NationStates Jolt Archive

Our prisons are overfilled, everytime we put another criminal into a jail cell, it takes more of the tax payers money. I propose that by taking someones like, you shall be giving away your own, this will give a higher degree of justice, and it will take more inmates out of the correctional facilities of the world, which will save the tax payers money. Here is the Unofficial Proposal:

The Automatic Sentence of Death to all who commit 1st-2nd Degree Murder:

The proposition that I decree is to penalyze all who commit the act of first or second degree murder will be automatically executed by lethal injection, hanging, or the electric chair.

Benefits of the Proposition:

A. This will make the murder rate go down because the fact that people will be aware that if they take a life (or lives) will be automatically taking their own.

B. This will save the government money (to put back into Government, Schools, Welfare, etc.) because they will no longer have to pay for inmates living expenses.

Who does the Proposition apply to:

A. People that are plead guilty in the court of law for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

Please post your comments, or send a telegram The Democratic Republic of Nitrotech. I want all the feedback and support that I can get on this proposition.

Krioval doesn't practice capital punishment except for treason. Further, we punish our criminals by forcing them to work, so money's not an issue. Finally, what happens when technology later exonerates someone improperly convicted?

That is a rare rare cause, I think that putting criminals to work is just taking a job away from a law abiding citizen. So I say kill the murderers and put tax money to better use.

Time and time again the death penalty has proven to be both ineffective in stopping violent crime and unrelyable when it comes to the wrongful state sanctioned murder of innocent men. If you are innocent but circumstances have put you in the box as top suspect, and you are convicted, you have no way to appeal the wrongful conviction when you are dead.

I have often asked myself should Capital punishment be allowed and every time i must say no, even in the most horrific of circumstances.

Also, in jurisdictions where government are not all that democratic, there is widespread misuse of the Death Penalty.

Venerable Libertarians say NO to capital punishment.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

That is a rare rare cause, I think that putting criminals to work is just taking a job away from a law abiding citizen. So I say kill the murderers and put tax money to better use.
indeed ... YOU say so ... don't try to impose that on other nations! Not that it would affect me, not being in the UN.

Time and time again the death penalty has proven to be both ineffective in stopping violent crime and unrelyable when it comes to the wrongful state sanctioned murder of innocent men. If you are innocent but circumstances have put you in the box as top suspect, and you are convicted, you have no way to appeal the wrongful conviction when you are dead.

I have often asked myself should Capital punishment be allowed and every time i must say no, even in the most horrific of circumstances.

Also, in jurisdictions where government are not all that democratic, there is widespread misuse of the Death Penalty.

Venerable Libertarians say NO to capital punishment.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

But it would make it so that you would have to spend less money on housing and feeding them (by just killing them), plus most people convicted of being guilty usually are.

Besides with the saved money we could spend it on something more useful such as industry, welfare, military, etc.

But it would make it so that you would have to spend less money on housing and feeding them (by just killing them), plus most people convicted of being guilty usually are.

Besides with the saved money we could spend it on something more useful such as industry, welfare, military, etc.
Ooh, not only trying to impose a different moral/beliefs system on other nations, but also trying to meddle with other nations' budgets? Yeah, you're really helping your cause here.

indeed ... YOU say so ... don't try to impose that on other nations! Not that it would affect me, not being in the UN.

Well this proposal is JUST for the UN, however you run your country I fully respect.

What about how other UN nations' leaders run their country?

What about how other UN nations' leaders run their country?

When you join the UN, you know that there are going to be things that you agree with and things that you don't, but that is the price you pay to get your voice heard and get the right to voice your opinion and to pass proposals.

This will never pass, fortunately, because it is mind-numbingly barbaric. The NSUN, known for its liberal views, will never pass anything legitimising state sanctioned murder.

Also it is dreadfully written, with typos and grammatical errors all over.

Not to mention that capital punishment is: 1. Not a deterrent; 2. Much more costly than life imprisonment.

All in all, a waste of our time.

