NationStates Jolt Archive

Right to Refuse Extradition

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant

ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

To view previous discussion on this proposal, please see this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418141

Many thanks to Myopia, Ecopoeia, Nargopa, Sober Thought, and the many others who helped me with this.

Your support is humbly requested, your comments valued, and your questions welcomed. Thank you.

Oh look, one for the National Soverignty nuts to support....

*quietly presses the "Support" button and walks away... then stops and states to no one in particular*

You might telegram Texas Hotrodders about this one, he seems to have a bit of a thing for this sort of resolution.

I shall, thank you. And, thanks for your support *tries not to sound like a politician*

I shall, thank you. And, thanks for your support *tries not to sound like a politician*

OOC: Politician, no. "Bartles and James" commercial, yes. ;)

My support has been granted, i think this is a good resolution at heart :)

After much umming and aahing, I have decided to lend my nation's support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Thank you all for your support *breaks out the Bartle and James*

We don't see the point of this. Fass can already, and does, refuse any sort of extradition of its own citizens. This resolution doesn't really do anything, and is borderline illegal with the "without fear of military reprisal" part...

We don't see the point of this. Fass can already, and does, refuse any sort of extradition of its own citizens. This resolution doesn't really do anything, and is borderline illegal with the "without fear of military reprisal" part...
This proposal would not only apply to citizens of Fass, but citizens of other UN nations captured as fugitives in Fass. Also, after discussion with mods and other nation states, I'm confident that the proposal, as worded, is not illegal.

This proposal would not only apply to citizens of Fass, but citizens of other UN nations captured as fugitives in Fass.

We can already refuse those extraditions as well, and do in many cases where we fear wrongful incarceration, torture, death penalty and other human rights violations. This resolution doesn't give anyone anything they don't already have.

Also, after discussion with mods and other nation states, I'm confident that the proposal, as worded, is not illegal.

The rule on not trying to control what happens in RP situations is what I come to think of. It's late, maybe there isn't such a rule and I may be mistaken.

OOC: Politician, no. "Bartles and James" commercial, yes. ;)


Thanks for mentioning those old ads. I loved them. My dad even got his picture taken with those two guys.

The rule on not trying to control what happens in RP situations is what I come to think of. It's late, maybe there isn't such a rule and I may be mistaken.
I believe Saint Uriel discussed this exact issue with the mods, and they deemed it legal.

SU, you have my support. Best of luck.

After recieving a telegram, I have come to the rescue!! Apparently I'm "that national sovereignty guy" or something. ;)

I want to congratulate Saint Uriel on a very good proposal.

It's legal (barely) and in the appropriate category, which tend to be the problems with proposals that promote national sovereignty.

The proposal is firm in the principle it advocates, but the wording is vague enough to allow for a more savvy sovereign nation to decide to wiggle out of it.

I like it!! It promotes a nation's sovereignty without totally ruining the sovereignty of the other nations involved.

The proposal is firm in the principle it advocates, but the wording is vague enough to allow for a more savvy sovereign nation to decide to wiggle out of it.

I like it!! It promotes a nation's sovereignty without totally ruining the sovereignty of the other nations involved.
Thank you! That was one of my goals.

Although NationStates does not, of course, equal real life - I find that UN resolutions usually have loopholes, just like in real life. What fun would laws be without loopholes? And just think of all those poor, out of work lawyers.

For instance, my proposal doesn't say anything about economic sanctions. So, a nation refusing to extradite could still be hit with economic sanctions by other nation states. Isn't it a wonderful world?

On another note, 70 approvals! Almost half way there! Thanks to all the supporters! I believe the appropriate word is "w00t"!

Update: We're now at 98 approvals, about 2/3 of the way there. We might just get this thing to a general vote. w00t's all around.

More seriously, thanks to all who have helped. Please don't stop now. :)

I think this is a good idea and i will support it.

Well, looks like I'm wrong about the legality - so I owe you that drink, don't I Saint Uriel?

What'll it be?

Well, looks like I'm wrong about the legality - so I owe you that drink, don't I Saint Uriel?

What'll it be?
Guiness is my favourite, but lets save it to see if this thing actually passes. :)

You have the support of the WotC delegate, as well. :)

Approvals: 122

Status: Lacking Support (requires 28 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 16 2005

Your doing well, good luck. Almost there, probably will go to vote, lets hope so.

Approvals: 122

Status: Lacking Support (requires 28 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 16 2005

Your doing well, good luck. Almost there, probably will go to vote, lets hope so.
Let's hope so. Thanks for the encouragement. My fingers are crossed. I really feel that this is one that the entire UN should get a chance to vote on.

Let's hope so. Thanks for the encouragement. My fingers are crossed. I really feel that this is one that the entire UN should get a chance to vote on.
As do most people who put forward their own proposals :p Like my abortion rights repeal

8 more approvals needed, i think it is going to succeed. Congrats.

Right to Refuse Extradition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Uriel

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

Approvals: 145 (Nevscrow, Ficticious Proportions, TheSensitiveNewAge, Vastiva, The Philosophes, Aipotu ym, America-Canada-Mexico, Wegason, Wealthists, Ateelatay, Monadnock, Ophainia, BlackWallstreet, Mikeswill, Finbergia, Lunatic Retard Robots, Davarin, Ultrasilvania, Black Thirteen, Armed Love, Mattabooloo, Dornolius, Siaka, Tolstan, Micropolis, The Fro Royal Family, SouthFerns, FairyTInkArisen, Sincroferbistan, Erehwon Forest, Mothalsi, Komani, I Still Like Oranges, Gaiah, His Majesty, Chongjin, New Cyberia, Crazy Horses IV, Bestiville, Noxinland, Arglemeton, Groot Gouda, Fishy19, Jiangland, Mistauve, Borgoa, Republic of Freedonia, Cav, Dangertk, TropicalMontana, Spaz Land, Archoz, Cullinania, Meshuggeners, Jjuulliiaann, Qadia, Markodonia, The New 100 Donuts, Catronia Marks, Krigerania, Whitekong, Izalium, Many Armed Republicans, Spurland, Silicia, The Cariebbean, Cornflake Gremlins, Bremmin, Sorrow Crown, Voshonia, Erroneous Errol Island, Laueria, Irinistan, Latouria, The Hunter Isles, Moroboshi, Aquarian Arcadia, Elomeras, Nargopia, Hegartydom, Arturius, Nothing Inc, Natashenka, Barnabas Butterbur, The Republic of Orack, Mehleesser, Kalmar_dk, Ishlaha, Icha, Roycelandia, Aspidistraaaaaa, Aylandlandfive, Oilsjt, Diamond Realms, Sabrinedia, Unknown Peoples, New Rheged, Tactical PIE, San Ardor, Pilantras, Aminal, Cristia Agape, Antrium, The Shadow-Kai, Dusashroom, Awesome Possumdor, Jimoria, JavaX, Tyyrus, Kreisau, Othelma, Dorksonia, Kilobugya, Cafziland, Alibakkar, Allatam, Thie Romulans, Einfuhlung, Woodrift, Yippie and Yay, Meryl Streep, Windleheim, Sonic The Hedgehogs, Voyagous, Manea, Allers, Collonie, McAnirlin, Snufflelufflegus Land, Melmond, Bintopia, Vedinius I, Chickenzrus, Bohicaville, The Talisman, Keilbasa, Manhands, Fenrig, Fart Blossom, Serene Forests, The Pojonian Puppet, Serriani, Logical-ish Vulcans, Xochilli, Yelda)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 5 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 16 2005

You're at the wire. And we're still considering what to do about your abortion bill - we're divided between special forces and nuclear attack.

You're at the wire. And we're still considering what to do about your abortion bill - we're divided between special forces and nuclear attack.
Well then, if you support abortion up until birth, i believe you to be in support of murder.

Well then, if you support abortion up until birth, i believe you to be in support of murder.

You can only murder something which is human, and has rights. Parasites have neither.

We believe in the rights of the individual, not pantywaisted twits who have no interest beyond rampant and ignorant "morality" in the matter. If you are not directly involved, you have no right to speak.

Are you certain you wish to go into this discussion?

Approved - I apologize for missing this earlier.

....Logical-ish Vulcans, Xochilli, Yelda, Krioval, Roman Republics, Chelseas scalp, Equitarius)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 1 more approval)

Voting Ends: Mon May 16 2005

You can only murder something which is human, and has rights. Parasites have neither.

We believe in the rights of the individual, not pantywaisted twits who have no interest beyond rampant and ignorant "morality" in the matter. If you are not directly involved, you have no right to speak.

Are you certain you wish to go into this discussion?

If you believe that a unborn child nearing the end of a pregnancy is a parasite then you really do not hold any regard for life.

Rampant and ignorant "morality"? im a social liberal hearted person. I do not like the religious right of america, i do not agree at all with those who threaten and take action against abortion clinics and their doctors.

I believe that abortions should be allowed up until a certain time period, be in 16, 18 or 24 weeks. I don't think many of us want to go back to back street abortions, for this reason alone abortion must be legal.

I just happen to believe that aborting a child after 24 weeks without reasons of severe disabilities or threat to woman's life is wrong due to the ability of babies to survive in some cases outside the womb after this point (and sometimes before). I am always ready to debate my views and discuss them, to find out what other people think and listen to them without resorting to petty name calling. If i am available (we all live real lives), i am perfectly willing to discuss issues and i do in the general forum.

(I have an exam in an hour and a quarter and so will not be available for the next 5)

If you believe that a unborn child nearing the end of a pregnancy is a parasite then you really do not hold any regard for life.

That is your trite opinion.



Rampant and ignorant "morality"? im a social liberal hearted person. I do not like the religious right of america, i do not agree at all with those who threaten and take action against abortion clinics and their doctors.

How pleasant for you.



I believe that abortions should be allowed up until a certain time period, be in 16, 18 or 24 weeks. I don't think many of us want to go back to back street abortions, for this reason alone abortion must be legal.

And yet, you are putting in limitations. Do you know what "hypocrite" means?



I just happen to believe that aborting a child after 24 weeks without reasons of severe disabilities or threat to woman's life is wrong due to the ability of babies to survive in some cases outside the womb after this point (and sometimes before). I am always ready to debate my views and discuss them, to find out what other people think and listen to them without resorting to petty name calling. If i am available (we all live real lives), i am perfectly willing to discuss issues and i do in the general forum.

(I have an exam in an hour and a quarter and so will not be available for the next 5)

We functionally and actually disagree with you - the person's ability to choose is sancrosanct, as is that they must deal with the results of their own choices.

We do not see how it can be a choice - but only for a time. We do not see the need for legislation here; our nation offers alternatives, and does make several more... appealing.

However, the choice remains that of the woman herself and no other. As such, we make and leave these choices available to her, to do as she will do, up to the moment the parasite passes our three way test, at which time it becomes a human being with rights.

Until that point, it is a parasite, and is treated no differently then a liver fluke or a bacteria insofar as the Law is concerned.

Any other belief system, we respect, but we do not agree with.

Firstly, what the bally hell has this to do with extradition?

Secondly, I'm one of that rare type. I believe abortion is murder, but I do not want it illegalised. it is a matter that can only be made by an individual. Some people believe it is murder; some think it is the same as killing a parasite. There is no definitive answer; for it is an unanswerable question. Therefore the individual in question must make that descision, not government; if you believe abortion is murder (such as myself), don't have an abortion. If you believe it is a parasite (an interesting way of putting it, Vastiva!), have all the abortions you want.

...and this has reached quorum.

Congratulations, guys. Looks like we have a new resolution to vote on! :D

Thank you all for the support. I'm extremely grateful for all the feedback and suggestions I received on this resolution. Let's hope the UN at large sees fit to pass this.

And, as Vastiva pointed out, my resolution has exactly jack to do with abortion. Please don't hijack this thread. There are plenty of other threads dealing with abortion. (although I do appreciate the bumps) Many thanks.

I voted yes. In my opinion the resolution is good, but does little more than put into words what Amnalos would do anyway.

Approved - I apologize for missing this earlier.
We thank Krioval for this. It will not be forgotten.

I know textual changes aren't allowed at this stage...but 'acknoweldging'? Are you allowed to simply correct typos? It would clean up what would otherwise appear to be a fairly straightforward resolution. We vote 'yes' (although perhaps express reservations at 'reasonably believes' - this appears to allow for a possible abuse of interpretation).

I know textual changes aren't allowed at this stage...but 'acknoweldging'? Are you allowed to simply correct typos? It would clean up what would otherwise appear to be a fairly straightforward resolution. We vote 'yes' (although perhaps express reservations at 'reasonably believes' - this appears to allow for a possible abuse of interpretation).
I think its too late for me to correct that finger slip. Oh well. And possible abuse has always been what makes resolutions fun to me. What good is a law without a loophole? It would be as much fun as a politician without corruption. :) Seriously though, I thank you for your support.

I'm a little late to the game but before I vote I was wondering if I understand this resolution correctly;

---------------------------
Nation A is holding a fugitive of Justice from Nation B.
Nation B wants Nation A to give up the fugitive.

Nation A doesn't have to give up the fugitive if they feel that Nation B is going to give the death penalty, and can hold the fugitive without fear of Military reprisal.
---------------------------

Is that correct?

I'm a little late to the game but before I vote I was wondering if I understand this resolution correctly;

---------------------------
Nation A is holding a fugitive of Justice from Nation B.
Nation B wants Nation A to give up the fugitive.

