NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a little bit of a push to repeal the death penalty altogether in the United Nations, and I don't think every nation is ready to accept that (even Pilot has the death penalty in certain cases). But, I believe that we can find some common ground on this issue, and I think I have come up with a draft proposal that I would like as many opinions on (and I mean opinions, not "OMG NTRL SOVERETY U SUCK" flames). Here it is:


Recalling the following United Nations Resolutions: (1) #26: The Universal Bill of Rights; (2) #41: End Barbaric Punishments;

Recognizing that, while a modern court system is the only effective way to ensure justice, it can never be expected to be perfect;

Noting with regret that legal counsel for those put on death row in some nations may not be able to defend a client seen as low priority or any classification thereof;

Declaring that the United Nations does not adopt any formal position on the use of capital punishment except for the circumstances mentioned hereafter;

Reaffirming that the United Nations is not a body with complete control over national sovereignty when it comes to any issue;

The United Nations is:

Deeply disturbed in regards to the practice of executing juveniles and mentally incompetent;

Declaring that such a practice is unnecessary and a cruel form of punishment;

Notes that those defined below are often incapable of accurately assessing the consequences of their actions;

Defines “mentally incompetent” as any being diagnosed with a debilitating mental illness and/or declared by a medical professional as unfit for mental compassity;

Defines “juvenile” as any being less than 18 years of age;

Declares accordingly that all those convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death if they are: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent;

Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of these groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;

Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.

I have a hard time beleiving that someone 16 or 17 doesn't know between right and wrong or isn't mature enough to face the consequences.

Recalling the following United Nations Resolutions: (1) #26: The Universal Bill of Rights; (2) #41: End Barbaric Punishments;


Ha :p , Repealing the Universal bill of rights! Good Luck ! :sniper:

Ha :p , Repealing the Universal bill of rights! Good Luck Moron! :sniper:

Repealing?

I have a hard time beleiving that someone 16 or 17 doesn't know between right and wrong or isn't mature enough to face the consequences.

It has been documented by several notable phychiatrists and child professionals that people of this age are, for the most part, oblivious to the real consequences of their actions. See Roper v. Simmons (03-0633), from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ha :p , Repealing the Universal bill of rights! Good Luck ! :sniper:
He said "recalling" meaning "remembering", not as in "repealing".

He said "recalling" meaning "remembering", not as in "repealing".

Exactly. Although, while I can see the mixup, it's pretty obvious I can't wrap the repeal of two other resolutions in any proposal.

This is definitely one of the more intelligent proposals I've seen in a while. I'm not in the U.N. currently, but good luck with this. It's very well written.

I can see the mentally retarded argument. But the juvenile argument isn't as strong. I think the mentally retarded argument would be the only thing carrying this proposal through. If you split it into a mentally retarded argument and a juvenile argument it would be better. I would support the mentally retarded argument, not so much the juvenile argument.

I like this, and would have no problems endorsing/voting for it.

My nation has the death penalty (though as "crime is totally unknown", and we have no prisons, its never been used), as my people demanded it in an issue. I hate the idea, and am all for a proposal like this, that take some of the teeth out of it, and protects the more vulnerable members of society.

I can see the mentally retarded argument. But the juvenile argument isn't as strong. I think the mentally retarded argument would be the only thing carrying this proposal through. If you split it into a mentally retarded argument and a juvenile argument it would be better. I would support the mentally retarded argument, not so much the juvenile argument.

On a moral note, would you accept the argument that juveniles have thier entire lives in front of them and are far more immature and less responsible then people who are immediately their elders and society should take the time to rehabilitate them into productive citizens?

Your retort might be "well, they killed someone who had their whole life in front of them", but as I said, children stupid enough to committ a crime of that nature obviously are out of touch with the consequences of their actions because of their age. There has to be a cut off line where a society says that it believes it, surely, can save its *children* from living a life of crime.

Jaysus :D turns out its 2:42 am, And i am one sleepy moron! :D


Repealing and recalling indeed! LOL

Pilot, this one is pretty good. It usually takes me a while before I ever notice any mistakes (if I ever do), but at the moment, I'd support this proposal.

G'job!

Pilot, this one is pretty good. It usually takes me a while before I ever notice any mistakes (if I ever do), but at the moment, I'd support this proposal.

G'job!

Thank you, I appriciate it.

As for everyone else, I'd like to hear some criticisms. I am waiting for a rebuttul to my point about the juvenile executions.

Thank you, I appriciate it.

As for everyone else, I'd like to hear some criticisms. I am waiting for a rebuttul to my point about the juvenile executions.

You won't get any rebuttul from me on that score. I get kinda mad when I see a nation that has a set age, usually 18 or 21, for a child to become an adult and get all the privilages of being an adult like vote, drink alcohol, smoke etc, but has no problems classing them as an "adult" at 15, 16 or 17 (or even younger), just so the state can kill them. That to me is'nt justice, its revenge.

You won't get any rebuttul from me on that score. I get kinda mad when I see a nation that has a set age, usually 18 or 21, for a child to become an adult and get all the privilages of being an adult like vote, drink alcohol, smoke etc, but has no problems classing them as an "adult" at 15, 16 or 17 (or even younger), just so the state can kill them. That to me is'nt justice, its revenge.

Well, I should make it clear that this proposal does not pass judgement on capital punishment for citizens outside the definition of this proposal. Of course, we all have to suck in our objections and just realize that there has to be a cut-off point where you say someone crosses into adulthood, and it is commonly accepted that that border is the age of 18.

OOC: I, for one, being in high school, certainly understand that argument. Of course, you'll find just as stupid 24 year olds and you'll find very smart, mature and calculated 16 year olds, but those are minority and like I said, there has to be a cut-off point.

Yeah, sorry I went off on a little rant :D.

I'm just a firm believer that a child is a child, and the state should'nt be allowed to change their own definition of what a child is, to suit themselves, but like you said, thats not covered by the resolution. If passed, the resolution will protect children being used as pawns by "hey are'nt we tough on crime" governments", and victims of revenge over justice, and give them a chance to be rehabilitated and re-enter society.

If a child is considered too young and immature to vote, drink etc, then they're certainly too young to fully understand and accept the consequences of their actions in a crime serious enough to warrent the death penalty.

Yeah, sorry I went off on a little rant :D.

I'm just a firm believer that a child is a child, and the state should'nt be allowed to change their own definition of what a child is, to suit themselves, but like you said, thats not covered by the resolution. If passed, the resolution will protect children being used as pawns by "hey are'nt we tough on crime" governments", and victims of revenge over justice, and give them a chance to be rehabilitated and re-enter society.

If a child is considered too young and immature to vote, drink etc, then they're certainly too young to fully understand and accept the consequences of their actions in a crime serious enough to warrent the death penalty.

That's certainly a valid point. As I said though, before I submit this to the U.N. floor, I'd like to hear a little more from nations that have a problem with the resolution.

Vastiva holds a semi-dual standard on juvenile crimes.

For any crime not involving (a) loss of life (b) assault with intent (such as rape, with "assault and battery" specificly excluded, except for "in commission of a crime" or "felonious assault and battery"), the accused is treated as a juvenile. Penalties are far lower, with the strongest being an early introduction into the military.

However, in cases of murder, rape, assault with intent, assault while in commission of a crime, and any treasonous offense, the accused is treated as an "adult" regardless of age - there is no separation due to any sort of condition. Yes, we will execute a juvenile.

Yes, there is an exclusion about hackers. We like hackers, and they have the advantage of the legal loophole.

As to the mentally retarded - their condition allows for some leniency, as they have a classification similar to "juvenile". However, the same strictures apply.

Our belief here is not "I intended to commit this in full view of possible consequences", but rather "if you don't understand wrong and right at this age to this degree, we would rather not inflict you on society".

How much does the resolution about the mentally ill relate to this?

As further motivation, it should also be noted that a 16-17 year old human is more likely to be rehabilitated than an adult criminal is.

I'd support this resolution, but I'd also recommend that it allow individual nations to set the exact cutoff age, which some nations might find too high or too low (especially those NS societies whose citizens have non-human lifespans). I don't think this would be terribly abused, so long as the cutoff age is required to be near the transition from adolescence into adulthood. (Thus insuring that less willing nations do not simply set the cutoff age at infancy and circumvent the resolution.)

Excellent resolution.

I need to add the caveat that I will re-read it carefully for any nits you might wish to change, but the concept is impeccable. One nit is in the definition of mentally incompetent -- you mean to say "capacity" rather than "compassity."

Treating juveniles as adults based solely on the crime they committed is nonsense. A juvenile is far more likely to fully understand the immorality and consequences of robbery than they are to fully understand what it truly means to commit murder. Juveniles are also far more likely to be impulsive and act on emotions. As noted, juveniles are also far more receptive to rehabilitation.

Nothing says that, if you cannot excute juveniles, you have to send them home with a slap on the wrist. Prison is no picnic. Long sentences -- even life without parole -- are available alternatives that should satisfy any need for punishment, retribution, and incapacitation. Executing juveniles is simply barbaric.

There appears to be little dispute that executing the mentally ill is barbaric, so I will not address that here. I may a suggest about the definition of mentally incompetent, but I'll get back to you.

Excellent resolution.

I need to add the caveat that I will re-read it carefully for any nits you might wish to change, but the concept is impeccable. One nit is in the definition of mentally incompetent -- you mean to say "capacity" rather than "compassity."

Treating juveniles as adults based solely on the crime they committed is nonsense. A juvenile is far more likely to fully understand the immorality and consequences of robbery than they are to fully understand what it truly means to commit murder. Juveniles are also far more likely to be impulsive and act on emotions. As noted, juveniles are also far more receptive to rehabilitation.

Nothing says that, if you cannot excute juveniles, you have to send them home with a slap on the wrist. Prison is no picnic. Long sentences -- even life without parole -- are available alternatives that should satisfy any need for punishment, retribution, and incapacitation. Executing juveniles is simply barbaric.

There appears to be little dispute that executing the mentally ill is barbaric, so I will not address that here. I may a suggest about the definition of mentally incompetent, but I'll get back to you.

Stole my thunder there a bit. ;)

Anyways, he's right. There is a very real difference in the rehabilitation success rate in adolescents than in adults. I know we aren't technically allowed to use real-world stats, I think I have to in this case: 86% of people below 18 who served a felony charge or higher and endured a prison rehabilitation system while in jail are never charged with another crime; that number if 70% among adults.

As he said, there is nothing in the bill that says you can't keep them in jail for their entire lives. It just says you cannot execute them. A moral standard must be applied and the science of rehabilitation must be recognized as very effective with adolescents.

In another note, am I to understand that there is little or no opposition to a ban on the execution of those who are mentally incompetent?

Disagreed in part with your last resolution, but this one's looking good and I certainly support it in principle. And glad to see fresh case law being applied in NS-world (Simmons). Minor point as to some of the legalese though..

"Defines “mentally incompetent” as any being diagnosed with a debilitating mental illness and/or declared by a medical professional as unfit for mental compassity"

This may be a jurisdiction-specific issue but the term 'mentally incompetent' is somewhat troubling from my standpoint. Someone may be mentally ill but not necessarily incompetent in their ability to distinguish right from wrong. By essentially equating mental incompetence with mental illness the implication is that anyone with a debilitating mental illness is by definition incompetent. Given the wide range of debilitating mental illnesses I am not entirely sure this is the kind of message you want to communicate, and I am not entirely sure all mental illnesses make you incapable of establishing the necessary mens rea (guilty intent) of a crime like murder. Besides that I am also not sure that someone who has a debilitating mental illness would be entirely comfortable with being referred to as 'incompetent'.

Obviously someone who is schizophrenic or with some other recognised medical condition that seriously impairs or negates entirely their ability to form the guilty intent required of murder (at least in most common law jurisdictions) should in my view not be convicted of murder, and certainly not executed. I do think however that a resolution that only intends to ban the death penalty in certain circumstances ought to refer to the ability to rationally form some sort of intent or refer to the accused's appreciation of the quality of their act, for purposes of clarity, rather than impose a blanket provision whereby anyone with any sort of recognised debilitating mental illness could automatically avoid a sentence "available" to someone who does not have such an illness. That would also partially overcome the obstacle of different nations' understanding of which debilitating mental illnesses are recognised at law.

Again, great resolution in principle and this being NS-world I doubt any rewording would matter much in terms of effect and the way people vote, but thought I'd contribute to the debate anyway..

Disagreed in part with your last resolution, but this one's looking good and I certainly support it in principle. And glad to see fresh case law being applied in NS-world (Simmons). Minor point as to some of the legalese though..

"Defines “mentally incompetent” as any being diagnosed with a debilitating mental illness and/or declared by a medical professional as unfit for mental compassity"

This may be a jurisdiction-specific issue but the term 'mentally incompetent' is somewhat troubling from my standpoint. Someone may be mentally ill but not necessarily incompetent in their ability to distinguish right from wrong. By essentially equating mental incompetence with mental illness the implication is that anyone with a debilitating mental illness is by definition incompetent. Given the wide range of debilitating mental illnesses I am not entirely sure this is the kind of message you want to communicate, and I am not entirely sure all mental illnesses make you incapable of establishing the necessary mens rea (guilty intent) of a crime like murder. Besides that I am also not sure that someone who has a debilitating mental illness would be entirely comfortable with being referred to as 'incompetent'.

Obviously someone who is schizophrenic or with some other recognised medical condition that seriously impairs or negates entirely their ability to form the guilty intent required of murder (at least in most common law jurisdictions) should in my view not be convicted of murder, and certainly not executed. I do think however that a resolution that only intends to ban the death penalty in certain circumstances ought to refer to the ability to rationally form some sort of intent or refer to the accused's appreciation of the quality of their act, for purposes of clarity, rather than impose a blanket provision whereby anyone with any sort of recognised debilitating mental illness could automatically avoid a sentence "available" to someone who does not have such an illness. That would also partially overcome the obstacle of different nations' understanding of which debilitating mental illnesses are recognised at law.

Again, great resolution in principle and this being NS-world I doubt any rewording would matter much in terms of effect and the way people vote, but thought I'd contribute to the debate anyway..

No, I appriciate your suggestion and I think it's valid. What do you think about changing it to:


Defines “mentally incompetent” as any being diagnosed with a debilitating mental condition that is widely recognized as to have a severe impact on control of body, control of thought or control of emotion and/or any being declared by a medical professional as uncapable of cognitive reasoning in any of those three areas;

Don't have much time to consider it in much detail now but as an initial observation it looks good to me.. I'll let you know if I change my mind ;) . Good luck with it.

It looks to me as though this proposal is predominantly about diminished responsibility. For this reason I have serious doubts about the need or actual purpose of this proposal.

As many have stated in these forums - ad infinitum - this is not the real UN. Yes, I know, I am the first to ask things like 'well, why does it use the UN flag, isn't that misleading?', and 'but isn't this called nation states? Isn't this about nations belonging to the NS UN interacting internationally, rather than the UN imposing itself locally, domestically etc?'. Well, it is neither of these things, apparently because of game mechanics [re/programming] and lazy mods [oops! did I say that?].

In any case, what this means is that the NS UN does have complete control over domestic issues of member states, for game convenience. Therefore, your comment that states:

Reaffirming that the United Nations is not a body with complete control over national sovereignty when it comes to any issue

Is not actually true, because in the NS UN game rules it states the following:

It is important to notice ... that proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things ... clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

So, getting back to the matter of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibly, legally, covers things like drunken or drug induced murder that may be overturned for a lesser charge of, for example, manslaughter, or less. I am supposing that mentally retarded persons [juveniles or not, since many mentally ill, or retarded persons have a much reduced mental age anyway] would fall under this category as well.

Now, given that cases of diminished responsibility would normally fall under local/domestic legal jurisdiction in the 'real' world, handling such cases would be a case by case matter in a national court/legal system. If your proposal was introduced, ALL mentally retarded juveniles charged with murder would not have to ever worry about facing the death penalty, regardless of circumstances.

There are a number of questions that stem from all this. (a) are you suggesting that there are no degrees of mental retardation? (b) If nations in NS now supposedly have a diminished responsibility clause [at least in role-play, and lets face it, mentally retarded persons can only be role-played in NS anyway], wouldn't most mentally retarded persons be exempt from maximum penalties anyway? (c) a definition of 'debilitating mental illness' is diagnosed by a professional . How many professionals can a person see in order to get such a declaration of diminished responsibility? After all, a lot is riding on this professional’s verdict. (d) If the murder is proved to be premeditated in a court of law, is the sentence of death still dismissed? That is, if the mentally debilitated person can have the presence of mind to plan a murder, should they not be treated in the same way as any alleged murderer? If you say in answer to this that even though it was premeditated the mentally debilitated person did not know what they were doing, it then gets back to diminished responsibility, and therefore manslaughter, or a lesser charge. No need for the resolution.

