NationStates Jolt Archive

I decided to write this. I welcome any feedback. I know this is a deadlocked issue, but one day this just might pass.

Ban the death penalty

Catergory: Human Rights Strength: Significant

REMEMBERING UN resolution #21: Fair Trail (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild), UN resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong), UN resolution #41: END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant), UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #47: Definition of ‘Fair Trial’ (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: significant)

ACKNOWLEDGING that it is more expensive to execute a person then keep them in prison.

BELIEVING even humans guilty of the worst possible crimes can be rehabilitated.

REALIZING there is no way to prove a person guilty for certain in some cases.

DISTURBED BY the fact that people are executed and later found innocent.

CONCEDING that in military cases the death penalty is sometimes required and this choice to use it in these cases should be left up to each nation.

BANS capital punishment within all UN member countries in civilian courts

I decided to write this. I welcome any feedback. I know this is a MOSS issue, but regardless it should be addressed.

Ban the death penalty

Catergory: Human Rights Strength: Significant

REMEMBERING UN resolution #21: Fair Trail (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild), UN resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong), UN resolution #41: END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant), UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #47: Definition of ‘Fair Trial’ (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: significant)

ACKNOWLEDGING that it is more expensive to execute a person then keep them in prison.

BELIEVING even humans guilty of the worst possible crimes can be rehabilitated.

REALIZING there is no way to prove a person guilty for certain.
DISTURBED BY the fact that people are executed and later found innocent.

CONCEDING that in military cases the Death penalty is sometimes required and this choice to use it in these cases should be left up to each nation.

BANS capital punishment within all UN member countries in civilian courts

We don't have capital punishment in my nation, but there is nothing wrong with it a nation that actually does have capital punishment and executes (excuse the pun) it equitably.

And there are indeed ways to prove a person guilty for certain. High-resolution security cameras and DNA identification would offer certainty.

REALIZING there is no way to prove a person guilty for certain.

I DID IT! I KILLED THE BASTARD. I'm glad I did it. The man looked at me in a funny way so I got out my magnum and emptied it into his chest! I didn't care that 30 people saw me do it, I had to kill him.

And there are indeed ways to prove a person guilty for certain. High-resolution security cameras and DNA identification would offer certainty.

could be planted and or faked.

but there is nothing wrong with it a nation that actually does have capital punishment and executes (excuse the pun) it equitably.

Yes, some people believe that capital punishment can be instituted fairly. I have yet to see this happen, but I do not deny it. However, most nations who have it cannot implement it well. So for the good of Humans as a whole it must be banned

could be planted and or faked.

There are ways to determine if it is planted or faked, and planting or faking evidence is extremely rare (and well-done even more rarely).

Yes, some people believe that capital punishment can be instituted fairly. I have yet to see this happen, but I do not deny it. However, most nations who have it cannot implement it well. So for the good of Humans as a whole it must be banned

But if you ban it you will be destroying the justice systems of those nations who do institute the death penalty fairly. If there are 1,000 good nations in the UN, would you scew those nations over to get at the others? What if there were 10,000 good nations? Would you be willing to do it then?

could be planted and or faked.

If that is your position then why rely on the justice system AT ALL?

People like you are hopeless. :sniper:

But if you ban it you will be destroying the justice systems of those nations who do institute the death penalty fairly. If there are 1,000 good nations in the UN, would you scew those nations over to get at the others? What if there were 10,000 good nations? Would you be willing to do it then?

How does getting rid of the death penalty "screw over" good nations?

f that is your position then why rely on the justice system AT ALL?

A justice system is required in almost all countries to keep order. I am not against the justice system. I merely feel that doing something permently that cannot be undone is a bad idea (excluding the moral issuses of capital punishment).

Would it make everyone happy if I changed the langauge to "REALIZING there is no way to prove a person guilty for certain in some cases."?

I know I'm a-gonna vote against this.

I agree with everything you have said, but I oppose a total ban on the death penalty because it is not a matter in which one nation can speak for another.

I feel it is not a matter of one nation speaking for another, it is a matter of one UN speaking on behalf of the human race to make life better for us.

If there are 1,000 good nations in the UN, would you scew those nations over to get at the others? What if there were 10,000 good nations? Would you be willing to do it then?
And the Lord spake, and said thus:

Nay, Texan Hotrodders, if I find 10,000 good people in Gemorrah, or even 1,000 good people, or even 100 good people, or even 10, then I shalt not destroy the city.

In addition to the comments on the idea is anything wrong with the proposal it's self?

I'm confused as to why you called it a M.O.S.S. proposal.

Your punishment for saying "ne thing" is for me not to comment on your proposal until you address this.

I felt this was a MOSS issue like legalizing marijuana ect. It is constantly proposed, however the resolutions are poor at best and never supported. I wished to put an end to this with a well written resolution. So I posted a draft here to get feedback. As for the "ne thing" sorry, if chat speak bothers you I will edit the post.