Nation A doesn't have to give up the fugitive if they feel that Nation B is going to give the death penalty, and can hold the fugitive without fear of Military reprisal.
---------------------------

Is that correct?
You got it, Oden. That's pretty much it. Any further details (such as exactly what is Nation A going to end up doing with said fugitive) would hopefully be worked out diplomatically between the two nations.

I agree with this approval because i believe it leaves the possibility that extradition treaties can be made between members. Also, i helped get it to quorum so i will be asking my region to vote to approve of this resolution

You reached quorum a day early, and that's no surprise. Good resolution.

I do wonder about the typo thing, though - if an author is aware of it, you'd think there might be a way to fix it. Ah well.

Yeah, its a thorn in my side because I spelled "acknowledging" correctly in the first clause. Oh well.

I voted yes. In my opinion the resolution is good, but does little more than put into words what Amnalos would do anyway.

And offers protection for you to do so surely, by removing a large part of the risk of military retaliation.

Your resoloution designed to affirm the sovereignty of a nation, appears to me to do quite the opposite. I am new to the game, but I am assuming that there is already a resoloution that covers extradition between U.N. nations. If this is true, doesn't this resoloution start to take away the sovereign right to capital punishment, by forceing nations to remove these laws so that wanted fugitives may be returned to face the consequences of their crime.

Well written there are no obvious loop holes and is a good resolution. I support it big time

You got it, Oden. That's pretty much it. Any further details (such as exactly what is Nation A going to end up doing with said fugitive) would hopefully be worked out diplomatically between the two nations.

So this resolution is specifically design to protect nations that intentionally choose to harbor international criminals in hopes that extradition treaties are drawn up? If the nations are not in agreement on how they handle justice to fugitives, what are the odds that they will agree on terms for a treaty?

To me, this seems to to nothing but encourage criminals to run for the boarder to escape punishments for their crimes, furthering thier belief that they can get away with whatever they want if they escape the authorities.

:confused: Help me if I'm missing something...

So this resolution is specifically design to protect nations that intentionally choose to harbor international criminals in hopes that extradition treaties are drawn up? If the nations are not in agreement on how they handle justice to fugitives, what are the odds that they will agree on terms for a treaty?

To me, this seems to to nothing but encourage criminals to run for the boarder to escape punishments for their crimes, furthering thier belief that they can get away with whatever they want if they escape the authorities.

:confused: Help me if I'm missing something...

That is a actually a very interesting and good point, that has made me think about that.

Your resoloution designed to affirm the sovereignty of a nation, appears to me to do quite the opposite. I am new to the game, but I am assuming that there is already a resoloution that covers extradition between U.N. nations.
Not that I'm aware of. I read all 101 (now 102) passed UN resolutions before even starting on my proposal. I failed to see any mention of it.... but I suppose I could have missed it, seeing as how it was late at night...and I'd been drinking...

If this is true, doesn't this resoloution start to take away the sovereign right to capital punishment, by forceing nations to remove these laws so that wanted fugitives may be returned to face the consequences of their crime.
Depends on your point of view, I guess. Saint Uriel feels that it violates their national sovereignty by having to turn over fugitives for execution - it forces us to become part of the process and most of our citizens view it to be just as bad as flipping the switch or giving the injection. I do know that my proposal doesn't force a nation to remove any laws permitting capital punishment. They just shouldn't expect to get their fugitives back from non-extradition countries if those fugitives face execution. I've said it before, and I'll say it here as an official, solemn promise: Obviously, Saint Uriel does not have capital punishment within its own borders. However, in deference to the national sovereignty of others...and because it would probably never pass... Saint Uriel will NEVER propose an amendment that outlaws capital punishment within a nation.

So this resolution is specifically design to protect nations that intentionally choose to harbor international criminals in hopes that extradition treaties are drawn up? If the nations are not in agreement on how they handle justice to fugitives, what are the odds that they will agree on terms for a treaty?

To me, this seems to to nothing but encourage criminals to run for the boarder to escape punishments for their crimes, furthering thier belief that they can get away with whatever they want if they escape the authorities.

:confused: Help me if I'm missing something...

Yes, a good point! And also “The NeoWhite Hand” has a point when saying that this resolution takes away the sovereign right to capital punishment. If a fugitive has fled to another nation, why should that nation decide their fate? Shouldn't the fugitives nation decide what should be done to their own citizen depending on the severity of the crime etc. etc.

So this resolution is specifically design to protect nations that intentionally choose to harbor international criminals in hopes that extradition treaties are drawn up?
No, the resolution is specifically designed to protect nations who find it a violation of their national sovereignty when they are forced to extradite a fugitive for possible capital punishment.

If the nations are not in agreement on how they handle justice to fugitives, what are the odds that they will agree on terms for a treaty?
Who knows? They are thousands of NationStates, all with different philosophies, laws, constitutions, charters, policies, etc. The scenarios are endless.

To me, this seems to to nothing but encourage criminals to run for the boarder to escape punishments for their crimes, furthering thier belief that they can get away with whatever they want if they escape the authorities.

Who said they're going to get away with anything? Just because a nation refuses to extradite a fugitive to his/her execution, doesn't mean they're going to give them the presidential suite and all-you-can-drink martinis. I can't speak for other nations, but if Saint Uriel captures a fugitive accused of a major crime (i.e. rape, murder, etc), that fugitive may not be extradited, but they WILL face a trial with the very real chance they will never see daylight again. What they won't face is state sanctioned homicide.

Depends on your point of view, I guess. Saint Uriel feels that it violates their national sovereignty by having to turn over fugitives for execution - it forces us to become part of the process and most of our citizens view it to be just as bad as flipping the switch or giving the injection.

I believe the terms in your proposal are:

...IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited.

Just because a nation allows capital punishment does not mean they would execute it in any given case. Your proposed resolution allows for the nation holding the fugitive to merely "feel" that capital punishment will be applied.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, an extradition treaty between countries that differ on views of justice is not very likey.

If your nation is THAT determined to hold an international criminal, I feel that your nation better be ready to back their decision with force, or give the fugitive up. Your proposal completely eliminates any responsibility of a nation that holds an internation criminal.

Yes, a good point! And also “The NeoWhite Hand” has a point when saying that this resolution takes away the sovereign right to capital punishment. If a fugitive has fled to another nation, why should that nation decide their fate? Shouldn't the fugitives nation decide what should be done to their own citizen depending on the severity of the crime etc. etc.
Once your citizen becomes a fugitive in my nation, he/she becomes my problem too. I can't just sit back and become removed from the process, if for no more reason then because these events have taken places within my sovereign borders and involve my citizens as well. My main thesis is that if I am forced to extradite a fugitive to a nation where that fugitive may be put to death then I have been forced to become, although indirectly, a party to that execution. This is not only morally repugnant to many nations who have outlawed capital punishment, it is a breach of MY national sovereignty to force me to become a part of this.

I applaud Saint Uriel's efforts to properly deliver justice to a criminal, however your proposal doesn't mandate any action to be taken from the nation holding the fugitive. As you stated "they are thousands of NationStates all with different philosophies, laws, constitutions, charters, policies, etc. The scenarios are endless" You must recognize that there is the possibility that there ARE nations that would "give them the presidential suite and all-you-can-drink martinis." and your proposal would protect them from any military action.

Once your citizen becomes a fugitive in my nation, he/she becomes my problem too. I can't just sit back and become removed from the process, if for no more reason then because these events have taken places within my sovereign borders and involve my citizens as well. My main thesis is that if I am forced to extradite a fugitive to a nation where that fugitive may be put to death then I have been forced to become, although indirectly, a party to that execution. This is not only morally repugnant to many nations who have outlawed capital punishment, it is a breach of MY national sovereignty to force me to become a part of this.

I understand more clearly now, thank you. But I still don't see how this resolution is not taking away the sovereign right to capital punishment from other nations. If another nation decides their fugitive (their citizen) deserves the death penalty, why should another nation (holding the fugitive) be allowed to intervene with their beliefs? Will they holding nation hold the fugitive forever? Will the holding nation decide their punishment? Surely their home nation should decide their fate!?

I understand more clearly now, thank you. But I still don't see how this resolution is not taking away the sovereign right to capital punishment from other nations. If another nation decides their fugitive (their citizen) deserves the death penalty, why should another nation (holding the fugitive) be allowed to intervene with their beliefs? Will they holding nation hold the fugitive forever? Will the holding nation decide their punishment? Surely their home nation should decide their fate!?

Not to mention there is NO mandate for the nation holding the criminal to do anything to bring the criminal to justice. The holding nation has no responsibility to do anything, and there is nothing the opposing nation can do about it (other than hope their criminal will be returned).

I believe the terms in your proposal are:

...IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited.

Just because a nation allows capital punishment does not mean they would execute it in any given case. Your proposed resolution allows for the nation holding the fugitive to merely "feel" that capital punishment will be applied.

The proposal is deliberately vague. It would have been extremely complicated (and gone over the word limit) to spell out exactly what constitutes "reasonable". Once again, I leave that up to the nations involved. If I capture your fugitive accussed of grand theft lollipop and your nation only has a history of execution for murder, then I really can't say that I reasonably believe this fugitive faces execution. Now, you could make me look like a fool and cap the sucker as soon as I extradite him back to you. Was my decision still reasonable? Yes. Did I become a party to execution anyway? Yep.


If your nation is THAT determined to hold an international criminal, I feel that your nation better be ready to back their decision with force, or give the fugitive up. Your proposal completely eliminates any responsibility of a nation that holds an internation criminal.
Nah, my proposal only eliminates military repercussions. If a nation decides to become an international Mos Eisley (*shudder* Star Wars reference...oh god so sorry....ughh) for all the world's fugitives and starts taking in accused murderers, rapists, and terrorists just for the fun of it, then they will find themselves a pariah, heaped with sanctions, shunned by trade partners, and short of allies. This proposal does not prevent that.

...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany...

Arakaria is happy to sign this resolution. It's very important for our people.

I understand more clearly now, thank you. But I still don't see how this resolution is not taking away the sovereign right to capital punishment from other nations. If another nation decides their fugitive (their citizen) deserves the death penalty, why should another nation (holding the fugitive) be allowed to intervene with their beliefs? Will they holding nation hold the fugitive forever? Will the holding nation decide their punishment? Surely their home nation should decide their fate!?
Well, now, there's the rub, isn't it? Which is greater? Which is more important - a nation's sovereign right to apply capital punishment to their criminals, even the ones that escape their jurisdiction, or a nation's sovereign right to reject capital punishment and not be forced to become a party to it against their will? I know which one I think is more important, I guess we'll just have to see what the UN member nations say. :)

** I'm not trying to be snarky. You and Oden have brought up some good points. Its just that, when all is said and done, it really just comes down to a question of perspective.

I know, and agree. Contradanza will vote for this resolution, and maybe it will bring to light some other issues which need to be addressed in the near future (some which we have already touched on). Thank you for your understanding of our concerns :)

Well, now, there's the rub, isn't it? Which is greater? Which is more important - a nation's sovereign right to apply capital punishment to their criminals, even the ones that escape their jurisdiction, or a nation's sovereign right to reject capital punishment and not be forced to become a party to it against their will? <SNIP> when all is said and done, it really just comes down to a question of perspective.

This is very true... And I am not trying to be a pain either, Just differing perspectives :)

If I capture your fugitive accussed of grand theft lollipop and your nation only has a history of execution for murder, then I really can't say that I reasonably believe this fugitive faces execution.

Lollipops are a prized comodity in my nation as sugar is scarce and highly valued. Just because your rivers are lush with fructose-based substances, doesn't minimize the impact of the crime that was committed in my nation.

Nah, my proposal only eliminates military repercussions. If a nation decides to become an international Mos Eisley (*shudder* Star Wars reference...oh god so sorry....ughh) for all the world's fugitives and starts taking in accused murderers, rapists, and terrorists just for the fun of it, then they will find themselves a pariah, heaped with sanctions, shunned by trade partners, and short of allies. This proposal does not prevent that.

If my senate was blown up by a someone who found shelter in another country.... whose authorities subsequently captured the criminal and they decided not to return the accused party for fear that the death pentaly would be applied (which would be certain).... I would hope I would have the option to retaliate..... I do not wish to keep the nation from it's right to hold the criminal, but know that I would come get them with force if necessary.

Allow me to understand this proposal by an example of such a situation:

Mr. Barishnikov Bin Mcveigh from the United States of Mongo-stralia (Where capital punishment is legal) absolutely HATES the Free Republic Of New Guintina so he decides to travel over there and blow up seven schools and a nunnery and then quickly leave for Cancelvania, where executions have recently been illegalized. It is well known that he is responsible and there is an almost certainty that he will be executed upon returning to his native land, HOWEVER, this cancelvania is so rabidly anti-death penalty that they absolutely REFUSE to allow him to be taken back thus saving him from his justifiable fate.

From that scenerio I do not see how this is in any way a protection of national soverignty and certainly not of the principle of justice in general.

A second scenerio is slightly differen't, this time the man's own nation does NOT allow executions, in which case he does the exact same thing but then returns to his own nation.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but generally a person must be tried in the state, town, city, principality, or nation that they committed the crime in and on by the laws of that given area. This, again, would be a flagrant violation of the principles of justice and could result in the harboring of terrorist, smugglers, high ranking civil rights violators (Such as army generals or politicians that decide they want everyone with blonde hair to be summarily executed) by a few "Rogue states" which wouldn't warrant any legal action by the peoples and nations who want the person tried.