That was an unofficial proposition, I just through it together, if I decide to pass a real one (which will be better written and more detailed) it will be the proper format.

This was just an idea, I think that I will use it on my own country, but if you all don't want it for your country, then just vote no, or just don't support it.

It may seem barbaric, but it isn't nearly as barbaric as the people that actually commit or have committed these horrible crimes.

It may seem barbaric, but it isn't nearly as barbaric as the people that actually commit or have committed these horrible crimes.

Murder is murder. The government that lowers itself to it sullies itself.

You see a murder, I see one less piece of scum on this earth. You can argue all you want, but the world would do better without them, plus all executions are swift and are humane.

No. Murder is wrong. And all we would be doing is lowering ourselves to the murderers level. So for killing a murderer, we should be killed. Otherwise we wouldn't live in a fair and equal world. If somone takes life, and we take their life, then who takes our life for taking that persons life? As you can see, it would never work.

You see a murder, I see one less piece of scum on this earth. You can argue all you want, but the world would do better without them, plus all executions are swift and are humane.

Krioval has private prisons, which minimize the amount of tax burden is placed on society. Further, while in prison, people are made to work (they get to choose the job) in order to pay for their room and board. So how is this costing taxpayers anything additional?

Finally, we don't see the need to satiate our bloodlust by killing another human being who could potentially be rehabilitated and grow to become productive; some of the mentally ill come to mind. Then again, perhaps Krioval is more morally advanced than some other nations. It happens, I suppose.

You see a murder, I see one less piece of scum on this earth.

That's because you lack morals and ethics.

That's because you lack morals and ethics.

I have more morals then you, besides they are getting killed in a natural fation, their deaths will be swift and somewhat painless. This will eliminate SCUM, I know that I am not winning any popularity contests with proposing this, and although it seems harsh, it is necessary, and this is what The Democratic Republic of Nitrotech does to scum!

I have more morals then you, besides they are getting killed in a natural fation, their deaths will be swift and somewhat painless. This will eliminate SCUM, I know that I am not winning any popularity contests with proposing this, and although it seems harsh, it is necessary, and this is what The Democratic Republic of Nitrotech does to scum!

Note to Commander Raijin: If at all possible, discourage Kriovalian citizens from entering this and similarly barbaric lands. I feel that we should not sully our reputation by associating with such immorality.

Time and time again the death penalty has proven to be both ineffective in stopping violent crime ...

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

This is due in part to the fact that punishment is not uniform. To enact a law such as this, where if you commit murder the defacto punishment is death, odds are you will see a decrease in murder rates, as criminals will know what their punishment is before doing the crime. That is, once found guilty of murder, their punishment is death.

Also, given the repercusssions of the penalty prosecutors are likely to reserve such allegations for concrete cases.

But anyway, I do not like this proposal.

You can be for the death penalty and be a moral person. That is what makes morals fun.

Also, all murder is killing, not all killing is murder.

You can be for the death penalty and be a moral person. That is what makes morals fun.

Agreed. My primary contention is when someone talks about destroying "scum" rather than at least admitting that the targets of capital punishment are human beings, though decidedly not at the apex of societal evolution (I hope!), that person is mechanizing the process, which I think should factor in all circumstances before calling for another person's death.

We don't have the death penalty (banned since 1956), and we don't have any crime problems. Refused.

While The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has the death penalty (as our Grand Poobah says, "You come to my nation and kill somebody, we will kill you back"), we will not support this proposal as we feel that decisions about the death penalty are best left up to the individual nations.

OOC: And ironicaly enough this post got me the "Quite Deadly" forum title.:D

Vastiva has the death penalty (with an express lane), but the "degrees of murder" bit we find ridiculous. We have no degrees - you kill someone, its murder (unless its self-defense).

As such, we do not support.

Question about the "express lane":

Is it like the reverse of supermarket checkout lines? "Six or more murders only" or something like that?

