to death, they have already committed and been convicted of the crime. You are protecting yourself from the imminent danger from those that are capable and more likely than not to do so again. As opposed to a stale mate in which neither party has yet to unjustifiably drop a bomb on the other, but is threatening and has the capability to do so.

Anti Pharisaism

09-12-2004, 08:39

To Kelssek,

AP on Taxes:
Bonds to build a prison are taxes Kelssek as they generate no revenue to pay off the bonds, or the accumulating interest. Unless of course money trees are planted in the courtyard :).

AP on Self Defence:
Keeton, W. Page, et. al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts Fifth Edition, Hornbook Series, West Publishing CO. St. Paul Minn. (1984, w/2004 Update ) p 124

The priviledge of self defense extends to the use of all reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact, or any confinement, whether intended or negligent.

p 125
The priviledge to act in self defense arises, not only when there is real danger, but also where there is a reasonable beleif that it exists.

pp 125-126
The priviledge is limited to the use of force which is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary for protection against the threatened injury.

p 126
Sometimes, it is simply held that the priviledge is one to use reasonable means, and this would justify such means as a reasonable person would use even though it might involve more force than reasonably appears to be necessary.

The issue, simply, is whether or not the government is acting reasonably in protecting its citizens from harm. So, is it reasonable to elliminate a threat that endangers the lives of others? Especially if the threat has already proven a desire to take lives by taking the life of another? AP and DLE say yes. And already stated how it is self defence.

So, the burden is on you to prove it is not a reasonable means to elliminate a threat that has already taken the lives of a government's citizenry, and threatens to do so again.

Anti Pharisaism

09-12-2004, 08:44

Criminal and Tort Law notions of self defence are identical.

Kelssek

09-12-2004, 15:01

So, the burden is on you to prove it is not a reasonable means to elliminate a threat that has already taken the lives of a government's citizenry, and threatens to do so again.

How do you know he's going to do it again?

Alright, well, if you don't accept my argument based on social/societal consequences, based on philosophy, based on inconsistency in upholding human life, I don't see how it's going to work. So clearly this isn't going to go anywhere. I suggest we leave it at this and the next time the subject comes up, we argue purely using the following abbreviations.

RTPOFDC: "We have a right to protect ourselves from dangerous criminals."
IMAH: "Insert a moral argument here"
DPCMBOLC: "Death penalty costs more because of legal challenges"
BACTP: "Bullets are cheaper than prisons."
YREAIP: "You risk executing an innocent person."
MSDTD: "Murdering scum deserve to die."
WBIPR: "We believe in personal responsibility."
DPIJLR: "Death penalty is just legalised revenge."
PSFTMPWE: "Punishment should fit the crime, therefore murder must be punished with an execution."
BAC: "Bunnies are cute."

Addtionally, we can also use these codes for the two most-used quotations in these arguments:

EFE: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
JUS: "Many people want justice, few are willing to pay the price for it." - Tom Bull Movie

The foamy

09-12-2004, 17:18

if they commit a crime punish them to the fullest, this way they can't just get out 4 years later and do it again. bring death 2 those who apose the law.

Laskon

09-12-2004, 17:21

I think a person should at least get one chance, by that I mean spending 10-25 years in prison instead of immediately being sentenced to the death penalty. If they ever do it again however...

You have to remember, there are serial killers and then there are people who just killed someone because they couldn't stand that ONE person, it doesn't mean they'll go on a wild killing spree, most of the time its just a sudden surge of violent rage, and it wears off.

Collosous

09-12-2004, 17:21

No matter how many people would like the death penalty removed, in a way it's a necessity. Public Correction Programs seldomly work and murderers who are dead can not repeat the same offense. Stronger enforcement on the death penalty would also scare those whom may be considering that act of crime.
The Head of State of Collosous

Anti Pharisaism

09-12-2004, 20:42

How do you know he's going to do it again?

Alright, well, if you don't accept my argument based on social/societal consequences, based on philosophy, based on inconsistency in upholding human life, I don't see how it's going to work. So clearly this isn't going to go anywhere. I suggest we leave it at this and the next time the subject comes up, we argue purely using the following abbreviations.

RTPOFDC: "We have a right to protect ourselves from dangerous criminals."
IMAH: "Insert a moral argument here"
DPCMBOLC: "Death penalty costs more because of legal challenges"
BACTP: "Bullets are cheaper than prisons."
YREAIP: "You risk executing an innocent person."
MSDTD: "Murdering scum deserve to die."
WBIPR: "We believe in personal responsibility."
DPIJLR: "Death penalty is just legalised revenge."
PSFTMPWE: "Punishment should fit the crime, therefore murder must be punished with an execution."
BAC: "Bunnies are cute."

Addtionally, we can also use these codes for the two most-used quotations in these arguments:

EFE: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
JUS: "Many people want justice, few are willing to pay the price for it." - Tom Bull Movie

One last point is that we do not have to know that he will do it again so long as his actions and desires are such that he is threatening to do it again. Self defence is against threats as well as actions. If someone starts to pull a gun on you, you are allowed to use the same amount of force against that person as if they are shooting at you. If someone someone puts you in a reasonably apprehension that they are going to kill you or someone else, and has the capability to do so, you can defend using that same force.

I just assume we should exhaust measures after someone is found guilty of murder to determine whether or not the person is capable of being safe, ie existing without harming others. If so imprison then rehabilitate, if not, then his life is forfeit.

Abreviations noted for future reference :)

NationStates Jolt Archive

Submitted: Ban Death Penalty