Just so you know, I am against any death penalty being imposed upon anyone [though I may surprise myself one day]. The problem I have with the proposal as it stands is that in the hands of the NS UN it is a blanket proposal that does not take into account the circumstances of the alleged murder. Remember, the NSUN can intervene in all domestic, sovereign matters of member states, where an appropriate resolution exists.

The spirit of the proposal is honourable, but in the end it is either redundant, or gives the NS UN too much power over individual criminal cases, because the NSUN can intervene in domestic affairs.

Woops! Guilty as charged [as David Brent in the Office would say].

I just read old Blueeyes's response above mine, and he says pretty much the same things as myself. Sorry Mickey.

I must read all posts, I must read all posts, I must read all posts .............. mutter, mutter, mutter ...

It looks to me as though this proposal is predominantly about diminished responsibility. For this reason I have serious doubts about the need or actual purpose of this proposal.

As many have stated in these forums - ad infinitum - this is not the real UN. Yes, I know, I am the first to ask things like 'well, why does it use the UN flag, isn't that misleading?', and 'but isn't this called nation states? Isn't this about nations belonging to the NS UN interacting internationally, rather than the UN imposing itself locally, domestically etc?'. Well, it is neither of these things, apparently because of game mechanics [re/programming] and lazy mods [oops! did I say that?].

In any case, what this means is that the NS UN does have complete control over domestic issues of member states, for game convenience. Therefore, your comment that states:

Reaffirming that the United Nations is not a body with complete control over national sovereignty when it comes to any issue

Is not actually true, because in the NS UN game rules it states the following:

It is important to notice ... that proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things ... clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

So, getting back to the matter of diminished responsibility. Diminished responsibly, legally, covers things like drunken or drug induced murder that may be overturned for a lesser charge of, for example, manslaughter, or less. I am supposing that mentally retarded persons [juveniles or not, since many mentally ill, or retarded persons have a much reduced mental age anyway] would fall under this category as well.

Now, given that cases of diminished responsibility would normally fall under local/domestic legal jurisdiction in the 'real' world, handling such cases would be a case by case matter in a national court/legal system. If your proposal was introduced, ALL mentally retarded juveniles charged with murder would not have to ever worry about facing the death penalty, regardless of circumstances.

There are a number of questions that stem from all this. (a) are you suggesting that there are no degrees of mental retardation? (b) If nations in NS now supposedly have a diminished responsibility clause [at least in role-play, and lets face it, mentally retarded persons can only be role-played in NS anyway], wouldn't most mentally retarded persons be exempt from maximum penalties anyway? (c) a definition of 'debilitating mental illness' is diagnosed by a professional . How many professionals can a person see in order to get such a declaration of diminished responsibility? After all, a lot is riding on this professional’s verdict. (d) If the murder is proved to be premeditated in a court of law, is the sentence of death still dismissed? That is, if the mentally debilitated person can have the presence of mind to plan a murder, should they not be treated in the same way as any alleged murderer? If you say in answer to this that even though it was premeditated the mentally debilitated person did not know what they were doing, it then gets back to diminished responsibility, and therefore manslaughter, or a lesser charge. No need for the resolution.

Just so you know, I am against any death penalty being imposed upon anyone [though I may surprise myself one day]. The problem I have with the proposal as it stands is that in the hands of the NS UN it is a blanket proposal that does not take into account the circumstances of the alleged murder. Remember, the NSUN can intervene in all domestic, sovereign matters of member states, where an appropriate resolution exists.

The spirit of the proposal is honourable, but in the end it is either redundant, or gives the NS UN too much power over individual criminal cases, because the NSUN can intervene in domestic affairs.

1. No, I'm not suggesting there are no degrees of mental retardation.

2. As we have seen from some of the comments on this thread (which you have admitted to not reading), most nations do not have a diminished responsibility clause in their laws.

3. The clause is very careful to say that a professional is not the only thing riding on the verdict of whether or not the person is mentally incompetent. Obviously, if the defendant has M.S., he isn't going to be ruled mentally incompetent, with M.S. still being a disease that affects the mind - just not as strongly as say, schizophrenia.

4. You are completely missing the point on this note, which makes me believe you really haven't looked at this thread at all. The point is that, which is backed up by scientific proof, that juveniles are vastly favorable to rehabilitation efforts. Those who are mentally incompetent often don't have any concious control over their actions. Using the "having enough reason to premeditate the murder" is a faulty argument because that would have to agree with a fact that they were also able to accurately assess the consequences of their actions - and in the overwhelming majority, they can't. However, the troubling thing is that, at least in the United States, before the execution of these people were thrown out of law books, many mentally retarded convicts still got the death penalty (See ACLU 1999 Debilitated Minds in Capital Punishment Final Study). There is nothing, as it has been said many times in this thread you did not read, that says you can't put a juvenile or a mentally incompetent in jail for their entire lives. Surely, your sense of morality - the possibility that a troubled life could recover or that someone with a sorrowful lack of control of their own destiny - would appeal to the fact that, while a few truly guilty people get away with a life sentence, that we do not open the international community to a disgusting practice of vengeful disdain upon its most vunerable citizens. Doctors, phychiatrists and even a majority of the population in the real world around the world have detested the ethics of killing someone who falls into these catergories.

1. No, I'm not suggesting there are no degrees of mental retardation.

2. As we have seen from some of the comments on this thread (which you have admitted to not reading), most nations do not have a diminished responsibility clause in their laws.

3. The clause is very careful to say that a professional is not the only thing riding on the verdict of whether or not the person is mentally incompetent. Obviously, if the defendant has M.S., he isn't going to be ruled mentally incompetent, with M.S. still being a disease that affects the mind - just not as strongly as say, schizophrenia.

4. You are completely missing the point on this note, which makes me believe you really haven't looked at this thread at all. The point is that, which is backed up by scientific proof, that juveniles are vastly favorable to rehabilitation efforts. Those who are mentally incompetent often don't have any concious control over their actions. Using the "having enough reason to premeditate the murder" is a faulty argument because that would have to agree with a fact that they were also able to accurately assess the consequences of their actions - and in the overwhelming majority, they can't. However, the troubling thing is that, at least in the United States, before the execution of these people were thrown out of law books, many mentally retarded convicts still got the death penalty (See ACLU 1999 Debilitated Minds in Capital Punishment Final Study). There is nothing, as it has been said many times in this thread you did not read, that says you can't put a juvenile or a mentally incompetent in jail for their entire lives. Surely, your sense of morality - the possibility that a troubled life could recover or that someone with a sorrowful lack of control of their own destiny - would appeal to the fact that, while a few truly guilty people get away with a life sentence, that we do not open the international community to a disgusting practice of vengeful disdain upon its most vunerable citizens. Doctors, phychiatrists and even a majority of the population in the real world around the world have detested the ethics of killing someone who falls into these catergories.

I have read the remaining thread and still stand by what I have written. Your response does not contradict any of my points, mainly because your attempted rebuttals do not make any sense at all - if you would just calm down and think about what you are saying for just one second.

Yeah, let's not get into ill-fated arguments when there seems to be a lot of common ground (for one that we all agree in principle).

One or two comments are in place though.. I think we ought to be wary of applying jurisdiction-specific terminology ie 'diminished responsibility' (DR) to a debate on a NS-resolution... there's just too many legal systems out there to apply specific legal terms to them all. On the point of DR - in the UK (and I suspect this will apply at least to some extent to other common law jurisdictions) DR is recognised as a PARTIAL defence to the charge of murder ie as Cup and Fork said, it will 'reduce' the crime to manslaughter. While an 'abnormality of mind' is a component of establishing this defence (ie a mental illness/injury giving rise to such an abonormality) it is ONLY partial and will not be useful to someone who is actually totally insane.

INSANITY is another defence altogether, and is complete - someone 'who suffers from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind so as not to know either the nature and quality of his act; or that it was wrong' will be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' and cannot be given a prison sentence and certainly not a death sentence (although he may be committed to a mental institution). It would be wrong to refer to diminished responsibility when dealing with the blameworthiness of 'mentally incompetent' people (still not sure I'm comfortable with that expression), as that person may not have his responsibility for the crime diminished, but removed altogether.

What I think this proposal is trying to accomplish is not to necessarily introduce a general defence of mental incompetence in the manner defined, but rather to remove the death sentence for those who commit crimes where their mental incompetence may have played a part or makes them incapable of understanding why they are being punished. Not everyone with a mental illness will be able to establish an insanity defence, as the evidence may show the mental illness played no part in their commission of the crime, however, when the life and death of the convicted is at stake I certainly think that mental illness ought to be considered as a mitigating circumstance at the sentencing stage.

I wrote this in a hurry.. it makes sense in my head but feel free to ask me to clarify if need be.

I have read the remaining thread and still stand by what I have written. Your response does not contradict any of my points, mainly because your attempted rebuttals do not make any sense at all - if you would just calm down and think about what you are saying for just one second.

Heh, here I am, thinking that we could have debate without people like you. You're banned from discussion.

Yeah, let's not get into ill-fated arguments when there seems to be a lot of common ground (for one that we all agree in principle).

One or two comments are in place though.. I think we ought to be wary of applying jurisdiction-specific terminology ie 'diminished responsibility' (DR) to a debate on a NS-resolution... there's just too many legal systems out there to apply specific legal terms to them all. On the point of DR - in the UK (and I suspect this will apply at least to some extent to other common law jurisdictions) DR is recognised as a PARTIAL defence to the charge of murder ie as Cup and Fork said, it will 'reduce' the crime to manslaughter. While an 'abnormality of mind' is a component of establishing this defence (ie a mental illness/injury giving rise to such an abonormality) it is ONLY partial and will not be useful to someone who is actually totally insane.

INSANITY is another defence altogether, and is complete - someone 'who suffers from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind so as not to know either the nature and quality of his act; or that it was wrong' will be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' and cannot be given a prison sentence and certainly not a death sentence (although he may be committed to a mental institution). It would be wrong to refer to diminished responsibility when dealing with the blameworthiness of 'mentally incompetent' people (still not sure I'm comfortable with that expression), as that person may not have his responsibility for the crime diminished, but removed altogether.

What I think this proposal is trying to accomplish is not to necessarily introduce a general defence of mental incompetence in the manner defined, but rather to remove the death sentence for those who commit crimes where their mental incompetence may have played a part or makes them incapable of understanding why they are being punished. Not everyone with a mental illness will be able to establish an insanity defence, as the evidence may show the mental illness played no part in their commission of the crime, however, when the life and death of the convicted is at stake I certainly think that mental illness ought to be considered as a mitigating circumstance at the sentencing stage.

I wrote this in a hurry.. it makes sense in my head but feel free to ask me to clarify if need be.

I believe that I made the point to the fact that the proposal does not attempt to give clemency to all those who have a disease that affect the mind. The clause pretty much excludes some of the lesser diseases. Like I said, there is nothing to stop a life sentence without parole. I just feel that we have to take a step back, focus on morality, and assess whether or not it is right to execute the world's most vunerable and ill-developed people in the world. I pointed to the ACLU study that demostrated that those who were mentally incompetent, even some that were declared unfit to be a courtroom, were still charged with counts of murder and put to death.

Also, I think we are all missing an integral part of the game - suspension of reality. Just like in the movies, there has to be a suspension of *all* the real-world consequences of the resolution. I think, if you look at some of the proposals that have been passed, you can agree that they required a bit of this in order to work. In reality, you're voting for the principle of the proposal, not the very fine specific wording.

Heh, here I am, thinking that we could have debate without people like you. You're banned from discussion.
While I'm thinking this was in jest, there is a possibility that it wasn't.

UN forum topic starters do not share the RP forums' ability to control who speaks and who doesn't. Once the topic is out there, it's open to all.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

While I'm thinking this was in jest, there is a possibility that it wasn't.

UN forum topic starters do not share the RP forums' ability to control who speaks and who doesn't. Once the topic is out there, it's open to all.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

It was in jest, but I don't think it is unreasonable for the creator of the thread to want intentionally disruptive people out of discussion.

It was in jest, but I don't think it is unreasonable for the creator of the thread to want intentionally disruptive people out of discussion.
The debater in me agrees with you, but this is the UN. It's an open democratic forum, and the mod in me can't let disagreeable people be silenced. Rulebreakers, yes, but not the merely obnoxious.


If we started banning the obnoxious, the UN Forum Regulars roster would be sadly reduced. I speak as a former and quite obnoxious UN Forum Regular, so I know I'm right.

We would not support this. My nation has no problem with the portion of this proposal in reference to juvenile punishment, other than that nations be allowed to set the cutoff age, to account for different cultures and to lessen the opposition. I think a good range of flexibility would be three years in either direction from 18.

Part of why we support the aforementioned juvenile portion of this is because, as Pilot and others have pointed out, juveniles CAN be reformed. However, on those same grounds, the people of my nation will take issue with the clauses involving the mentally ill. As it has been noted, the definition of mental incompetence will most likely be re-worded and made more strict. I feel that I am correct in assuming this would limit it to members of society who either are not in control of their actions or can not understand the consequences of them. However, if these individuals are that incapacitated, how is there any hope of rehabilitation for them? What could they hope to contribute to society? My nation's citizens feel that our money should not be wasted on citizens who will not be able to productively function in society. We have no incentive to do so. It is simply a bad investment. That may seem barbaric, but it is also the truth. We will change our positions if a proponent of this legislation can inform us of an economical benefit of this act.

In closing, if this were split in two, as proposed by the representative from Slap Yo Mama, we would be in support of the Juvenile act. However, we would vote against the act pertaining to the mentally ill. We would be open to a change in our position on the latter if a proponent of this legislation can inform us of an economical benefit of keeping convicted mentally ill criminals alive.

We would not support this. My nation has no problem with the portion of this proposal in reference to juvenile punishment, other than that nations be allowed to set the cutoff age, to account for different cultures and to lessen the opposition. I think a good range of flexibility would be three years in either direction from 18.

Part of why we support the aforementioned juvenile portion of this is because, as Pilot and others have pointed out, juveniles CAN be reformed. However, on those same grounds, the people of my nation will take issue with the clauses involving the mentally ill. As it has been noted, the definition of mental incompetence will most likely be re-worded and made more strict. I feel that I am correct in assuming this would limit it to members of society who either are not in control of their actions or can not understand the consequences of them. However, if these individuals are that incapacitated, how is there any hope of rehabilitation for them? What could they hope to contribute to society? My nation's citizens feel that our money should not be wasted on citizens who will not be able to productively function in society. We have no incentive to do so. It is simply a bad investment. That may seem barbaric, but it is also the truth. We will change our positions if a proponent of this legislation can inform us of an economical benefit of this act.

In closing, if this were split in two, as proposed by the representative from Slap Yo Mama, we would be in support of the Juvenile act. However, we would vote against the act pertaining to the mentally ill. We would be open to a change in our position on the latter if a proponent of this legislation can inform us of an economical benefit of keeping convicted mentally ill criminals alive.

I believe it is a bit offensive that you need an economic reason to keep the mentally ill alive. But my objections to that don't matter. Anyways, I am not saying that you must spend money to reform the mentally ill, but there is a scienfitic recognizition of these people being less-than-capable of understanding thier actions and the consequences of them. It makes it hard for me to stomach executing them for reasons they can't understand.

Just as a notice: I will be posting a new draft of the bill on Saturday and submitting it to the United Nations on Sunday.

I believe that I made the point to the fact that the proposal does not attempt to give clemency to all those who have a disease that affect the mind. The clause pretty much excludes some of the lesser diseases. Like I said, there is nothing to stop a life sentence without parole. I just feel that we have to take a step back, focus on morality, and assess whether or not it is right to execute the world's most vunerable and ill-developed people in the world. I pointed to the ACLU study that demostrated that those who were mentally incompetent, even some that were declared unfit to be a courtroom, were still charged with counts of murder and put to death.

Also, I think we are all missing an integral part of the game - suspension of reality. Just like in the movies, there has to be a suspension of *all* the real-world consequences of the resolution. I think, if you look at some of the proposals that have been passed, you can agree that they required a bit of this in order to work. In reality, you're voting for the principle of the proposal, not the very fine specific wording.