Question about the "express lane":

Is it like the reverse of supermarket checkout lines? "Six or more murders only" or something like that?
*also asks*

Draconian laws like this are what eliminate crime, not probation or life sentences which can end with "parole." If we execute our killers, then it will be less weight for the economy and people won't be urged to "off" their fellow citizens. Any resolution to this effect will wholeheartedly get concurring responsing when it comes to my turn to vote.

Draconian laws like this are what eliminate crime, not probation or life sentences which can end with "parole." If we execute our killers, then it will be less weight for the economy and people won't be urged to "off" their fellow citizens. Any resolution to this effect will wholeheartedly get concurring responsing when it comes to my turn to vote.

If killing people is the only way you can keep crime down in your country, I suggest that you are being woefully inefficient about the entire matter of running your government. Not every person who commits a murder is the same - I'd hazard to say that a woman who murders her abusive husband is far better than a serial rapist/murderer who targets children. If you make no distinction between the two cases in a legal sense, Kriovalian citizens will also be told to avoid your nation as well.

You see a murder, I see one less piece of scum on this earth.

I believe the murderer would say that as well.

---

The Republic of Aeruillin shall not allow the death penalty, or any variant thereof, to defile our legislation. Since our founding, we have stood for recognition of basic human rights for all individuals, regardless of what laws they have violated. One such basic human right is the right to life.

Incarceration is acceptable for the purpose of psychological therapy and the safety of society, but there is no purpose in the death penalty that would benefit our population in any way, nor serve to uphold our constitution.

The United Nations, too, have repeatedly made it clear in their resolutions that its purpose is the betterment of human rights. I therefore urge that this proposal, totally contrary to this purpose of the United Nations, be not even considered for the floor.

Innocent people being found guilty happens more often than you may think. Now, put it this way: innocent people WILL die. Their names WILL become dirt, their friends and families WILL suffer. The lack of appeals WILL mean that more guilty people escape any punishment at all. The numbers WILL be significant.

I think we need a much more solid reason than a vauge promise of more money to justify the decision being made.

Aside from objecting to the death penalty, there is one serious issue with this.

Your statement of priciples is that


A. This will make the murder rate go down because the fact that people will be aware that if they take a life (or lives) will be automatically taking their own.


But you then say that


B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.


So if you are going to execute people to lower the crime rate, killing people already convicted is not going to help. Further to this you will be modifying the sentence of someone who has been convicted already, which I think falls under the class of "cruel and unusual punishment" which, if not forbidden already, should be.

Further to this - how many people do you know who plan to get caught when the commit a crime?

I think that someone should make a proposal banning the death penallty, mabey i will do it if i have time.

I think that someone should make a proposal banning the death penallty, mabey i will do it if i have time.
don't bother. this subject has equal sides of opinions in way that make it impossible to pass, if you consider the amount of nation sovereginians that will be against every proposal of that issue.
you wouldn't be the first who try, and you wouldn't be the last who failed.
if you still want to do it, be open to any improvement idea, and long times of campaigning for the proposal. maybe that give your proposal chance.

Is this really a matter for the UN? It does not affect how nations interact with each other.

Several anti-death penalty proposals have reached quroum- I don't know, I say give it a shot. This just may be a case of no one able to write a proposal that's good enough to pass.

As for the "national soverignty" arguerers: I think half of them only use that argument because they want to repeal a proposal they don't like just so they can put in a proposal that does the opposite. The other half sound like the UN shouldn't exist at all, since just about everything should be "left up to the individual nations".

Is this really a matter for the UN? It does not affect how nations interact with each other.

Argueably it does. If one of my citizens goes to visit GeminiLand, and is arrested and convicted of a murder that she did not commit, and was then executed for the said crime, it would put the government of TilEnca in to a serious situation in regard to relations with GeminiLand.

Having said that, it is understood by all my people that if you visit another country, you are under their laws, and not ours. Even if that country is a dictatorship of the worst order.

Several anti-death penalty proposals have reached quroum- I don't know, I say give it a shot. This just may be a case of no one able to write a proposal that's good enough to pass.