In real life that would mean that if afghanistan didn't allow executions and bin laden was captured he could no be brought before an international court or to the United States unless they agreed not to execute him.

That would mean that if Hitler had fled to Argentina (or others of his ilk) and Argentina had a ban on executions the Allies would not have been able to legally execute him for the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of people he murdered viciously.

This law may be well meaning, but it is simply too abusable and ridiculous at best. How dare you take away the rights of nations to try people by their own laws! If those people did not want to be threatened with execution they should never have walked into another nation's territory and murder others. I am horridly appalled at the implications that this resolution will bring and my nation WILL LEAVE the U.N. if it passes. This is just too much to bear, the thought of some psychopath entering my nation, killing my people, then fleeing to another nation so as to avoid the top penalty for his crime disgusts me, disgusts my people, and should sicken any that believe the ideals of Justice, Law, and security for one's people!!!!!

I too lend my support to this proposal.

I greatly prefer executing scum on my own lands, instead of giving the honor to others.


Holu Tatsumi
Grand Poo-Bah of the Confederacy of Praxon

I applaud Saint Uriel's efforts to properly deliver justice to a criminal, however your proposal doesn't mandate any action to be taken from the nation holding the fugitive. As you stated "they are thousands of NationStates all with different philosophies, laws, constitutions, charters, policies, etc. The scenarios are endless" You must recognize that there is the possibility that there ARE nations that would "give them the presidential suite and all-you-can-drink martinis." and your proposal would protect them from any military action.

Well, no it does not - provided we're not talking about the death penalty. As long as I am pursuing a lesser punishment, this does not take effect - and I can walk my armies over you for saying "no".

As such, our law on extradition has been altered to state if the nation the fugitive has fled to does not approve of the death penalty, our maximum sentence will be "life without possibility of parole at hard labor" - and our military has the authority to extradite in these matters should a "no" be given and the fugitive seen as a clear and present danger.

Allow me to understand this proposal by an example of such a situation:

Mr. Barishnikov Bin Mcveigh from the United States of Mongo-stralia (Where capital punishment is legal) absolutely HATES the Free Republic Of New Guintina so he decides to travel over there and blow up seven schools and a nunnery and then quickly leave for Cancelvania, where executions have recently been illegalized. It is well known that he is responsible and there is an almost certainty that he will be executed upon returning to his native land, HOWEVER, this cancelvania is so rabidly anti-death penalty that they absolutely REFUSE to allow him to be taken back thus saving him from his justifiable fate.
Justifiable by Mongo-stralia's standards, maybe. Not justifiable by the standards of every nation.

From that scenerio I do not see how this is in any way a protection of national soverignty and certainly not of the principle of justice in general.
It protects Cancelvania's national sovereignty.

A second scenerio is slightly differen't, this time the man's own nation does NOT allow executions, in which case he does the exact same thing but then returns to his own nation.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but generally a person must be tried in the state, town, city, principality, or nation that they committed the crime in and on by the laws of that given area. This, again, would be a flagrant violation of the principles of justice and could result in the harboring of terrorist, smugglers, high ranking civil rights violators (Such as army generals or politicians that decide they want everyone with blonde hair to be summarily executed) by a few "Rogue states" which wouldn't warrant any legal action by the peoples and nations who want the person tried.
You're using RL jurisidictional rules here. NS does not establish any kind of legal jurisdictions. There's no resolution that says that a captured criminal has to be tried by the laws of the jurisidiction where the crime was committed. Furthermore, the only thing my proposal prohibits is military action. It completely leaves open the possibilities of legal measures, economic sanctions, et cetera to demonstrate displeasure with the non-extraditing country.
In real life that would mean that if afghanistan didn't allow executions and bin laden was captured he could no be brought before an international court or to the United States unless they agreed not to execute him.

That would mean that if Hitler had fled to Argentina (or others of his ilk) and Argentina had a ban on executions the Allies would not have been able to legally execute him for the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of people he murdered viciously. This is not real life. This is NS.

This law may be well meaning, but it is simply too abusable and ridiculous at best. How dare you take away the rights of nations to try people by their own laws! If those people did not want to be threatened with execution they should never have walked into another nation's territory and murder others. I am horridly appalled at the implications that this resolution will bring and my nation WILL LEAVE the U.N. if it passes. You're always welcome to take your toys and go home.

This is just too much to bear, the thought of some psychopath entering my nation, killing my people, then fleeing to another nation so as to avoid the top penalty for his crime disgusts me, disgusts my people, and should sicken any that believe the ideals of Justice, Law, and security for one's people!!!!!
That's being a bit alarmist. Besides, I think you just exceeded the exclamation point limit.

I support the proposal.

I think that the proposal at hand is based on sound interpretation of UN principles safeguarding the sovereignty of nations.

I note that the proposal does not abrogate the right of any of the parties concerned to seek redress through other avenues not specified in the proposal. Neither does it prevent a sovereign power from disposing of undesirables once they become resident.

As the sovereign lord of my domain, I would resent being told that a person I have admitted into my lands must be returned to the state he entered Roathin from.

The august assembly will of course know that I control extensive paranormal resources and use them at will on uninvited guests with a history of disruptive behaviour. I sincerely doubt many such will seek refuge within my borders. Refugees of other sorts, perhaps.

Brythain
Grand Duke of Roathin

To me, this seems to to nothing but encourage criminals to run for the boarder to escape punishments for their crimes, furthering thier belief that they can get away with whatever they want if they escape the authorities.


Agreed.
The United Nations are the world's governing body.So,it must discuss,approve or disapprove IMPORTANT proposals affecting at least MOST of the nations.
Without this resolution every nation CAN do whataver they want with fugitives.It's in their right to choose to extradete or to keep them in the limits of their borders.So this resoluion is useless because it doesn't affect anything.It will remain the same.
And it will encourage criminals to run from their counties seeking political asylum.
Anyway,every case is very specific;I'll give you some examples:
If a fugitive from nation A has commited a crime in his country and escapes and enters nation B's borders,the second country mau choose if to return him or to safe him.If I'm aware of deciding what to do,I'll examine the specific situation:If the subject is a political fugitive,for me to express your opinion of the system is not a crime and I won't return him.But if his is suspected of murder or any crime equal in all nation's laws,I'll extradate him whatever the verdict may be.
I think the resolution must be more concreete because in this form it does not affect anything and it is just words,but we need to put them into deeds


Vote against

This is a disgrace to all UN Nations. Lichtenstrasselburg will never vote for such an intruding law.

This decision should be left up to individual governments, the UN should take no part in this area of law and order.

It is our sincere hope that this is not passed and that no resolutions like this will appear at general vote ever again.

The Grand Duchy of Lichtenstrasselburg.

This bill steps on a nation's sovereignty, and should not be allowed to pass. It allows for one nation to determine the sentencing policy of another nation. A criminal does a terrible crime in one country and runs away to another country and is now immune from serving the sentence of the land. That is not fair to the country of whom said person voilated their laws. This bill has a double standard and should not be passed.

1) This decision should be left up to individual governments, the UN should take no part in this area of law and order.

2) It is our sincere hope that this is not passed and that no resolutions like this will appear at general vote ever again.
1) This resolution does leave the right up to the individual governments, that's the whole point of it.

2) Sorry.

This resolution has some problems with it- although I agree in general, it is easy to imagine situations where organized criminals could hide behind it to avoid punishment. In fact, if you look at the wording it allows safety to major criminals (i.e. those who would be facing death) but not for minor ones!

I'd say the resolution should have an added clause that the nation which refuses extradition should be responsible for the incarceration of the fugitive in question, or should be forced to allow extradition under the condition that the death penalty is not given. (for example, I could take a criminal out of your country, but only if I promised not to kill him).

This is a disgrace to all UN Nations. Lichtenstrasselburg will never vote for such an intruding law.

This decision should be left up to individual governments, the UN should take no part in this area of law and order.

It is our sincere hope that this is not passed and that no resolutions like this will appear at general vote ever again.

The UN is the international governing body. It should, can, and has regulated issues that are international in scope. International fugitives are an international issue. What areas of law and order should the UN take part in then?

Lichtenstrasselburg is entitled to its opinion, but Saint Uriel put a lot of work, research, and time into this proposal. Many generous NationStates also provided a lot of time, campaigning, and feedback. It is not a disgrace.

This bill steps on a nation's sovereignty, and should not be allowed to pass. It allows for one nation to determine the sentencing policy of another nation.
No, it doesn't. The proposal says quite clearly that it will have no affect on internal policies of capital punishment. Have you read the proposal and the thread above? This proposal only comes into effect when a captital punishment country demands the extradition of a fugitive from another UN nation.
A criminal does a terrible crime in one country and runs away to another country and is now immune from serving the sentence of the land. That is not fair to the country of whom said person voilated their laws. This bill has a double standard and should not be passed. And is fair to the extraditing country to have to send a fugitive to his/her death when thats morally repugnant to them and/or against their laws? Why is that not a double standard?

The hailRedskin regions is currently debating the proposal. But as it's Delegate for the moment I have to voice my reluctant opposition to this proposal.

I am an ardent opponent to the Death Penalty. However extradition is one of the most basic tenements to international relations. This proposal will cause fugitives to flee individual countries to safe havens. Once there they can not be tried or punished for the crimes they committted.

This also sets the precednet that if one is a fugitive for drug trafficing they could flee to a country where drugs are legal and argue against extradiction on the basis of the host country's own laws.

CNYSkinfan land proposes that the Un work on abolishing Capitol punishment in all it's member countries without dilluting the tenement of Extradition.

We are currently planning on voting against this proposal.

Has anyone considered the middle ground I suggested? Allow forced extradition, but not for the death penalty- if the nation where the fugitive fled to does not wish to have an execution on their consciouses, they can allow the extradition only on the terms that the death penalty is not enforced- that, or incarcerate the fugitive themselves.

If someone has committed a terrible crime and fled to a nation which will not extradite, it's quite easy to solve. All you have to do is sign a treaty guaranteeing that the death penalty will not be used, and then you can get him/her back, put them on trial and serve an appropriate sentence.

Oh, and I might add to all those kicking up a fuss - nations were already perfectly free to refuse to extradite for whatever reasons they like. All this proposal would do is stop you invading them if their refusal was on the grounds of objection to capital punishment.

Has anyone considered the middle ground I suggested? Allow forced extradition, but not for the death penalty- if the nation where the fugitive fled to does not wish to have an execution on their consciouses, they can allow the extradition only on the terms that the death penalty is not enforced- that, or incarcerate the fugitive themselves.

Your suggested middle ground is already covered by the proposal. It attempts to prevent forced extradition where the harbouring nation "reasonably believes" that the fugitive would be subject to the death penalty if extradited.

If a country that normally utilises capital punishment gives some assurance that the death penalty won't be used in that instance, then there is no longer any "reasonable belief" and therefore no reason to prevent the extradition under the terms of this proposal.

Of course, there's no reason why the extraditing nation couldn't just lie about their intention not to use the death penalty, but then it would be one of those grey situations where the nations involved have to decide whether there is "reasonable belief".

:headbang: I can't believe something like this is actually being considered. This goes beyond breach of national sovereignty. Anyone who would adhere to such a resolution is completely overstepping their bounds. It is a nation's right to prosecute and determine the sentencing of its offenders, not the right of its neighbors. Criminals that would be in danger of capital punishment in the first place do not need, nor do they deserve, the protection of international law. This is not only a slap in the face to countries supportive of capital punishment, but an injustice to the criminal's victims and to the families of said victims. They each deserve what little comfort they can recieve, and if revenge via capital punishment - capital punishment that is supported by legitimate due process of law - can be a source of that comfort, then it cannot be denied due to the laws or feelings of any other country than their own.

What about my sovereignty? If a suspected criminal arrives in Krioval, and is detained on an outstanding warrant, why should this person be sent home to die when Krioval doesn't have capital punishment (for most offenses)? I submit that it is already the right of a given nation to refuse extradition, and this resolution actually legitimizes a specific yet important aspect of the right to refuse. All a nation has to do is decline to push for capital punishment, and the legitimate reason to refuse extradition becomes annulled.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

Krioval is absolutely correct. What it boils down to is this: unfortunately, sometimes one nation's sovereignty is another nation's suppression. As I said before, its all a matter of perspective.

Because the nation where the crime was committed should not have to do that. It should not be forced to bend to the will of nations that do not agree with its policies. If a criminal that acted in one nation is captured by another nation, he or she should be returned immediately. The punishments that the offender will recieve for the crime he or she committed, especially when his or her offenses are capitally punishable, are, quite frankly, none of the capturing nation's business unless the offender committed a crime on their land, as well. If any resolution needs to be passed regarding this issue, it should force the capturing nation to return said fugitive. If you still do not understand the ridiculous nature of this resolution, I ask you: how much would a nation that was against capital punishment appreciate a pro capital punishment nation detaining their criminal for the sole purpose of killing him or her?