The "it's only a game" comeback is a cop out. The only thing that this game has going for it is the fact that you can get into the nitty gritty, the reasoning behind the wording of proposals and resolutions. Put very simply, it's what separates a 'good' proposal from a 'bad' one. And it hardly matters anyway if a proposal is passed or not, it is the discussion that each proposal provokes that makes the game interesting. Otherwise I would have left ages ago.

I've made my opinions on capital punishment very clear in the past, so I'm sure most oldbies know I'm in favour of any move towards abolition.

However, regarding the age limit, I would prefer you tie it to each individual nation's age of majority, rather than setting it at 18.

The "it's only a game" comeback is a cop out. The only thing that this game has going for it is the fact that you can get into the nitty gritty, the reasoning behind the wording of proposals and resolutions. Put very simply, it's what separates a 'good' proposal from a 'bad' one. And it hardly matters anyway if a proposal is passed or not, it is the discussion that each proposal provokes that makes the game interesting. Otherwise I would have left ages ago.

No, it's not a cop out. However, since we have all different species with people living to 180, there has to be some kind of suspension of disbelief. I refuse to debate this point anymore with you, especially since you keep recycling your comments in different words. Unless you have any real suggestions, please don't post anymore.

I've made my opinions on capital punishment very clear in the past, so I'm sure most oldbies know I'm in favour of any move towards abolition.

However, regarding the age limit, I would prefer you tie it to each individual nation's age of majority, rather than setting it at 18.

That seems to be a popular idea, and I think it makes sense. I'll put it in the new draft of the proposal on Saturday.

This is a very well-written proposal and one which I support, especially with the appropriate age-of-majority revision. I would, however, suggest wording this carefully so as to not open up a loophole. I suggest defining the age as "the age at which a person shall automatically attain the legal rights of an adult person, or, if those rights may only be achieved by undergoing a certain procedure, the minimum age at which said procedure may be undergone."

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

[QUOTE=Pilot]No, it's not a cop out. However, since we have all different species with people living to 180, there has to be some kind of suspension of disbelief. I refuse to debate this point anymore with you, especially since you keep recycling your comments in different words. Unless you have any real suggestions, please don't post anymore.

I made my points in my first post in answer to your proposal, because that is what people do when a proposal is posted - offer suggestions and show possible weaknesses. Responses to your proposal are there to help YOU. Your reaction and response to my criticisms, criticisms that were in no way hostile, shows a certain lack of maturity on your part. That is, you cannot take criticism - a very limiting disposition to have in life.

And I have to ask, show me where I've recycled a comment.

If we started banning the obnoxious, the UN Forum Regulars roster would be sadly reduced. I speak as a former and quite obnoxious UN Forum Regular, so I know I'm right.

If by sadly reduced you mean, "Only Enn and The Black New World would be left" then yeah. :D

Yeah, there's nothing like a bit of trenchant criticism in the forums to get you rethinking the finer points of your proposal.

This is a very well-written proposal and one which I support, especially with the appropriate age-of-majority revision. I would, however, suggest wording this carefully so as to not open up a loophole. I suggest defining the age as "the age at which a person shall automatically attain the legal rights of an adult person, or, if those rights may only be achieved by undergoing a certain procedure, the minimum age at which said procedure may be undergone."

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Thank you for your support, and yes, I will be adjusting a few things in the proposal, including the age-of-majority and the definition of "mentally incompetent". There will be some grammar and specific wording changes along the way too. As I said, you can expect that Friday night or Saturday afternoon.

As for you Cup of Fork, I think I have shown that I am very open to criticism here. I've modified two major points in the proposal and submitted privately to grammar and structural changes, at the behest of nations well-versed with the "finer points" English langauge. You came onto this tread admitting that you didn't read it and posted about concerns that have already been address and then refused to admit that you did so. From now on, you'll just be ignored so don't waste the time typing. I'm looking for real solutions here, not game mechanic-it-needs-to-work-perfectly scenarios.

If we started banning the obnoxious, the UN Forum Regulars roster would be sadly reduced. I speak as a former and quite obnoxious UN Forum Regular, so I know I'm right.

I don't debate that, but as you can see, but Cup of Fork's comments even after your statement, it gets hard to carry on an intellegent exchange of ideas when you are forced to address things that have already come up.

Pilot,

Please remove this sentence.


Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.


Or rewrite it. Or something. In the context you gave, this has bizaare connotations.

I believe it is a bit offensive that you need an economic reason to keep the mentally ill alive. But my objections to that don't matter. Anyways, I am not saying that you must spend money to reform the mentally ill, but there is a scienfitic recognizition of these people being less-than-capable of understanding thier actions and the consequences of them. It makes it hard for me to stomach executing them for reasons they can't understand.

And i believe it is a bit offensive to presume that your set of morals is the correct set of morals, and the people of my nation do not appreciate having an unneeded strain put on our economy because of someone else's morals.

This proposal does not really offer a solution to a problem. In actuality, it creates a new problem. What should a society do with these non-functioning members who are impossible to rehab? Prior to this law, nations could do whatever fit best within the structure of their society. If this passes, however, nations will be forced to financially support individuals who can not contribute to society. Rehab is obviously not possible, nor is allowing them to live freely in society. This would leave our hands tied; we would be forced to pay for upkeep on prisons or specialty homes in which to keep these individuals.

I think it would be in the best interest of all involved to seperate this into two seperate proposals. Some will have the stance of my nation, agreeing with the juvenile portion while disagreeing with the portion pertaining to the mentally ill, while others will take the opposite stance. This would make this proposition more divisive than it needs to be.

Thank you for your support, and yes, I will be adjusting a few things in the proposal, including the age-of-majority and the definition of "mentally incompetent". There will be some grammar and specific wording changes along the way too. As I said, you can expect that Friday night or Saturday afternoon.

As for you Cup of Fork, I think I have shown that I am very open to criticism here. I've modified two major points in the proposal and submitted privately to grammar and structural changes, at the behest of nations well-versed with the "finer points" English langauge. You came onto this tread admitting that you didn't read it and posted about concerns that have already been address and then refused to admit that you did so. From now on, you'll just be ignored so don't waste the time typing. I'm looking for real solutions here, not game mechanic-it-needs-to-work-perfectly scenarios.



I don't debate that, but as you can see, but Cup of Fork's comments even after your statement, it gets hard to carry on an intellegent exchange of ideas when you are forced to address things that have already come up.

LMAO - That's hysterical. Since YOU decided to bring it up, if anyone is struggling with the 'finer points' of the English language it is you, my friend. Take a good long look at your posts, and maybe something will twig in that tiny mind of yours.

I have already stated that I have read the thread, and stand by the comments I made about your proposal. So, like your proposal, the statement you make above is redundant. Or have you not been following the thread? Hm? Maybe you were only scanning for some sycophantic, ego boosting remarks in relation to your proposal.

Why you decided to respond in a hostile manner to my initial post is a mystery [are you only 12 years old, or something? If you are I apologise], but you should know that my comments were posted in good faith.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show me some examples of where I keep recycling my comments in this thread. Waiting, waiting, waiting ...

Should read "calls on member states to ban," rather than stating that it bans this. Earlier it correctly reads that it cannot infringe on sovereignty of nations, but then goes on to purport to do so. This is, and should read as, simply a non-binding "sense of the UN" resolution. Change in that respect and I would support it.

Should read "calls on member states to ban," rather than stating that it bans this. Earlier it correctly reads that it cannot infringe on sovereignty of nations, but then goes on to purport to do so. This is, and should read as, simply a non-binding "sense of the UN" resolution. Change in that respect and I would support it.

Please understand that if this was to be done, there would be absolutely not use for the resolution. The point is that it's not a suggestion, it is an international agreement by which all parties must abide by.

Pilot,

Please remove this sentence.

Quote:
Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.


Or rewrite it. Or something. In the context you gave, this has bizaare connotations.

I don't know why so many nations have a problem with this everytime I add it into the proposal. I am not exactly sure what it means myself, although I would guess it means that the United Nations will continue to monitor the aspects of the resolution. Nevertheless, it is what every real-world U.N. resolution ends in and since it's universal, I don't think it warrants being removed. However, if it becomes that big of a problem, I don't see a reason not to throw it out as well. Are you not going to vote for the proposal based on that line?


Reminder: The second draft of the proposal is due out tomorrow, and I'll be posting it in this thread, so don't forget to check back!

Updating my diary now.

In the context of the proposal, this sentence of yours infers the UN will remain in a permanent state of seizure.

As in "will continue to have seizures ad nauseum".

Pointless.

Again, this is NOT the real life UN. People here have actual intelligence... well, some of them. Ridiculous phrases which are added only because "everyone else did it" don't cut the mustard.

If you don't know what it means, lose it.

Gosh guys, it is a fancy way of stating that a body or organization will continue to actively engage the issue so that if it is not entirely alleviated by the current resolution, another will be promptly presented on the matter . (Will continue to take hold of the issue.)

If people here had actual intelligence, or at least half as much as we presume ourselves to posess, it would have been realized from the onset that seize and seizure are two independant terms. :rolleyes: ;)

Gosh guys, it is a fancy way of stating that a body or organization will continue to actively engage the issue so that if it is not entirely alleviated by the current resolution, another will be promptly presented on the matter . (Will continue to take hold of the issue.)

If people here had actual intelligence, or at least half as much as we presume ourselves to posess, it would have been realized from the onset that seize and seizure are two independant terms. :rolleyes: ;)

Its old. It's useless. It looks dumb. Next question from the peanut gallery?

Its old. It's useless. It looks dumb. Next question from the peanut gallery?

Ummm...can we get some more peanuts up here?

*throws a peanut at Vastiva's head* :D

And I don't really give a damn about that line y'all are going on about. Surely we can find better things to discuss. Cheese, for example. ;)

And I don't really give a damn about that line y'all are going on about. Surely we can find better things to discuss. Cheese, for example.

No, we can not mooove on untill this is over! :D

It's useless.

We are constantly re-hashing or re-pealing old issues. Ergo, we are seized on them, might as well illustrate that nuance.

It looks dumb.

No, us talking about this looks dumb! ;)
Yet we do it anyway :D
For entertainment value.


After having seized my laptop from a child who might have dropped it, it fell to the floor when I dropped it during a seizure.

Noticing that the seizure was due to the flashing lights of the screen, I have resolved to make people aware of the danger when using their laptops. And remain seized on the matter should new information worthy of sharing present itself! :D

*grumbles*

You just had to start the usage issue and rouse my inner pedant. :(

Here's the deal. Seizure can be used in multiple ways.

1. The act or an instance of seizing or the condition of being seized.

(Example: The authorities mandated a seizure of his property.

2. A sudden attack, spasm, or convulsion, as in epilepsy or another disorder.

(Example: He had a seizure.)

"Seize" and its variants can also be used to indicate either a medical condition or an action (acquiring forcibly, whether mentally or physically), as well as being a nautical term.

That's the problem with English and many other languages. Words that look and sound the same can have entirely different meanings that have to be understood in light of the context. In the context of a UN resolution that does not address the nautical issue or the medical issue of seizures, I think we can safely say that the word is not being used in the medical or nautical sense.

However, the use of the phrase does seem superfluous and I personally would never use it. On the other hand, if Pilot has a particular fondness for that phrase, I don't see the harm in the phrase being there. Dear God we discuss the most stupid things in here.

After having seized my laptop from a child who might have dropped it, it fell to the floor when I dropped it during a seizure.

After the seizure of the laptop from a child who might have dropped it, it then fell to the floor when my brain seized up.

Do you like the equivocation?

... if Pilot has a particular fondness for that phrase, I don't see the harm in the phrase being there. Dear God we discuss the most stupid things in here.

He may have a certain fondness for it, but he himself admitted that he does not understand it. There are a few song choruses that I have a fondness for, but I don't think I'll add them to any of my future NSUN proposals.

Yes? ... what? ... Oh, yeah. The voices are reminding me that I have been ejected from the UN, so I cannot submit any proposals anyway.

He may have a certain fondness for it, but he himself admitted that he does not understand it. There are a few song choruses that I have a fondness for, but I don't think I'll add them to any of my future NSUN proposals.

Then you have a similar sensibility to my own. I wouldn't add something like that either. I just don't care if someone else does.

Yes? ... what? ... Oh, yeah. The voices are reminding me that I have been ejected from the UN, so I cannot submit any proposals anyway.

Can't you simply apply with another nation?

*grumbles*

You just had to start the usage issue and rouse my inner pedant. :(

Here's the deal. Seizure can be used in multiple ways.

1. The act or an instance of seizing or the condition of being seized.

(Example: The authorities mandated a seizure of his property.

2. A sudden attack, spasm, or convulsion, as in epilepsy or another disorder.

(Example: He had a seizure.)

"Seize" and its variants can also be used to indicate either a medical condition or an action (acquiring forcibly, whether mentally or physically), as well as being a nautical term.

That's the problem with English and many other languages. Words that look and sound the same can have entirely different meanings that have to be understood in light of the context. In the context of a UN resolution that does not address the nautical issue or the medical issue of seizures, I think we can safely say that the word is not being used in the medical or nautical sense.

However, the use of the phrase does seem superfluous and I personally would never use it. On the other hand, if Pilot has a particular fondness for that phrase, I don't see the harm in the phrase being there. Dear God we discuss the most stupid things in here.

Imagine what would happen if we all decided to use our powers for good?

LOL. Yes, yes we do! :D

Sooner or later some sesquipedalian will join and put us all to shame.

Now Texan. You are not trying to tell me the transitive form of seize which Cup and Fork correctly utilized within the context of the circumstance is a medical term equivocal to seizure are you?

Imagine what would happen if we all decided to use our powers for good?

We would have debate the like of which has yet to be seen by the UN as to what is good! :D

We would have debate the like of which has yet to be seen by the UN as to what is good! :D
And then, of course, the spin-off debates over what is bad, what is in-between and the perennial favourites abortion and gay rights.

Imagine what would happen if we all decided to use our powers for good?

I would rather not. :eek:

LOL. Yes, yes we do! :D

Sooner or later some sesquipedalian will join and put us all to shame.

Now Texan. You are not trying to tell me the transitive form of seize which Cup and Fork correctly utilized within the context of the circumstance is a medical term equivocal to seizure are you?

Not necessarily so. It can appear to be so when the context is ambiguous, however.

We are all getting a little off-topic here, so it's time to bring us back. Version two of the draft:

Recalling the following United Nations Resolutions: (1) #26: The Universal Bill of Rights; (2) #41: End Barbaric Punishments;

Recognizing that, while a modern court system is the only effective way to ensure justice, it can never be perfect;

Noting with regret that legal counsel for those put on death row in some nations may not be able to defend a client seen as low priority or any classification thereof;

Declaring that the United Nations does not adopt any formal position on the use of capital punishment except for the circumstances mentioned hereafter;

The United Nations is:

Deeply disturbed in regards to the practice of executing juveniles and mentally incompetent;

Declaring that such a practice is unnecessary and a cruel form of punishment;

Notes that those defined as “mentally incompetent” are often incapable of accurately assessing the consequences of their actions;

Notes that those defined as “juveniles” are often much more likely to be responsive to rehabilitation and character reform programs;

Defines “mentally incompetent” as any being diagnosed with a health condition that is widely recognized as to have a severe impact on control of body, control of thought or control of emotion and/or any being declared by a medical professional as incapable of cognitive reasoning in any of those three areas;

Defines “juvenile” as any being below the age that is generally accepted in any society as being below the transition from adolescence into adulthood (i.e. for humans, this is generally accepted as 18 years of age);

Declares accordingly that any being convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death if they are: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent;

Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of all beings within those two groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;

Decides to remain actively seized in the matter.


I had to cut some things out and short some sentences because the U.N. has a 2200 character-proposal limit, but none of it changes the meanings of the clauses. Grammar and structual changes have also been made. A couple lines have been added and the definition for both juveniles and the mentally incomptent have been changed.

So, time for a new round of questions, comments, concerns and criticisms.

[I had to cut some things out and short some sentences because the U.N. has a 2200 character-proposal limit,
I think you need to reevaluate the limit. I don't have access to the code page, but there are quite a few passed resolutions in the 3400-3500 character range. You've got room if you need it.

Supported.

I'd rather take out the 18-year reference entirely, but seeing as the wording makes it so that doesn't affect anything, I won't argue it.