Um... "M.O.S.S." stands for "Moo Oink Squee Squee" and is a term used to label proposals that are not posted in the forum.

Oh sorry, well this is kind of embarrassing. I thought it was used to mean a pointless or silly proposal like the original Moss proposal that was a repeal only saying Moo Oink Squee Squee for the reason, my bad. Still what do you think of the proposal?

*thumbs up* I support this.

I have always felt the death penalty to be immoral.

Submit it and the Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will approve it.

While it would be a good idea, I think it should be left to the individual nations to decide this on their own. If this was passed it would make the UN nations a target for crime since the criminal element would know that no matter how much damage they do or deaths they cause they will only end up in jail for the rest of their life where they will be fed 3 times a day and have a roof over their head. If you ask me, for some jail is a step up from their current situations and the possibility of death would keep them from being tempted to commit crimes.

I oppose this proposal not because my nations uses the death penalty but because we believe that this is an issue that the UN should stay out of completly. In fact I this is one issue I wish that we could pass a resolution to force the UN to stay out of.

We oppose this. It should be left to nations to decide for themselves what is an appropriate punishment for any crime - particularly as the government in power draws part of its strength from the strength of its deterrents.

While it would be a good idea, I think it should be left to the individual nations to decide this on their own. If this was passed it would make the UN nations a target for crime since the criminal element would know that no matter how much damage they do or deaths they cause they will only end up in jail for the rest of their life where they will be fed 3 times a day and have a roof over their head. If you ask me, for some jail is a step up from their current situations and the possibility of death would keep them from being tempted to commit crimes.

It has been proven that the death penalty is not a strong detterent. Who plans to be caught when doing a crime?


While it would be a good idea, I think it should be left to the individual nations to decide this on their own. If this was passed it would make the UN nations a target for crime since the criminal element would know that no matter how much damage they do or deaths they cause they will only end up in jail for the rest of their life where they will be fed 3 times a day and have a roof over their head. If you ask me, for some jail is a step up from their current situations and the possibility of death would keep them from being tempted to commit crimes.

This is a stupid idea I am about to suggest; but it would turn jails into a rehabilitation center sort of thing. What if I added a clause that people could ask to be sending to jail without doing a crime for a duration of time up to them? In this time they would work along side other prisoners and any profits they made (over the cost of food and room and board) would be their’s to keep. This would solve your concern.

I feel it is not a matter of one nation speaking for another, it is a matter of one UN speaking on behalf of the human race to make life better for us.

But if I vote for this I am saying on behalf of all the nations I think that the death penalty is a bad thing in every nation. Which is not what I believe. I believe it is a bad thing in TilEnca, and that generally I disagree with it, but that other nations may have a valid reason for wanting to keep it.

Donk, it is a wounder ur stilll here after all ur posts. Quit while ur ahead. Why do u alawayds post in pink with a guy with a gun?

But if I vote for this I am saying on behalf of all the nations I think that the death penalty is a bad thing in every nation. Which is not what I believe. I believe it is a bad thing in TilEnca, and that generally I disagree with it, but that other nations may have a valid reason for wanting to keep it.

No you are saying over all the death penalty is a bad thing and that it must be abolised for the greater good. I have no doubt that someone can institue the death penalty properly, I just think that 99.999999% of the time it won't be.

No you are saying over all the death penalty is a bad thing and that it must be abolised for the greater good. I have no doubt that someone can institue the death penalty properly, I just think that 99.999999% of the time it won't be.

But that's not what I believe. In TilEnca it was abolished for the greater good, and so far it has served that purpose. But in another nation, abolishing it might not serve the greater good - it might only serve to plunge the country in to a crime wave the likes of which no one has ever seen. Which is not something I want to be responsible for.

How does getting rid of the death penalty "screw over" good nations?

You are essentially forcing them to throw out their perfectly valid method of punishment and making them pay to institute alternative methods that may not function as well in their cultural context.

It has been proven that the death penalty is not a strong detterent. Who plans to be caught when doing a crime?


For the true criminal element it would not be a strong detterent, agreed. But for those who commit crimes out of desperation or just because they think it would be fun or cool, it would be a strong detterent to the extensity of the crime commited. Most people would not go shoot someone just for fun because they know they can get the death penalty.



This is a stupid idea I am about to suggest; but it would turn jails into a rehabilitation center sort of thing. What if I added a clause that people could ask to be sending to jail without doing a crime for a duration of time up to them? In this time they would work along side other prisoners and any profits they made (over the cost of food and room and board) would be their’s to keep. This would solve your concern.



Should we also book a 8 o'clock tee time and reserve a caddy?