Without fiear of military reprisal? What does that even mean? That affirms nothing. I'f my nation wants to kill someone, you best not defy us. You might not fear military reprisal, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I can't stand pacifist hippies. :sniper: If you won't hand over a prisoner, my amazingly huge military will make you. I enthusiasticaly vote no on this one. :mp5: <--(more violence)

Krioval is absolutely correct. What it boils down to is this: unfortunately, sometimes one nation's sovereignty is another nation's suppression. As I said before, its all a matter of perspective.

And, if it "all a matter of perspective," where do you get off pushing your perspective on a situation onto another's policies?

Please do not associate my views with "Slappabitch." I have very different, more logical reasons for rejecting this proposal. Thank you.

What about my sovereignty? If a suspected criminal arrives in Krioval, and is detained on an outstanding warrant, why should this person be sent home to die when Krioval doesn't have capital punishment (for most offenses)? I submit that it is already the right of a given nation to refuse extradition, and this resolution actually legitimizes a specific yet important aspect of the right to refuse. All a nation has to do is decline to push for capital punishment, and the legitimate reason to refuse extradition becomes annulled.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval


refusing extradition just pisses ppl off. so what if you don't believe in capital punishment, if the crime is comitted elsewhere, it's not really your business.

honestly, this is a nation simulator. why wouldn't you make a psychotic state? i'm super left wing in real life, but that's no fun on here.

I am concerned that this provision actually RESTRICTS the right to refuse extradition. By stating that a country must give a reason involving the use of capital punishment implies that the country does not have the right to refuse otherwise. I would support this resolution if it gave the right to all nations, no strings attached. If one of your criminals makes it to Brennia and we want him to stay for whatever reason, such should be our right.

I am concerned that this provision actually RESTRICTS the right to refuse extradition. By stating that a country must give a reason involving the use of capital punishment implies that the country does not have the right to refuse otherwise. I would support this resolution if it gave the right to all nations, no strings attached. If one of your criminals makes it to Brennia and we want him to stay for whatever reason, such should be our right.

Alright, Brennia. Hypothetical situation. A large man violently rapes three nine-year-old girls, kills them all, and skips town before the authorities learn of his horrific crime. He deserves to die as much as anyone has ever deserved to die in the history of capital punishment, but, fortunately for him, he makes it to the wonderful nation of Brennia. You are saying that we do not have the right to prosecute and, after conviction, execute this man, despite the degree of his atrocities. You are saying that it should be your decision to keep and harbor this man to protect his poor soul from the evils of the death penalty. I am saying that if someone even took such an unbelievable stance on this situation, I would immediately have their leader assassinated in the hopes that a better, more reasonable, more respectful one were elected.

Vastiva voted AYE at the overwhelming request of our region.

You certainly have the right to try and convict such a person. The question remains, though, do you have the right to intrude upon our sovereign soil and retrieve this person?

As I said, our nation is against any proposal which conditionally limits the sovereign right to refuse extradition. We have not considered the possibility of a resolution that would always require extradition. I think our Druid counsel may actually support that. However, our appreciation of our sovereign right is that once a person steps foot on our soil, they are subject to our laws and our ways. It so happens that, in this hypothet, our ways would most likely result in turning this person over to the country asking for extradition or a rather unpleasant death in our own land. However, this should be a matter for States to decide for themselves, or it should not at all.

As an aside, our ways are difficult for outsiders to understand. We do not have capital punishment, as such. Nor do we have jails. Under our law, this person and his family would be responsible to pay the honor debt in compensation to the families of the victims and the debt could be carried for nine generations. However, since this hypothetical person is not Brennian and has no honor of his own, we would have little problem handing him over to another nation since he is a non-person to us. Or, if he committed crimes against Brennians, he would be enslaved or ostracised, or more likely killed on the spot by the victims' families.

How about, Rogue Newbie, I explain something to you:

A large man violently rapes three nine-year-old girls, kills them all, and skips town before the authorities learn of his horrific crime.

Right. Not that his physical size should make a difference, of course. If a paraplegic midget raped and killed three children (their gender shouldn't matter either), it would be equally bad.

He deserves to die as much as anyone has ever deserved to die in the history of capital punishment, but, fortunately for him, he makes it to the wonderful nation of Brennia.

Let's substitute "Krioval" for "Brennia", as it makes me able to capture and respond to the issue. First, I could envision a worse scenario, so this man isn't necessarily the "most deserving" of death. Second, Krioval would punish the person with a lifetime of hard labor and a 125 kilo cellmate called "Bubba". Problem solved, as far as we're concerned, and the death penalty doesn't even enter the equation. Why should Krioval create state-sponsored murderers when we can extract value from the prisoner (and help fund those rape awareness programs)?

You are saying that we do not have the right to prosecute and, after conviction, execute this man, despite the degree of his atrocities. You are saying that it should be your decision to keep and harbor this man to protect his poor soul from the evils of the death penalty.

I strongly doubt that's Brennia's position, and it certainly isn't mine. I am saying that since Krioval does not execute criminals for that crime, we are not about to be complicit in what we feel is murder. Lifetime confinement in your most notorious prison isn't sufficient punishment? Why not? Is the sight of another's blood just too irresistable?

I am saying that if someone even took such an unbelievable stance on this situation, I would immediately have their leader assassinated in the hopes that a better, more reasonable, more respectful one were elected.

Apparently so. You would actually kill an elected leader because that person doesn't agree with your stance on capital punishment. I'm not surprised. I also wouldn't try it - such an attempt would be doomed to failure.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

You are saying that it should be your decision to keep and harbor this man to protect his poor soul from the evils of the death penalty. I am saying that if someone even took such an unbelievable stance on this situation, I would immediately have their leader assassinated in the hopes that a better, more reasonable, more respectful one were elected.
Your mark of civility is so great that I can't believe any nation would not want to work things out diplomatically with you. I mean, anyone who threatens to kill another sovereign leader when they do something they don't like is A+ in our book. You'll have such a great amount of international respect that you can get anything you want. You want a more reasonable, respectful leader? ...please

You certainly have the right to try and convict such a person. The question remains, though, do you have the right to intrude upon our sovereign soil and retrieve this person?

I am not suggesting that we be allowed to enter your society and take back the criminal by force. I am suggesting that you willingly return said criminal to us so that we can prosecute him for him unspeakable crimes, since he performed these crimes within the limits of our borders.

However, our appreciation of our sovereign right is that once a person steps foot on our soil, they are subject to our laws and our ways.

And what if the country he fled to did not provide any punishment for the crimes he committed on our soil? What if he fled to an extremist when-slapped-turn-the-other-cheek nation, a nation that did not believe in punishment for some strange, super-radical reason. You are saying that said nation's sovereignty is more important than both justice and the sovereignty of the criminal's home nation.

I like this resolution and agree with it, but I feel that certain people are voting yes for this resolution for the wrong reasons, the language in it is vauge and can easily be manipulated, perhaps thats what makes it a good resolution. At the same time I dont normally like wishy washy political stuff that can easily be manipulated to only create more problems. the reason I voted for this is because I beleive it is a good resolution, maybe later on down the line it could be strengthened with another resolution to reinforce it. In the future I see this resolution either being strengthened with another resolution or being repealed.

How about, Rogue Newbie, I explain something to you:



Right. Not that his physical size should make a difference, of course. If a paraplegic midget raped and killed three children (their gender shouldn't matter either), it would be equally bad.

Okay, fine, let's be sarcastic. I was painting a picture, and no it would not matter if it were a large man or a paraplegic midget.

Let's substitute "Krioval" for "Brennia", as it makes me able to capture and respond to the issue. First, I could envision a worse scenario, so this man isn't necessarily the "most deserving" of death. Second, Krioval would punish the person with a lifetime of hard labor and a 125 kilo cellmate called "Bubba". Problem solved, as far as we're concerned, and the death penalty doesn't even enter the equation. Why should Krioval create state-sponsored murderers when we can extract value from the prisoner (and help fund those rape awareness programs)?

Problem solved as far as you're concerned? Your concern should not even be an issue. The criminal offended our nation, and therefore his punishment is under our jurisdiction. You should not have the right to refuse to return him. Check the extremist nation situation I presented Brennia with. This resolution would make it nearly impossible for situations like this to be avoided.

I strongly doubt that's Brennia's position, and it certainly isn't mine. I am saying that since Krioval does not execute criminals for that crime, we are not about to be complicit in what we feel is murder. Lifetime confinement in your most notorious prison isn't sufficient punishment? Why not? Is the sight of another's blood just too irresistable?

You strongly doubt that's Brennia's position? This is not a situation that can be resolved by petty interpretation. They way Brennia illustrated its position, that is exactly what it meant. Let's not dodge around by saying things like, "What I meant to say was..." And this has nothing to do with our alleged thirst for blood, it has to do with the laws that govern such a situation according to our nation, where the crime was committed.

Apparently so. You would actually kill an elected leader because that person doesn't agree with your stance on capital punishment.

If in such an extreme situation as a triple-count of rape-homicide your nation refused to allow our nation to try and sentence our own criminal, you bet.

Problem solved as far as you're concerned? Your concern should not even be an issue.
If a fugitive, regardless of his/her origin, is captured in Krioval, then it BECOMES Krioval's concern. Same thing with Saint Uriel or any other nation. You expect to just be able to send your pit bulls to retrieve whatever you want from my sovereign land, violating my sovereign borders? I think not. To use a crude analogy, once your trash is thrown in my backyard, I'm going to deal with it as I see fit. Don't like it? Then invest some more money in border security to make sure your fugitives don't end up on our islands.

The criminal offended our nation, and therefore his punishment is under our jurisdiction. You should not have the right to refuse to return him. ju·ris·dic·tion n. The territorial range of authority or control Guess what? Your jurisdiction end where my borders begin.

If in such an extreme situation as a triple-count of rape-homicide your nation refused to allow our nation to try and sentence our own criminal, you bet. What about a double-count of homocide without rape? What about a single homocide with the victim being a child? What about large scale hard drug trafficking? What about child abuse with no homocide? What about money laundering? What about extortion? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line AT ALL? And you're worried about "extremist" nations?

I voted against it because say, a man held a giant prostitution ring and owned more than 500 sex slave and killed 50 of them. Would you want this man free? Killing him will put him away for life indeed.
(If it's approved the citys will be like:
:mad: :mp5:

:rolleyes:

OK, let me get this straight...After reading the past 7 pages of comment I see that there are a portion of nations that want to harbour my "garbage."

The rest of these nations would be happy to kick these dead-men-walkings back to my nation (and I thank you).

OK so the few nations--lets call them the group of LEFTYS want to wine and dine my criminals. Go ahead and wine and dine them, heck I'll have my ambassadors give them some help so they can spread the cheer that caused them to become criminals in the first place.

Sooooo you group of LEFTYS are either enjoying my criminal having a little vacation in your nation--or you are harboring terrorists (hey now there's a thought)...Say what happens to nations that harbor terrorists? :fluffle:

For every nation here, if a criminal steps foot in my kingdom you can have the body back anytime you like :)

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

If a fugitive, regardless of his/her origin, is captured in Krioval, then it BECOMES Krioval's concern. Same thing with Saint Uriel or any other nation. You expect to just be able to send your pit bulls to retrieve whatever you want from my sovereign land, violating my sovereign borders? I think not. To use a crude analogy, once your trash is thrown in my backyard, I'm going to deal with it as I see fit. Don't like it? Then invest some more money in border security to make sure your fugitives don't end up on our islands.

So now you aren't even reading before you make your replies? You need to do your homework. A: I already said that I would not expect to find it necessary to come into your country and get him. I would expect you to return him. B: In the aforementioned hypothetical situation, the man was, as far as we knew, innocent at the time he left our nation. His escape was not an issue of border security, he would have had a right to leave until becoming a suspect. Furthermore, how about this "crude analogy?" If I accidently threw a frisbee into your backyard, would you not return it?

ju·ris·dic·tion n. The territorial range of authority or control Guess what? Your jurisdiction end where my borders begin.

ju·ris·dic·tion n. 1. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district. 2a. Authority or conrol. 2b. The extent of authority and control. 3.The territorial range of authority or control.
Now we're just using our favorite interpretations, again. Jurisdiction isn't a word that is solely territorial.

What about a double-count of homocide without rape? What about a single homocide with the victim being a child? What about large scale hard drug trafficking? What about child abuse with no homocide? What about money laundering? What about extortion? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line AT ALL? And you're worried about "extremist" nations?

Personally, I draw the line at violent rape and homicide, one count of either. But, I'm not going to enforce my nation's laws on your nation, because I think that the decision should be left to the offended nation, not the capturing nation. I would not keep another nation's criminal to make sure he got what I thought he deserved, because that would violate your sovereignty.

You are saying that said nation's sovereignty is more important than both justice and the sovereignty of the criminal's home nation.

Not at all. I am saying sovereignty is about controlling what happens within your borders. If a fugitive flees to our lands on the (poorly thought out) assumption our laws would benefit him, he is within our borders. He is not in yours. Thus, only our sovereignty is in question, not yours. And, yes, we believe the principal of sovereignty itself is more important than any individual nation's concept of justice. Our druids have contemplated the nature of justice for many hundreds of years. They know that most nations do not have as fair and balanced system of justice as we do, yet for justice to be done at all, sovereignty must be respected. We do not impose our values of Honor, Justice, and Piety on other nations.

Besides, presumably this individual still has family in your nation, so justice could still be done. His honor-debt could be extracted from them. It is hardly our problem if your justice system is so crude as to not understand the responsibility of family and the value of honor.

