NationStates Jolt Archive

I've submitted a proposal to the UN. I believe that it is very fair. I need your approvals. Also, if anyone wants to argue with me over this, feel free :D Thnx!


Death Penalty
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Irish Brotherhood

Description: The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood hereby proposes a resolution to make the death penalty mandatory for all UN nations in all extreme circumstances.

The death penalty should only be carried out for civilians who carry out these crimes:
1. Murder (Unless it is proven to be carried out in self defence or truly an accident.)
2. Paedophilia (or any sexual action against a child)
3. Rape
4. Soldiers deserting at times of war
5. Traitors to the nation
6. Road accidents (If a civilian is proven to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driving without due care and attention etc. and they kill somebody, it should be conceived as first degree murder, unless proven otherwise)

The People's Assembly of Enn is opposed to this proposal. Their opinion is that the death penalty is not, and cannot be, a viable solution to criminal activity of any kind.

Do you know that since Britain did away with the Death Penalty, crime, murder, rape etc. collectively has dramatically risen beyond belief. The Death penalty deters would be criminals.

Wait til DemonLordEnigma sees this :D

Did you know that in Enn we haven't had any crime since removing the death penalty from our legal system some time ago? Or maybe it was just the ban on firearms...

OOC: I am personally opposed to the death penalty as I cannot agree with the basic concepts behind it. I am in favour of rehabilitation over retribution, and regard life imprisonment as actually being more punishing then death. But maybe that's because I don't believe in an afterlife.

The Neutral Republic of Aeruilling would like to announce that,

- Considering the Death Penalty a barbaric punishment, a blemish upon any civilized nation,
- Noting it serves no purpose beyond vengeance, which is an outdated concept that also should be abolished by any civilization.
- Reasoning that it renders criminals who know they are facing a death sentence desperate and ruthless, rather than deterring them,
- Observing that the crime rate in its own borders have dropped to a negligible level since it outlawed the death penalty two centuries ago (yes, we DO keep the records around for that long),

Therefore it will oppose the ratification of such a preposterous proposal with all that is in its power, and would promptly resign from the United Nations should such a proposal gain favour, before the implementation of said resolution could take place.

I cannot believe you people! I've proposed this legislation due to my experience. This proposal will pass, maybe not now, maybe not later but one day it will. All I want to say is if your sister, daughter or wife was raped then murdered, you'd want that man to die! Thank you :upyours:

Do you know that since Britain did away with the Death Penalty, crime, murder, rape etc. collectively has dramatically risen beyond belief. The Death penalty deters would be criminals.

If this is your sole reasoning, perhaps you should be aware that the opposite was true in Massachusetts, and that most American states which abolished the death penalty did not have significant increases in crime.

I also have to question the inclusion of desertion and treason. Circumstances should be taken into account, and it also depends on your perspective. With my perspective, for instance, someone who deserted the German army or commited treason against it during WW2 would be someone to reward, not punish.

Legally, it's also not possible for DUI to be first-degree murder because for a homicide to be considered first-degree murder requires premeditation. Though you can include that as an offence on its own if you want.

Going on to another point, even when I admit there isn't really a pressing reason to ban the death penalty beyond human rights concerns, you have even less of a reason to force it on everyone based on law-and-order concerns, when, as illustrated, the cause/effect link is very shaky. And not to mention that you're also forcing governments to kill people. You need a very, VERY good reason for that, and you don't have one.

you'd want that man to die!

"No, I would not," the Aeruillian representative states quite firmly.

"I would want that man to be interred in one of our correctional facilities, kept from wreaking more harm on our society, and possibly treated for psychological disorders. I would feel understandable grief and anger, but I would suppress that surge in favour of a clear, civilized verdict. There is never a time when death of humans can be corrected by the death of more humans.

"Personal feelings have no place in a court of law or government, and must be clearly separated from rational judgement. If I could not keep apart my personal opinion and the good of our republic and its citizens, I would not deserve to be part of our government."

All I want to say is if your sister, daughter or wife was raped then murdered, you'd want that man to die! Thank you :upyours:

Sure, but that doesn't mean that killing that man would be right.

I do not believe vengeance is an excuse for anything, least of all killing a person. Sure, I'd feel differently if it really did happen to me, but again, that doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do.

I do not believe vengeance is an excuse for anything, least of all killing a person.

"Thank you. That was precisely the point I was hoping to make."

"Legally, it's also not possible for DUI to be first-degree murder because for a homicide to be considered first-degree murder requires premeditation. Though you can include that as an offence on its own if you want."

First of all, Kelssek, I dont care wot anyone says. When you get drunk and you get into that car, you know exactly what you are doin. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a lying arsehole. So I think you can call it first degree murder. Also, what reason can a civilian have for treason? Except maybe....mmmmm.......MONEY! Greed! You do not, in any circumstance, betray your country. Desertion at "...times of war." was my statement. If a soldier deserts during peace time, he/she will recieve a courtmartial and removed from military service. Yet if that soldier deserts during war time, extreme measures will be used. Why should that soldier be able to desert, be treated nicely etc. while his comrade is out on the battlefield risking his/or life for that traitor?