Although I oppose the death penalty and would vote in favor of this proposal if it were to reach quorum, I disagree with the reasons given. There are more compelling moral reasons to oppose the death penalty; some nations may be very accurate in correctly convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent, but kill for almost any crimes. Is that not also a bad thing?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Current UN Nation: Bawlmer

Although I oppose the death penalty and would vote in favor of this proposal if it were to reach quorum, I disagree with the reasons given. There are more compelling moral reasons to oppose the death penalty; some nations may be very accurate in correctly convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent, but kill for almost any crimes. Is that not also a bad thing?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Current UN Nation: Bawlmer

Not necessarily. It very much depends on the cultural context.

Well that is what this thread is for; to improve the proposal. If you have any reasons you want me to add feel free to list them and I will update the proposal with them when I get back on tuesday. Untill then add any comments and or suggests since they are still welcome. I want this to be the best proposal it can be.

I have a feeling that, since this was tried before and it did not get passed and that it seems to be running into a bit of resistance at this go around as well, I suggest that we all come to a middle ground to abolish the most abhorrent features of capital punishment.

Ban on the practice of executing juveniles and the mentally retarded:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401755

ACKNOWLEDGING that it is more expensive to execute a person then keep them in prison.


I find it hard to beleive that it is cheaper to feed and house someone for the rest of their natural life than it is to kill them. Can you elaborate with some statistics?

You might want to strike or revise that line.

I find it hard to beleive that it is cheaper to feed and house someone for the rest of their natural life than it is to kill them. Can you elaborate with some statistics?

You might want to strike or revise that line.
OOC: Shouldn't include the line only because it draws on RL.
It's been studied repeatedly and death is always more expensive in the US.

Execution of those who prove to be a danger to the greater good and glory of Nevermoore and its people is an important deterrent to future enemies of state and general welfare.

Let me present a worst case scenario to you. Say a revolutionary detonates a nuclear device in one of Nevermoore's larger cities and kills millions. This man then takes credit for the act, expressing that it was to weaken the government's favor with the people. We can not then kill this man for slaughtering millions of our people? This is not justice! The people will rise up and demand his death. Their grief will override and UN law and riots could break out! Think about it for a minute!

Execution of those who prove to be a danger to the greater good and glory of Nevermoore and its people is an important deterrent to future enemies of state and general welfare.

Let me present a worst case scenario to you. Say a revolutionary detonates a nuclear device in one of Nevermoore's larger cities and kills millions. This man then takes credit for the act, expressing that it was to weaken the government's favor with the people. We can not then kill this man for slaughtering millions of our people? This is not justice! The people will rise up and demand his death. Their grief will override and UN law and riots could break out! Think about it for a minute!

Oh, believe me, a lifetime of hard labor and getting to go "home" to someone three times his size every night while the guards look the other way certainly could be a fate worse than death. Not that Krioval would ever actually advocate such a system. Nope. Not us.

Oh, believe me, a lifetime of hard labor and getting to go "home" to someone three times his size every night while the guards look the other way certainly could be a fate worse than death. Not that Krioval would ever actually advocate such a system. Nope. Not us.

The millions of people and portion of Nevermoore destroyed in such an attack can no longer to anything, so we believe it only be fair the person responsible can do nothing. In better times full torture would be implimented and it could take days for them to die, but the UN has ended such punishments.

Then again, I suppose daily "mishaps" and "accidents" could be arranged... but I'm sure the UN would say our prisons are barbaric or negligent. :)

Actually, I'm beginning to think of many ways to make things that are far worse than death occur in prisons. I may have to re-evaluate my position.

I will vote against this too. The UN must try it's best to stray out a nation's internal policies as much as possible. Plus, in my nation, the death penalty is cheaper than life without parole.

Vastiva likes its death penalty. We draw strong entertainment value from it.

As for the "its not a deterrent" - we have a very strong cultural context of "THOU SHALT NOT GET AWAY WITH IT" and gladly spend billions hunting down a jaywalker if thats what it takes to apply punishment.

We find the context of "Vastiva will hunt you into your next incarnation if necessary" to work very well in curbing violent crime.

I oppose this proposal not because my nations uses the death penalty but because we believe that this is an issue that the UN should stay out of completly. In fact I this is one issue I wish that we could pass a resolution to force the UN to stay out of.
Agreed. 100% agreed. And, what's more, it's not like there isn't already a daily issue that deals with this topic. Nations are more than capable of allowing or outlawing the death penalty if they so choose. I just don't feel like I should be dictating my thoughts over such a thing to others.

Speaking OOC, how do you explain that the US does not have a national law regarding the death penalty. Some states have it, others don't. The decision is left up to the individual states, rather than having an external force that may not understand the specific politics/culture of a state make the decision for them. Unless I hear much better arguments as to *why* the UN should take control of this matter, I can't support it - even in theory.

