NationStates Jolt Archive

To everyone concearned by the issue:
It is my inttention to create a proposal aboliting the death penalty in UN´s states. I would apreciate all your opinions, in favor and against, to be posted here and that anyone interested in helping the preparation of the proposal to send me a telegram. I also ask for those wanting to see this proposal in quorum to endorse me. This is what we have so far:
OBJECTIVE: Abolish the death penalty in all UN member states

thank U for replying

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a resolution banning use of the death penalty simply because we believe that the UN should stay out of this contraversial issue.

Keep in mind that we also think that this is a M.O.S.S. proposal as you didn't bother to post it here on the forum.

This is also an issue that has been brought before the UN in the past and the members voted it down.

to the rogue nation of fibbleites:

thes topic of the issue is just as controversial as euthanasia or abortion; therefore it must be treates equaly

this is not yet a proposal since i font have even the " endorsements required to make it one

i`ve read all of UN`s resolutions and i have not noticed any regarding this issue
Please tell me the number of the proposal
anyway we can still vote again

thank you for replying

i`ve read all of UN`s resolutions and i have not noticed any regarding this issue
Please tell me the number of the proposal
anyway we can still vote again

thank you for replying
It's not a resolution, it came up for a vote and was voted down.

PLEASE CONSIDER ENDORSING AND VOTING FOR THIS PROPOSAL
OBJECTIVE: Abolition of the death penalty in all UN states.

I already oppose.

RECOGNISING THAT:

-All Human beings have certain inalienable right

Let me deal with this in a way that it deserves to be...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPACE OVER EVERY DAMNED ARTICLE AND PARAGRAPH.

Also, the only truly inalienable right is death. If you don't believe me, I can demonstrate.

-It´s the porpose of the UN, according to previously voted resolutions to defend this rights

Not even in the UBR is "life" listed as a right. The UN's job is to uphold a set of privilages. They cannot uphold the right of death because no one can take it away. In fact, this group has allowed abortion and euthanasia.

-A Human beig´s existance is not to be decided by no one (other than himself, according to previously voted Euthanasia resolution)

Some people, in spite of the logical conclusion otherwise that is supported by the evidence at hand, consider fetuses to be human beings and alive. This would present to them a contradiction: The UN is saying it is okay to take lives, and then turning around and saying it is not okay.

Besides, it's a case of they broke the law, they pay the price.

PROPOSAL:

-All UN states remove the death penalty from their justice system.

Tiamat Taveril, the member of the DLE Empire that is the UN nation, has no legal system. It's legal problems are taken care of by the DLE system.

How can any bill of rights be passed not metioning this central issue?

Because life is not a right. It is not something you are entitled to. It is something you are allowed that will be taken away from you, and nothing you can do will change that.

How can we defend equality and freedom when we consent that lifes be terminated by the decision of a state institution.

Easily. If it is a legal system, everyone is treated equally.

Isn´t this similar to murder?

So is killing a plant. Or any other living being. With every breath you take, you become guilty of at least 100 murders. Nothing you can do will prevent you from being guilty of murder and nothing you can do will attone for it.

In this case, it is a response to someone who is considered to be beyond being able to make restitution by removing them from life.

Do we want to punish murder crimes by murdering yet another Human being?

Yes. Why? If they kill someone, they cannot apologize. They cannot ever make restitution to that person or their family. What they have done is a crime for which there is no redemption. The only thing that can be done at that point is to remove them from life. Until they make restitution, they cannot be allowed to roam the public freely.

Are we fighting fire with fire? eye for an eye? Is this the example we want our nations to set?

It's the example you set every time you eat a salad or a steak.

In the past a nations founders once wrote "we hold this truth to be self evidente" yet they failed to seen the evidence in this issue and began acting like criminals

The nation you speak of is a nation of criminals. They committed high treason, vandalism, terrorist acts, and hundreds of murders and thefts. And that's ignoring the fact they were used as a dumping ground for criminals. So, technically, every last one of them was a criminal to begin with. Really bad example.

This resolution is riddled with typing errors and should be corrected before submitting as a proposal.

I cannot support this proposal.