Edmund: You *burned* the Dictionary?

Baldrick: Yup. ...

Baldrick: I have a cunning plan, sir. ...

George: Great! Let's hear it, then.

Baldrick: It's brilliant. You take the string -- that's still not completely
burnt -- you scrape off the soot, and you shove the pages in again.

Edmund: Which pages?

Baldrick: Well, not the same ones, of course.

Edmund: Yes, I think I'm on the point of spotting the flaw in this plan, but do
go on. Which pages are they?

Baldrick: Well, this is the brilliant bit: You write some new ones.

Edmund: ...some new ones. You mean rewrite the Dictionary. I sit down tonight and
rewrite the Dictionary that took Dr. Johnson ten years.

Baldrick: Yup. ...

George: Oh, come on, Blackadder, give us a try!

Edmund: Very well, sir, as you wish. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?
First: `A'. How would you define `a'?

Baldrick: Ohh...`a' (continues this in background)

George: Oh, I love this! I love this: quizzies...Errmmm, hang on, it's coming...
ooohh, crikey, errmm, oh yes, I've got it!

Edmund: What?

George: Well, it doesn't really mean anything, does it?

Edmund: Good. So we're well on the way, then. " `a'; impersonal pronoun;
doesn't really mean anything." Right! Next: `A'... `A-B'.

(Baldrick and Prince ponder over this)

Baldrick: Well, it's a buzzing thing, isn't it. "A buzzing thing."

Edmund: Baldrick, I mean something that starts with `A-B'.

Baldrick: Honey? Honey starts with a bee.

George: He's right, you know, Blackadder. Honey does start a bee...and a flower, too.

all other gripes with this proposal aside, i have a problem with the line before the ever-so-controversial seizure line...
"Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of all beings within those two groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;"

why would the actual convictions themselves be abolished? If they were tried for the crime, and found guilty, they have been convicted of it. In order to be sentenced for something, one must first be convicted of it. If the convictions are abolished, then the entire trial needs to take place again before the sentencing can be redefined, because the individual would need re-convicted. Why not just say "Declares accordingly that all existing sentences for all beings within those two groups are hereby to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;"

its not that big of a change, wording wise, and eliminates the needless re-convicting of criminals.

I say if you are 16 or 17 you know right from wrong. If you want to go out and kill someone that is on you and no one made you do this! If you allow the safety of young murders you are letting gangs know that they can go and just shoot any one and get away with it! But as for mentally challenged people they do not know right from wrong in some cases.

all other gripes with this proposal aside, i have a problem with the line before the ever-so-controversial seizure line...
"Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of all beings within those two groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;"

why would the actual convictions themselves be abolished? If they were tried for the crime, and found guilty, they have been convicted of it. In order to be sentenced for something, one must first be convicted of it. If the convictions are abolished, then the entire trial needs to take place again before the sentencing can be redefined, because the individual would need re-convicted. Why not just say "Declares accordingly that all existing sentences for all beings within those two groups are hereby to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;"

its not that big of a change, wording wise, and eliminates the needless re-convicting of criminals.

Actually, I completely agree with you. This was a big slip-up on my part. What I meant, obviously, was that the death sentence was abolished and that a new one would be applied. I will change the line to this:


Declares accordingly that all existing sentences for beings within those two groups are hereby abolished and are to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;;

Good?


I'd rather take out the 18-year reference entirely, but seeing as the wording makes it so that doesn't affect anything, I won't argue it.

I put it there as just an example of what I meant by "transition from adolesence to adulthood". Unless there is a major reason why it should be taken out, I think I'll just leave it there.


I think you need to reevaluate the limit. I don't have access to the code page, but there are quite a few passed resolutions in the 3400-3500 character range. You've got room if you need it.

Perhaps it has changed since my last proposal was passed through the U.N. floor ("NS HIV AIDS Act"), but I had to cut down that resolution to fit into the proposal box. I'll try again, but I'd rather play it safe (that way, I don't have 2 proposals on the U.N. voting bloc and then I have a 75-75 split of endorsements - it just wouldn't be pretty). Like I said, the shortened wording isn't a change of policy, it is just that - shortened wording.


I say if you are 16 or 17 you know right from wrong. If you want to go out and kill someone that is on you and no one made you do this! If you allow the safety of young murders you are letting gangs know that they can go and just shoot any one and get away with it! But as for mentally challenged people they do not know right from wrong in some cases.

Here are some links that I feel will help you re-evaluate your position on this matter:

1. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf (American Medical Assiociation)
2. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/apa.pdf (American Psychological Association)
3. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/nobel.pdf (Nobel peace prize winners)

And finally...
U.S. Supreme Court - Roper v. Simmons (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html)

I have decided to change my mind on this subject because putting some one to death is doing the same crime that they have committed. But I will find a way to make the rest of there lives horrible while they rot in jail!

while my nation still won't vote in favor of it for my other reasons, that wording change makes it a lot less of a hassle for everyone involved, should it pass, so thank you for taking that into consideration.

We take a position of neutrality, as we support one half of the legislature and not the other.

while my nation still won't vote in favor of it for my other reasons, that wording change makes it a lot less of a hassle for everyone involved, should it pass, so thank you for taking that into consideration.

We take a position of neutrality, as we support one half of the legislature and not the other.

You mean you support one half of the legislation and not the other (i.e. you support the juvenile but not the mentally incomptent or vice versa)?


I have decided to change my mind on this subject because putting some one to death is doing the same crime that they have committed. But I will find a way to make the rest of there lives horrible while they rot in jail!

Does that mean you'll be voting for the bill?

I am kind of mixed I will meet with officials and make my decision.

I realise someone has mentioned this before, but I only just re-read the original proposal and I have a problem with one part in it.

It's the part that overturns sentences for people who have already been convicted and sentenced to death.

If you do that, you are establishing the idea that retrospective legislation is something the UN is capable of enacting. Which is a really dangerous precedent to set, and something that should never be enacted.

If someone was to suggest that a resolution be passed that made first degree murder punishable by death in all cases, including those who have been convicted in the past and are now serving life sentences, would that be acceptable if you supported the death penalty? Or would you only agree to those who are going to be convicted for first degree murder? With the arguement that retrospective legislation is cruel and unusual punishment?

By the same token if someone has been sentenced to death, you can not just announce that their sentence will be reviewed because of a new resolution. When they were sentenced they were sentenced to death under the law that stood when they committed the crime. And so they have to be punished under that law. Anyone who is convicted after (if) this proposal passes will not be sentenced to death, but those sentenced before it must still abide by the law that existed when they were convicted.

I know - you will say it is unfair that they are to be killed. But what if this resolution passes, then a week later it is repealed? By your arguement they can then be sentenced to death again, and that is cruel and unusual.

I am not a fan of the death penatly, and would gladly see every nation give it up. But if someone has been sentenced to death, then passing a new law should not grant them a reprieve because it sets a dangerous precedent.

On a more abstract note - does this mean that the family of any mentally incapable person who has been executed can now sue the government for wrongful death? If someone can be reprieved under a new law, then why not everyone who was ever executed?

Retrospective legislation is dangerous and not in the best interest of the member nations of the UN.

I realise someone has mentioned this before, but I only just re-read the original proposal and I have a problem with one part in it.

It's the part that overturns sentences for people who have already been convicted and sentenced to death.

If you do that, you are establishing the idea that retrospective legislation is something the UN is capable of enacting. Which is a really dangerous precedent to set, and something that should never be enacted.

If someone was to suggest that a resolution be passed that made first degree murder punishable by death in all cases, including those who have been convicted in the past and are now serving life sentences, would that be acceptable if you supported the death penalty? Or would you only agree to those who are going to be convicted for first degree murder? With the arguement that retrospective legislation is cruel and unusual punishment?

By the same token if someone has been sentenced to death, you can not just announce that their sentence will be reviewed because of a new resolution. When they were sentenced they were sentenced to death under the law that stood when they committed the crime. And so they have to be punished under that law. Anyone who is convicted after (if) this proposal passes will not be sentenced to death, but those sentenced before it must still abide by the law that existed when they were convicted.

I know - you will say it is unfair that they are to be killed. But what if this resolution passes, then a week later it is repealed? By your arguement they can then be sentenced to death again, and that is cruel and unusual.

I am not a fan of the death penatly, and would gladly see every nation give it up. But if someone has been sentenced to death, then passing a new law should not grant them a reprieve because it sets a dangerous precedent.

On a more abstract note - does this mean that the family of any mentally incapable person who has been executed can now sue the government for wrongful death? If someone can be reprieved under a new law, then why not everyone who was ever executed?

Retrospective legislation is dangerous and not in the best interest of the member nations of the UN.

You don't think it is cruel to carry out a death sentence for someone who is just a day, or week, or even month shy of this resolution being enacted? It works the same way that laws here in the United States work in respect to the death penalty - and in the courts. When new laws are enacted, they affect the person in jail whether they were convicted before or after. Take the latest case law - when it was decided, all the juvenile death sentences were thrown out. The Court can very well overturn the precedent it set three months from now.

I can understand your concern but I feel as though, without that line, it is even more cruel and unusual for people who just missed the enactment. I am trying to formulate a solution in my head, because I think this problem does need to be addressed and I won't be submitting the resolution until I do. Perhaps you would like to suggest something?

Wording for the new proposal to not affect any priorly decided sentences, unless so directed by the national government.

Put it to "National Soverignty". ;)

Put it to "National Soverignty". ;)
*rubs eyes*

Ok, who logged on to Vastiva's account and posted this?

whilst we agree i application to the mentally incompetent, we believe the age limit should be set at 15, because, since they should be in their latter years of schooling, they have no excuse in not knowing that they have broken the law.

Here are some links that I feel will help you re-evaluate your position on this matter:

1. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf (American Medical Assiociation)
2. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/apa.pdf (American Psychological Association)
3. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/nobel.pdf (Nobel peace prize winners)

And finally...
U.S. Supreme Court - Roper v. Simmons (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html)

I know you hate following them, but here are some NS rules that I think will help you re-evaluate your position on this matter:

You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit.

I know that this is, I'm assuming, meant to be in the context of adding documents to a proposal, but I feel using them to bolster your argument in a forum is just as invalid. You know Pilot, you ask us to suspend belief, and then you throw real life examples at us. Make up your mind.

*rubs eyes*

Ok, who logged on to Vastiva's account and posted this?
[Seargent Schultz voice]I know NOTHING![/Seargent Schultz voice]

I am strongly in favor of the concept behind this proposal. I do have some concerns, however, and I have some language to suggest.

A few thoughts, first:
1. There is nothing inherently wrong with making the resolution retroactive. To the contrary, that is common with changes in the law such as this. It would be wrong to execute juveniles or the mentally incompetent simply because they were convicted prior to this resolution being adopted.

2. You have already noticed that you shouldn't revoke existing convictions, but rather just existing death sentences.

3. I am troubled by your definition of "mentally incomptent."

I would suggest a resolution that reads as follows:
Recalling the following United Nations Resolutions: (1) #26: The Universal Bill of Rights; (2) #41: End Barbaric Punishments;

Recognizing that, while a modern court system is the only effective way to ensure justice, it can never be perfect;

Noting with regret that legal counsel for those put on death row in some nations may not be able to defend a client seen as low priority or any classification thereof;

Declaring that the United Nations does not adopt any formal position on the use of capital punishment except for the circumstances mentioned hereafter;

The United Nations is:

Deeply disturbed in regards to the practice of executing juveniles and mentally incompetent;

Declaring that such a practice is unnecessary and a cruel form of punishment;

Notes that those defined as “mentally incompetent” are often incapable of accurately assessing the consequences of their actions;

Notes that those defined as “juveniles” are often much more likely to be responsive to rehabilitation and character reform programs;

Defines “juvenile” as any being below the age that is generally accepted in any society as being below the transition from adolescence into adulthood (i.e. for humans, this is generally accepted as 18 years of age);

Defines “mental retardation” as a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills;

Defines “mentally incompetent” as having:
(1) (a) mental retardation or (b) a severe mental disorder or disability;
(2) that significantly impairs the capacity (a) to appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of conduct, (b) to exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or (c) to conform conduct to the requirements of the law.
A disorder manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable solely to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs does not, standing alone, constitute a mental disorder or disability for purposes of this provision.

1. Declares accordingly that any being convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death or executed if at the time of the crime or execution the being was or is: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent.

2. Member Nations may determine how to implement this resolution but must provide for at least the following:
(1) Prior to trial in a capital case, the defendant shall have the opportunity to present evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent and an impartial decision-maker shall find the defendant not eligible for the death penalty if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent.
(2) If a capital trial results in a verdict of guilty to a capital charge, the defendant shall be entitled to present evidence to the jury on the issue of whether the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent and the jury shall find the defendant not eligible for the death penalty if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetence.
(3) In cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death, a defendant may seek relief from the defendant’s death sentence upon the ground that the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent. If the defendant has been determined death-eligible under (1) and (2) above, the defendant may be denied relief without a hearing unless the defendant submits written evidence of that the defendant has become mentally incompetent since his sentence to death. Otherwise, the defendant is entitled to a hearing in which to submit evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent and an impartial decision-maker shall find the defendant not eligible for the death penalty if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent.
(4) Within 180 days of the effective date of this Resolution, a defendant may seek relief from the defendant’s death sentence upon the ground that the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent. A defendant seeking such relief is entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetent and the jury shall find the defendant not eligible for the death penalty if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant is (or was at the time of the crime) a juvenile or mentally incompetence. A member nation may choose not to conduct such a jury trial if it changes the defendant’s sentence to one other than death.

I fully recognize that #2 above is probably overly legalistic.

I know you hate following them, but here are some NS rules that I think will help you re-evaluate your position on this matter:

You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit.

I know that this is, I'm assuming, meant to be in the context of adding documents to a proposal, but I feel using them to bolster your argument in a forum is just as invalid. You know Pilot, you ask us to suspend belief, and then you throw real life examples at us. Make up your mind.

You see what I mean Frisbeetaria? To make it clear, someone posted stating their own personal opinion outside of the debate on this resolution. There is nothing in the rules that says just because it is in a related thread, it is directly linked to the topic matter. It was an out-of-character response, simply. And because he got shut down, now I have a temper tantrum resembling that of my little brother going on in a thread that should be filled with ideas, and not bickering.

There is absolutely no way that he can say I haven't been open to criticisms of my proposal. Read the thread and that becomes immediately obvious. Is there any chance I can get a little help here?

Cat-Tribe: First of all, wow, you wrote that whole thing. That's impressive. Second of all, I have looked over some of the changes and I think they are all fundamentally good. As I said before, there is a character limit and whether it is 2200 or 4000, that version of the resolution still exceeds it, so we'll have to work on cutting it down. Perhaps you'd like to suggest some condensed language, but if not, then I'll cut it down myself. You can contact me on AIM (doverhasfallen) or e-mail sharris0512@gmail.com if you'd like to work on those changes in a more fast-paced way than NS forums. But if not, as I said, I'll condense it myself, but thank you for the effort and the suggestions.

TilEnca: What do you think of the revisions that Cat-Tribe made? Would that type of langauge swing your vote in any way?

Generally: I recognize that some have a problem with the definition of "mentally incomptent" and some even had a problem with calling it that. I think, in absence of any great ideas from me, I am going to plagarize Cat-Tribe's revisions into the proposal. So, if anyone has some specific concerns or comments about that, they should speak up. Also, depending on the time of the final changes, I will be releasing and beginning to promote the proposal next week.

LINE I AM CONSIDERING CUTTING FROM THE PROPOSAL:


Noting with regret that legal counsel for those put on death row in some nations may not be able to defend a client seen as low priority or any classification thereof;
I know the reason why I put it in there. It was basically modeled after my disgust with two people put to death in Texas who had lawyers who fell asleep during cross-examination and the Texas Board of Appeals didn't think it was a good enough reason for a stay. However, it's not an operative clause and we are going to need more space for more important wording, so depending on how it goes, that line, in its entirety, may be cut. Again, if anyone has concerns or comments about that, they should speak up.


EDIT: Also, perhaps I was wrong, but I could have sworn that there was someone who posted two other resolutions that would have been proper to include in the "recalling" clause at the beginning of the proposal. But now, there is no sign of that. I can remember saying to myself "Hey, that's a good idea". Perhaps that person would like to re-post them.

Well you win the "Lawyer of the Day" award.