As for the "national soverignty" arguerers: I think half of them only use that argument because they want to repeal a proposal they don't like just so they can put in a proposal that does the opposite. The other half sound like the UN shouldn't exist at all, since just about everything should be "left up to the individual nations".

I acutally do object to the death penalty on the grounds of national sovereignty. TilEnca is totally and utterly opposed to the death penalty, but that is because of our history. We are not so full of ourselves that we believe we know whether or not the death penalty is suitable for all the other 37,000 nations in the UN.

We don't want to see it made mandatory, but we don't want to see it banned either, because it is a matter for national concern.

Our prisons are overfilled, everytime we put another criminal into a jail cell, it takes more of the tax payers money.
How sad.

1) Have you tried dealing with this problem domestically?

2)For the cost of a typical execution, the government could keep a person in maximum security prison for roughly 200 years.

I propose that by taking someones life, you shall be giving away your own, this will give a higher degree of justice, and it will take more inmates out of the correctional facilities of the world, which will save the tax payers money.
We don't have prisons in Nargopia. The "correctional facilities" you speak of would be our Rehabilitation Centers. Our taxpayers are more than happy to pay for these centers, and are offended that you think otherwise.

Here is the Unofficial Proposal:
Goody.

The Automatic Sentence of Death to all who commit 1st-2nd Degree Murder:

The proposition that I decree is to penalyze all who commit the act of first or second degree murder will be automatically executed by lethal injection, hanging, or the electric chair.
1) What are these things you call "1st" or "2nd" Degree murder? We have a quite different system in Nargopia.

2) The UN decrees, not you. If you want to decree, then enact this in your own country (which is all you should be doing anyway).

3) Why only those three methods of execution? We, personally, don't have capital punishment, but in our sister nation Armed Enforcers it is a highly valued civil right to determine your own method of execution if sentenced to death.

Benefits of the Proposition:
I'm curious...

A. This will make the murder rate go down because the fact that people will be aware that if they take a life (or lives) will be automatically taking their own.
Prove it. Do you honestly think that you have a comprehensive psychoanalysis of the typical criminal mind of every race, species, and nationality in the NS Universe?

B. This will save the government money (to put back into Government, Schools, Welfare, etc.) because they will no longer have to pay for inmates living expenses.
For the cost of a typical execution, the government could keep a person in maximum security prison for roughly 200 years.

Who does the Proposition apply to:
I have a feeling you're going to tell us.

A. People that are plead guilty in the court of law for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.
Why would somebody plead guilty if they know that there is no chance for any outcome but execution?

B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

We have things called ex post facto laws in Nargopia, and we would be quite outraged if you were to override them with this resolution.

I acutally do object to the death penalty on the grounds of national sovereignty. TilEnca is totally and utterly opposed to the death penalty, but that is because of our history. We are not so full of ourselves that we believe we know whether or not the death penalty is suitable for all the other 37,000 nations in the UN.

We don't want to see it made mandatory, but we don't want to see it banned either, because it is a matter for national concern.

Well, I know there are exceptions...but I do get the impression that several of the national soverignty arguerers sound like the UN shouldn't exist at all.

Well, I know there are exceptions...but I do get the impression that several of the national soverignty arguerers sound like the UN shouldn't exist at all.
I disagree. We just have very well-defined views of what the UN should legislate. I think human rights and international trade & business are about the only things that shouldn't be left up to the states.

I'm iffy on whether capital punishment is a human rights issue. Still haven't completely sorted that one out, but a well-written capital punishment ban might change my mind.

Hey, I'm just going by what I see. That's all. No ill will intended.

Thank you all for your input, although most of you will agree with me passing a UN bill... Starting tomorrow this will be issued all across the Democratic Republic of Nitrotech.

I can't individually answer everyone, but I want to tell you all thank you for your input, and thank you all for voicing your opinion. Most of you don't have the same opinion as me, but that is why I love the UN, you don't have to be a suck up (you can be yourself), and you can look out for your best interest.

THanks (once again) for all the feed back.