My nation does not use the death penalty but I believe that it is up to the individual nation to make this choice. Human Rights and the resolution for a fair trial ensures that all people(s) sentenced to death are treated properly, and do deserve the death penalty according to the beliefs of the nation said people reside in.

:mad: :mad: Do not repeal the Death Penalty!!
This is the only real punishment left as a deterant for those who take the life of others. It would be no good using a prison sentence, that is then cut to only a few years by Liberal reformers, as a punishment. The criminal act must be understood to be a criminal act with the ultimate punishment. It may seem like an eye for an eye but that is what those of limited inleligence understand. Power to the people. That is what the courts and goverments are there for. To enact the will of the people, all the people and not just those who feel they weald the power for their own ends.
Do not repeal this act. The state of Slagoff would be oppossed to this as is decreed in our moto "Do unto others before they do unto you..." IT MUST STAY.
:mad: :mad:

the death penalty will not be repealed since it is not in any resolution to force it´s use. many states have chosen to abolish the death penalty believing it to be an abuse of power

I think he meant do not ban it, rather than do not repeal it.

TilEnca doesn't have a death penalty. Not for a long time. And I would much prefer for every other nation to give it up as well.

But it is not my place to tell them to do that - it has to be their choice. And so I don't think it is the place of the UN to do it either.

This is also an issue that has been brought before the UN in the past and the members voted it down.
Forum topic on previous "Ban the Death Penalty" proposal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=334553) (537 posts to this topic, so it's a safe bet that most of the arguments were well covered.)

Text of the failed resolution (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ban_of_Death_Penalty_%28failed%29)

Votes For: 6957
Votes Against: 9288
Voting Ended: Sun Jun 27 2004


Let's not do it again, shall we?

You have the full support of the country of Rivolta in banning the death penalty.

The Death penalty is an outdated punishment and a pretty useless deterent. Let us not forget the huge errors that can be made in wrongly convicting. I would rather let a hundred guilty murderers live than kill an innocent man.

'An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind'

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

You have the full support of the country of Rivolta in banning the death penalty.

The Death penalty is an outdated punishment and a pretty useless deterent. Let us not forget the huge errors that can be made in wrongly convicting. I would rather let a hundred guilty murderers live than kill an innocent man.

'An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind'

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

That might be true in your nation. It might be true in mine. But what if there is a member nation out there that is riddled with crime. That has tried to rehabilitate its criminals, but has found out that there are some that have to be executed for the safety of the other people? Or what if they can prove that if they argue that if it were banned, mob justice would shoot through the roof and people would start killing convicted criminals at random?

I don't support the death penalty in TilEnca, but I don't know enough about all the other 37 thousand member nations to say that they should ban it. And I really don't think it is the position of the UN to be telling them that either.

Zamundaland will not be supporting this proposal. We believe it is our right to dispense justice in whatever manner we see fit within our own borders. We rarely execute murderers because most of the time we find the dead person usually did something to *really* piss the other person off. However, we do execute convicted rapists and pedophiles, as well as drunk drivers.

We would be willing, of course, to abandon the dealth penalty provided the writer of this proposal were willing to accept all our convicted death penalty candidates. We sure as hell don't want 'em. Our view is that some people just need dyin'.

I point out, Basselhauntian delegate, that already, there have been many whose proposals were much better thought out and who actually used concepts like spelling and grammar...and they have found their proposals repeatedly and soundly defeated.

Without the death penalty, our nation would be rife with traitors, terrorists, and criminals of the worst sort; furthermore, to abolish the death penalty would run contrary to our very core beliefs.

Human beings exist to serve the State. If the State has no sway over their lives, they cannot serve it to their fullest.

Thereby, your proposal shall be one more that we and our Regional Delegate dismiss utterly.

--Ellion Kev, Ambassador to the UN, Dominion of Necros-Vacuia

I find it interesting that people consider human beings as possessing a "right to life". What right to life does a man trapped in a flaming aircraft rocketing into the ground with no parachute have? Or someone being mauled by a bear? What right to life does someone drowning in the middle of the ocean have?