Anti Pharaism will be so disappointed....

Wording for the new proposal to not affect any priorly decided sentences, unless so directed by the national government.

Put it to "National Soverignty". ;)
Somebody needs to go check the tempature in hell.

You see what I mean Frisbeetaria? To make it clear, someone posted stating their own personal opinion outside of the debate on this resolution. There is nothing in the rules that says just because it is in a related thread, it is directly linked to the topic matter. It was an out-of-character response, simply. And because he got shut down, now I have a temper tantrum resembling that of my little brother going on in a thread that should be filled with ideas, and not bickering.

There is absolutely no way that he can say I haven't been open to criticisms of my proposal. Read the thread and that becomes immediately obvious. Is there any chance I can get a little help here?

Well, for starters (a) it is obvious that I haven't been shut down by your quick wit and arguing powers , and (b) all of my posts have been relevant to some aspect of the topic thread. Yes, even the [I]Blackadder one .

Your comment: [I]... stating their own personal opinion outside of the debate makes no sense. Commenting on a proposal is very often personal opinion. The part that the proposal’s author plays in this process is deciding which criticisms they agree with. How is this not the case? In fact, the majority of things posted in these forums are personal opinion, in which case I would not have been the first to breach your unwritten NS forum law.

You are also suggesting to the mods that they wield some magic and make me go away. If the mods started shutting people down from commenting on others' proposals on the basis of you, or anyone else, thinking that they are not worthy comments, it would be tantamount to a shutting down of public opinion. It would not make for a great gaming experience, and I am sure that people would leave in droves.

It is probably clear to anyone reading my original post that I made a perfectly legit comment - not even remotely hostile - about your proposal and you decided to respond in an aggressive manner. My response to your proposal offered ideas and in no way did it contain bickering, it did however seem to compel you to indulge in some bickering of your own. That was your choice.

Well you win the "Lawyer of the Day" award.

Anti Pharaism will be so disappointed....

Excuse you, attorney not Lawyer!:D (I have ethics ;))

Declaring that the United Nations does not adopt any formal position on the use of capital punishment except for the circumstances mentioned hereafter;

I think this section is illegal, since it restricts the proposals the UN would be allowed to consider (in this case, stating that the UN cannot take a position on the death penalty later). The above statement should be taken out.

If by sadly reduced you mean, "Only Enn and The Black New World would be left" then yeah. :D

Hey, I'm not obnoxious... *shifty eyes*

1. Declares accordingly that any being convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death or executed if at the time of the crime or execution the being was or is: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent.

Was or is... I do not like the use of is, as it allows for the invocation of an overly broad application of mental incompetence:

(1) (a) mental retardation or (b) a severe mental disorder or disability; (2) that significantly impairs the capacity (a) to appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of conduct, (b) to exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or (c) to conform conduct to the requirements of the law. .

Awkward organization of points.

Now, why do I have a problem with this scenario? Two interelated reasons come to mind.

1. (a)After sentencing a person can again be psychologically analyzed, and be determined a psychopathic killer or develop other mental problems. The same person may undergo yet another evaluation and be determined competent. This is due to psychology being to date an incomplete science. (b) This sets up scenarious of constant resentencing. If we are to determine the person has changed such after their initial sentencing that the punishment is no longer warranted, why stop at death, if they are different should they be resentenced altogether?

2. I have strict guidelines with respect to the death penalty. You would almost have to be a psychopath deemed incurable and uncontrollable to get the punishment. As that person has a uncontrollable desire to kill (unable to conform to the law), does not consider their actions wrong and considers the acts justified. The very type of person classified as qualifying for the death penalty, as they are considered the most dangerous, meet the criteria of the loosely coined mentally incompetent phrase. Loophole city that allows for complete revocation of all death sentences.

Excuse you, attorney not Lawyer!:D (I have ethics ;))

Don't worry, law school will purge you of those in no time. Soon enough, you'll be another attorney drone (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20000704.html) in no time.

I think this section is illegal, since it restricts the proposals the UN would be allowed to consider (in this case, stating that the UN cannot take a position on the death penalty later). The above statement should be taken out.

I agree, but it won't be taken out. It'll be modified to this:

Reaffirming that, at this point, the United Nations does not take any formal position on the use of capital punishment except in the cirumstances mentioned hereafter;

That should satisfy your concerns.

2. I have strict guidelines with respect to the death penalty. You would almost have to be a psychopath deemed incurable and uncontrollable to get the punishment. As that person has a uncontrollable desire to kill (unable to conform to the law), does not consider their actions wrong and considers the acts justified. The very type of person classified as qualifying for the death penalty, as they are considered the most dangerous, meet the criteria of the loosely coined mentally incompetent phrase. Loophole city that allows for complete revocation of all death sentences.

The person that you just mentioned is the person that is meant to be put in an insane asylum to be treated for his condition - not just discarded as a mistake of society. That is the point of this whole resolution.

TilEnca: What do you think of the revisions that Cat-Tribe made? Would that type of langauge swing your vote in any way?


I still have the same issue - it makes retroactive legislation. That is not something I can ever support.

I'll vote for this.

Phillip? Where are you Phillip? Oh, I miss you so...

Hey, I'm not obnoxious... *shifty eyes*
I'm not either, am I? I mean, you guys would tell me if I was right.

I'm not either, am I? I mean, you guys would tell me if I was right.

RomeW and Flibbleites are not obnoxious either. That brings us up to 4.

I'm probably obnoxious, but everyone keeps their mouths shut about it.
:D

I'm probably obnoxious, but everyone keeps their mouths shut about it.
:D
Yes, yes you are.:D

Defines “mentally incompetent” as having:
(1) (a) mental retardation or (b) a severe mental disorder or disability;
(2) that significantly impairs the capacity (a) to appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of conduct, (b) to exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or (c) to conform conduct to the requirements of the law.
A disorder manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable solely to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs does not, standing alone, constitute a mental disorder or disability for purposes of this provision.


This is starting to develop into a very soundly worded resolution.. but given that we're striving for perfection here I have a problem with 'disorder ... attributable to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs'.
Voluntarily induced intoxication should obviously not be encouraged, apart from in very limited circumstances, as a defence to conviction or sentence. But we have to recognise that alcoholism is a disease which affects the mind, and is widely recognised as such, both medically and legally. After a point, alcoholism is no longer voluntary, with unpredictable behavioural effects certainly amounting to a disease of the mind that ought to be protected as such under this resolution. This should in my view also apply to other addictions which can be medically classified as diseases that affect the mind (there may be others, but I am no doctor).

My question basically is - do the provisions for 'acute effects' and 'standing alone' take account of this? If so, that's good, but it should be more clearly worded - it confused me as someone who reads and interprets legalese on a daily basis.

The person that you just mentioned is the person that is meant to be put in an insane asylum to be treated for his condition - not just discarded as a mistake of society. That is the point of this whole resolution.

Why are you against death, Pilot?

The person that you just mentioned is the person that is meant to be put in an insane asylum to be treated for his condition - not just discarded as a mistake of society. That is the point of this whole resolution.

Yes, I am talking about an untreatable person who remains a threat to others so long as he is alive. Mentally incompentent by the definition proffered, but still going to be put to death. His mental incompetence does not justify endangering the lives of others. Another moral way of looking at it.

Good one Vastiva. Now I know to run if I ever see a giant booger point what looks like a gun in my general direction ;). Then again, I am apt to run from such a thing anyway.:D

TilEnca, I believe I understand and I appreciate your concern about retroactive resolutions in general and retroactive effect of this proposed resolution specifically.

I'll take one shot at persuading you, however.

1. The resolution assumes that executing juveniles or the mentally incompetent is barbaric. Executing, not simply sentencing to death.

2. Presumably there are juveniles and mentally incompetent individuals currently awaiting execution in some member states.

3. Without the minimal retroative effect now written into the proposed resolutio, these juveniles and mentally incompetent individuals will be executed after the resolution is passed.

4. So, we have to weigh the inherent inequity and barbarism of allowing executions of juveniles and the mentally incompetent to continue after the proposal passes against the possible harm of setting a bad precedent of retroactivity.

5. Arguably, at least some retroactive application to prevent such executions is required by the following:
Resolution #26 - Universal Bill of Rights
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or
punishment.
Resolution #27 - Due Process
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Resolution #41 - End Barbaric Punishments
The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

Substantive due process of law, equal treatment under law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment all arguably require that, if the proposal were to pass, juveniles and the mentally incompetent could no longer be executed.

If someone was to suggest that a resolution be passed that made first degree murder punishable by death in all cases, including those who have been convicted in the past and are now serving life sentences, would that be acceptable if you supported the death penalty? Or would you only agree to those who are going to be convicted for first degree murder? With the arguement that retrospective legislation is cruel and unusual punishment?

Setting aside that those in favor of this proposal would obviously disagree with your hypothetical resolution, your point is that retroactivity works both ways.

One can make a principled distinction, however, between resolutions that grant additional rights, void convictions or lessen sentences and those that place a defendant in greater jeopardy. Due process of law and the prohibition against double jeopardy would prohibit the type of retroactivity you raise.

[OCC: In RL US, retroactive application of decisions about the fundamental rights of defendants are common, even required, as are the distinctions between types of retroactivity I am making.]


By the same token if someone has been sentenced to death, you can not just announce that their sentence will be reviewed because of a new resolution. When they were sentenced they were sentenced to death under the law that stood when they committed the crime. And so they have to be punished under that law. Anyone who is convicted after (if) this proposal passes will not be sentenced to death, but those sentenced before it must still abide by the law that existed when they were convicted.

I think I have addressed this above. It is the executions that are no longer permissible and, if the proposal passes, it would be inequitable to carry out executions of some juveniles and not others. Executions that are now cruel and unusual for some may not continue for others. (I fully recognize this is not airtight, as there is some distinction between the cases. But I think it is persuasive.)

I know - you will say it is unfair that they are to be killed. But what if this resolution passes, then a week later it is repealed? By your arguement they can then be sentenced to death again, and that is cruel and unusual.

Agreed, it would be cruel and unusual. Such a retroactive effect would therefore be barred by Resolutions #26 & 41. Also, it would be double jeopardy, forbidden by Resolution #27.

On a more abstract note - does this mean that the family of any mentally incapable person who has been executed can now sue the government for wrongful death? If someone can be reprieved under a new law, then why not everyone who was ever executed?

Nothing in the proposal provides for such a lawsuit. To the contrary, the proposal provides for how it applies.

Retrospective legislation is dangerous and not in the best interest of the member nations of the UN.

I agree that retroactivity must be considered carefully. I'm not 100% convinced that prior resolutions have not already had retroactive effects, however. (But I'm not going to go back and check.) I think the limited, principled retroactive effect of the proposed resolution is both necessary and right.

None of this may persuade you, but I thought it worth a try -- particularly as you are a respected and vocal participant in UN debates.

Just wondering how this proposal would handle claims of temporary insanity [or for that matter forms of diminished capacity], taking into account that temporary insanity is claimed as a defence whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial.

Furthermore, and any lawyers on this forum can correct me if I'm completely wrong, but if there is a case to be made that the defendant’s behaviour is affected [at least at the time of the alleged crime] by mental illness, then this case has to be heard in a separate hearing? That is, the defendant has to be proved capable of standing in a criminal trial [being able to understand the charges, etc.]. If they are not capable, the trial is temporarily aborted, or dismissed. In which case, a mentally ill person would not even reach a criminal court and stand trial if they were deemed mentally unfit.

This also means that if a defendant reaches a criminal trial they are already considered mentally able to stand trial, and therefore potentially subject to any punishment that the state has at its disposal - including the death penalty, if that is an option available.

So, it does not matter whether a UN resolution states that no mentally ill persons should have to face the death penalty, because once they are in a criminal court it is already agreed that they are mentally capable, and understand the charges against them. Perhaps this is the real area that should be addressed in a proposal.

[Apologies if anyone takes my above statement and opinions as some sort of attack on them personally]

I hope Pilot will forgive my answering.

Just wondering how this proposal would handle claims of temporary insanity [or for that matter forms of diminished capacity], taking into account that temporary insanity is claimed as a defence whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial.

There is no connection between claims of temporary insanity or other forms of diminished capacity and this proposal. The definition of mentally incompetent does not encompass transitory states. So, temporary insanity and/or diminished capacity may still be a defence to a crime (depending on a Nation's laws) but would not prevent execution under this resolution.

Furthermore, and any lawyers on this forum can correct me if I'm completely wrong, but if there is a case to be made that the defendant’s behaviour is affected [at least at the time of the alleged crime] by mental illness, then this case has to be heard in a separate hearing? That is, the defendant has to be proved capable of standing in a criminal trial [being able to understand the charges, etc.]. If they are not capable, the trial is temporarily aborted, or dismissed. In which case, a mentally ill person would not even reach a criminal court and stand trial if they were deemed mentally unfit.

This also means that if a defendant reaches a criminal trial they are already considered mentally able to stand trial, and therefore potentially subject to any punishment that the state has at its disposal - including the death penalty, if that is an option available.

So, it does not matter whether a UN resolution states that no mentally ill persons should have to face the death penalty, because once they are in a criminal court it is already agreed that they are mentally capable, and understand the charges against them. Perhaps this is the real area that should be addressed in a proposal.

Whether one is competent to stand trial is a different issue altogether. It is distinct from the issue of whether one is mentally incompetent for the purposes of execution under the resolution. I'll give a couple key distinctions:

1. Time. Competence to stand trial only considers the defendant's competence at the time of trial, not whether one was competent at the time of the crime or at the time of execution.

2. Standard. Competence to stand trial is a very low standard of competence. One merely has to have a basic understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist in one's defense. Forgive the lay terms, but you can be extremely nuts and still be comptent to stand trial. This has nothing to do with the ability to know right from wrong, appeciate the consequences of one's actions, or control one's actions.

[Apologies if anyone takes my above statement and opinions as some sort of attack on them personally]

I take no offense. I hope I have answered your questions/concerns.

Pilot: That it does. However, I was referring to it possibly being run foul of the moderators because of that statement, but now it doesn't.

Texan Hotrodders: Thank you. :D

I hope Pilot will forgive my answering.



There is no connection between claims of temporary insanity or other forms of diminished capacity and this proposal. The definition of mentally incompetent does not encompass transitory states. So, temporary insanity and/or diminished capacity may still be a defence to a crime (depending on a Nation's laws) but would not prevent execution under this resolution.



Whether one is competent to stand trial is a different issue altogether. It is distinct from the issue of whether one is mentally incompetent for the purposes of execution under the resolution. I'll give a couple key distinctions:

1. Time. Competence to stand trial only considers the defendant's competence at the time of trial, not whether one was competent at the time of the crime or at the time of execution.

2. Standard. Competence to stand trial is a very low standard of competence. One merely has to have a basic understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist in one's defense. Forgive the lay terms, but you can be extremely nuts and still be comptent to stand trial. This has nothing to do with the ability to know right from wrong, appeciate the consequences of one's actions, or control one's actions.



I take no offense. I hope I have answered your questions/concerns.

Yes, thank you.

It was my belief, however, that competence to stand trial included the defendent knowing the difference of right from wrong. At least in the texts that I have read. I'm sure that lawyers fight this kind of thing constantly in the courts, and find it none too easy.

Yes, thank you.

It was my belief, however, that competence to stand trial included the defendent knowing the difference of right from wrong. At least in the texts that I have read. I'm sure that lawyers fight this kind of thing constantly in the courts, and find it none too easy.

OCC: You are in error (at least as minimal constitutional standards of competence to stand trial are concerned), but it is quite understandable as the issue is not easy. I happen to be a lawyer and have represented clients whose competence was in question -- although I admit it was some time ago.

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standard 7-4.1(b):
(b) The test for determining mental competence to stand trial should be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with defendant's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and otherwise to assist in the defense, and whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (test for competency to stand trial is whether the defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.").

Here are some links:
http://mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/MIMH%20policybrief06-03.pdf
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid11-98.pdf
http://uwf.edu/swright/Spring%202005/ch%2011%20Competency%20to%20Stand%20Trial.pdf
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=sandiegolwps

We are still waiting for an answer from the author on our question:

What is so bad about death?

OCC: You are in error (at least as minimal constitutional standards of competence to stand trial are concerned), but it is quite understandable as the issue is not easy. I happen to be a lawyer and have represented clients whose competence was in question -- although I admit it was some time ago.