Several anti-death penalty proposals have reached quroum- I don't know, I say give it a shot. This just may be a case of no one able to write a proposal that's good enough to pass.

I did.
*Draft* Ban the Death Penalty (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401435)

The murderer when killing shows the full intent and capability of his will and will follow through with it. When you take life you forfeit the right to your own. Only those with no question in murder cases when convicted guilty, should be put to death, there should not be any room for error or the trial should be delayed until more evidence can be presented or found. This is a must to keep the cost lower for taxes and it the moral thing to do rather than let them live and give chance for more crimes.

Our prisons are overfilled, everytime we put another criminal into a jail cell, it takes more of the tax payers money.

How sad.

1) Have you tried dealing with this problem domestically?

2)For the cost of a typical execution, the government could keep a person in maximum security prison for roughly 200 years.

Bullpucky. The bullet costs about fifty cornets (about one USD). The bailiff is paid to be there, so there is no additional cost for the service. Other means are available, and even far less costly.

Vastiva makes a profit in most executions.



I propose that by taking someones life, you shall be giving away your own, this will give a higher degree of justice, and it will take more inmates out of the correctional facilities of the world, which will save the tax payers money.


We don't have prisons in Nargopia. The "correctional facilities" you speak of would be our Rehabilitation Centers. Our taxpayers are more than happy to pay for these centers, and are offended that you think otherwise.

We have prisons and correctional facilities and treatment centers. They all work well.

We also televise executions and sell recordings on CD. Makes for a good profit. Educational.



Here is the Unofficial Proposal:

Goody.

:rolleyes:



The Automatic Sentence of Death to all who commit 1st-2nd Degree Murder:

The proposition that I decree is to penalyze all who commit the act of first or second degree murder will be automatically executed by lethal injection, hanging, or the electric chair.


1) What are these things you call "1st" or "2nd" Degree murder? We have a quite different system in Nargopia.

So do we in Vastiva. We also do most executions by exposure (to Antarctican water and the sharks therein). Very cheap.



2) The UN decrees, not you. If you want to decree, then enact this in your own country (which is all you should be doing anyway).

3) Why only those three methods of execution? We, personally, don't have capital punishment, but in our sister nation Armed Enforcers it is a highly valued civil right to determine your own method of execution if sentenced to death.

Agreed. Variety is better.



Benefits of the Proposition:

I'm curious...

Hello, Curious!



A. This will make the murder rate go down because the fact that people will be aware that if they take a life (or lives) will be automatically taking their own.

Prove it. Do you honestly think that you have a comprehensive psychoanalysis of the typical criminal mind of every race, species, and nationality in the NS Universe?

Simple proof would be "you kill off those who would break the law, ruthlessly, and the want to break it is that much less. It also changes the gene pool".



B. This will save the government money (to put back into Government, Schools, Welfare, etc.) because they will no longer have to pay for inmates living expenses.

For the cost of a typical execution, the government could keep a person in maximum security prison for roughly 200 years.

I'd love to see you keep a person in a maximum security prison in Vastiva for "roughly 200 years" on 50 cornets.



Who does the Proposition apply to:

I have a feeling you're going to tell us.

Duh.



A. People that are plead guilty in the court of law for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

Why would somebody plead guilty if they know that there is no chance for any outcome but execution?

Good question.



B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

We have things called ex post facto laws in Nargopia, and we would be quite outraged if you were to override them with this resolution.

Isn't there a resolution against double-jeopardy?

If this went to a vote, I would most likely Approve this proposal.

Question about the "express lane":

Is it like the reverse of supermarket checkout lines? "Six or more murders only" or something like that?

In Vastiva, we have omnipresent cameras and police snipers. Attempting to flee to avoid prosecution is a terminatable offense.

When a death sentence is proclaimed (after last appeal), it is carried out within seven days, usually less. The default - a bullet - is carried out by the bailiff in the next room. We do, however, usually give the victim or their family a choice of method where practical.