There is no "right to life". Death is as inescapable as it is natural, and I think it's arrogant of western civilization to assume otherwise.

I find it interesting that people consider human beings as possessing a "right to life". What right to life does a man trapped in a flaming aircraft rocketing into the ground with no parachute have? Or someone being mauled by a bear? What right to life does someone drowning in the middle of the ocean have?

There is no "right to life". Death is as inescapable as it is natural, and I think it's arrogant of western civilization to assume otherwise.

Of course humans have a "right to life", even in a crashing aircraft. The right to life is always there. That´s as clear as death is inescapable. But in a crashing aircraft the possibility to be able to "use" that right is slightly limited.

Of course humans have a "right to life", even in a crashing aircraft. The right to life is always there. That´s as clear as death is inescapable. But in a crashing aircraft the possibility to be able to "use" that right is slightly limited.

I would more or less agree, but I would phrase it differently.

People don't have a right to live forever, but they do have a right to expect the government that is there to protect them to actually do its job.

Here Here

I would consider myself, now I am alive, righfully here - and I imagine if we put our learned friend in a burning plane, in the middle of a lake, or just introduced him to Mr. Grisly he may have one or two issues and 'oh well, it was inevitable' is unlikely to be one of them.

Of course humans have a "right to life", even in a crashing aircraft. The right to life is always there. That´s as clear as death is inescapable. But in a crashing aircraft the possibility to be able to "use" that right is slightly limited.

If it is a right, then why is it so easily prevented and taken away?

Here Here

I would consider myself, now I am alive, righfully here - and I imagine if we put our learned friend in a burning plane, in the middle of a lake, or just introduced him to Mr. Grisly he may have one or two issues and 'oh well, it was inevitable' is unlikely to be one of them.

I accepted my mortality and the innevitability of the comming end long ago. I may fight to stop it due to an instinct of nature, but in the end I must accept it.

This is the only real punishment left as a deterant for those who take the life of others

Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty does not serve as a deterant.

Thus, why some of us don't use it as such.

The point of the death penalty is not deterrent or revenge, but to keep known, serious offenders with a major chance of committing the crime again, like serial rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, off the streets for good.

If it was to serve as a deterrent than we would execute our criminals in the most painful and gruesome way possible, since most people don't like pain.

The point of the death penalty is not deterrent or revenge, but to keep known, serious offenders with a major chance of committing the crime again, like serial rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, off the streets for good.


You know - some nations have these buildings where they keep people who commit crimes :}


If it was to serve as a deterrent than we would execute our criminals in the most painful and gruesome way possible, since most people don't like pain.

It really wouldn't work then either. Because you can only die once, so once you commit a crime that is punishable by execution, you might as well go ahead and commit a whole bunch of other crimes cause they can't kill you more than once. (OOC - "Life Of Brian" - the stoning scene - is a perfect example of this).

(OOC - "Life Of Brian" - the stoning scene - is a perfect example of this).

I loved that one!

On to the topic at hand, are you all aware that BAC?

I have a question for those nations that oppose this resolution because they want and/or use the death penalty. If a nation sentences a person to death for commiting murder, how is this nation not also commiting murder?

Well, murder is: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." So, if a goverment decides a murder must die for his crime, then it is not murder.

The Empire of Facdomint supports this Proposal; a quick, painless death isn't nearly as horrible as spending ones entire life wasting away in a cell.

A better angle of attack:

Who claims to have a flawless legal system?
Who thinks that in nations with a death penalty, innocent people are not put to death?

I have a question for those nations that oppose this resolution because they want and/or use the death penalty. If a nation sentences a person to death for commiting murder, how is this nation not also commiting murder?

Because taking someone's property without asking is stealing. But if the police come in to your house and confiscate something when they have a search warrant, it is perfectly legal.

(I oppose the death penalty on the grounds it doesn't work, not on the grounds that it is murder)

Such matters like the death penalty and prostitution should be left to Feederal Governements to decide, not the UN. The UN should just address matters of global importance, such as nuclear weapons or FT development, vertainly not domestic issues such as this.

A better angle of attack:

Who claims to have a flawless legal system?