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standard 7-4.1(b):
(b) The test for determining mental competence to stand trial should be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with defendant's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and otherwise to assist in the defense, and whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (test for competency to stand trial is whether the defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.").

Here are some links:
http://mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/MIMH%20policybrief06-03.pdf
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid11-98.pdf
http://uwf.edu/swright/Spring%202005/ch%2011%20Competency%20to%20Stand%20Trial.pdf
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=sandiegolwps

STAMP Yep, Lawyer of the Day.

STAMP Yep, Lawyer of the Day.

Woo! Woo! Slaps "Lawyer of the Day" sticker on Lampshade!!

OCC: You are in error (at least as minimal constitutional standards of competence to stand trial are concerned), but it is quite understandable as the issue is not easy. I happen to be a lawyer and have represented clients whose competence was in question -- although I admit it was some time ago.

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standard 7-4.1(b):
(b) The test for determining mental competence to stand trial should be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with defendant's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and otherwise to assist in the defense, and whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (test for competency to stand trial is whether the defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.").

Here are some links:
http://mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/MIMH%20policybrief06-03.pdf
http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid11-98.pdf
http://uwf.edu/swright/Spring%202005/ch%2011%20Competency%20to%20Stand%20Trial.pdf
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=sandiegolwps


Yes, thanks. After reading the docs it appears to me that I was conflating the two issues of Trial competence and Criminal responsibility.

The docs still raise a number of other questions that relate to this proposal, but I think I’ll leave it for the moment.

Yes, thanks. After reading the docs it appears to me that I was conflating the two issues of Trial competence and Criminal responsibility.

The docs still raise a number of other questions that relate to this proposal, but I think I’ll leave it for the moment.

PWNED by the Lawyer of the Day.

PWNED by the Lawyer of the Day.


PWNED - What?

TilEnca, I believe I understand and I appreciate your concern about retroactive resolutions in general and retroactive effect of this proposed resolution specifically.

I'll take one shot at persuading you, however.


Cool!


1. The resolution assumes that executing juveniles or the mentally incompetent is barbaric. Executing, not simply sentencing to death.


From the original proposal


Declares accordingly that all those convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death if they are: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent;

Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of these groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;


This doesn't mention executions at all - it mentions the sentences.


2. Presumably there are juveniles and mentally incompetent individuals currently awaiting execution in some member states.


Most likely true. Not in TilEnca (no death penalty) but elsewhere.


3. Without the minimal retroative effect now written into the proposed resolutio, these juveniles and mentally incompetent individuals will be executed after the resolution is passed.


Which is bad, but (in my view) unavoidable.


4. So, we have to weigh the inherent inequity and barbarism of allowing executions of juveniles and the mentally incompetent to continue after the proposal passes against the possible harm of setting a bad precedent of retroactivity.


If it would only ever apply to this then I would agree, but precedent is precedent, and can be used to justify anything that follows.


5. Arguably, at least some retroactive application to prevent such executions is required by the following:
Resolution #26 - Universal Bill of Rights
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or
punishment.


Well - no. Because if you are still permitting executions of "sane" adults then you are not treating everyone fairly under the law.



Resolution #27 - Due Process
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


The due process of law was followed - that person was convicted of a crime for which the punishment is death. Just because the law has changed now doesn't affect the process he went through to be convicted.


Resolution #41 - End Barbaric Punishments
The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.


If you are defining the death penalty as barbaric, you have to define it for all people and ban it completely. Otherwise I don't see how.

And if your arguement is that this proposal would make it a barbaric punishment for those the proposal seeks to protect, then I think the proposal is illegal because it can be argued it violates previous resolutions.


Substantive due process of law, equal treatment under law, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment all arguably require that, if the proposal were to pass, juveniles and the mentally incompetent could no longer be executed.


But these resolutions have been in place for a fair while now, and since the UN requires the implementation and activation of these laws, anyone who is on death row must have had a fair trial under the rules of due process because there is no other way around it.



Setting aside that those in favor of this proposal would obviously disagree with your hypothetical resolution, your point is that retroactivity works both ways.

One can make a principled distinction, however, between resolutions that grant additional rights, void convictions or lessen sentences and those that place a defendant in greater jeopardy. Due process of law and the prohibition against double jeopardy would prohibit the type of retroactivity you raise.


Hold on - if the prohibition against double jeopardy prevents someone being sentenced to death when the original sentence was life in prison, doesn't that same prohibition prevent someone being sentenced again for the same crime? In fact - doesn't that same prohibition make this proposal totally illegal?

If you can't change someone's sentence for a crime they have already been convicted and sentenced for, how can you possibly change it in this proposal?

And on a larger scale - the law can not play favourites. If the law can be used to commute the death sentence for some people, then logically is should also be able to be used to enact the death sentence on some people.


I think I have addressed this above. It is the executions that are no longer permissible and, if the proposal passes, it would be inequitable to carry out executions of some juveniles and not others. Executions that are now cruel and unusual for some may not continue for others. (I fully recognize this is not airtight, as there is some distinction between the cases. But I think it is persuasive.)


I disagree. Everyone who is now on death row knows they will be executed, and they knew that when the sentenced was passed, and when their crime was committed. So if they committed a crime that warranted the death penalty in their nation, they should be executed for it. Anyone who is tried (if this proposal passes) knows they will not be executed and won't be.


Agreed, it would be cruel and unusual. Such a retroactive effect would therefore be barred by Resolutions #26 & 41. Also, it would be double jeopardy, forbidden by Resolution #27.


As I said above - if double jeopardy stops you from changing the sentence from life to death, then it has to stop you changing it from death to life.


Nothing in the proposal provides for such a lawsuit. To the contrary, the proposal provides for how it applies.


My theory was this.

Master Smith has been sentenced to death for killing a puppy (go with me!) He was 12 at the time of the crime, but still it was determined he knew what he was doing and that he should be executed.
But now this proposal passes, and his sentence is commuted to life in prison.

The week before his accomplice - Master Jones - was executed for the same crime. But now Master Jones has been executed for a crime that doesn't carry the death penalty, and - because the law can now be applied to all cases however far back the crime was commited - never has carried the death penalty. So clearly the government have executed someone who should not have been executed and as such are guilty of wrongful death.


I agree that retroactivity must be considered carefully. I'm not 100% convinced that prior resolutions have not already had retroactive effects, however. (But I'm not going to go back and check.) I think the limited, principled retroactive effect of the proposed resolution is both necessary and right.

None of this may persuade you, but I thought it worth a try -- particularly as you are a respected and vocal participant in UN debates.

You are right - you haven't convinced me. If it was just this case, it might not be a problem. I oppose the death penalty in all cases (even in the cases of puppy killin) and would glady see all sentences commuted.

But if this passes, and the idea that someone sentenced to death can now be resentenced for the same crime of which he was convicted becomes accepted, then what is to stop someone doing this.


Name : Mandatory Death Sentence

Description : The UN believes that killing people is wrong, and so enacts the following,

1) Anyone convicted of murder must be executed,
2) Anyone who is in jail for life following a murder conviction must also be executed,
3) Anyone who has served their time for murder must also be executed


It's the same principle - all these people were convicted of a crime that now carries the death sentence, and so must now be executed. Even if they have served their time, they were still convicted of murder and can now be executed.

Retroactive legislation is bad, and should not be permitted in the UN.

I'm with Cup and Fork on this one, some questions from his original post have been ignored or not clearly answered.

When there is a juvenile or mentally-ill person involved in a crime, each case should be viewed independently, there's too many aspects to take into consideration with each case.

It's the same principle - all these people were convicted of a crime that now carries the death sentence, and so must now be executed. Even if they have served their time, they were still convicted of murder and can now be executed.

Retroactive legislation is bad, and should not be permitted in the UN.
OOC: This is different from the US Supreme Court declaring it unconsititutional how?

Surely you wouldn't argue that someone sentenced under an unconstitutional law should still be punished under it?

OOC: This is different from the US Supreme Court declaring it unconsititutional how?

Surely you wouldn't argue that someone sentenced under an unconstitutional law should still be punished under it?

I wouldn't argue that - no.

But this is different because right now there is no law that says you can't put children to death. It's not illegal.

If the UN passes a law saying it is now illegal to put children to death, that doesn't mean it was never legal.

If I understand the US Constitution - it has existed since the dawn of time and doesn't change all that much. So it is a good bet that if someone interprets something as unconstitutional today, it was probably unconstitutional ten years ago, twenty years ago and so forth. So anyone who is convicted in violation of the constitution would ALWAYS have been convicted in violation of it, whether it was yesterday or ten years ago.

However no such laws exist in the UN. There is no UN constitution, the UN is not a federal government, nor should it be.

Pilot is not arguing that executing children has always been illegal - he is saying that it is now illegal and as such we should stop doing it. But that does not mean all those sentenced already were not sentenced in accordance with the law of the nation at that point, because that is clearly not true.

That's the difference.

It is good that the UN laws are not binding because this is absurd. If a mentally retarded person commits murder and isnt aware of what they are doing, then whats the point of having them around? It is the position of Tripudio that such persons are a burden on society and once have committed a heinous act should be removed from society permanantly. As for 'children' that is difficult to define. One isnt a child one minute and an adult the next so all such cases should be decided upon by looking at the dynamics of the individual case.

It is good that the UN laws are not binding because this is absurd.What makes you think that UN laws are not binding? I think you're possibly confusing the RL UN with the NationStates UN.What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Thank you for highlighting that in red for me, I do have difficulty reading the screen. With that in mind, it is a world government so whats the purpose of it? ha ha! I'll just withdraw and keept to myself, NIMBY attitude

I should quit, as it appears clear I will not be able to persuade you. Unfortunately, I'm addicted to argument.

From the original proposal

This doesn't mention executions at all - it mentions the sentences.

First, the original proposal has been updated and modified.

Second, so? It is sentences to death. It is the execution of juveniles and the mentally incompetent proposal seeks to prevent, on the grounds that such executions are wrong.


If it would only ever apply to this then I would agree, but precedent is precedent, and can be used to justify anything that follows.

Well, precedent properly applied only justifies that which logically follows. To the extent you mean precedent can be misused, anything "can be [mis]used to justify anything".


Well - no. Because if you are still permitting executions of "sane" adults then you are not treating everyone fairly under the law.

Um, the whole proposal is based on the distinction between executing juveniles and the mentally incompetent (bad) versus "sane" adults (permissible).

The proposal does not abolish capital punishment. It abolishes capital punishment for certain categories of individuals. One may support the proposal because one is against capital punishment in general, however.

Equality under the law requires treating like cases alike. The rub is identifying what are and are not like cases. The premise of the proposal is that juveniles and the mentally incompetent are not the same as sane adults when it comes to the death penalty. My further argument is that juveniles and the mentally incompetent are no more suitable for execution if they are sentenced before the proposal passes than if they were tried after it passes.


The due process of law was followed - that person was convicted of a crime for which the punishment is death. Just because the law has changed now doesn't affect the process he went through to be convicted.

I don't want to get hyper-legal and get another lawyer of the day sticker, but there are 2 problems here.

1. If the resolution passes, executions of juveniles and the mentally incompetent would appear to be cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure how one could maintain such a punishment was not cruel and unusual.

2. Due process is more than simply the quality of the process one goes through to be convicted. Due process includes both other procedural considerations and substantive rights. Here, it would be arbitrary and capricious to say "oh, you got convicted and sentenced the day before the law passed. too bad, you die."


If you are defining the death penalty as barbaric, you have to define it for all people and ban it completely. Otherwise I don't see how.

And if your arguement is that this proposal would make it a barbaric punishment for those the proposal seeks to protect, then I think the proposal is illegal because it can be argued it violates previous resolutions.

See above. The whole premise of the proposal is that the death penalty is improper for certain classes of people. This is a principled compromise with those nations that wish to have the death penalty.

[OCC: This is precisely the state of the law in the U.S. The US Supreme Court has held the death penalty is generally constitutional, but it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles or the mentally incompetent. I tend to agree with your position that the death penalty should not be used at all, but that does not mean one cannot recognize it is less permissible for some than for others.]


But these resolutions have been in place for a fair while now, and since the UN requires the implementation and activation of these laws, anyone who is on death row must have had a fair trial under the rules of due process because there is no other way around it.

I'm not saying that current death sentences are in violation of the UN resolutions requiring due process, requiring equal protection under the law, and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. I am saying that, if the proposed resolution passes, it would violate these other resolutions to still execute a juvenile or a mentally incompetent individual.

Is this distinction not clear?


Hold on - if the prohibition against double jeopardy prevents someone being sentenced to death when the original sentence was life in prison, doesn't that same prohibition prevent someone being sentenced again for the same crime? In fact - doesn't that same prohibition make this proposal totally illegal?

If you can't change someone's sentence for a crime they have already been convicted and sentenced for, how can you possibly change it in this proposal?

Setting aside other aspects of double jeopardy that aren't relevant here, think of it as a jack or ratchet. Following due process, a criminal is convicted and sentenced. The nation has taken the jack or ratchet as high as it will go. It can reduce the sentence, but it cannot seek to raise it for the same crime. This is why pardons and commuted sentences are possible.

Another way of looking at it is that the criminal can always waive a right. If you want to increase my sentence, I'm not going to agree. If you want to lower my sentence, I will. (Please don't head into the weeds of those who may be suicidal or incompetent to make this decision. Those merely add a layer of complexity and do not change the point.)


And on a larger scale - the law can not play favourites. If the law can be used to commute the death sentence for some people, then logically is should also be able to be used to enact the death sentence on some people.

See above. The law can distinguish between cases in an unbiased, principled way. The premise of the proposal is that -- even if capital punishment is appropriate for some criminals -- it is inappropriate for juveniles and the mentally incompetent.

Distinguishing juveniles and the mentally incompetent from competent adults is not discriminatory, is logical, and furthers legitimate interests.


I disagree. Everyone who is now on death row knows they will be executed, and they knew that when the sentenced was passed, and when their crime was committed. So if they committed a crime that warranted the death penalty in their nation, they should be executed for it. Anyone who is tried (if this proposal passes) knows they will not be executed and won't be.

This somewhat begs the question as some of the reasons why it is wrong to execute a juvenile or mentally incompetent individual are that such an individual may not (a) have appreciated the consequences of the crime when it was committed, (b) been able to control his/her/its actions, and/or (c) fully appreciate the death sentence.

Regardless, whether or not criminals on death row know they will be executed does not make such executions fair, equitable, or humane.


As I said above - if double jeopardy stops you from changing the sentence from life to death, then it has to stop you changing it from death to life.

See above. Double jeopardy actually only goes one way. You cannot increase a defendant's sentence (or "jeopardy"), but you can decrease it.


My theory was this.

Master Smith has been sentenced to death for killing a puppy (go with me!) He was 12 at the time of the crime, but still it was determined he knew what he was doing and that he should be executed.
But now this proposal passes, and his sentence is commuted to life in prison.

The week before his accomplice - Master Jones - was executed for the same crime. But now Master Jones has been executed for a crime that doesn't carry the death penalty, and - because the law can now be applied to all cases however far back the crime was commited - never has carried the death penalty. So clearly the government have executed someone who should not have been executed and as such are guilty of wrongful death.

Retroactivity as contemplated in the proposal does not mean that the law "never has carried the death penalty." This isn't an Orwellian re-writing of history.

All that is contemplated is that juveniles and the mentally incompetent can no longer be executed after the proposal is passed.


You are right - you haven't convinced me. If it was just this case, it might not be a problem. I oppose the death penalty in all cases (even in the cases of puppy killin) and would glady see all sentences commuted.

But if this passes, and the idea that someone sentenced to death can now be resentenced for the same crime of which he was convicted becomes accepted, then what is to stop someone doing this.

1. If you would see all sentences commuted, how is that different than what is contemplated here?

2. As explained above, double jeopardy would prevent resentencing someone to a greater punishment for the same crime.

I'm still in a quandary as to how the proposal is significant, and nobody has cleared up one of my initial concerns.

A defendant is either capable on mental grounds of standing trial or not. The criteria to meet here is fairly low, that is Trial competence refers to current ability to understand and participate in the trial process. And as CatTribe pointed out in a document Dusky set a precedent that a defendant must have adequate ability to lucidly consult with his attorney and to have rational and factual comprehension of the charges against him in order to be found CST [Competent to Stand Trial]. However, in one of the documents that CatTribe gave me it claims in the conclusion that in relation to the Dusky precedent:

Unless judges, lawyers, and forensic evaluators understand and accept their roles in the competency assessment process, the elusive goal of that process–to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial–will not be achieved.