"I would want that man to be interred in one of our correctional facilities, kept from wreaking more harm on our society, and possibly treated for psychological disorders. I would feel understandable grief and anger, but I would suppress that surge in favour of a clear, civilized verdict"

Aeruillin, unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what your reaction would be. And I can tell you it would not be that fake reaction which I've quoted you on. Government legislations and decisions are always made on personel feelings. Take the fox hunting bill in britain passed a few weeks ago which banned fox hunting. Ministers who passed that thought to themselves, "Awh, poor fox being ripped to shreds...thats not right." Or, when Tony Blair sent troops into Kosovo a few years back. How was that for the good of the British nation??? It wasnt. It was his gut feeling. His feelings said to him "That Milosovic is an evil bastard, I think we should send troops in to stop him." So you cannot say that governments, judges, jurys do not pass law etc. onlly using the "good of the nation" as a guide! No, Every one uses their feelings.

Ridiculous resolution which will never reach quorum, let alone pass.

Fass has never had the capital punishment and it never will - we do not murder our citizens and we will not stand for anyone bringing such barbarism upon us.

"Legally, it's also not possible for DUI to be first-degree murder because for a homicide to be considered first-degree murder requires premeditation. Though you can include that as an offence on its own if you want."

First of all, Kelssek, I dont care wot anyone says. When you get drunk and you get into that car, you know exactly what you are doin. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a lying arsehole. So I think you can call it first degree murder. Also, what reason can a civilian have for treason? Except maybe....mmmmm.......MONEY! Greed! You do not, in any circumstance, betray your country. Desertion at "...times of war." was my statement. If a soldier deserts during peace time, he/she will recieve a courtmartial and removed from military service. Yet if that soldier deserts during war time, extreme measures will be used. Why should that soldier be able to desert, be treated nicely etc. while his comrade is out on the battlefield risking his/or life for that traitor?

I disagree. If a government is committing acts that are morally wrong, how can it be wrong to object, and do your best to prevent those acts?

Aeruillin, unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what your reaction would be. And I can tell you it would not be that fake reaction which I've quoted you on. Government legislations and decisions are always made on personel feelings. Take the fox hunting bill in britain passed a few weeks ago which banned fox hunting. Ministers who passed that thought to themselves, "Awh, poor fox being ripped to shreds...thats not right." Or, when Tony Blair sent troops into Kosovo a few years back. How was that for the good of the British nation??? It wasnt. It was his gut feeling. His feelings said to him "That Milosovic is an evil bastard, I think we should send troops in to stop him." So you cannot say that governments, judges, jurys do not pass law etc. onlly using the "good of the nation" as a guide! No, Every one uses their feelings.

Be that as it may, that doesn't mean that emotionally-clouded opinions are necessarily morally right.

I can agree with this proposal only if you add between crimes those too:

7. Those who propose death penality in UN;
8. Those who call themself "Irish Brotherhood"

First of all, Kelssek, I dont care wot anyone says. When you get drunk and you get into that car, you know exactly what you are doin.

I don't disagree. I think DUI should be treated as a very serious offence. But I was merely pointing out that the legal definition of first-degree murder does not cover killing someone while driving drunk.

Also, what reason can a civilian have for treason? Except maybe....mmmmm.......MONEY! Greed! You do not, in any circumstance, betray your country.

Why not? Is there really something so great about a country that you can't "betray" it? Using the WW2 example again, what if I am a German, completely horrified at the actions of Hitler, and I defect to the Allies? Surely that isn't a bad thing. You would consider Albert Einstein a traitor too, I guess.

It doesn't even have to be for money or for a reward. Though I remember the American government offering people millions of dollars for Osama bin Ladin. So I guess if some guy did turn him in, you'd attack that guy for being a traitor to his cause, motivated by greed, because there couldn't possibly be any altruistic motive in turning in a dangerous person, huh?

Yet if that soldier deserts during war time, extreme measures will be used. Why should that soldier be able to desert, be treated nicely etc. while his comrade is out on the battlefield risking his/or life for that traitor?

See above. If a person deserts, that's his decision. One, if he doesn't believe in what he fights for, what is the point? Two, what if he isn't in there out of his own will, or objects to war or killing? Surely you wouldn't be against the right of personal conscience?

"That Milosovic is an evil bastard, I think we should send troops in to stop him." So you cannot say that governments, judges, jurys do not pass law etc. onlly using the "good of the nation" as a guide! No, Every one uses their feelings.

But your feelings, given that you are an aggrieved party, may not be right. Why do you think the criminal justice system exists in the first place? You need impartiality for there to be justice. As a victim of the crime, you are unable to judge the evidence and the mitigating factors objectively. Your responses are clear evidence of this.

And do not get me started on Kosovo.

While the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has the death penalty, we oppose this resolution because we feel that this decision is best left to the individual nations to decide.

I cannot believe you people! I've proposed this legislation due to my experience. This proposal will pass, maybe not now, maybe not later but one day it will. All I want to say is if your sister, daughter or wife was raped then murdered, you'd want that man to die! Thank you :upyours:

I am sorry, but are wrong. I have (almost) the same experience as you, and I don't want the person dead. It would oppose everything I believe in, and quite honestly I think the person who died would be ashamed of me for thinking it.

So before you start ranting about what people will or won't want, keep in mind that you are not unique the world.

I don't support the death penalty - I never will.

While I don't like other nations having the death penalty, I am ready to accept that it is their nation, and inside their borders they may run their justice system as they wish. But inside my borders, my nation, no one is being executed for anything. Not murder, not rape, not treason and certinaly not drink driving.

So - no. I am not going to support this.

Must we go over this over :headbang:, over :headbang:, over :headbang:, and over :headbang: again...

Given the number of proposals on this issue; to one side, or the other... The UN has most certainly determined this issue best left in the hands of the individual states; in accordance with their own governmental functions.