I, for one, am getting a bit fed up over extreme noobs using this thread as an excuse to post mp5 smilies and fluffles. If you have something to add to the discussion, even if its mired in facist sabre-rattling, fine. If the only reason you posted is to say, UR pr0posl suX and ill KiLL U followed by a string of sniper smilies, then please keep it to yourself.

Not at all. I am saying sovereignty is about controlling what happens within your borders. If a fugitive flees to our lands on the (poorly thought out) assumption our laws would benefit him, he is within our borders. He is not in yours. Thus, only our sovereignty is in question, not yours. And, yes, we believe the principal of sovereignty itself is more important than any individual nation's concept of justice. Our druids have contemplated the nature of justice for many hundreds of years. They know that most nations do not have as fair and balanced system of justice as we do, yet for justice to be done at all, sovereignty must be respected. We do not impose our values of Honor, Justice, and Piety on other nations.
That's where you are wrong. He is within our jurisdiction, as I stated earlier, because he committed his crime on our soil. It is our sovereignty being violated by harboring him or trying him in a manner that we do not approve of, not yours.

Besides, presumably this individual still has family in your nation, so justice could still be done. His honor-debt could be extracted from them. It is hardly our problem if your justice system is so crude as to not understand the responsibility of family and the value of honor.
Are you suggesting that we kill his family because he's a psycopath? This is the type of nation that will be deciding the fate of my nation's criminals?

That's where you are wrong. He is within our jurisdiction, as I stated earlier, because he committed his crime on our soil. It is our sovereignty being violated by harboring him or trying him in a manner that we do not approve of, not yours.
No, sorry, you're wrong. Once the fugitive is out of your borders, he's also out of your jurisdiction. And, if you want to use all the definitions:

ju·ris·dic·tion n. 1. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
Your power ends at my border. Your courts have no authority in my land.

2a. Authority or conrol. You have none past my borders.

2b. The extent of authority and control. Ends at my borders.

3.The territorial range of authority or control. My nation is not part of your territory.


Are you suggesting that we kill his family because he's a psycopath? This is the type of nation that will be deciding the fate of my nation's criminals?
Every nation has different ways of doing things. For instance, I've heard of some nations that will attempt to assassinate another nation's leader because they disagree with their policies. Imagine that? I'm very glad that a UN resolution has been proposed that will protect me from such psychopaths.

No, sorry, you're wrong. Once the fugitive is out of your borders, he's also out of your jurisdiction. And, if you want to use all the definitions:

ju·ris·dic·tion n. 1. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.
Your power ends at my border. Your courts have no authority in my land.

2a. Authority or conrol. You have none past my borders.

2b. The extent of authority and control. Ends at my borders.

3.The territorial range of authority or control. My nation is not part of your territory.

Excuse me, but definition number three is not the global definition of the word "jurisdiction." That is a specific example of jurisdiction that is not necessarily related to crime. Definitions 1, 2a, and 2b all have to do with criminal jurisdiction, which is what I am referring to. They have nothing to do with international border relation and don't dictate where criminal jurisdiction stops. An example can be found with police chasing fugitives over county lines. I'll explain. It's really quite simple. If a cop is for whatever reason present in an area that isn't within his territorial range of authority or control and a crime is committed, he may not pursue that criminal and keep the immunities that he is granted as an officer of the law. However, if a cop is within his territorial range of authority or control, and a crime is committed, he may pursue the criminal, as he is within his extent of authority and control. Even if said criminal crosses county lines, the policeman is allowed to pursue him further until said criminal is caught, as the crime was committed within his extent of authority and control. That is exactly what is happening here: a criminal commits a crime in our neighborhood, and we chase him into yours. That, or you can be good neighbors and throw the frisbee back over the fence.

Every nation has different ways of doing things. For instance, I've heard of some nations that will attempt to assassinate another nation's leader because they disagree with their policies. Imagine that? I'm very glad that a UN resolution has been proposed that will protect me from such psychopaths.
Hahaha, good one. Way to dodge valid arguments with more sarcasm.

I, for one, am getting a bit fed up over extreme noobs using this thread as an excuse to post mp5 smilies and fluffles. If you have something to add to the discussion, even if its mired in facist sabre-rattling, fine. If the only reason you posted is to say, UR pr0posl suX and ill KiLL U followed by a string of sniper smilies, then please keep it to yourself.
The nations that do that never return to see your complaints, and the ones that follow never read up in the thread. This happens with EVERY proposal, Uriel. Just ignore it. Fight the good fight, and ignore the idiots.

~ Fris ~

I would continue to rebut some of Rogue Newbie's more "interesting" claims, but really, I think I'll let most of what their country says stand for itself. For sake of contrast, we have several countries arguing in favor of this resolution on basis of national sovereignty and jurisprudence, and those arguing against are either unable to refrain from smiley whoring (NOTE: check translation of last phrase) or are threatening to kill other nations' leaders due to differences in politics. Since when is provoking a war that will result in millions of people's deaths preferable to giving a life sentence in place of the death penalty?

The nations that do that never return to see your complaints, and the ones that follow never read up in the thread. This happens with EVERY proposal, Uriel. Just ignore it. Fight the good fight, and ignore the idiots.

~ Fris ~
Gotcha, Fris. Thanks, I needed that.

I would continue to rebut some of Rogue Newbie's more "interesting" claims, but really, I think I'll let most of what their country says stand for itself. For sake of contrast, we have several countries arguing in favor of this resolution on basis of national sovereignty and jurisprudence, and those arguing against are either unable to refrain from smiley whoring (NOTE: check translation of last phrase) or are threatening to kill other nations' leaders due to differences in politics. Since when is provoking a war that will result in millions of people's deaths preferable to giving a life sentence in place of the death penalty?
I'm sorry, Krioval, but a country that would harbor my nation's criminals - as seems to be the case with Brennia's druids, and if not, could be the case with various rogue nations - or a country that would deny another's jurisdiction and sovereignty in such a horrific act, is not worthy of being called a nation, and is in dire need of replacement.

Are you suggesting that we kill his family because he's a psycopath? This is the type of nation that will be deciding the fate of my nation's criminals?

Of course not! It is your nation that is bent on killing people. We don't have the death penalty, as I have stated before. We consider it barbaric and dishonorable. I am simply suggesting that a more developed system of justice could properly deal with such a situation.

The honor-debt can be paid many ways. Perhaps a certain sum of money would suffice with the family to pay it even if it takes them nine generations. Or, if that is not workable, they could become the slaves of the victim's family for a suitable number of generations, or ostracised. The details are up to a suitable judge of these matters and would depend on a number of factors.

But, again, as I have said before. We have no interest in such a non-person and barring other circumstances (such as his being taken in by a Brennian family, for instance) we would happily turn him over for your disposition. We don't need your problems. But we would do so out of choice. Not because we wouldn't have the right to do otherwise.

Its very nice of you to let us know what nations need replacing and who is not worthy. Good luck molding the entire world to your vision - hope that works out for you. In the meantime, I'm going to go Krioval's path and end the rebuttals. We've stated our case, you've stated yours. This thread will stay open for further discussion and debate on the proposal on the table, but we're not going round and round anymore. It's not getting us anywhere.

those arguing against are either unable to refrain from smiley whoring (NOTE: check translation of last phrase) or are threatening to kill other nations' leaders due to differences in politics.

Brennia does not support this resolution on the grounds that it interferes with our sovereignty in an unacceptable manner. We have not threatened to kill any national leaders, nor have we conducted any ... "whoring."

The Brennian Counsel of Druids may consider a proposal in which all nations unconditionally give up this area of sovereignty, requiring that criminals always be turned over, but not to give it up in all but a single limited moralistic circumstance. In fact, it would seem that we would join Rogue Newbie in support of such a proposal.

Its very nice of you to let us know what nations need replacing and who is not worthy. Good luck molding the entire world to your vision - hope that works out for you. In the meantime, I'm going to go Krioval's path and end the rebuttals. We've stated our case, you've stated yours. This thread will stay open for further discussion and debate on the proposal on the table, but we're not going round and round anymore. It's not getting us anywhere.

I suppose that you're suggesting I am wrong in saying that nations which harbor criminals and impose their views on others aren't deserving of international recognition. And, before you say that I'm the one imposing my view on others, that is completely false. I am saying that I do not want the power for others to force their views on me given to the United Nations, that I do not want those who harbor capitally punishable offenders to have semi-global protection. I'm saying that the way our nation handles our affairs is up to us. I am saying that if one country's people wish to handle a situation that began as their problem a certain way, it should not be the right of another nation, or a group of nations, to impose on that right. I ask the United Nations, please, to vote against this resolution.

PS: The Democratic Republic of Rogue Newbie thanks Brennia for its endorsement despite our differences in opinion. Their proposal is completely agreeable to us, presently.

Brennia does not support this resolution on the grounds that it interferes with our sovereignty in an unacceptable manner. We have not threatened to kill any national leaders, nor have we conducted any ... "whoring."

The Brennian Counsel of Druids may consider a proposal in which all nations unconditionally give up this area of sovereignty, requiring that criminals always be turned over, but not to give it up in all but a single limited moralistic circumstance. In fact, it would seem that we would join Rogue Newbie in support of such a proposal.

Dear Gods. You'll allow families to be enslaved for generations but oppose a resolution that does something you'd otherwise favor, and Rogue Newbie will start massive international conflicts over the fate of a single rapist. Anyway, I believe the lesson we're here to learn today is that extremism leads to tragedy. Now, I'll expect that to be written out five hundred times by both Brennia's and Rogue Newbie's leaders - due first thing tomorrow morning.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

I would like to clarify something before I hit the sack: assassination is generally an option chosen for the sake of being covert. You know, to avoid national conflict but still inspire change. It's not like I would handle such a situation by flat-out disagreeing with them and then having their leader mysteriously disappear a week later. Use your heads, people.

Dear Gods. You'll allow families to be enslaved for generations but oppose a resolution that does something you'd otherwise favor, and Rogue Newbie will start massive international conflicts over the fate of a single rapist. Anyway, I believe the lesson we're here to learn today is that extremism leads to tragedy. Now, I'll expect that to be written out five hundred times by both Brennia's and Rogue Newbie's leaders - due first thing tomorrow morning.


I too must retire for the night. It is not our nation that would necessarily allow enslavement -- it is this proposal on the table that would, or at least do nothing to prevent it. This proposal offers protection to nations that would oppose the death penalty, not to those that would oppose slavery.

And we would not condone slavery beyond that which justice required, which would rarely be more than one generation, even for such a heinous crime. We take exception to your labeling our justice system extreme, but we know that outsiders generally cannot understand our ways. It is mainly because we have true family values, unlike most nations. We believe it is the family that is responsible for its members and their actions - for good or for ill.

Waterana has voted for this resolution.

I like the fact its balanced and leaves the final decision whether to extradite or not up to our nation.

We have the death penalty on the books as the people demanded it (in an issue) however it has never been used and probably never will be. As for crimminals from other nations escaping to our nation to escape the justice system in the nation they commited their crimes in (whew, that was a mouthful :D), we would have no problems handing them over. Why the heck would we want to keep and protect a serial killer etc who isn't even a citizen of our nation? The only exceptions would be those who could show they deserve refugee status or are escaping political persecution etc.

Nor would we have any problems with another nation refusing to hand over a citizen from Waterana. If another nation is happy to keep and protect Waterana's axe murderers, then good luck to them, they'll need it :D. Either way the crimminal is not walking our streets and our people are protected from them.

Justanastan voted against the resolution. Criminals need to be brought to justice no matter where they are hiding or seeking refuge. If a criminal escapes to another country, we should have the right to bring them back to our country to recieve justice. Acts such as murder, terrorism, rape, or child related crimes are so harsh they must be punished, and these individuals commiting the crimes have no right to be hidden from the law, and nations have no right to protect such vile scum. The UN has already passed bills requiring a Fair trial and basic human rights, why shouldnt we be sending other countries criminals back to where they belong, so that justice may be served?

Our nation voted for the proposal, we feel that it is fair and works everyone's best interest.

- President of the Most Serene Republic of Yiana.

Justanastan voted against the resolution. Criminals need to be brought to justice no matter where they are hiding or seeking refuge. If a criminal escapes to another country, we should have the right to bring them back to our country to recieve justice. Acts such as murder, terrorism, rape, or child related crimes are so harsh they must be punished, and these individuals commiting the crimes have no right to be hidden from the law, and nations have no right to protect such vile scum. The UN has already passed bills requiring a Fair trial and basic human rights, why shouldnt we be sending other countries criminals back to where they belong, so that justice may be served?

Just to briefly clarify what this resolution does - it simply indicates that a nation can withhold extradition if the suspected criminal would be executed for his or her crime. It does not say that a nation should feel free to ignore the requests of other nations. A simple workaround is to sign an agreement that would prevent the death penalty from being imposed if the person is found guilty. Justice would still be served, as life imprisonment is usually as effective as execution in preventing that person from committing another crime (especially if the convict is kept in solitary confinement).

Vanhalenburgh has voted against this resolution.

We feel this allows another nation to directly interfere with another nation’s internal policies and judicial system. If a nation agrees or disagrees with another’s capital punishment system is irrelevant in our opinion.