This seems to me to be a significantly weak link in the chain of determining CST. This is something that I alluded to in an earlier post; that the system regarding who stands trial should be considered as an NSUN proposal, rather than the death penalty.

Why? Because if someone [or someone on their behalf] who claims mental deficiency is deemed CST there is a possibility of them being found guilty of a crime. Yes, obvious. If they are also found guilty and criminally responsible, despite a plea of criminal insanity, would this person have the death penalty waived under this NSUN proposal?

If you say, well no, they are obviously not mentally ill or insane, then I suppose they're up for the death penalty.

If you say, no, despite being able to stand trial and be found responsible for the crime they are still considered mentally ill, they are not subject to the death penalty under this UN proposal.

Or you could say neither of these things, and instead say it depends on the case. In which case a blanket UN policy exempting the mentally ill from any death penalty would not work, as it would rely on the nation in question to decide. The proposal would be redundant.

I guess in a very convoluted way, I am trying to say that if someone has been sentenced to death they have been (a) CST and (b) found criminally responsible. Now you either have to say in such a case that this person is either mentally ill or not. If they are mentally ill there is something wrong with the system. If they are not then why should death not be an option?

Excuse the lay language, I'm not a high-powered lawyer -or even lawyer of the day.

Thank you for highlighting that in red for me, I do have difficulty reading the screen. With that in mind, it is a world government so whats the purpose of it? ha ha! I'll just withdraw and keept to myself, NIMBY attitude

Bingo! Don't say it too loudly, or long term members start muttering and babbling things about game mechanics blah, blah ....

NS is pretty limited. The forum is the only thing that it has going for it.

I should quit, as it appears clear I will not be able to persuade you. Unfortunately, I'm addicted to argument.


This is going to be my last response, because as fun as debating things is, it gets pointless after a while :}



First, the original proposal has been updated and modified.


Eh. I couldn't find it!



Well, precedent properly applied only justifies that which logically follows. To the extent you mean precedent can be misused, anything "can be [mis]used to justify anything".


You are setting the precedent that you can alter someone's sentence by passing a new resolution that will change the laws of a nation, regardless of the laws that the person who is under the sentence was convicted by.

Just out of curiousness if I passed a resolution saying MURDER IS NOT A CRIME would you be happy to let EVERYONE out of your jails who has ever been convicted of murder? Even child murder? (I know - it would never pass, and I would never propose it. But just humour me!)


Equality under the law requires treating like cases alike. The rub is identifying what are and are not like cases. The premise of the proposal is that juveniles and the mentally incompetent are not the same as sane adults when it comes to the death penalty. My further argument is that juveniles and the mentally incompetent are no more suitable for execution if they are sentenced before the proposal passes than if they were tried after it passes.


If you treat all cases alike then you can't change the sentences for some people and not others just because a new law has been passed.


I don't want to get hyper-legal and get another lawyer of the day sticker, but there are 2 problems here.

1. If the resolution passes, executions of juveniles and the mentally incompetent would appear to be cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure how one could maintain such a punishment was not cruel and unusual.

2. Due process is more than simply the quality of the process one goes through to be convicted. Due process includes both other procedural considerations and substantive rights. Here, it would be arbitrary and capricious to say "oh, you got convicted and sentenced the day before the law passed. too bad, you die."


Why? They are sentenced under the law of the nation at the time they committed the crime.


[OCC: This is precisely the state of the law in the U.S. The US Supreme Court has held the death penalty is generally constitutional, but it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles or the mentally incompetent. I tend to agree with your position that the death penalty should not be used at all, but that does not mean one cannot recognize it is less permissible for some than for others.]


See above for why this has no connection to the NSUN.


I'm not saying that current death sentences are in violation of the UN resolutions requiring due process, requiring equal protection under the law, and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. I am saying that, if the proposed resolution passes, it would violate these other resolutions to still execute a juvenile or a mentally incompetent individual.

Is this distinction not clear?


It's clear, it's just wrong. Someone has been sentenced under the laws as they stand. And then you change the sentence that was reached in a fair, legal and acceptable (for that nation) manner. That is the effect of this proposal, and if it can applied in this way, why can it not be applied in the other way?

I have thought of a solution to this, but I will get to that at the end.



Setting aside other aspects of double jeopardy that aren't relevant here, think of it as a jack or ratchet. Following due process, a criminal is convicted and sentenced. The nation has taken the jack or ratchet as high as it will go. It can reduce the sentence, but it cannot seek to raise it for the same crime. This is why pardons and commuted sentences are possible.


I thought it was permissble to raise the sentence? I am sure in the UK people have appealed against the lieneincy (sp!!) and the sentence has been increased.


Another way of looking at it is that the criminal can always waive a right. If you want to increase my sentence, I'm not going to agree. If you want to lower my sentence, I will. (Please don't head into the weeds of those who may be suicidal or incompetent to make this decision. Those merely add a layer of complexity and do not change the point.)


But why does the criminal get the right? What if someone has been convicted of multiple child rape and murder, but given life instead of death. The next day a law passes that says from now on ALL people who rape and murder children must be executed. How come this man gets to live in jail forever, when a person sentenced the next day will be executed? How is that not cruel and unusual? It would make more sense to apply it to everyone in that case, otherwise it is clearly not fair (which is what the basis of the retrospective legislation appears to be trying to achieve)


See above. The law can distinguish between cases in an unbiased, principled way. The premise of the proposal is that -- even if capital punishment is appropriate for some criminals -- it is inappropriate for juveniles and the mentally incompetent.


Yes - but it is NOW unsuitable and inappropriate. You can not say it was always thus, because otherwise this law would have always been in place.


See above. Double jeopardy actually only goes one way. You cannot increase a defendant's sentence (or "jeopardy"), but you can decrease it.


I disagree. I think that if the UN passes this law, it would be perfectly permissble to pass a law the other way, and there would be very little arguement against it (ok - there would be a LOT of arguement, but very little good arguement!)




1. If you would see all sentences commuted, how is that different than what is contemplated here?


Because I totally oppose the death penalty as wrong and evil. But - and this is where it gets confusing - I would not force this view on anyone else, and if a law was passed today saying that no NSUN member nation could sentence anyone to death from now on, I would still not accept it if it was retrospective. (I would not accept it anyway, because it's not my place to force my view of the death penalty on other people, but that would be an extra reason not to).


2. As explained above, double jeopardy would prevent resentencing someone to a greater punishment for the same crime.

Again - I disagree.

Here is what I would support....

Take out the reference to overturning sentences that have already been decided, or make it a "urges member nations" rather than something that is forced and required. This will permit the nations to decide whether they want the legislation to be retroactive in their nation or not, and does not set such a dangerous precedent.


Also - if this proposal is passed, then repealed, nations must be free to be able to put people to death who's sentences were commutted, as if this resolution never existed. And if you can force them to rewrite their sentences under this law, then there will be nothing to stop them rewriting them back once this law is gone.

I'm starting to agree with Pilot that it is impossible to clear up your concerns, as you are now repeating essentially the same concerns that you earlier said I had addressed.

[OCC: 1. As you cite RL caselaw and articles (that I provided OC), almost all of your comments are OCCs and inappropriate. (Although I fully admit I have trouble drawing that line myself.)
2. I do not vouch for every detail in the documents I to which I provided links. They included general discussions of the distinctions between competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility -- concepts you were unable to distinguish. Nothing more for my purposes.
3. As the articles discuss nuances and concerns in implementing the concepts of CR and CST in RL, I've no doubt they provide fodder for similar concerns here. Tough. RL (and the NSUN) are better off with those concepts imperfectly implemented than without them at all. I doubt you seriously disagree.]

I'm still in a quandary as to how the proposal is significant, and nobody has cleared up one of my initial concerns.

A defendant is either capable on mental grounds of standing trial or not. The criteria to meet here is fairly low, that is Trial competence refers to current ability to understand and participate in the trial process. And as CatTribe pointed out in a document Dusky set a precedent that a defendant must have adequate ability to lucidly consult with his attorney and to have rational and factual comprehension of the charges against him in order to be found CST [Competent to Stand Trial]. However, in one of the documents that CatTribe gave me it claims in the conclusion that in relation to the Dusky precedent:

Unless judges, lawyers, and forensic evaluators understand and accept their roles in the competency assessment process, the elusive goal of that process–to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial–will not be achieved.

This seems to me to be a significantly weak link in the chain of determining CST. This is something that I alluded to in an earlier post; that the system regarding who stands trial should be considered as an NSUN proposal, rather than the death penalty.

Why? Because if someone [or someone on their behalf] who claims mental deficiency is deemed CST there is a possibility of them being found guilty of a crime. Yes, obvious. If they are also found guilty and criminally responsible, despite a plea of criminal insanity, would this person have the death penalty waived under this NSUN proposal?

If you say, well no, they are obviously not mentally ill or insane, then I suppose they're up for the death penalty.

If you say, no, despite being able to stand trial and be found responsible for the crime they are still considered mentally ill, they are not subject to the death penalty under this UN proposal.

Or you could say neither of these things, and instead say it depends on the case. In which case a blanket UN policy exempting the mentally ill from any death penalty would not work, as it would rely on the nation in question to decide. The proposal would be redundant.

Excuse the lay language, I'm not a high-powered lawyer -or even lawyer of the day.

1. A resolution regarding competence to stand trial is a fine idea, although arguably not necessary given existing protections re due process. Go for it if you wish. But it is a separate issue.

2. You just don't get it.

a. It is wrong to execute someone who was mentally incompetent at the time of the crime. This may or may not overlap with a nation's definitions of criminal responsibilty and/or insanity defense. A nation may not have an insanity defense at all. Someone who was mentally incompetent at the time of the crime may or may not be competent to stand trial. As you have had explained to you (and is explained in those articles), these are separate questions.

b. It is wrong to execute someone who is mentally incompetent at the time of the execution. [OCC: The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally incompetent. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/477/399.html ] Again, whether one was competent to stand trial and/or criminally responsible is not necessarily determinative of whether one is competent to be executed. Different time frame, different standards.

3. Thus, if the person meets the definition of mentally incompetent under this proposal, they cannot be executed. So this is the correct response:

If you say, no, despite being able to stand trial and be found responsible for the crime they are still considered mentally ill, they are not subject to the death penalty under this UN proposal.

You give no reason why this is a bad thing. To the contrary, it is a good thing.

4. To the extent you seem to be concerned that someone will "escape" execution despite being competent to stand trial and criminally responsible, you ignore that the same evidence that led to those earlier determinations will be admissible to determine whether the criminal may be executed. Further, the fact that they were competent to stand trial and criminally responsible would be evidence that they are competent to be executed.

5. To the extent you are concerned about the exact details of how competency will be determined, you are simply not being realistic. What you are asking for is a detailed criminal procedures statute. Not only would that be unwelcome to almost everyone (probably including you), it is not feasible under the constrictions of the UN. [OCC: word-limit, for example.]

Could someone explain this "the UN urges" to me, because it doesn't make any sense.

The NSUN is all powerful, a resolution either affects all nations or none. If you say "the UN urges" then it has no effect, there may as well be no resolution.

Or is this just an "in the spirit of the game" kind of RP thing?

Two issues:

1. I raised a concern about alcoholism being a disease of the mind which ought to be recognised as such under this resolution. I was hoping this would be addressed as my vote essentially turns on that issue now. Please see my last post for more detail.

2. There's a some good legal argumentation going on here, but let's not overdo it. I for one don't recognise the US case law as anything more than persuasive in my studies and work, just as I expect that you would not consider the law of the RL jurisdiction I am in, that of England and Wales, as anything more than persuasive. The case law and academic writings from a single jurisdiction should not be considered authoritative in a NS debate, but I appreciate that you are probably (hopefully) not passing it off deliberately as such.

Obviously it's useful to rely on RL legal arguments to make a point here, and I have done so myself in the past, but this is turning into something that is more likely to alienate the majority of people who haven't studied or aren't lawyers, than convince them.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]
Further, the fact that they were competent to stand trial and criminally responsible would be evidence that they are competent to be executed.

Please, humour me a while longer, because you have finally hit upon what I am trying to get across. And please, stop with the moralising, you can only guess at what what my moral and ethical position on this topic is - i don't see the purpose of it in a forum like this.

So if your above statement is true, what use is the proposal to any NSUN nation?

I am afraid I have an inherent tendency to get overly legalistic in my arguments. Thank you, Mickey Blueeyes, for the reminder to avoid this. I may need beaten with the "bad lawyer" stick from time to time.

[OCC: I must admit, however, that it is very frustrating to debate the meaning of legal terms. Resolution #47 is the US 5th Amendment word for word. That said, I hope I have been clear that RL caselaw is persuasive authority at best in a NSUN debate.]

1. I raised a concern about alcoholism being a disease of the mind which ought to be recognised as such under this resolution. I was hoping this would be addressed as my vote essentially turns on that issue now. Please see my last post for more detail.

I am uncertain what current wording Pilot is considering, but the language that raised your concern was this language that I proposed:

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
Defines “mentally incompetent” as having:
(1) (a) mental retardation or (b) a severe mental disorder or disability;
(2) that significantly impairs the capacity (a) to appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of conduct, (b) to exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or (c) to conform conduct to the requirements of the law.
A disorder manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable solely to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs does not, standing alone, constitute a mental disorder or disability for purposes of this provision.

I believe I understand and am sympathetic to your concern. IMHO, the second sentence distinquishes between impairment due to volutary alchohol use and would not necessarily exclude alcoholism. (Of course, alcoholism itself doesn't necessarily equally mental incompetence.) If one met the definition of mentally incompetent and that was not due solely to the acute effects of voluntary use of alcohol, one could not be executed.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]
Further, the fact that they were competent to stand trial and criminally responsible would be evidence that they are competent to be executed.

Please, humour me a while longer, because you have finally hit upon what I am trying to get across. And please, stop with the moralising, you can only guess at what what my moral and ethical position on this topic is - i don't see the purpose of it in a forum like this.

So if your above statement is true, what use is the proposal to any NSUN nation?

I am not sure which moralizing you object to. If it is my moralizing on the subject of the proposal, that is fully appropriate. Among the many reasons why it is a bad idea to execute juveniles and the mentally incompetent is that it is immoral.

As to your question, I've explained this several times. You assume all nations have an insanity defense. They may or may not. Although I think some existining resolutions (such as due process) would require that defendants be competent to stand trial, I do not believe there is any express requirement. So, again, we are making assumptions.

Even if a nation does have an insanity defense and a standard for competence to stand trial, those standards are not the same and do not necessarily look at the same time periods as this proposal. For example, one with a progressive mental illness could be competent at the time a crime was committed and competent to stand trial, but stark raving mad prior to execution.

Finally, this works as an additional prophylactic measure to prevent execution of those who may slip through the cracks of competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility.

OK. I'm done posting on this topic for a while. I've already talked too much.

Could someone explain this "the UN urges" to me, because it doesn't make any sense.

The NSUN is all powerful, a resolution either affects all nations or none. If you say "the UN urges" then it has no effect, there may as well be no resolution.

Or is this just an "in the spirit of the game" kind of RP thing?

It's a statement of intent thing. For example if I was writing a resolution about computer viruses and say "URGES all nations to ensure that their government networks, secure sites and so forth are protected by proper firewalls and anti-virus software" meaning that I think it is a good idea, and would recommend every person follow that idea, but I am not going to make it a law that they have to be protected because I don't think it is my place to.

In regard to this if someone urged me to review all cases where someone has been sentenced to death, then I would probably do that, but if I find that one child who has been sentenced to death had full and complete knowledge of what he was doing, I would be able to comute the rest while still executing him.

And in this case it makes the distinction between forcing retrospective legislation on to the UN and allowing the member nations and not forcing such a thing.

I wouldn't argue that - no.

But this is different because right now there is no law that says you can't put children to death. It's not illegal.

If the UN passes a law saying it is now illegal to put children to death, that doesn't mean it was never legal.

If I understand the US Constitution - it has existed since the dawn of time and doesn't change all that much. So it is a good bet that if someone interprets something as unconstitutional today, it was probably unconstitutional ten years ago, twenty years ago and so forth. So anyone who is convicted in violation of the constitution would ALWAYS have been convicted in violation of it, whether it was yesterday or ten years ago.