While we don't see the necessity that it be based upon the principle that RTPOFDC, and the concept of basing it upon IMAH, since we don't generally accept reasoning based upon ideas that IMAH, and given that the princple that DPCMBOLC is not our concern, nor its relationary principle that BACTP any more a concern in relation to the CP issue from our views. MSDTD is abit harsh, but matches the princple of JUS and PSFTMPWE, but not as well though our by standards or ethics. Not quite based upon EFE due to our principle based within the concepts of liberty as opposed to corporality. And finally DPIJLR is not our personally beliefs in relation; as we hold the princple arbitrarionally. YREAIP is of course a minor problem; but one which will not exist when you have a functional JUS in controls over the use of CP both in cross-relation.

IMHO, IMAH, leads me to agree with Tekania. Therefore it should reman an IONS.

Most certainly, this issue is defined by the scope of MFCNTMTOGDMFB.

The United Nations is a body conceived in order to maintain peace in the world, and to fight abuse of power. I cannot see that forcing any nation to kill one of its residents, regardless of crime, is acceptable. Noone can make the situation any better by killing another human.

Aeruillin, unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what your reaction would be. And I can tell you it would not be that fake reaction which I've quoted you on.

Not to jump up and down on your theory, but I have been in that situation, and my reaction was exactly what it always has been - the death penalty is wrong and nothing is going to change my mind on that.

But even though I oppose this proposal and everything it stands for, not to mention your logic behind it, I have to give you credit for not putting it forward as a "human rights" issue, as most enforced death penalty proposals are.

Well done for that :}

(I still oppose it and everything it stands for, so don't get your hopes up!)

"Legally, it's also not possible for DUI to be first-degree murder because for a homicide to be considered first-degree murder requires premeditation. Though you can include that as an offence on its own if you want."

First of all, Kelssek, I dont care wot anyone says. When you get drunk and you get into that car, you know exactly what you are doin. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a lying arsehole. So I think you can call it first degree murder. Also, what reason can a civilian have for treason? Except maybe....mmmmm.......MONEY! Greed! You do not, in any circumstance, betray your country. Desertion at "...times of war." was my statement. If a soldier deserts during peace time, he/she will recieve a courtmartial and removed from military service. Yet if that soldier deserts during war time, extreme measures will be used. Why should that soldier be able to desert, be treated nicely etc. while his comrade is out on the battlefield risking his/or life for that traitor?


"I would want that man to be interred in one of our correctional facilities, kept from wreaking more harm on our society, and possibly treated for psychological disorders. I would feel understandable grief and anger, but I would suppress that surge in favour of a clear, civilized verdict"

Aeruillin, unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what your reaction would be. And I can tell you it would not be that fake reaction which I've quoted you on. Government legislations and decisions are always made on personel feelings. Take the fox hunting bill in britain passed a few weeks ago which banned fox hunting. Ministers who passed that thought to themselves, "Awh, poor fox being ripped to shreds...thats not right." Or, when Tony Blair sent troops into Kosovo a few years back. How was that for the good of the British nation??? It wasnt. It was his gut feeling. His feelings said to him "That Milosovic is an evil bastard, I think we should send troops in to stop him." So you cannot say that governments, judges, jurys do not pass law etc. onlly using the "good of the nation" as a guide! No, Every one uses their feelings.


Hate is not an emotion. Nor is anger.

The two examples you listed fall quite firmly under "compassion", which is.

First of all, Kelssek, I dont care wot anyone says. When you get drunk and you get into that car, you know exactly what you are doin. [edit] So I think you can call it first degree murder.

Even if this delegate were to ignore the fact that your argument effectively states that someone who uses a vehicle while operating under a reduced capacity makes that decision in a fully operational capactiy, that still does not create 'inent to kill'. They may be deliberatly engaging in actions unsafe to themselves and others, but as there is no specific, pre-meditated malicious intent towards another individual, this is not 'first-degree murder.

Also, what reason can a civilian have for treason? Except maybe....mmmmm.......MONEY! Greed! You do not, in any circumstance, betray your country. Desertion at "...times of war." was my statement. If a soldier deserts during peace time, he/she will recieve a courtmartial and removed from military service. Yet if that soldier deserts during war time, extreme measures will be used. Why should that soldier be able to desert, be treated nicely etc. while his comrade is out on the battlefield risking his/or life for that traitor?

I believe the honorable delegate from Kelssek provided a quite valid reson other than 'greed'. What if my nation were to hypothetically, initiate a program of genocide? I would sincerely hope that a great number, if not all, of our soldiers would desert in the face of those orders, and that our citizens would act in a 'treasonous' manner towards that program. If that government were to be latter replaced, and these people returned to the breast of our nation, would you honestly advocate that we slaughter them?

Government legislations and decisions are always made on personel feelings. Take the fox hunting bill in britain passed a few weeks ago which banned fox hunting. Ministers who passed that thought to themselves, "Awh, poor fox being ripped to shreds...thats not right." Or, when Tony Blair sent troops into Kosovo a few years back. How was that for the good of the British nation??? It wasnt. It was his gut feeling. His feelings said to him "That Milosovic is an evil bastard, I think we should send troops in to stop him." So you cannot say that governments, judges, jurys do not pass law etc. onlly using the "good of the nation" as a guide! No, Every one uses their feelings.

You yourself state that passing legislation 'based upon feeling' results in actions that are against the better good of a nation. Yet you then use this an advocation of that method of 'reasoning'? May the delegate from New Tyrollia humbly point out that simple because something does happen, or because it has happened, is hardly rationale that it should happen.

Making the death penalty mandatory for any reason is absolutely insane.