Also barring another nation’s right to recover their citizen through military force if diplomatic attempts fail is not acceptable.

Think of the implications that could occur. A nation could coheres, bribe or threaten a citizen of another to assassinate their leader or other important person, use a device of mass destruction, or something else to cause great harm in their home nation. Then flee to a nation that does not support the death sentence and live in safety with out fear.

Technically this would allow one nation to covertly attack another with out implication. The offended nation would be barred from retaliating with military force unless it could be proven that the person was sanctioned by the nation harboring them.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Seeing as my last multi-paragraph post was responded to with tiny, little backed, un-reasoned criticism consisting mainly of:.."Nuh, you wrong"...

Imma try and understand this in a more blunt fashion:

Side A: We want the right to decide the punishment for people who commit crimes in YOUR nation. (Also, I am apparently not the only one who thinks that jurisdiction IS an element here even if specific UN resolutions do not state that the concept exists, I just guessed that most nations had developed this idea before they became sophisticated enough to create a United Nations, implying that soverign states exist and thus have laws that apply to them as well as judicial sub-division 'n such.)

Side B: We want the right to make sure criminals are tried by the laws of the nation they committed the crime in.

I...I still do not see why this issue has been brought before this body. The only people that would ever support such a thing are ones who are so anti-death penalty that they believe they can decide whether or not other nations can, but instead of an international ban (Which was proposed I believe, and failed miserably) they try this stealth approach in an effort to fool nations into giving up their rights.

Alarmist? Dear lord man, I AM ALARMED! I'm downright in a state of shock!

I have trouble justifing a vote for the Right to Refuse Extradidtion. If it can be PROVEN an individual has KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY broken the laws of a nation then shouldn't said individual be held accountable for their actions regradless of weather your nation agrees with the penalty enforced.
However Toisa main concern is to protect its people and being new to nationstates and still finding my way around the game I have decided to lend my support in favour of SU's proposial.

We do not like this resolution and if it passes, which it looks like it just might, we refuse to follow it. We will also demand that criminals of ours that are caught in other nations, are extradited back to our nation.

*flips first card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)

*flips second card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9943/readthestickies5la.jpg)

UN Nations are AUTOMATICALLY in compliance with all UN resolutions - you can't refuse to follow it.

Luindor votes against it.

Although we would probably agree to raise the fugitive's punishment to a lifetime in prison, this would not be fair to the subject. They do not deserve a punishment harsher than their original sentence.

Also, this resolution does not cover people who are persecuted for political reasons but do not face death penalty at home.

If any of my neighbours allow criminals to enter my borders, they become my chattels. This is a despotism, an enlightened one it is true, but one nevertheless.

I believe that (as one of my neighbours puts it) I am a Class 1000 telepath or the closest thing to it that can be spawned by an Archduke of the Nether Realms. I am being civilised in choosing to protect my sovereignty and my borders, and not pursuing expansionist or interfering policies.

So if criminals wish to throw themselves at my feet, I shall presume two things: 1) they, knowing my Aspect and Attributes, do so voluntarily and are therefore my possessions; 2) the country of origin chose to cede control by allowing said criminal(s) egress.

I do not believe that any state should have rights which effectively operate outside their borders unless they are mutually agreed rights which contravene no agreement or treaty which they continue to maintain.

My delegate has voted FOR. There is a reason why he is my delegate.

The Borgoan government is strongly FOR this resolution.

Borgoa already has a constitutional commitment that states:
"noone shall be extradited if there is a risk that they shall be tortured or executed".

We are strongly against all forms of torture and state-endorsed murder. We hope that this resolution will act as a stepping stone on the route to a resolution that forbids all forms of torture and capital punishment outright.

We are also happy to see that this is the majority position in our region.

Regional Delegate of Scandinavia
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

If this law were to pass, this law protecting criminals from the death penalty via radical nation law, The Democratic Republic of Rogue Newbie will be proposing a second resolution.

This will give the capturing nation the right to refuse extradition on the grounds that the country with true jurisdiction will not be executing after conviction, because that makes about as much sense as what's on the table right now.

And, if your true argument here is that you want your nation's sovereignty to be respected, you will vote for this resolution, too, as it is the exact same thing with a pro capital punishment stance. As long as your criminal is out of your country and you're protected from him, it should be fine, right?


By the way, when the above was stated earlier, I don't believe I directly addressed it. No, that is not alright with us. We are not going to trust your prisons with our criminals, as we have no idea how effective your jails are, nor will we trust the jails of any other country which will also be affected by this legislation and which may not use it as responsibly as you are claiming that you would.


We are strongly against all forms of torture and state-endorsed murder. We hope that this resolution will act as a stepping stone on the route to a resolution that forbids all forms of torture and capital punishment outright.

Ahhh, Borgoa, taking a giant leap in pushing their views on thousands of other nations. You cannot honestly believe that it is your right to dictate the enforcement or abolishment of such well-founded laws as capital punishment.

"UN Nations are AUTOMATICALLY in compliance with all UN resolutions - you can't refuse to follow it."

____
I can, and I will refuse to follow it.

All Class I Felons are EXECUTED within our borders - don't like it? Send in the blue helmets, we'll make short work of them.

This is a disgrace!

Ive seen worse from the leftist dominated UN, but is pritty bad. Who came up with this terrorist appeasement, Neville Chamerlain?

So, terrorist kills a host of innocents, runs off to a safe haven (jihadi states and the like), and the vitctim state cannot pull him back for trial?

In this case, our region, Oceana will be executing any foreign terrorists found with the entire region. Most likely without trial. Extreme resloutions require extreme solutions.

And if you don't believe me that this is irresponsible. Check out the party their having over at the Islamic League cause of this!

All nations, which are united in their opposition of international crime and the use of terror as a political tool, start executing political prisoners as a protest against this nonsense.

"UN Nations are AUTOMATICALLY in compliance with all UN resolutions - you can't refuse to follow it."

____
I can, and I will refuse to follow it.

All Class I Felons are EXECUTED within our borders - don't like it? Send in the blue helmets, we'll make short work of them.

The game mechanical effect will happen anyway.

If you don't want to allow it, your only method of resistance is to leave the UN.

SecH chooses to follow its regional delegate Borgoa and vote FOR this resolution, for a number of good reasons of which I currently cannot recall a single one due to a strange, inexplicable need to simply oppose the disturbing rantings of Rogue Newbie.

Ah - that felt good... :p

I feel that it should be added on to Future UN Resolutions that Terrorism be exempt from the Extradition clause, Allowing Nations to demand the terrorists be turned over to the victim Nation for Trial and punishment, or we could at least set up an International Criminal Court to bring them to trial. But why let these punks get away with their crime?

Oh, this is a tough decision (NOT!). I can either throw in with the people who are making the logical arguments as to why a government lacking capital punishment wouldn't want to send suspects to die, or I can go in with the torturers and assassins, or those who show blatant disrespect for the procedures of this institution. Huh. I think Krioval will continue to cast its twelve votes in favor of this resolution.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

ABOUT:the death penalty
I think that it is a bad thing due to the amount of people who have died and then proven innocent

The People's Republic of Vorticipania has reviewed this thoroughly and has decided to vote in favor of this issue.

If a person commits a crime within a nations sovereign borders, the criminal should stand trial in that nation. The criminal should be held accountable for his crimes and he should stand before his accusers. To grant him assylum is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the other nation and it would encourage other criminals to flee to protective societies. Consider the practices of the Swiss in our economy. People dump their money into Swiss accounts to hide from punishment.

If you commit a crime against a country or it's citizens, you should stand trial under the laws of that country.

We believe it is the family that is responsible for its members and their actions - for good or for ill.

I believe you'll find that the UN gnomes will have quietly dismantled all your laws which seek to punish citizens for the acts of their relatives, as this contravenes "The Universal Bill of Rights" passed Aug 8 2003: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

In this case, our region, Oceana will be executing any foreign terrorists found with the entire region. Most likely without trial. Extreme resloutions require extreme solutions.

Similarly, I'd direct you to these resolutions:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029652&postcount=28
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48

We'd also point out that nations already had the right to refuse extradition for any reason. This just ensures that you can't start a war over it if their objection is to the death penalty.

The only ones allowing justice to go undone are those states which are so backward, vengeful and disrespectful of fundamental rights that they would rather see a suspected criminal go free than agree not to murder them.

I can, and I will refuse to follow it.
No you can't, and no you won't. As long as you are a UN member, you'll comply with all passed resolutions, whether you want to or not.

Try reading the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/92411/page=faq#UN) before you try to impress us with your bluster and threats. We've heard them all before.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

I believe you'll find that the UN gnomes will have quietly dismantled all your laws which seek to punish citizens for the acts of their relatives, as this contravenes "The Universal Bill of Rights" passed Aug 8 2003: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27


Interesting. We do not see how our ways violate these "Human rights" at all. We don't punish families for the acts of their members. We simply require families to pay the honor-debts incurred by their members. This is not so unusual. In many countries, parents are held liable for the acts of thier children, for example. It is the same principle, ony expanded. Our system of law does not use punishment at all except in extreme cases, and then there is only one punishment - ostracization.

Failure or refusal to pay an honor-debt is a separate offense and thus subject to consequences. Such a failure could result an a family member's involuntary servitude to the aggrieved family, but this is a rare situation. Crime is almost non-existant in our land for the very reason that family ties are so important to us.

This is the most ludicrous proposal I have ever read.

Do you realize that under the provisions of this proposal a terrorist could detonate a nuclear device in a major city (killing thousands, and most likely earning him a death sentence) of some other country, then return to the country of his nativity and, if his government felt like it, they could refuse to turn him over to the country that he committed mass murder in? The country so abused would then, under this proposal, have no legal recourse what-so-ever, not even war against the offending nation.

It is the duty of all sane member nations to vote against this proposal.

As a side note, this sort of proposal is also why my nation continues to have no association with your United Nations.

Just to be clear, the following comments are all totally OOC:

*sigh* I'm going to attempt to refute some of "arguements" by our many welcome neophyte posters in this thread. There have been so many posts lately, so please excuse me if I don't make extensive use of the quote feature. First of all, lets talk about the UN. As it has been pointed out to you, UN membership is voluntary, but it obligates you to follow passed UN resolutions, whether you like it or not. I would be surprised if there is a nation in existence who loves each and every one of the resolutions. Saint Uriel, for example, is not crazy about the whole abortion thing. But, for now, we like being a UN member. So - these are our choices: We can live with it, we can try to have it repealed, or we can resign from the UN. What we can't do is be a whiny little bitch and say "Our way or the highway". The UN is everyone's sandbox and you play by the rules. You don't like the rules? Try to change them legally. Can't or won't do that? Fine, take your toys and go home.
This is the most ludicrous proposal I have ever read. You need to read more proposals then. There's some real howlers out there.It is the duty of all sane member nations to vote against this proposal.

As a side note, this sort of proposal is also why my nation continues to have no association with your United Nations.
If you're not a UN member, then your opinion is worth precisely jack. Nada. Nothing. You do not stand to profit or suffer by this resolution. Go find your own sandbox to play in.

Finally, I'd like to comment on the authoritarian, legalistic, facist dribble that has been spewed here. You don't like the proposal? Fine. Vote it down. Think it could be improved? Suggest how. Now, many of you have done that, and I sincerely appreciate your feedback, even if you disagree with me. This proposal was molded, before it was submitted, by invaluable feedback from other nation states who disagreed with me. I thank them for their respectful advice. What is not helpful is alarmist "terrorists are gonna blow up cities and kill my mom and then get asylum in Club Med". This proposal doesn't address asylum at all. It addresses protection of the right to refuse extradition. There was a very fine diplomatic immunity proposal by Cobdenia that was defeated not long ago because of alarmist noobs who didn't read the whole thing through and started screaming to the heavens that "diplomatz is gonna rape our puppiez".

Look, like it or not, the NSUN is currently a pretty liberal organization. Maybe even a little too liberal for Saint Uriel's taste. Again, don't like? Then change it by legal means or take your toys and go home.

...and one more thing. For those of you confused, NationStates does NOT equal real life. There is no Saddam Hussein here. No Osama Bin Laden. No UN peacekeeping force (blue helmets). However, we do have Islamic nations and we do have terrorists. I'm sure the Islamic nations would not be happy that they're being equated with terrorists. I believe this because it offends me and I'm not even Muslim.

I agree, to refuse extradition is ridiculous. I hope that this proposal doesn't pass but looking at the UN's past votes, it's membernations don't seem to think outside of the box.

My membership in the UN is for the overall safety of the region where I belong, and...unfortunately...I will abide by the rules of the UN so long as I'm a member.


But I'll find some way to get around this resolution, or find a legal loophole...hopefully.

Just to be clear, the following comments are all totally OOC: What we can't do is be a whiny little bitch and say "Our way or the highway".
Hahaha, that's somewhat ironic coming from you, Saint Uriel, because "Our way or the highway" is exactly what your resolution is intending to force upon the rest of us. You are saying that if you catch our criminal and disagree with our method of punishing him, even though he did nothing to you, we are not allowed to handle the situation as it would normally be handled in our nation.

Finally, I'd like to comment on the authoritarian, legalistic, facist dribble that has been spewed here. You don't like the proposal? Fine. Vote it down. Think it could be improved? Suggest how. Now, many of you have done that, and I sincerely appreciate your feedback, even if you disagree with me.