OOC: Shouldn't include the line only because it draws on RL.
It's been studied repeatedly and death is always more expensive in the US.
The main reason for death causing more is because of the lengthy appeals process in the US. So, depending on how the justice system is set up in Joe Nation, appeals may not even be an option, so it may be less expensive to sentence someone to death.

[[As a note, I'm not advocating a lack of appeals in the death penalty process - just stating that it's not *always* true, so it should be cut from the proposal as it is OOC, as Asshelmetta said]]

We don't have capital punishment in my nation, but there is nothing wrong with it a nation that actually does have capital punishment and executes (excuse the pun) it equitably.

We don't have a death penalty either, because my nation believes that the justice system should be aimed at treating the person who committed a crime, making them a better person. This can be tough (lacking social skills, complex psychiatrical disorders), and in a very limited number of cases a person will always be in treatment, but at least we as the government have done everything we can. Capital punishment has no place in a justice system of a country that forbids murder, and my government would support a resolution banning or condemning it.

And there are indeed ways to prove a person guilty for certain. High-resolution security cameras and DNA identification would offer certainty.

Sure, but those camera's aren't everywhere and DNA identification is never 100% certain. There's always a risk that someone is convicted while innocent, and we think that is not a risk that's worth taking.

I would support a resolution condemning it, but not banning it, as I don't think it is the place of the UN to do such a thing.

Sure, but those camera's aren't everywhere and DNA identification is never 100% certain. There's always a risk that someone is convicted while innocent, and we think that is not a risk that's worth taking.

In some nations the cameras are indeed everywhere and they actually can identify the DNA with 100% accuracy.

Vastiva:

Cameras are everywhere.

The State funds the Forensics and Criminal Pathology Department, which is NOT attached to the Justice Department - it is attached instead to the Office of Science and Technology. The only connection to the State is in funding - by law, the doctors and researchers are immune and separated from the Justice Department, and are available to assess any evidence given.

As the FCPD exists in all parts of Vastiva and we have a first rate public transit system nationwide, samples can be "made anonymous" and studied by any branch, anywhere in Vastiva. This allows for the distance between FCPD and "law enforcement".

The FCPD has a budget of several billion PC per year, which cannot be affected by any entity save the Sultan.

You would be amazed by the requests FCPD gets on a yearly basis; its services are available to any citizen of Vastiva at a nominal charge, as the majority of cost is underwritten by the Sultan. As such, FCPD has also absorbed "poison control" and does most testing for other branches of the government and private enterprise.

The main reason for death causing more is because of the lengthy appeals process in the US. So, depending on how the justice system is set up in Joe Nation, appeals may not even be an option, so it may be less expensive to sentence someone to death.

Well, nations with kangaroo courts and possibility of appeals aren't likely to be spending a whole lot on prisoner healthcare, either.

The fact that there MAY BE nationstates with court systems like that is all the more reason to ban the death penalty, imho.

OOC: Shouldn't include the line only because it draws on RL.
It's been studied repeatedly and death is always more expensive in the US.

OOC: Uhm... how those "costs" are placed is questionable.

In therory this is a good idea, but the civil liberties of a countries citizenry should be decided by the country itself and not a bloated, corrupt orginization like the U.N. It can be likened to gun control in the USA. I do not refute that in an idealistic society we should not in any capasity end the life of another human-being, but no civilization or culture is that perfect, and so none in the mighty region of The Eagles will vote for this gross overstepping of the U.N.'s bounderies.

OOC: Uhm... how those "costs" are placed is questionable.

OOC: In complete agreement here, if the person is innocent the same amount of resources will be expended in the judicial process even if the sentence were not death. In the meanwhile, the accused still remains in prison. Therefore, the only difference is the cost of killing the person. You then compare that cost with the present value of the person expending the rest of their life in prison. Changes the whole cost benefit analysis.

Thou shall not kill...unless...of course...society says so.

Then it's OK.

OOC: In complete agreement here, if the person is innocent the same amount of resources will be expended in the judicial process even if the sentence were not death. In the meanwhile, the accused still remains in prison. Therefore, the only difference is the cost of killing the person. You then compare that cost with the present value of the person expending the rest of their life in prison. Changes the whole cost benefit analysis.


OOC: GAH!
First, Powerhungry Chipmunks compliments me.
Then Anti-Pharisaism agrees with me on something!
Day-um! What next, I win the lottery?

Thou shall not kill...unless...of course...society says so.

Then it's OK.

I recommend a new bible. Preferably an academically translated and peer reviewed version, not King James. Thou shalt not murder is quite different than thou shalt not kill, and God remains in compliance with his doctrine.

OOC: GAH!
First, Powerhungry Chipmunks compliments me.
Then Anti-Pharisaism agrees with me on something!
Day-um! What next, I win the lottery?

24 72 48... ask PC for the remainders ;)