"No, I am afraid I must refuse to take a middle ground there. We of Aeruillin are of the opinion that the death penalty is unacceptable no matter what the crime, and we are quite capable of maintaining a high enough standard thus that we can keep the Death Penalty out of our country on our own without the support of the UN. Any claim of corruption and unchecked use of the Death Penalty, when applied to the Neutral Republic of Aeruillin, must be preposterous and ridiculous. We do not allow the Death Penalty.

Conversely, a Resolution legalizing and making mandatory the Death Penalty with limitations might serve to reign in more corrupt nations that have the DP, but would ultimately wreak havoc on the justice system of all nations that have already chosen to outlaw it.

"In any other situation I would support a compromise between the extremes, but not where a principle as fundamental as the right to life of a thinking citizen is concerned. Here I must state that a compromise must either support our present policy in full, or battle against our opposition."

Well I'm going to go with the "Leave it to the nations" argument here.

Personally, I support capital punishment... Great way to keep criminals from committing another crime, loosen up the costs of having to pay for prison space, and takes these guys and gals out of the gene pool. :p

However, I don't think that the N.S.U.N. should be telling nations how to run themselves, at least in this particular area. For anyone who's been proved to have committed a crime, Nations should be able to implement whatever punishment they would like. If the nation objects to capital punishment on moral grounds or doesn't believe that it is an effective deterrant to crime, then let them employ whatever system of punishment that they would like, and their law enforcement system will prosper or fail. We shouldn't be forcing nations to treat their crime problems in one particular way or another, and in any case, your definitions of what crimes should be punished with death provides MANY loopholes, which others have already pointed out.

I think a better idea would be a UN Resolution guarantee to right of any nation to employ the death penalty. In formal words:

"Any member nation of the United Nations shall have the right to punish its proven and convicted criminals with the penalty of death, provided that the general populace is informed that this capital punishment can and will be enforced if they commit a crime."

How about it?

Kelssek, if it were left up to you we would all bend over and take it real good. It's damn good to know that you do not truly run a whole region, then we would have to invade and overrun the pansy brigade!

The Individualist Republic of Reason and Reality, though aware of the objective fact that torture and death for all real criminals is a moral imperative and an essential aspect of a civilized nation, nonetheless opposes this proposal in its current form for it would mandate death for acts which are not bona fide crimes; specifically:
Treason

Kelssek, if it were left up to you we would all bend over and take it real good. It's damn good to know that you do not truly run a whole region, then we would have to invade and overrun the pansy brigade!

It's nice to know that civilized behaviour is alive and well.

The holy empire of the Irritable Rah is happy with this idea. Just to let you know if it became a resolution the Rah himself would approve of it. It shows the people who's boss.

CP is a national issue; let's leave it at that, ok?

After all, BAC.

Yes, let's keep the fact that BAC in mind. This issue has ABATD.

Well I'm going to go with the "Leave it to the nations" argument here.

Personally, I support capital punishment... Great way to keep criminals from committing another crime, loosen up the costs of having to pay for prison space, and takes these guys and gals out of the gene pool. :p

However, I don't think that the N.S.U.N. should be telling nations how to run themselves, at least in this particular area. For anyone who's been proved to have committed a crime, Nations should be able to implement whatever punishment they would like. If the nation objects to capital punishment on moral grounds or doesn't believe that it is an effective deterrant to crime, then let them employ whatever system of punishment that they would like, and their law enforcement system will prosper or fail. We shouldn't be forcing nations to treat their crime problems in one particular way or another, and in any case, your definitions of what crimes should be punished with death provides MANY loopholes, which others have already pointed out.

I think a better idea would be a UN Resolution guarantee to right of any nation to employ the death penalty. In formal words:

"Any member nation of the United Nations shall have the right to punish its proven and convicted criminals with the penalty of death, provided that the general populace is informed that this capital punishment can and will be enforced if they commit a crime."

How about it?

A resolution that doesn't actually change the way things are, and only indicates the rights we already have?

I really think that this (the topic of capital punishment in general, not just your suggestion specifically, before you think I am picking on you!) should be left of the law books of the UN altogether. While I accept that the UN has the ability to override national laws when a resolution is passed, this is one of the few things that should absolutely, definitively and undeniably should be left at a nation level for now and all time. But since the UN can not pass legislation that limits what it can do in the future, it can't say that it will never rule on capital punishment. Which is sad, but there you go :}

I disagree with this.

I've submitted a proposal to the UN. I believe that it is very fair. I need your approvals. Also, if anyone wants to argue with me over this, feel free :D Thnx!


After my first rants, I will examine each section in detail and explain why I would vote against it if it came to the floor (since I am not a delegate I can't chose not to approve it, but I would not approve it even if I was)


Description: The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood hereby proposes a resolution to make the death penalty mandatory for all UN nations in all extreme circumstances.


As I said - the death penalty should be left to the nations to decide. If you want it to be legal in your nation, you can make it legal. But that doesn't mean it is necessary to make it legal in mine.


The death penalty should only be carried out for civilians who carry out these crimes:


Civilians? What about members of the military who murder while not on duty? would they be covered by this? Also what if some nations believe other crimes are worthy of execution? Would they be able to extend their right to execute their own people?


1. Murder (Unless it is proven to be carried out in self defence or truly an accident.)


How much proof? Beyond reasonable doubt? Beyond unreasonable doubt? Beyond all doubt?