First of all, I would like to know how we (those against this ridiculous resolution) are the authoritarian legalistic facists. You are the one seeking UN approval to dictate the course of legal happenings in nations that are not yours to dictate.

Secondly, everyone (OOC: except you, with your forum-rules ranting, and Slappabitch, who doesn't count) has remained in character here.


What is not helpful is alarmist "terrorists are gonna blow up cities and kill my mom and then get asylum in Club Med". This proposal doesn't address asylum at all. It addresses protection of the right to refuse extradition. There was a very fine diplomatic immunity proposal by Cobdenia that was defeated not long ago because of alarmist noobs who didn't read the whole thing through and started screaming to the heavens that "diplomatz is gonna rape our puppiez".

Are you saying that this is unrealistic? Are you saying a terrorist or terrorist organization would never try to abuse a resolution like this in a major way? OOC: Because, in case you didn't know, it happens all the time in real life, which makes it all the more likely in a simulator.

Look, like it or not, the NSUN is currently a pretty liberal organization. Maybe even a little too liberal for Saint Uriel's taste. Again, don't like? Then change it by legal means or take your toys and go home.
That's what we're doing, we've been debating this in the most effective manner possible for quite some time, and will continue to do so. Again, it is you that is wasting posts on irrelevant messages like: "Oh, no, that guy isn't following the correct forum guidelines!" Please, Saint Uriel, I know you have a brain, as you have demonstrated that you are able to be both logical and grammatically correct, so use your head, and let this be the last post on this topic that has anything to do with forum rules. Sheesh.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that all civil rights should and stay as they are now.but I am all for the improvement of civil rights. I think that if a human's life could be improved than it should be improved asap. For all those who are in favor of this i think you made the right choise . But for all of those who are not in favor I hope that you will find it in your hearts to change youre minds and save these virtual people.

If you're not a UN member, then your opinion is worth precisely jack. Nada. Nothing. You do not stand to profit or suffer by this resolution. Go find your own sandbox to play in.


And one more thing, in response to your bashing Eudeminea, know that his opinion is just as valid as, if not more valid than, anything that you could possibly say. He is not a member of the United Nations, and therefore his opinion is extremely important, because if he and others can convince stupid resolutions like this to be thrown out more often, then he might consider joining the UN, and the UN would be stronger for it. Don't bash his anti-UN decision just because you can't think of an intelligent comeback to his argument.

I think that all civil rights should and stay as they are now.but I am all for the improvement of civil rights. I think that if a human's life could be improved than it should be improved asap. For all those who are in favor of this i think you made the right choise . But for all of those who are not in favor I hope that you will find it in your hearts to change youre minds and save these virtual people.

And I don't even know what this guy is talking about... he wants us to find it in our hearts to protect murderers and violent rapists? Please.

By the way, for those that missed it, Eudeminea's argument was:

This is the most ludicrous proposal I have ever read.

Do you realize that under the provisions of this proposal a terrorist could detonate a nuclear device in a major city (killing thousands, and most likely earning him a death sentence) of some other country, then return to the country of his nativity and, if his government felt like it, they could refuse to turn him over to the country that he committed mass murder in? The country so abused would then, under this proposal, have no legal recourse what-so-ever, not even war against the offending nation.

It is the duty of all sane member nations to vote against this proposal.

As a side note, this sort of proposal is also why my nation continues to have no association with your United Nations.

Very good post, Eudeminea. Nations like you would be welcome in Competence.

Very good post, Eudeminea. Nations like you would be welcome in Competence.
First off, kindly keep your regional advertising OUT of my thread, Newbie.

Second off, I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to come to the region you founded, even without your advertising, seeing as how its so compassionate and welcoming:
Competence
World Factbook Entry: If your nation is filled with incompetent pricks that ought to be taken out back and shot, or if you are such a prick, yourself, then you are not welcome here. Otherwise, come join this nation of reasonably-intelligent people that, at the very least, know their ass from a hole in the ground.

And finally, Krioval and I have already let you know that your arguements have been read and dismissed. We have no desire to go round and round with you any further. You will receive no further response from us to your posts, which have now reached borderline trolling and flamebaiting. And if you do cross the line, the mods will handle you. And that will be the LAST post you have to worry about that concerns forum rules, big boy.

Krioval and I have already let you know that your arguements have been read and dismissed. We have no desire to go round and round with you any further. You will receive no further response from us to your posts, which have now reached borderline trolling and flamebaiting. And if you do cross the line, the mods will handle you. And that will be the LAST post you have to worry about that concerns forum rules, big boy.

OOC:
Wonderful, now you are threatening me and lying at the same time, as various posts you have made show without a doubt that you have not dismissed everything I've said, because you haven't even bothered to read them. With the exception of my completely in-character assassination comment, I have fastidiously considered and responded to every argument, however inane, that you have thrown my way; you can hardly boast the same. Please keep your threats to yourself, and let resolution-based forums be used solely for resolution-based discussion.
By the way, my factbook is meant to be satirical. The only person that would take it seriously is one looking to damage whatever credibility I may have as a newcomer.

My support has been granted.

And mine.

:rolleyes:

First of all, could someone tell me what this in character ooc stuff is all about. And while we are on the subject what is the difference between NSUN and real UN?

After reading now 10 pages of stuff, I have come to the conclusion that if this resolution is passed:

1) Saint Uriel is really really a liberal Nation.

2) There are some stupid Druids that are gonna be raped and pillaged by a rash of runaway convicts.

3) Terrorism is gonna rise real quick.

Now for my fellow Right sided leaders that are voting against this resolution:

1) Thank you.

2) We need to get more conservatives/libertarians to become UN members in order to stop this liberalistic disease from spreading.

But now lets take a look at these liberal nations that would want to harbor our fugitives...Are these nations homes to terrorists or nations of criminals themselves? Are they that dumb that they will allow the criminal to do to them what they did to our own nation.

The bottom line is if you vote yes then you are saying "criminals come to us"--and if that is the case I can only ask WHY???

Please vote no

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Saint Uriel and Rogue Newbie, knock it off. Take a chill pill and stop answering each other. One or both of you is going to end up in a flame battle that's gonna get both of you forumbanned.

Rogue Newbie: FYI, the UN is only semi-IC. OOC and IC opinions mingle here, and are VERY hard to tell apart. Everyone's best bet is to remain civil, both IC and OOC.

The City by the Live S, your questions are answered in numerous stickies and various places around the forums. Start with the link below my name.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

My apologies, Frisbeeteria, but if you look back, it was not I that began this debate on IC vs OOC in this forum. I won't reply to Uriel again with respect to this resolution. It was not my intention to cause problems, just to engage in an enthusiastic debate.

My apologies, Frisbeeteria, but if you look back, it was not I that began this debate on IC vs OOC in this forum.
Respectfully, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter who started what, only who participated. And I'm not taking official notice, just telling you to chill before I have to do so.

It's all good. Nothing to see here. Move along.

To the Great NS moderator of Frisbeeteria:

Yes I know the difference...I just want this to be IC because it is a game

The Kingdom of the City by the Live Sea does not mean to insult the Higher Powers, but on the same note and with all due respect to everyone please

A) Don't harbor my criminals

B) Vote NO


Thank you,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

There are some stupid Druids that are gonna be raped and pillaged by a rash of runaway convicts.

I seriously doubt that. You obviously understand little of what you have read and even less of our ways. Every single citizen of our nation is a trained warrior and most are armed, at least with knives and short blades if not firearms.

As we have said many times, we have no interest in such non-people as have been hypothocised and would turn them over if they survived long enough to get arrested. Perhaps you do not understand what "non-people" are. They are those without the protection of a family. They can be killed with relative impunity in our lands. They would probably die of their own stupidity long before our police could take them in to custody.

As we have said before - crime is not a serious problem in our Kingdom.

And before we are criticized again for being in breach of UN resolutions concerning so-called "Human Rights," I assure you this is not the case. Our legal experts have considered this issue. All are given the same protection under our law and their deaths must be compensated to their families in relation to their honor. However, when there is no family, then there is no debt to be paid, or if the family is not Brennian, then it is not likely to be considered to have much honor, thus the honor-debt is lower and probably non-existant. The law protects all equally, it is their own honorability that creates a difference.

Although the nation of Tazikhstan is not a UN member, the issue of our possible UN membership is a hot topic, both in our national newspaper (The Daily Truth) and seen in the recent demonstrations in Leninabad (The Tazikh Capital), and is one that the government is considering, through analysis of Active Resolutions and careful consideration of the benefit to our people before holding a referendum on the subject.

The current resolution scheduled for a vote on Friday is one that the Tazikh people feel very strongly about - since the collapse of the previous government and our entry into the world of NationStates, the Tazikh people strongly oppose the death penalty - and would agree with this in principle.

However, as Prime Minister, the Cabinet and I feel that whilst Saint Uriel is acting in good faith and in a manner that agrees with our internal policies, I feel that the resolution does not take into account the effects on smaller, newer countries.

For example, were The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan a member of the UN and this resolution was passed then the arrival of any international fugitive in our great nation would create vast problems for my own people.

Being a moral, religious people, the people of my country would not wish and would not allow my government to extradite such a criminal to a country that has the death penalty. However, as you yourself have made clear, this resolution only protects nations from military reprisal and makes no such assurances in relation to economic reprisal, sanctions, loss of trading partners etc. Such retaliation could have disastrous consequences on the Tazikh economy. Even non-governmental retaliation could have an effect, our economy relies heavily on tourism and on the funds brought in from those who visit our beautiful mountains and forests and being seen by other, less liberal countries as a state that harbours criminals would have a detrimental effect on such tourism. In fact, a recent government white paper on the subject estimated that a total of 15,000 Tazikh jobs would be lost were this to happen.

As I tried to make clear, this resolution would be a case of the kind-heart of my people leading to their own suffering, and as Prime Minister I must take into account the welfare of my citizens above and beyond all other concerns - one of the reasons why the possibility of our membership is something that I am considering most carefully.

Once again, I would like to make clear that Tazikhstan is not a member but would like to take this opportunity to urge many of the larger and more prosperous nations to consider the effects that it would have on your smaller members - such countries may be younger or less experienced but the welfare of their people is of equal import.

However, the Tazikh people and I recognise the aim of this proposal and wish Saint Uriel luck in her quest to make the world a more compassionate place and hope that further resolutions would take the step of preventing economic reprisals.

Regards,

John Thompson, Prime Minister of The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

Tazikhstan, I will tell you the same thing that I have told many others, in case a proposal similar to this that provides the additional immunities you listed comes into being. If you make use of this resolution, and keep our criminals to protect them from capital punishment, we will be keeping your criminals as well, to ensure that they recieve capital punishment. Period. Our laws are not yours to dictate under the authority of the UN.

The Tazikh government appreciates your comment and even though we feel saddened by the use of capital punishment in your great nation, we realise that as a country we have much to learn in the cut and thrust of international debate and will take your insight on board. All viewpoints are welcomed by our government as we head towards our referendum on UN membership.

Prime Minister Thompson,

The people of Tazikhstan are fortunate in that the economic repercussions of such events are easily mitigated through the development of strong bonds with the numerous nations in the NS universe who respect the rule of law and will adhere to the terms of this resolution in all good faith.

Do not fear. There are many of us who will be happy to extend the hand of friendship to your people.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Honored delegates.

We are saddened by the apparent passing of this resolution. Such a blatant and obvious insult to a nation’s solvency is glaring. To allow a foreign nation to dictate the course of internal policy of another’s boarders on the criminal, especially considering that the UN has already determined that the death penalty is internal matter for each nation to decide for itself.

We understand that some nations hesitancy to turn over criminals that might receive the death sentence if convicted of their crimes if they do not support that particular point of view. However, if they choose to withhold a citizen of a foreign nation they should be prepared for what ever reprisals are tossed at them, be it diplomatic, economic, or military.

The number of door that this resolution will open are frightening. We can not help but to voice our disappointment. As a standing member of the UN we will follow the resolution and work towards hopefully refining it in the future. But let it be known that we reserve the right to enforce the justice system that the people of our great nation have approved even if that means resigning our position in this great organization.

In another matter we would like to officially welcome Tazikhstan and hope that their membership passes without issue.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

We feel that this resolution interferes with and overrides existing extradition treaties between nations, thus infringing upon our sovereignty. If a nation signs an extradition agreement with another nation, then THAT should be what is followed. The UN should not have carte blanche to put riders on any existing treaties. Passing this resolution gives the UN that right, and it now invalidates any extradition treaty a nation currently has, in the case of major crimes that could possibly result in capital punishment. This resolution, if passed, sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the UN to override treaties and agreements between countries, against their will.

Creme Brulet will vote against this attack on sovereignty, and urges other nations to follow suit.

-Jay

With due appreciation for the sovereign rights of other nations, and for the diplomatic niceties:

We, Brythain, Grand Duke of Roathin, thaumaturge, psychopomp, hierophant and psionic chirurgeon, son of the Dark Talon &c &c, hereby make known in written and physical form that any person or persons entering Roathin without appropriate and exact legal coverage have always been considered property of the state. Should said person or persons have been outlawed by the source of their legal coverage, said person or persons will thenceforth be chattels of the House of Roathin.

We are meticulous in observing legal protection; we are equally meticulous in dealing with legal non-persons as non-persons. We do not believe in the enslavement of legal persons. We do not believe that non-persons have the same rights as persons, if at all.

