NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello my dear delegates. You may remember me for my controversial Death Penalty proposal, well I just thought I'd inform my fellow UN members I will be putting forward a re-written Death Penalty proposal. Im confident that this one will pass. I am putting it forward on thursday and it will be able to view on the forum tomorrow.

Thank you

I think this is a wonderful idea and all the nations in dixieland will support it

This Nation will not accept such a proposal. We cannot endorse an execution of a human by the State, It would go against the very princible of Murder not being at accepted. This State will never Murder a man by standing behind a lawyer and trying to make out it is not Murder, because it is Murder. My people should be an example to the World, we are a stable Nation with very little crime or violence and we refuse to add to this violence by staging State Execution circus's.

I mock all those who are up for this abysmal solution to someones fairlyland vision of sloving crime, and I condem anyman who aligns himself with this Nations stance on this particular matter.

So, where's the proposal?

i will most certainly support this

The Fass Ministry on Human Rights reaffirms its opposition to anything seeking to legitimise the death penalty.

The DLE Ministry on Defense and Foreign Policy reaffirms its support of anything legitimizing the death penalty.

This is a complete outrage!! I shall resign from The united Nations rather then allow this to happen. The Deah Penalty is not an option. I do very little and my crime is quite low. The death Penalty wuld only give emathy to criminals. You are mad to propose this!

sorry, there is no chance that I could allow such a horrible thing to happen.
my state had perfect rehibilition system and unknown crime rate, and I will not accept to change that.
the day that the UN will pass that monsterous proposal, will be black day in the history, and recognize as offical curse day of sorrow in Grean Israel.

state has no right to take human life!

how is pocible belive if yuo the murder to a person, you solutinate a problem.

To: Glorious Leader, The Irish Brotherhood
From: Emporer Shaz Bot

The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom has virtually no crime whatsoever. We also do not believe that a governing body such as the United Nations has any athority to tell a member nation that they "HAVE" to have the Death Penalty. It goes against our rights as a sovrign nation! I agree with items that refer to education and items of international importance, but to order us to have the death penalty is just plain wrong. If and when this comes to vote for the entire UN Body, i will vote it down!

My nation has the death penalty and we will oppose this because we believe that this issue is bect left up to the discretion of the individual nations.

I really have no opinion on this, I would just like to note the hypocrisy of being against the death penalty but for abortion.

Yes, because punishing someone for their crimes, and helping a women are so similar. But lets not start that one here....

Im sorry my dear delegates, but our plans are a little bit behind schedual! We had planned to finish and post our re-written proposal on the Death Penalty today, but sadly other affairs of state came up last minute which were more pressing. So the new plan is that tomorrow at 15:30, the proposal will be posted on the forum and we will officially propose it on friday, giving time for discussion. Once again we apoligise. Thank you.

Micky O'Riordon, Vice President of The Irish Brotherhood

The UN Delegate of The Jamaican Yardies agrees with this proposal! We supported your last one, we will support this one. The rest of you who dont.......................... :upyours:

how is pocible belive if yuo the murder to a person, you solutinate a problem.

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

- Josef Stalin

I believe death is just a solution if one person is too dangerous for the society and prision isn't enough to garantize that society will be protected. It is not a punishment, but a preventive action.

In fact, it's almost imposible know it. How will we know if someone is really dangerous at that level?

I believe death is just a solution if one person is too dangerous for the society and prision isn't enough to garantize that society will be protected. It is not a punishment, but a preventive action.

In fact, it's almost imposible know it. How will we know if someone is really dangerous at that level?

Go by their past actions. Remember that, despite human claims to sentience or human claims towards free will, most people will just follow patterns and repeat what they are successful at.

Go by their past actions. Remember that, despite human claims to sentience or human claims towards free will, most people will just follow patterns and repeat what they are successful at.

Choosing to follow a pattern is a choice...

Off that note, a serial killer has shown a pattern of killing, and accepting such actions. Someone who got drunk, ran down a pedestrian, and is showing remorse, guilt, and those patterns is unlikely to repeat the pattern.

Choosing to follow a pattern is a choice...

Can't dispute that. Just that most people choose to follow the pattern.

Off that note, a serial killer has shown a pattern of killing, and accepting such actions. Someone who got drunk, ran down a pedestrian, and is showing remorse, guilt, and those patterns is unlikely to repeat the pattern.

The first one gets to try one of DLE's lovely methods of being executed. The second one requires a good defense to prove the remorse is not just an act and will likely spend the rest of his natural life working on an orbital platform. The reason why I say the rest of his natural life is the fact the orbital platforms tend to reduce life expectancy quite a bit.

Sounds like we agree on this. :)

Well. It's an option. In theory, it works. In practice, people can use it for other purposes. (Racial revenge, for example). I don't know how to control it.

Yep.

Enjoying your new office?

Loving the view. :)

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

- Josef Stalin

OOC:If you want to live in a state of red terror, a police state, where people are "purged" for being "Nazi" or capitalist or Trotskyist spies planning to overthrow the state, of course all the multitudes of them were . How many? millions of spies.

OOC2:In this subject, Kantian ethics shows its superiority in sound and more logical nature, over utilitarianism. But I'm sure at some stage everyone has problems with everyone else, "no man, no problem" , but if applied ethical, no people either. An eye for an eye is a hypocritical statement. If one deserves to be killed for killing, then logically the one who then kills him should also be killed, and the the one after him in a chain that only ends when the concept can no longer be applied.

An eye for an eye .... well "an eye for an eye and the whole world is blind" - Ghandi

It's 'seems' a barbaric, and vindictive practice.

And despite what theory you may present, it must be flawed to come to the conclusion that this would render affairs of crime more effective. Are political bodies that do not have in place this system overbeared with crime. Why continue an unethica practice that

SIC: Implementation, of given proposal, would most definitely bring greater power to the party, and leader, and bring us closer to elimination of opposition. It is only requested that there may be included lee-way for distortion of the proposal.

Vastiva could care less about your opinion of the practice. We shoot mad dogs and we put serial killers out to be exposed to the elements and the polar bears. It appears to work.

Yes, because punishing someone for their crimes, and helping a women are so similar. But lets not start that one here....

I dont want to start a huge one, but they are similar, considering that they both involve killing someone...

I dont want to start a huge one, but they are similar, considering that they both involve killing someone...

I agree with both of you, they are similar inasmuch as they both involve killing, but they are dissimilar, as the reasons for doing them are different. And because the reasons are different, I think he was trying to say that they are not inextricably linked. Just trying to clarifying.

Back on the topic.

You should make some economic gain from implementation. That would make it appealing for me at the least.

Back on the topic.

You should make some economic gain from implementation. That would make it appealing for me at the least.

You get all their stuff to auction off.