2. Paedophilia (or any sexual action against a child)


Various things.
First - we in TilEnca consider paedophilia to be a disease - that someone has to be mentally ill to want sex with a child. And we do not put to death mentally ill people - that would be inhuman.
Secondly - what constitutes a sexual action against a child? In some nations touching someone's hair against their will can be considered sexual assult. Do this to a child and you will be executed. A tad harsh, I think you would agree.
Thirdly - who's age of consent is this based on? People become adults when they turn 14 in my nation. So they can marry, consent to sex, join the military and vote. So if someone from GeminiLand (age of consent is 18) comes to my country and has sex with a fifteen year old woman - who is legally an adult and can be a prostitute (for example) would he be guilty in his country of a crime, or not guilty because it is not a crime in my nation?
Fourth - how young does this statute apply to? If it was just paedophilia it would not be an issue, but "any sexual action against a child" could easily be comitted by another child. Children play - they experiment. So what if I caught my two children "playing" with each other. Would they both be executed?


3. Rape


We class this in the same way as we class paedophilia. If someone feels the need to go out and rape someone, they need help. They do not need killing.


4. Soldiers deserting at times of war


If someone is ordered to massacre two hundred women and children, I would expect them to not carry out that order. I would expect them to refuse, even if it meant running away. And I would not execute them for doing such a thing. I would honnour them and glorify them.
There are reasons why people should not desert, but you do not account for those in your proposal - it is a blanket execution of all those who desert. Which is unacceptable.


5. Traitors to the nation


Treason is in the eye of the beholder. And treason is just a matter of dates. The members of EON who rebelled against The Church Of The Lords were all traitors at the time they were fighting, but now they are honnoured heroes - the founders of our nation. And if I were acting in such a way that would endanger the lives of everyone in my country, I would expect my Councilors to stand up to me and take power from me. But they would all be traitors and would have to be executed for what they do, even though they saved the lives of everyone in the country.


6. Road accidents (If a civilian is proven to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driving without due care and attention etc. and they kill somebody, it should be conceived as first degree murder, unless proven otherwise)

Road accidents? Any road accidents? You skid on a patch of ice and suddenly you are to be shot at dawn? The brakes on your car fail and you bang in to a lamp-post, and then you are in the chair?

You don't think that possibly executing someone for a road accident is just a little over the top?

I realise you want to punish drink drivers, but by saying "road accidents" you would be forced to execute anyone who has even the most minor accident, even if they hurt no one else and only damage their car. Which - even you would have to admit - is insane.

Drink driving is unacceptable, as is driving when overly tired. There is little or no excuse for it. But getting behind the wheel of a car when you have had one too many is in no way the same as raping a child, or putting a gun to somones head and pulling the trigger.

We find your logic in all of this totally flawed, and the proposal far too vague and open to abuse. Under this proposal it is not beyond reason that children could be executed for playing with another child, that someone who skids their car and knocks over a mailbox could be executed, that someone who stands up to a dictator could be executed, that someone who refuses to order the deaths of thousands could be executed and that, if Mr Smith was so inclined, he could arrange for the breaks on someones car to fail, and have the person killed by the state.

Are you sure you want this? And you want to go about it in this way?

Yeah. What TilEnca said.

im all for it i'll support it

Quote: "Thirdly - who's age of consent is this based on? People become adults when they turn 14 in my nation. So they can marry, consent to sex, join the military and vote"

Well in your country TilEnca every man needs shot! The girl is 14!

Quote: "Thirdly - who's age of consent is this based on? People become adults when they turn 14 in my nation. So they can marry, consent to sex, join the military and vote"

Well in your country TilEnca every man needs shot! The girl is 14!

And you feel totally comfortable judging every person in my nation with no knowledge of my culture, the way we live or anything else?

And when I say everyone becomes adults, I mean men as well. So should not every woman be shot as well? Or do you only consider paedophilia as a male attacking a female, and not the other way round?

This is an exact example of why the death penalty, and why ages of consent, majority and so forth, are national issues. And why I am going to oppose you having the death penalty brought in to my nation against my will.

Also - if that is the only arguement you could come up with against everything I said then I think it is clear your proposal needs a great deal of reworking, clarification and generally tidying up before it becomes something most people would consider.

I've submitted a proposal to the UN. I believe that it is very fair. I need your approvals. Also, if anyone wants to argue with me over this, feel free :D Thnx!


Death Penalty
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Irish Brotherhood

Description: The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood hereby proposes a resolution to make the death penalty mandatory for all UN nations in all extreme circumstances. (WHY)( You can't tell us what to do!)

The death penalty should only be carried out for civilians who carry out these crimes:
1. Murder (Unless it is proven to be carried out in self defence or truly an accident.)
2. Paedophilia (or any sexual action against a child) (OR LIFE)
3. Rape (NO)
4. Soldiers deserting at times of war (MILITARY COURT)
5. Traitors to the nation
6. Road accidents (If a civilian is proven to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driving without due care and attention etc. and they kill somebody, it should be conceived as first degree murder, unless proven otherwise) THINGS NEED TO CHANGE FOR THIS DEATH PENALTY OR NO 1 WILL TAKE THIS LAW!

The Democratic States of Homeglan reject your proposal due to the alarming broadness of the crimes that may be commited, Murder and Treason where murder or threat of murder is involved can justify such a sentance.

I presonally do not disapprove of the death penalty in EXTREME cases. There are some people which rehabilitation does not work. Deterrance has shown to almost never work. And the death penalty is not a deterrance at that, someone does not think before committing a crime, "Wait i can't kill you i might just get the death penalty". You cannot base law on what you personally feel is right and wrong and how your emotions come into play. Emotions and law do not mix. If that were the case every person someone felt sorry for, be it the victim or the suspect, would either get off scott free or get the wrost possible punishment ever. It is impossible to forsee each and every reason or situation and extinuting circumstances in the crimes you've listed.