However no such laws exist in the UN. There is no UN constitution, the UN is not a federal government, nor should it be.

Pilot is not arguing that executing children has always been illegal - he is saying that it is now illegal and as such we should stop doing it. But that does not mean all those sentenced already were not sentenced in accordance with the law of the nation at that point, because that is clearly not true.

That's the difference.
It's not retroactive at all.
Pilot's not proposing that governments be prosecuted for past executions - that would be retroactive legislation.

Does this proposal change the legality of what the child did in any way? I thought Pilot had already changed the wording so that the convictions are not overturned, and that they would have to be resentenced as the national governments see fit.

There are any number of examples of legislation passed in the middle of a long-term project that means the project cannot proceed. It is not retroactive legislation to designate an area a national park and halt logging operations. It is not retroactive legislation to cancel a fighter jet. To take a more pertinant example, it is not retroactive legislation to ban cigarettes in prisons.

It's not retroactive at all.
Pilot's not proposing that governments be prosecuted for past executions - that would be retroactive legislation.


He is suggesting that the judicial system have to resentence someone for a crime they have already been convicted of. Not because there is any new evidence, or because the trial was conducted wrongly, but because a new law says that the sentence that was passed was illegal. Which it clearly wasn't.


Does this proposal change the legality of what the child did in any way? I thought Pilot had already changed the wording so that the convictions are not overturned, and that they would have to be resentenced as the national governments see fit.


Again - the sentences are being changed for no other reason than this law. If there was new evidence then fine. If the trial had been conducted wrongly under the laws that were in place when it was conducted fine. But neither of those situations are true in this case.


There are any number of examples of legislation passed in the middle of a long-term project that means the project cannot proceed. It is not retroactive legislation to designate an area a national park and halt logging operations.


No - but if you punish the loggers for work they have already done, then it would be.


To take a more pertinant example, it is not retroactive legislation to ban cigarettes in prisons.

No - but if you punish anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette in prison under this law then it would be.

My problem is this law is enacting a rule that the sentence that was given five years ago was illegal by virtue of a law passed today. That is CLEARLY retroactive legislation and as such should not be allowed in the UN.

Haven't been keeping up with this retroactivity debate... in my view retroactivity ought to be included, excluded and/or qualified expressly in a resolution like this. If we are to let doubt benefit the convicted there should certainly be retroactivity as to their sentence ie they're taken off death row. As for state liability I would suggest there are very strong arguments for limiting this, ie a provision should be included limiting or excluding liability.

The point is, whether retroactive or not, this ought to be settled by clear words in the proposal.

Thanks for the quick reply regarding alcoholism.. I can't say I'm 100% reassured. I'd suggest a rephrasing to the effect of voluntary intoxication not qualifying as mental incompetence on its own, but this without prejudice to recognised diseases of the mind where addiction is material.

He is suggesting that the judicial system have to resentence someone for a crime they have already been convicted of. Not because there is any new evidence, or because the trial was conducted wrongly, but because a new law says that the sentence that was passed was illegal. Which it clearly wasn't.

It is not saying that at all. That was the point I was trying to make.

The sentence that was passed was not illegal. Carrying it out after this passed would be illegal.

I don't feel like you're really listening, here.

It is not saying that at all. That was the point I was trying to make.

The sentence that was passed was not illegal. Carrying it out after this passed would be illegal.

I don't feel like you're really listening, here.

I am listening, and either you are not understanding me or I am not understanding you.

The proposal is asking that the sentence be set aside because under this proposal the sentence of death can not be passed on children or the mentally incapable. Thus it is declaring that sentence illegal under UN law.

This is the quote from "version 2" of the draft (if there is a later version I haven't seen it and that is maybe where the confusion lies)


Declares accordingly that any being convicted of any crime cannot be sentenced to a punishment of death if they are: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent;

Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of all beings within those two groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding;


It doesn't say that the act is illegal, it says that they "cannot be sentenced to death" and that "all existing convictions must be abolished".

Oh my goddess - I came back to edit this, and then re-read it. This is not saying that the sentence of death should be redefined, it now says that THE CONVICTIONS should be abolished. So that means anyone who was convicted of a capital offence will now have the conviction overturned. Not just the sentence, but the conviction itself.

How is that acceptable? How is that not a gross violation of due process? How has no one else spotted this?

Even if I am misunderstanding that, it is saying that the sentence of death for those who are too young or too mentally incapable to understand it is now illegal, and that anyone who was given that sentence before this proposal passed was also given it illegally and it must be set aside. Which means they are altering the outcome of a trial that took place before the law was passed, which makes it retrospective and therefore wrong.

But seriously - this draft calls for anyone who is a child to have their conviction overturned, not just their sentence. Which is seriously wrong!

Declares accordingly that all existing convictions of all beings within those two groups are hereby abolished, and sentences to be redefined by an appropriate judge or legal proceeding

Ah, I see your point now.
Yes, I agree that's no good. The convictions themselves shouldn't be overturned.

p.s. Steel Butterfly is appealing to have my nationstate and my entire region deleted. If she's successful, when I come back it will be with something about YGSM in my nation name.

I see your point, TilEnca. I think this is more an oversight than a deliberate attempt at overturning criminal convictions for those who were found guilty, and I also do think it needs to be amended for clarity.

If we understand this resolution to introduce a defence against a specific SENTENCE, and not a defence at the trial and conviction stage, I think the only sensible thing to do is remove any reference to 'conviction' and leave it at the judge redefining the sentence but upholding the conviction.

I'm hoping this is a case of mixed terminology.

Even if that happens, I still have an objection to overturning the sentence as well. Because it is saying in no uncertain terms that the sentence that was given in a court of law, in accordance with the laws of that nation as they stood at the time of the sentence, was illegal and must be set aside.

Since it will most likely have to be amended to remove the conviction stuff, could I suggest that it be changed to "urge a review" of the sentences rather than force one?

1. Pilot recognized that he erred in saying convictions, as opposed to sentences, would be overturned.

Here is his statement on that:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8363551&postcount=74

In a later post I suggested his language was still overbroad in that it should only overturn death sentences of juveniles and the mentally incompetent.

2. I earlier posted an overly legalistic and wordy proposal. Pilot indicated he was inclined to work some of my suggestions into his proposal. We have not yet seen a new draft of his proposal.

FWIW, here is my suggestion:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8366909&postcount=86

3. What if the resolution simply stated that juveniles and the mentally incompetent could not be executed?

In other words, the relevant line would read something like:

Declares accordingly that from this point forward no one may be executed for commission of a crime if they are: (1) a juvenile and/or (2) mentally incompetent

I realize this will still have what TilEnca considers a retroactive effect, although I think it is less blatant. I think this clearly does not create some retroactive cause of action for wrongful death from past executions.

4. I won't get back into the debate about retroactivity as my points lead into further legalisms. I do think if the resolution is changed to prohibit future executions, it is no more retroactive than most UN resolutions. I'll give just a couple of quick examples:

DVD region removal
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mercia

Description: The removal of regions in DVD's that prevent a user from one region watching the DVD's form another. One region is all we[] need.

As a manufacturer of DVDs my entire stock just got outlawed.

End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous

Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

Pursuant to the laws of my nation, I paid good money for my slaves. Suddenly they are free? What if they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to slavery?

I don't see the review of sentences as a huge problem. I think it's important to recognise that review of sentences takes place all the time (ie probation, reduced sentence for good behaviour etc) and also that a sentence is ongoing. Someone's made the point to the effect that if a sentence is made illegal for new convictions, the ongoing sentences no longer have a foundation in law. Which is the greater evil? A law being passed to force reduced sentences for past crimes or keeping the sentences when they are no longer endorsed by the state as punishment for crimes. Especially when the stakes are this high. We are not setting a precedent for retroactivity of all legislation with this; this is an isolated case which only concerns sentence, and I believe it is perfectly justifiable.

As a manufacturer of DVDs my entire stock just got outlawed.


But they can't prosecute you for making them. Because when they were made they were not illegal. It just means you have to destroy them now because you can't sell them. Selling them now would be illegal - you would be breaking the law.


Pursuant to the laws of my nation, I paid good money for my slaves. Suddenly they are free? What if they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to slavery?

The second part is a good point, but this law was passed before I joined the UN, and there is not a lot I can do about it (short of getting it repealed, which might be fun!). The first part - well so what? You did not commit a crime then, and won't be punished for it. But you have to set them free now or you will breaking the law.

I don't see the review of sentences as a huge problem. I think it's important to recognise that review of sentences takes place all the time (ie probation, reduced sentence for good behaviour etc) and also that a sentence is ongoing. Someone's made the point to the effect that if a sentence is made illegal for new convictions, the ongoing sentences no longer have a foundation in law. Which is the greater evil? A law being passed to force reduced sentences for past crimes or keeping the sentences when they are no longer endorsed by the state as punishment for crimes. Especially when the stakes are this high. We are not setting a precedent for retroactivity of all legislation with this; this is an isolated case which only concerns sentence, and I believe it is perfectly justifiable.

So what if tomorrow a resolution passes that says anyone convicted of murder must be executed? And this applies to anyone in jail for the crime of murder?

By your arguement it would be a greater crime to not execute those who were not originally sentenced to death than to let them live and only sentence new people who are convicted.

And this does set a precedent, as it will be written in to law that the UN has the power to change the laws of a country and effect things that were decided before the resolution was passed. Which is not right.

So what if tomorrow a resolution passes that says anyone convicted of murder must be executed? And this applies to anyone in jail for the crime of murder?

By your arguement it would be a greater crime to not execute those who were not originally sentenced to death than to let them live and only sentence new people who are convicted.

And this does set a precedent, as it will be written in to law that the UN has the power to change the laws of a country and effect things that were decided before the resolution was passed. Which is not right.
You have it backwards. That would be retroactive. If a new resolution passed tomorrow and said life in prison was immoral and that anyone sentenced to life in prison must be either set free after some amount of time or executed, that would not be retroactive.

You have it backwards. That would be retroactive. If a new resolution passed tomorrow and said life in prison was immoral and that anyone sentenced to life in prison must be either set free after some amount of time or executed, that would not be retroactive.

Again - I disagree.

But I am tired of disagreeing, so I will just see whether this passes or not and decide what to do from there.

So what if tomorrow a resolution passes that says anyone convicted of murder must be executed? And this applies to anyone in jail for the crime of murder?

By your arguement it would be a greater crime to not execute those who were not originally sentenced to death than to let them live and only sentence new people who are convicted.

And this does set a precedent, as it will be written in to law that the UN has the power to change the laws of a country and effect things that were decided before the resolution was passed. Which is not right.

a) If that resolution looked set to pass I would instantly leave the UN (although the proposition is absurd).

b) Double negatives confuse me.. so I got rid of them: 'it would be a greater crime to execute those who were originally sentenced to death than to let them live and only sentence new people who were convicted'. I don't really understand, but I'm assuming you're talking about if this hypothetical automatic death penalty would pass. If it did, I would have left the UN.

c) For something to set a precedent it would need to be of general application - there is nothing in this resolution to indicate that this is the case. But I do see your point to a certain extent, there is an implied acceptance of retroactivity. I would then suggest a clause stating that the retroactivity applies specifically to this resolution. Maybe the authors will agreee.

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just doing my very best to sway you because I think you can be rescued from the dark side.. ;)

a) If that resolution looked set to pass I would instantly leave the UN (although the proposition is absurd).


Me too. And - by the by - someone proposed it. I am not making it up - it was a real proposal.


b) Double negatives confuse me.. so I got rid of them: 'it would be a greater crime to execute those who were originally sentenced to death than to let them live and only sentence new people who were convicted'. I don't really understand, but I'm assuming you're talking about if this hypothetical automatic death penalty would pass. If it did, I would have left the UN.


I meant that Mr Smith was sentenced for murder five years ago, but given life instead of death. And today that resolution passed. And tomorrow Mr Jones is sentenced for murder and - by the law - given death. According to the arguement you made - that it would be unfair to apply the law to some and not to others - you would have to execute Mr Smith as well as Mr Jones, even though Mr Smith was not sentenced to death originally.

That would be what this proposal would permit in the UN.


c) For something to set a precedent it would need to be of general application - there is nothing in this resolution to indicate that this is the case. But I do see your point to a certain extent, there is an implied acceptance of retroactivity. I would then suggest a clause stating that the retroactivity applies specifically to this resolution. Maybe the authors will agreee.


And I say if it is replaced with "urges" rather than "demands" then it would be totally acceptable to me and have more or less the same effect. Yes it might leave people to be executed, but most people would accept it is a thing to do. I even accept it is a thing to do, but this is not the way to do it.


I'm really not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just doing my very best to sway you because I think you can be rescued from the dark side.. ;)

I really can't :}

I actually mostly agree with you - except I'd say that the glass is half full and I'll take the liberty to say that you suggest it's half empty.

The example you gave is logical and is what retroactivity would entail if an automatic death penalty resolution would be passed. Obviously that is insupportable, at least to me. That is why I say that this is not of general application and would suggest, for clarity, that this should be expressly stated. But turn your own example inside out ie because of this resolution Mr Jones and Mr Smith won't get executed.. is that insupportable?
Retroacticity is powerful statutory tool, but in these specific circumstances, it is justifiable. It wouldn't be with an automatic death penalty. That makes moral sense to me. I don't see why we should apply an absolute rule of non-retroactivity in all circumstances.

The problem I have with 'urges' is that I just don't think there should be a discretion involved - the reduction of sentence should be universal across the board if the mental incompetence can be shown. That is a moral standpoint I can't compromise on, as much as I can appreciate what you're saying..

I don't think there's much more I can add to this, and it's late, so this will be my last post on this matter, at least for now. Thanks for the argument!

Is there a reviewable text for the latest draft of this proposition?
What is its current statutory definition of mental incompetence?
Would Pilot be interested in an exemption for Psychopaths and or Sociopaths that are dangerous to others and incapable of being treated?
(Or should we let everyone go so that justice can be done by sundown?)

There has been a little bit of a push to repeal the death penalty altogether in the United Nations, and I don't think every nation is ready to accept that (even Pilot has the death penalty in certain cases). But, I believe that we can find some common ground on this issue, and I think I have come up with a draft proposal that I would like as many opinions on (and I mean opinions, not "OMG NTRL SOVERETY U SUCK" flames). Here it is:

One must realize the consequences of their actions. If a criminal is found to be cognizant of the proceedings, then they will face the full, unadulterated penaltiy for their crimes. The Federation of United Clan Kinsmen enforces the death penalty, expeditiously.

BTW, The Federation of United Clan Kinsmen has no 'mentally retarded or physically challenged' citizens thanks to stringent, universal prenatal testing.

One must realize the consequences of their actions. If a criminal is found to be cognizant of the proceedings, then they will face the full, unadulterated penaltiy for their crimes. The Federation of United Clan Kinsmen enforces the death penalty, expeditiously.

BTW, The Federation of United Clan Kinsmen has no 'mentally retarded or physically challenged' citizens thanks to stringent, universal prenatal testing.

The point, which you appear to have missed, is that if they are incapable (through insanity or because they're not legally considered to be responsible for themselves) of recognising the consequences of their actions, they should not be put to death for them.

The point, which you appear to have missed, is that if they are incapable (through insanity or because they're not legally considered to be responsible for themselves) of recognising the consequences of their actions, they should not be put to death for them.

OH heck, they them it's an E-ticket ride and give them the juice. :rolleyes:

Ecopoeia will support moves to restrict use of the death penalty in UN member states.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The key word here is Euthanasia

The point, which you appear to have missed, is that if they are incapable (through insanity or because they're not legally considered to be responsible for themselves) of recognising the consequences of their actions, they should not be put to death for them.

My only contention here is the broad application of mental incompetence that appeared in one post. It allows for even those capable of recognizing the consequencees of their actions to be deemed mentally incompetent.

My only contention here is the broad application of mental incompetence that appeared in one post. It allows for even those capable of recognizing the consequencees of their actions to be deemed mentally incompetent.

I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but you are only partially right. You can be aware of what you have done now, be competent to stand trial, but you may have been mental incompetent at the time of the alleged offence - you may not be held criminal responsible for your actions.

That is, being competent to stand trial and being responsible of the offence are two separate issues.

Hi. Can I ask hear if anyone will give me a endorsmant for the un? I need 2.

Thank you

Hi. Can I ask hear if anyone will give me a endorsmant for the un? I need 2.

Thank you
Talk to your region.