In the case of particularly heinous crimes (Treason, for example), the death sentence is manditory and no appeal is allowed. This is "express lane". We do not believe in "three strikes and you're out". We believe in personal responsibility - and if you're that stupid, removing you from the gene pool becomes a priority.

In Vastiva, we have omnipresent cameras and police snipers. Attempting to flee to avoid prosecution is a terminatable offense.

When a death sentence is proclaimed (after last appeal), it is carried out within seven days, usually less. The default - a bullet - is carried out by the bailiff in the next room. We do, however, usually give the victim or their family a choice of method where practical.

In the case of particularly heinous crimes (Treason, for example), the death sentence is manditory and no appeal is allowed. This is "express lane". We do not believe in "three strikes and you're out". We believe in personal responsibility - and if you're that stupid, removing you from the gene pool becomes a priority.

Ah. Thank you for clearing that up. While Krioval does not have capital punishment for most offenses, treason is one of the few exceptions, and we Kriovalians believe that traitors should be executed in dramatic and unusual methods - not only does it serve as a deterrent, but we, like Vastiva, find that footage sells quite well for many years.

I'm iffy on whether capital punishment is a human rights issue. Still haven't completely sorted that one out, but a well-written capital punishment ban might change my mind.

Banning it might be, but I can not see how killing people can be classed as human rights. Moral decency (to some extent) would make more sense.

The murderer when killing shows the full intent and capability of his will and will follow through with it. When you take life you forfeit the right to your own. Only those with no question in murder cases when convicted guilty, should be put to death, there should not be any room for error or the trial should be delayed until more evidence can be presented or found. This is a must to keep the cost lower for taxes and it the moral thing to do rather than let them live and give chance for more crimes.

(OOC)

The Guilford 4, The Birmingham 6, Stephan Kiscko (sp?), Sally Clarke....

All these people were convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and all of them would most likely have been executed.

And now every one of them has been exonerated. That's 12 lives saved by not executing innocent people.

(IC)

Unless you do it in a half-assed manner, it costs more to execute someone (with the appeals, counter appeals and further appeals) that it does to keep them in jail for life. Plus you are never going to find a murder case where someon is convicted not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt.

If someone is executed and then found innocent, would you be prepared to put to death all those who were involved in the execution as conspiritors?

I disagree with this proposal. You should not impose a legal practice upon other nations in which it has already been outlawed and where it is considered ethically wrong. (To put it more bluntly, the UN isn't about turning humane nations into barbaric ones). There is no death penalty in Ariddia, but I consider this an issue that should be decided upon individually by each nation. Which is why I have never supported an proposal banning the death penalty (or legalising abortion). Nor the opposite, obviously.


B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.


That makes it even more wrong. (Sorry if this has already been commented on...). No credible justice system implements laws retroactively; that's hideously unfair and unjust.

If ever this does pass (and I doubt it will), Ariddia will simply create some kind of loophole, for example redefining murder so that no one can be convicted of it, and charging murderers with "high degree manslaughter" instead, or something like that. Or, we will only convict if there is not the slightest, faintest possibility of innocence - in other words, we will never convict. The penalty for being convicted of murder without any doubt, death, will thus never be applied, while the penalty for being convicted of murder on the basis of overwhelming evidence and the faintest possible doubt will remain incarceration and community service. There will be no executions in this country, whatever happens. :p

B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

Illegal


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #27
Due Process

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Votes For: 9,027
Votes Against: 4,677

Implemented: Wed Aug 13 2003

Nuff said

Illegal




Nuff said

It really isn't. I don't approve of retrospective legislation, but the resolution you quoted does not deal with that.

You see a murder, I see one less piece of scum on this earth. You can argue all you want, but the world would do better without them, plus all executions are swift and are humane.

There are quite a few differing opinions as to the, uh, humanity of the three methods of execution you mentioned. Even lethal injection has been debated. Pax per Vires, would never sanction the electric chair, for example. We consider it a painful and needlessly mutilating procedure.