The Socialist States of North Duke are strongly opposed to this resolution. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is outdated. Fines, prison time, and most importantly, rehabilitation, should be our main focus points. Everyone has the right to life, and that, as Thomas Jefferson once said, in a very important document called the Declaration of Independence, an inalienable right. No one is a lost cause, and the death penalty seeks to use man's worst characteristic, the power to take life, as a penalty.

Once again, the S.S.N.D. is strongly opposed to this proposal, and will lobby it's views with the Zero region should this proposal make it to a vote.

The Sultanate of Thgin has some serious concerns regarding this proposal.


The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood hereby proposes a resolution to make the death penalty mandatory for all UN nations in all extreme circumstances.

You propose forcing member nations to make laws to kill their own citizens. That's a tad irrational. If you were to rewrite the bill to protect the right of nations to enact the DP, you would probably get more support.


The death penalty should only be carried out for civilians who carry out these crimes:
1. Murder (Unless it is proven to be carried out in self defence or truly an accident.)

Do you want to get more specific? Murder is ultimately a very vague, and very large term. What is murder in one nation is not murder in another. It is important to delineate terms if you plan to pass this resolution.


2. Paedophilia (or any sexual action against a child)

By whose standards of pedophilia? As you've seen, different nations have different sexual consent laws. What is pedophilia in one nation is a legitimate sexual relationship in another nation.

3. Rape

You're going to have to really work on justification. Especially on this one.

4. Soldiers deserting at times of war

Again, justification is essential. It needs to be an objective justification, not a personal one.

5. Traitors to the nation

Perhaps. What exactly is a traitor? This term is very loose, with it's meaning varying on your point of view. What is the difference between active dissent and being a 'traitor'? You really need to refine this, or cut it from the argument altogether. I'd lean towards the latter.

6. Road accidents (If a civilian is proven to be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driving without due care and attention etc. and they kill somebody, it should be conceived as first degree murder, unless proven otherwise)
Define drugs. Is nicotine a drug that would be considered DP worthy? How about caffeine? How about xknorpof? If you want to try to legislate the use of drugs, you're going to probably need a seperate resolution.
Regarding due attention, how do you intend to judge that? It's a vague and dangerous term to use when discussing the DP. Lastly, you speak of automobiles, which many UN member nations do not use. I suggest you drop this part of your resolution entirely.

With considerable refinement, this resolution could be reasonable and passable. The Delegate of Thgin recognizes that you feel it is important to be able to enact the DP in certain cases, and want to protect that right. However, attempting to force this practice on all member nations is not a reasonable way of doing this. When you specify acts for which you believe the DP ought be applied, you are very general and fail to include an argument. Consider revising these to a set of guidelines rather than absolute cases. Also, consider the nature of NS as you prepare your legislation and argument. Many RL circumstances and laws are totally irrational in the NS context.

Respectfully,
The Sultanate of Thgin

Kelssek, if it were left up to you we would all bend over and take it real good. It's damn good to know that you do not truly run a whole region, then we would have to invade and overrun the pansy brigade!

Aeruillin's representative would like to remark that we are all highly disappointed at failing to be addressed here. We are every bit as peace-loving and hippy, yet no one has insulted us. Especially disappointing since the ad hominems that are dished out are so deliciously funny... we want one!

For all the reasons summarized by the august representative from TilEnca, and for additional reasons that will not be listed here for sake of brevity, Wang Chun cannot support this proposal as written.

Wang Chun feels very strongly that this matter should be left up to individual nations, as each nation has unique social, cultural, and economic constraints that govern the best practices with regard to criminal justice within the borders of that nation.

Aeruillin's representative would like to remark that we are all highly disappointed at failing to be addressed here. We are every bit as peace-loving and hippy, yet no one has insulted us. Especially disappointing since the ad hominems that are dished out are so deliciously funny... we want one!

Though I agree with you entirely, I must agree that it's always insulting when your comrades are insulted and you aren't. Thus, I deem you a whiny chump yippy nation for the purposes of satisfying your inate need for an insult.

:p

The Vexland Empire is pro-death penalty. We regularly shoot those that break the law and the authority of his Holiness Emperor Drasca IV. Our justice comes swift and sharp on the blade of an axe that we reserve for traitors to the State.

However, it is our choice as an independent nation to follow our own path of order and we believe that other nations have that right as well. Though a member and delegate of the United Nations, the Empire of Vexland is it's own nation and not a puppet or social platform of the U.N.

Proposals such as this have the potential to turn the United Nations into a world government changing our status into that of dependent states and provinces.

I cannot believe you people! I've proposed this legislation due to my experience. This proposal will pass, maybe not now, maybe not later but one day it will. All I want to say is if your sister, daughter or wife was raped then murdered, you'd want that man to die! Thank you :upyours:
This is the quality of debate that you offer? Needless to say, Ecopoeia will vehemently oppose any attempt within the UN to mandate the death penalty.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

In these cases, the Xenonian Government believes that genetic resequencing and reabilitation is the answer, not the death penalty.

I also agree with what Thgin had to say.

Rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK. The criminals end up in a sort of revolving door, going back into jail as soon as they get out, often times with more violent crimes than the first act. Law and order MUST be ready to strike a deadly blow to criminals, to show that we will NEVER put up with such behavior, as any mercy to criminals simply promotes more violence.

any mercy to criminals simply promotes more violence.
I'm beginning to feel the same way about UN Ambassadors and inanity.