Mine's as flawless as you are going to get. But mainly because of my laws and investigation technology. Errors happen, which is why repeals are allowed (though, you have to work fast in my case...)

Who thinks that in nations with a death penalty, innocent people are not put to death?

In my nation, innocent people are killed. Often by mistake or accident. However, the advent of certain technologies and skills combined with surveilance technology cuts back on most errors. Your homes may be private, but the public isn't.

The Confederacy of COMUNI does not agree with this resolution.
What makes u think that a person who killed someone has the right to live?
Have u ever watched that movie called... omg, i think the name is "Time to Kill". Watch it and you will find out why I'm in favor of the death penalty.
It is the duty of a nation conserned with its population wellfare to execute the bad citizens, or, in other terms, the social cancer.
Sometimes people tell me: "So, u r for the death penalty huh?... what makes u think u r better than the person is being executed?" Man.... I wish I culd beat up everyone who tells me that... OF COURSE I AM BETTER THAN A NASTY MURDERER, IF YOU DONT THINK U R BETTER THAN A MURDERER OR A TERRORIST YOU ARE PROBABLY IN DEEP DEPRESSION AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED.
Thank u very much

look, were a new nation here, and we came into the game with a few ideas of how we should run our country, and regaurding the issue of the death penalty, we will follow the ancient code of Hummurabi. his code was basically in the terms of "an eye for an eye", so if you decide to kill...we'll kill you back.

look, were a new nation here, and we came into the game with a few ideas of how we should run our country, and regaurding the issue of the death penalty, we will follow the ancient code of Hummurabi. his code was basically in the terms of "an eye for an eye", so if you decide to kill...we'll kill you back.

Oddly enough - the original intent of "an eye for an eye" was to indicate the most you could exact in vengence - not what you should enact.

The Confederacy of COMUNI does not agree with this resolution.
What makes u think that a person who killed someone has the right to live?
Have u ever watched that movie called... omg, i think the name is "Time to Kill". Watch it and you will find out why I'm in favor of the death penalty.
It is the duty of a nation conserned with its population wellfare to execute the bad citizens, or, in other terms, the social cancer.
Sometimes people tell me: "So, u r for the death penalty huh?... what makes u think u r better than the person is being executed?" Man.... I wish I culd beat up everyone who tells me that... OF COURSE I AM BETTER THAN A NASTY MURDERER, IF YOU DONT THINK U R BETTER THAN A MURDERER OR A TERRORIST YOU ARE PROBABLY IN DEEP DEPRESSION AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED.
Thank u very much

We believe that teaching the nation that killing is wrong is not best served by killing people who don't learn that lesson.

The nation you speak of is a nation of criminals. They committed high treason, vandalism, terrorist acts, and hundreds of murders and thefts. And that's ignoring the fact they were used as a dumping ground for criminals. So, technically, every last one of them was a criminal to begin with. Really bad example.

Umm.... no. While criminals were transported to the US to be used as indentured servants, possibly even statistically significant amounts, the US was never a penal colony.

And for those that committed criminal acts - yes they did. Once the war started however, they were the acts of patriots. It's all a matter of whose version you wish to support. The English or the American.

Umm.... no. While criminals were transported to the US to be used as indentured servants, possibly even statistically significant amounts, the US was never a penal colony.

Which doesn't disagree with my calling it a dumping ground for criminals.

And for those that committed criminal acts - yes they did. Once the war started however, they were the acts of patriots. It's all a matter of whose version you wish to support. The English or the American.

Personally, I prefer the realist's.

As Emperor of Dahyj I refuse to endorse this proposal. We firmly believe that rights to be cherished most of all, that our people should be free. However there are those that would destroy our society, or at the very least our citizenry. They steal the right to live, so in turn we claim theirs. Death is not a pretty thing, nor is it something to be done on a whim. Regulating the use of the death penalty is a possibility, but abolition of it would be folly. For the soverign states that wish not to have the death penaly, let them, however there are times when it is needed, and I will fight until the last breath has left my body to keep the safety of my people assured. Therefore I encourage my fellow states not to endorse this proposal in the name of your people. Thank you for your time.