This is also a touchy subject. I don't think all murder can be cast as so brutal that it requires death as a punishment. I suggest you all look at my common ground offer on the issue of capital punishment:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401755

Nevermoore does not agree with this proposal. We believe death onlu should be dealt to traitors against the RPD of Frostguarde and province of Nevermoore or to proven serial killers, not the killer of one person.

(OOC)

The Guilford 4, The Birmingham 6, Stephan Kiscko (sp?), Sally Clarke....

All these people were convicted beyond reasonable doubt, and all of them would most likely have been executed.

And now every one of them has been exonerated. That's 12 lives saved by not executing innocent people.

(IC)

Unless you do it in a half-assed manner, it costs more to execute someone (with the appeals, counter appeals and further appeals) that it does to keep them in jail for life. Plus you are never going to find a murder case where someon is convicted not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt.

If someone is executed and then found innocent, would you be prepared to put to death all those who were involved in the execution as conspiritors?

Seriously, we wonder about your nations idea of what is and what is not involved in an execution. In Vastiva, a short boat trip, some chum, and a dip in the chilly water with the Great Whites cures the ill. Cost is minimal.

Now, if you are going to factor in the cost of trials, DNA and other testing, etc - we do not see this as part of the execution, but part of the justice system.

Obviously, you are doing something wrong in your calculations.

"Conspiracy to Wrongfully Convict" is a Death Sentence offense in Vastiva, yes. And we would gleefully (a) execute every last conspirator (b) redistribute their wealth to the families and/or estates of the wrongfully executed.

This is part of the reason Vastiva goes as far as it does to insure those who receive a death penalty, deserve it. As to whether those cases you bring up would be worthy of the death penalty, we would have to see the texts in full. Most often, we find the cases severely lacking.

It really isn't. I don't approve of retrospective legislation, but the resolution you quoted does not deal with that.

Yes it does. It states you can't retry for the "new sentence". We would interpret it as meaning "you can't be retroactively sentenced for the same crime". In view of your first statement, this makes your proposal illegal.

There are quite a few differing opinions as to the, uh, humanity of the three methods of execution you mentioned. Even lethal injection has been debated. Pax per Vires, would never sanction the electric chair, for example. We consider it a painful and needlessly mutilating procedure.

Vastiva prefers "Death by Exposure and/or Shark Attack". Very cheap. As a humane gesture, the condemned can have their choice of pharmaceuticals before the sentence is carried out. The sharks don't seem to mind.

But we are not against the family/survivors choosing the method - though the right of the condemned to their choice of pharmaceuticals cannot be contravened.

Yes it does. It states you can't retry for the "new sentence". We would interpret it as meaning "you can't be retroactively sentenced for the same crime". In view of your first statement, this makes your proposal illegal.

You do know it's not my proposal?

If a serious crime is to be commited then the subject should be punished with murder. This resolution statement is correct. :mp5:

The Automatic Sentence of Death to all who commit 1st-2nd Degree Murder:

The proposition that I decree is to penalyze all who commit the act of first or second degree murder will be automatically executed by lethal injection, hanging, or the electric chair.

Benefits of the Proposition:

A. This will make the murder rate go down because the fact that people will be aware that if they take a life (or lives) will be automatically taking their own.

B. This will save the government money (to put back into Government, Schools, Welfare, etc.) because they will no longer have to pay for inmates living expenses.

Who does the Proposition apply to:

A. People that are plead guilty in the court of law for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

B. All those already incarserated for 1st and/or 2nd degree murder.

Please post your comments, or send a telegram The Democratic Republic of Nitrotech. I want all the feedback and support that I can get on this proposition.

As written in this post, this is an unlawful interference in the affairs of sovereign states. We would vote against it, and we would leave the UN if it passed.

(1)The ex post facto imposition of a penalty not considerable at the time of the trial decision is against the Oldenburg Bill of Rights, which we are constrained to obey. We would therefor have to ignore this provsion and/or leave the UN if it passed.