Currently on page 1, first listing
Originally posted in the List Proposals view
Approvals: 11 (WZ Forums, Trickanya, Turnipsia, Geneville, Achsnetd, Arabus, Simeonia, Suomen Turku, South Falklands, Loughtor, Geminius)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals) We always find this level of response amusing.
This is the quality of debate that you offer?
It would seem that most UN delegates agree with your assessment on the quality of this proposal.

Rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK. The criminals end up in a sort of revolving door, going back into jail as soon as they get out, often times with more violent crimes than the first act. Law and order MUST be ready to strike a deadly blow to criminals, to show that we will NEVER put up with such behavior, as any mercy to criminals simply promotes more violence.

Which is all well and good. But the proposal would allow a child who touches another child to be put to death. And a person who skids his car and hits a lamp-post to be put to death.

Which is not entirely a good way to promote law and order.

Why does the UN need to bother with which nations accept or don't accept the death penalty? For that matter, why do people insist on bringing resolutions about abortion, special rights for gays, etc ... to the UN, when they're all clrealy national policies, not matters of international scope?

Why does the UN need to bother with which nations accept or don't accept the death penalty? For that matter, why do people insist on bringing resolutions about abortion, special rights for gays, etc ... to the UN, when they're all clrealy national policies, not matters of international scope?

Because unless the mods have specifically said we can't or it violates a previous resolution, the delegates decide what is and what isn't UN jurisdiction.

you'd want that man to die! Thank you :upyours:

The Henrytopian Ambassador would like to note that in very extreme circumstances, capital punishment is an option but we believe that a lifetime of hard labor without the slightest possibility of appeal or parole if the guilty party is proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense is the favored punishment in our small nation.

Why does the UN need to bother with which nations accept or don't accept the death penalty? For that matter, why do people insist on bringing resolutions about abortion, special rights for gays, etc ... to the UN, when they're all clrealy national policies, not matters of international scope?

Because some members of the UN believe that they are international scope. That protecting the rights of abused people all over the world is exactly what the UN was put here for.

And some people believe the UN was here to ensure all murders, rapists, paedophiles and people who have minor car accidents are put to death. Which is, I suppose, one way of looking at it.

I am opossed to this and wish to propose a couple of alternatives for consideration.

1. Make them all life sentences, but only if it is proven to be an act of rage or malice, or if it's not an accident.

2. Put peops that commit these crimes into rehab. This is better and can lead to less crimes.

Please just consider them? for my sandwiches sake PLLEEAAASSSSEEEE!!!!!

Don't you get it? Rehab DOES NOT WORK.

undefinedundefinedI, Dictator Xanith, to the Borderlands of Demons Peek, see this proposal as a good one. True, people are valued, yet so are the people they murder, and mabye some can be rehabilitated, but all I've come across who tried that, it would end in nothing but failure. So as for me and my government, we are for the Death Penalty.

Dictator Xanith :sniper:

I am opossed to this and wish to propose a couple of alternatives for consideration.

1. Make them all life sentences, but only if it is proven to be an act of rage or malice, or if it's not an accident.

2. Put peops that commit these crimes into rehab. This is better and can lead to less crimes.

Please just consider them? for my sandwiches sake PLLEEAAASSSSEEEE!!!!!undefinedundefinedI, Dictator Xanith, to the Borderlands of Demons Peek, see this proposal as a good one. True, people are valued, yet so are the people they murder, and mabye some can be rehabilitated, but all I've come across who tried that, it would end in nothing but failure. So as for me and my government, we are for the Death Penalty.

Dictator Xanith :sniper:
These Death Penalty topics always bring out the best in first posts, donchaknow?

Yes, nice high quality posts...

Elder members have written entire books on this subject, for all intensive purposes... And I'm sure these two arguments will really bend our views to one side or the other...

Don't you get it? Rehab DOES NOT WORK.

Here, here! Well said! Anyway, first of all I would like to apoligise to TilEnca! I did not mean to say wot I said about your country...sorry! Secondly, Another nation and I are at the first stages in rewriting the original death penalty proposal which will be submitted some time next week! I am determined to get this proposal passed, whatever it takes.

Thank you

Rehab DOES NOT WORK.

That sounds like an excellent title for a novel. Rehab Does Not Work. I'm sure that if you ever get around to writing it, it will have a lot of literary value.

Any more arguments pertaining to reality, or offering up evidence?

This is a tired old statement. But in essence, the problem with a topic like this, is that the beliefs, even by those on each personal side of the issue, are wide and varying; so that there is no functional universal maxim that applies accross all forms fairly.

CP proponents will often sight things such as:
1. Rehab does not work.
2. Criminals should be treated in the nastiest way possible
3. God requires us to kill.

and other such silly claims.

CP opponents will often sight things such as:
1. No one should die.
2. All people can be rehabilitated.
3. Life imprisonment is better.

and other such silly claims.

I believe none of the 6 above claims. Or other related ones. Though my nation practices Capital Punishment.

It would be another rendition of yes another treatise as to why Capital Punishment developed in relation to the Constitutional Republic's legal system, Constitution and ideals.

So I would rather direct the debaters to the previous threads of debate upon this topic; rather than continue to repeat the same, worn out, old, moldy, arguments.

if someone kills someone they do not deserve life in prison, after all they ruined many peoples lives. plus, in prison they get three meals a day which is more than some of the non crime commiting community have! Why should they be rewarded?!?! Did you know there are cases where homeless have tried to get in jail for the luury of it? Also, how do you think they are getting this luxury?, The common people (who aren't killing people)'s tax money! They should get the death sentence!