(2)The phrase "...people that are plead guilty" has alarming implications to us and, once again, anyone's entering a guilty plea on behalf of a defendant is specifically prohibited by our Hanse's Bill of Rights. We would oppose this idea, and we would leave the UN rather than modify our ancient constitutions.

(3)Since we do not know what happens after death, we have no way of knowing whether capital punishment is in and of itself by definition a cruel and unusual punishment, and we insist that this be left up to the sovereign states to determine.

(4)Since mistakes can always be made, we insist that we leave it up to the sovereign states to decide whether or not they trust their own legal systems enough to believe that no mistake can be made in a capital case.

There is absolutely no way in hell that our small hanse would support this resolution.

If a serious crime is to be commited then the subject should be punished with murder. This resolution statement is correct. :mp5:

Wow. Firstly you don't say whether or not the crime has been commited - so you could execute someone for what they might do not what they have done, secondly you say that the "subject" shall be punished with murder - generally the subject of the crime is the victim and you would be killing the victim twice with this. Third you say "punished with murder". Now this says that murder is a crime to be punished with the death penalty. So if you - by your terms - murder someone, then someone has to murder you. But now that person is guilty of murder, so someone has to murder him. Which would lead to an end of all life in the universe, bar the one person who gets to go last.

The statement might be correct (it isn't) but your arguement leaves a lot to be desired.

If someone commits a crime they should be met with forigveness and mercy. That way you will get a better society.

You are very sad i hope u know that you weirdo :sniper: Wow. Firstly you don't say whether or not the crime has been commited - so you could execute someone for what they might do not what they have done, secondly you say that the "subject" shall be punished with murder - generally the subject of the crime is the victim and you would be killing the victim twice with this. Third you say "punished with murder". Now this says that murder is a crime to be punished with the death penalty. So if you - by your terms - murder someone, then someone has to murder you. But now that person is guilty of murder, so someone has to murder him. Which would lead to an end of all life in the universe, bar the one person who gets to go last.

The statement might be correct (it isn't) but your arguement leaves a lot to be desired.

If someone commits a crime they should be met with forigveness and mercy. That way you will get a better society.

The proposed resolution is an offence to our legal traditions, and we would leave the UN before we allowed laws to be enacted to enforce this resolution.

It is a patently offensive intrusion into the affairs of our sovereign peoples.

Somehow i knew you would not respond :sniper:

Somehow i knew you would not respond :sniper:

I couldn't think of anything to say that would not get me banned :}

The wording of his proposal has received some attention in our circle over here, and we would not be able to allow it to reach the resolution phase without voice a serious concern.

We would vote against it, and if it passed we would be forced to leave the UN.

The wording does not make sense.

The way fecal flings this matter is by having enough jail space for the degenerates. We do not lock up drug users, and WOW we have a whole lotta jail cells just waiting for killers, rapists, and child molesters. They remain in prision until their death. My citizens support this because it works. Killing people only gets other people angry enough to kill. No reason to keep the cycle going, unless you like murder.

When a government decides that a person must be put to death it is a warning sign that the society that validated the murder is sick. This is a far greater crime than a person loosing it and killing someone out of rage. State sponcered and endorsed murder is calculated and pre-meditated. If a citizen cannot act alone to make this decision in the same manner; why should a government be granted the authority to make the ultimate decision? Ideally, a government is a reflection of the will of its citizens. Do the citizens really want to die if they are convicted of murder? No. But in a recent fecal case a man killed another man when he found him raping his daughter. Technically he commited 2nd degree murder but he is free now under fecal law. Exceptions shape the political spectrum in to laws, so consider that before killing other people in the name of "justice". With this in mind, I open up my borders to all of your death penalty cases for extradition to my jails. I won't kill'em all, I'll let God sort that out.

You are very sad i hope u know that you weirdo :sniper:
Snipe Dean, knock it off. If you can't find something to say without flaming or spamming, don't say anything.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

The wording of the proposal upsets us, and we would oppose it vigorously as an affront to national sovereignty and the rights of our sovereign peoples, and we agree with the difficulties that Upper Bizan has already pointed out.