With this said , i still would not pass this law and i agree death sentence should be voted nation to nation not forced on evey one!

The nomadic peoples of Walkalot

Anarchy 92 supports the Death Penlaty

I agree we need the death penalty for the simple reason that criminals need to me stoped espiclily in cases of rape, murder, and DUI :p :( :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: No matter what anyone says no magic wand :gundge: will make the fact that the biggest threat to anyone is taking away their life so the death penalty is agreat deterant. Also criminals are bad evil people and i belive that the un needs to not only have the death penalty but also state that the only correct way to execute someone is by hanging or eletric chair, ANy other way is letting criminals off the hook way to easy

Off With Their Heads

Listen to all these people, saying the death penalty doesn't prevent crime. In Aelov when we initiated the death penalty crime pretty much stopped in its tracks. We have a very good police force here though so nothing goes unnoticed, and anybody who did a crime was summarily sent to a 'rehibilitation' house. If they refused to love the government they were summarily executed. Any cases of human death however would result in an immediate execution without trial. And since there are cameras, security helicopters and blimps, police on every corner and satellite surveilance we don't need a jury.

The death penalty does work, it just requires alot of people to die at first. But those who do crime should forfeit any right to live anyways. Criminals don't have rights and shouldn't be treated like they do. If they do not like the laws the country has, they shouldn't be living there. The death penalty is good as it deterrs criminal activity and if it doesn't that doesn't matter as criminals deserve to die anyways.

I'm pretty sure some of that violates the Universal Bill of Rights at some point.

And if those aren't just RP opinions, boy my little remaining faith in humanity just dried up in time for Christmas.

If UN law required us to execute any murderers or rapists we convicted, _Myopia_'s government would be forced to let them all go free. The majority of _Myopia_'s people would rather have anarchy than a murderous government.

How's that for proposals like this reducing crime and improving public safety?

The Allied States of New Larson must politely decline support for a resolution mandating capital punishment.

While the morality of a capital punishment is a hotly contested issue among the people of New Larson, the state must formally recognize that a mandatory death penalty may not always be in the best interests of the citizens. Because the current court system in New Larson is not infallible, the state must acknowledge that an irreversible process such as capital punishment may cause the execution of a citizen to which the state has sworn to protect. Our people have instead chosen to strictly enforce life-long sentences and we believe that the passing of any resolution of this nature would undermine the protective duties of the state.

Matthias Betsworth
New Larson UN Delegate

Through the destruction of our enemies we earn our salvation.

if this motion were to pass, which it won't (reaching quarum would be a monumental achievement) we would promptly leave the U.N (or just quietly ignore this law). This matter is of near irrelevance to the majority of U.N members. Only the most extreme regimes still practice such barbaric tactics. My brothers, don't worry about the Fascists poison... it cannot sting those who use logic, reason and compassion as their guide.

Principality of Prachya

What about certain theocracies whose religious teachings forbid capital punishment? Are we going to violate their beliefs and mandate the death penalty when it is clearly a religious issue in that aspect?

Also, to everyone making these claims about wasting tax dollars supporting criminals for the rest of their lives in prison: in RL USA, and many other RL nations, the cost to carry out a single capital punishment trial, sentencing hearing, and execution is the same amount of money required to keep three inmates in maximum security prison for the rest of their lives.

All in all, Nargopia is vehemently opposed to the death penalty. In our eyes, it is immoral and ineffective. Nargopia does not use capital punishment, and crime is "totally nonexistent." Exercising the government-sponsored killing of an individual already in custody only fosters revenge and vigilantism.

The only reason the US spends so much on it is because the US is incredibly stupid about how they go about it. The most common execution method in my country costs a total of $23.50 (USD) per execution, plus legal fees and court costs.

Total to execute: $523.50

Now, if I can get it down to that much (keeping an inmated is estimated to cost, at the absolute minimum, at least $1000), the US can manage it as well.

Kill 'em all it saves money, DEATH TO ALL THOSE IN SIN MUAHAHAHA!

Personally, I like it and agree with most of it.

1. Yes, definately, without a doubt.
2. Definately. If there is one thing I don't like, it's forcing children, our future if you will, to do things against their will sexually...could also come under # 3. I would personally include this with child abuse if it could be found that the parent's/whomever did the deed, did this on purpose or purposefully neglected their child(ren).
3. I agree and have always agreed with that (assuming there was enough evidence)
4. I don't agree. Put them in jail for life or off to rot at a slave camp...while desertion is a very bad crime, death might be over the top.
5. Most definately. Traitors should be put to death as they could lead to being spies. I vote for a real, old-fashioned hangin' for them! :p
6. I'm kinda unsure on this one to be honest. Part of me says that they should but part of me says that they shouldn't. The scary part is that I really can't put a finger on why they shouldn't either.

Then again, for stuff like this, I'm usually preferring that the nations themselves decide for themselves what they want, not be 'ordered' what to do just because it has a majority vote. For the points I have said otherwise, I would not be able to go along with the UN for this proposal, albeit a good one...just a bit too much in my opinion.

Just my opinions....

Director Nurel Turr
TurrWorks Facilities,Inc.

I agree with the points 1 to 5 but the accident part... I don't think so. Accidents occur to anyone.

The death penalty for someone who knock someone down with a car may not be the drivers fault... The cause of the accident may be a cause of the traffic lights are spoiled, The victim crossed the road thinking that the car was moving the other way or the brakes of the car was faulty. Just because someone knock someone down doesn't mean he killed them on purpose.