Subsequent diplomatic exchanges, as of gifts or in kind, may then be carried out in a civilised process.

By this my hand,
Brythain
Grand Duke of Roathin

Can I refuse to extradite a criminal so that he or she can be executed in my nation?

TLA is back, ticked off that the 'right to learn evolution' proposal passed, and is narked that this one is up for vote. we dont need a resolution that gives nations the right to refuse extradition. what we need is a resolution outlining guidelines for extradition, including a nations right to refuse it. this is too narrow

Please, you can't be serious? Prisions are over crowded everywhere. Put the psychos down, remove them from the gene pool and free space in the prisions. If you do this then those nations afriad of getting there hands dirty will support the very enemy we are trying to defeat.

:p

OKey Dokey, but please don't be surprised when they commit vial acts in your nation.

Now then, out of curiosity to those that think they can make this criminal turn around and be soooooo much reformed, what makes you think that your nation is superior to mine that the criminal will change their colors???

The City by the Live Sea is a Capitalistic nation where anyone with a work ethic shall succeed. Plenty of job opportunities and they get to keep their own wealth...So why would anyone get angry at those opportunities enough to commit a capital offense save they are pyscopaths.

But please harbor them

Im gonna give this resolution my nations support. The simple fact is that we refuse to support the death penalty in anyway, its barbaric, and sending someone back to die is just as bad. Im not goning to tell you execution nut cases how to rule your nation so dont try and tell me i have to force people to obey your rules.

Interesting. We do not see how our ways violate these "Human rights" at all. We don't punish families for the acts of their members. We simply require families to pay the honor-debts incurred by their members. This is not so unusual. In many countries, parents are held liable for the acts of thier children, for example. It is the same principle, ony expanded. Our system of law does not use punishment at all except in extreme cases, and then there is only one punishment - ostracization.

Failure or refusal to pay an honor-debt is a separate offense and thus subject to consequences. Such a failure could result an a family member's involuntary servitude to the aggrieved family, but this is a rare situation. Crime is almost non-existant in our land for the very reason that family ties are so important to us.

Being made to pay "honour-debts" is still punishment (in the same way that fines are punishments), as is enslavement, and you are therefore breaching UN law, no matter how rarely.

The country so abused would then, under this proposal, have no legal recourse what-so-ever, not even war against the offending nation.

Wrong. They could impose all kinds of non-military sanctions, or do the simple and decent thing by promising not to murder the suspect.

We feel that this resolution interferes with and overrides existing extradition treaties between nations, thus infringing upon our sovereignty. If a nation signs an extradition agreement with another nation, then THAT should be what is followed. The UN should not have carte blanche to put riders on any existing treaties. Passing this resolution gives the UN that right, and it now invalidates any extradition treaty a nation currently has, in the case of major crimes that could possibly result in capital punishment. This resolution, if passed, sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the UN to override treaties and agreements between countries, against their will.

Like most rights, this right can be waived. Extradition treaties can still be made in which nations agree to extradite whatever the punishment.

Please, you can't be serious? Prisions are over crowded everywhere. Put the psychos down, remove them from the gene pool and free space in the prisions. If you do this then those nations afriad of getting there hands dirty will support the very enemy we are trying to defeat.

Our prisons aren't overcrowded, and _Myopia_ has never once used capital punishment since gaining independence. There are better solutions to this particular problem than murdering criminals.

Now then, out of curiosity to those that think they can make this criminal turn around and be soooooo much reformed, what makes you think that your nation is superior to mine that the criminal will change their colors???

Well, the fact that we're prepared to try rehabilitation is one reason why we're more successful at it. And really, the point isn't whether they can be rehabilitated. Even if a criminal can't be rehabilitated, it is better to lock him/her up for life than for governments to engage in murder.

Can I refuse to extradite a criminal so that he or she can be executed in my nation?

It's doubtful, since you would be obliged by UN law to give him a fair trial, and fair trials are defined by the UN as occurring at the venue of the crime.

"Definition of Fair Trial"
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48

Rogue Newbie would do well to note this too.

After much deliberation, the Eternal Empire of Amnalos has decided to reverse its position and oppose this proposal.

Being made to pay "honour-debts" is still punishment (in the same way that fines are punishments), as is enslavement, and you are therefore breaching UN law, no matter how rarely.




We respectfully disagree. We do not make people pay "fines." Fines would go to the government. Honor-debt is compensation to the wronged family. Perhaps there should be a new resolution to clarify. Until then, we will continue in the UN and maintain our customs. It is sad that so many people are denied true justice in the name of these so called "human rights" but it not our concern. The welfare of our people by providing them with proper justice is.

Being from the Scroll Islands, my delegate voted yes. However, being a member myself... I voted NO. Why? I will never affirm any nations right to tell me how to think, oppress my people, steal their money, their freedoms, or anything I desire.

My nation has compulsory military service, and indeed, I consider it an oppressive military dictatorship. Just read the motto... "Fear me, fear everything about me." I am developing a military, and will have my nation bristling weapons soon. You take my 6 million people, put them under my thumb, insert some military bravado....Try not to extridite a criminal to me... I dare ya.


(OOC: BTW, This is completely contrary to liberal voting in the American elections...I consider myself a moderate left wing liberal, just so you know. However, I find it much more fun and enjoyable to Roleplay the the complete opposite view point. Yes, in this I am playing devil's advocate. )

Was there any point to this resolution? It's very nice and everything, but I was never aware that I had to extradite someone if asked :confused:

This bill must NOT pass. Think of how many criminals out there commit mass murders and escape to extradition free countries. This bill will only encourage high crimes and mass murders. :mp5:

Yes but they'd have to get past immigration first!

We cannot support this! The death penalty is the most useful tool we have. In Carops, we believe punishment is important. Also, we refuse to allow our citizens to be extradited anywhere, whether other nations like it or not

Errm can one of the senior gamers please tell me how the rules would stand if we banned capital punishment. In my opinion it would effectively repeal this resolution.

The death penalty is important to some nations.... however not to others (some of us don't need it, little or no crime :) ) but if we were asked to extradite someone we'd want to know they were guilty if we thought we were going to send someone to thier death!!!

We cannot support this! The death penalty is the most useful tool we have. In Carops, we believe punishment is important. Also, we refuse to allow our citizens to be extradited anywhere, whether other nations like it or not

And I'm sure this makes you really popular among international contacts. Let's take a look. Wow. No civil rights or political freedoms, and a sluggish economy to boot. Yeah, I can see the "benefits" of your attitude toward other nations. Keep up the "good" work. Krioval hasn't annexed another nation in at least six months, and we're looking for a decent target.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia have voiced that we do not want to be forced to turn over criminals facing the death penalty.

This is not to say we would never grant the extradition request, but simply that we would like to reserve the right to do so should we ever deem it warrented.

*places their shiny stamp of approval on this proposition*

To have the right to not turn over criminals is to have all the nations under the most lax laws on the planet. If one country has the death penalty on murder, all they have to do is go to the most compassionate country and seek asylum. Also, as long as they don't break any laws in the country that protects them, they can go unscathed and perform the most horrible acts. Sure, you can refuse based on moral reasons, but to have an undebateable right to do so conflicts with the basic construct of autonomous law. A nation cannot punish anybody but for crimes done against that nation, this leaves too much room for escaping justice.

Yuri,

Just how short minded can you be? Oh wait, don't answer that...I already know. You base a countries deeds on the basis of money? Ok, whatever. I base my country's wealth upon the amount of things we can do, the technologies we are building, not according to the wealth my people have. My people have no money, why? They don't need it. I provide everything for them, a true socialist state, and get everything they want, as long as they do what I want. In my country crime is low. I have shot and killed several people in a show that crime doesn't pay, or play here. Is that wrong? I could care less if you think it is right or not? My country is not yours, so please take your... We must be free rederick elsewhere because it falls upon deaf ears in my country.

Darkumbria, who are you talking too? Who's Yuri?

Hey, I am trying to take over the region known as Hell. I would like for anyone who is associated with the Gatesville Empire to move there and help me to claim Hell in the name of Gatesville. I need at least 13 votes to succeed in my quest. Then I can help the Gatesville Empire on thier quest to destroy the UN. Who is with me?

You'll probably have to contact UN members individually, by telegram. Firstly, because there just aren't that many who are willing to translate forum messages into game actions (ie. forum proposal campaigns--they don't work).

Also, I don't think this is even the right forum. You'd need to go to the "Gameplay" forum, which, unfortunately, is even more scarce of activity.

Wrong. They could impose all kinds of non-military sanctions, or do the simple and decent thing by promising not to murder the suspect.
With all due respect, Myopia, who are you to decide that sparing murderers is the "simple and decent thing" to do in all societies?



Like most rights, this right can be waived. Extradition treaties can still be made in which nations agree to extradite whatever the punishment.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. Even though this would be possible if heartless computers dictated foreign policy, a real person could easily break their personal extradition treaty and hide behind this, a UN extradition resolution, when the nation they cheated tried to retaliate.



Our prisons aren't overcrowded, and _Myopia_ has never once used capital punishment since gaining independence. There are better solutions to this particular problem than murdering criminals.
Just because your prisons aren't crowded doesn't mean that another nation's prisons are in the same shape. It's selfish to think that because this resolution doesn't hurt you, it can't possibly hurt anyone else.



Even if a criminal can't be rehabilitated, it is better to lock him/her up for life than for governments to engage in murder.
Again, that's your opinion. Do you honestly think that it is fair to enforce the opinion of your nation or your people on my nation or my people?



It's doubtful, since you would be obliged by UN law to give him a fair trial, and fair trials are defined by the UN as occurring at the venue of the crime.
You really dug yourself into a ditch on this one, Myopia. "Fair trials are defined by the UN as occurring at the venue of the crime." Therefore, this resolution is in breech of "Definition of Fair Trial," as it gives nations an option to ignore another resolution because of personal opinion, and it is completely illegal to pass it. Or it would be, if not for article ten (10) of that resolution. This, in fact, expressly states that the criminal could intentionally use the current proposal to escape justice in the nation where he committed the crime. The loophole that will be created by the success of this resolution will actually help criminals, via an already-existing resolution, escape punishment in the eyes of the offended - whose eyes, of course are most important. In other words, under the loophole created by this resolution in combination with "Definition of Fair Trial," criminals are allowed to decide what punishment they recieve.

I am wholeheartedly against this resolution.

What this will equate is giving UN member nations the ability to aid and abet violent criminals in the escaping of punishment. Watch as murderers flock to the "humane" nations, knowing that they are safe from punishment for their crimes, because said nations will protect their wretched lives.

This resolution touts is willingness to let nations keep capital punishment, but its true goal is to undermine the laws of nations who don't fear to permanently remove threats to public safety.

I admit I'm new to this world, but I have not chosen to involve myself in the UN yet specifically for reasons like this. Maybe I am one of those "national sovereignty freaks", but if a criminal (let's not forget that-criminal) commits an extremely violent and haneous crime (for those are the only cases in which execution should be considered) in Nova Spes, and under Spesian law a jury can sentence him to be executed, the fact that he either commits another crime in another nation and is seized there, or that he flees to another nation and is seized, should not detract from the right of the Spesian citizens to punish the criminal according to their law for a crime that was committed against their society. I fear that the UN member nations will become safe havens for violent criminals, not only placing an undue burden on those nations but also infinging upon the right of death penalty sovereign nations to punish their criminals. The people of Nova Spes and many other nations have chosen to keep the death penalty as a deterrent to future crime and an option for societal retribution, but if this resolution passes, the effects of it will totally nullify any nation's threat of execution. I do not support this resolution. Allow the sovereign nations to make their own choices.

-Nova Spes

Nations that have been absent of late: Please read the bottom of argument one hundred eighty-four if you missed it. It is vital that all in support of this resolution realize its implications.

That said, I will not be describing the effects of this resolution in a sarcastic manner that nations like Krioval might prefer.

For all purposes of this exercise, pretend that "Rogue Newbie" is the victim and "Krioval" is the aggressor, although I'm sure this would never be the case.
Rogue Newbie: Krioval, ten men from your country recently decimated a small building of ours and killed seventy-four civilians, then fled to your nation.
Krioval: Ahhh, my apologies.
Rogue Newbie: ...
Krioval: Oh, what was your point?
Rogue Newbie: We want them back.
Krioval: Why?
Rogue Newbie: To try them.
Krioval: Oh.
Rogue Newbie: ...
Krovial: No can do.
Rogue Newbie: Excuse me?
Krioval: Well, we aren't going to let you try them.
Rogue Newbie: Why not?
Krioval: Because they did it.
Rogue Newbie: And?
Krioval: And you would convict.
Rogue Newbie: So? You just admitted that they killed seventy-four of our civilians.
Krioval: When you convicted them, you'd give them the death penalty.
Rogue Newbie: Your point?
Krioval: We're totally not cool with that.
Rogue Newbie: ... Are you actually saying that your men, who killed seventy-four innocents, are not to recieve the death penalty because you disagree with it in principle?
Krioval: Yes. If we return them, you have to promise not to kill them.
Rogue Newbie: ... Are you serious?
Krioval: Yes, sir.
Rogue Newbie: We're going to destroy you, just so you know.
Krioval: Actually, you can't. We have the right to refuse to extradite them, now, with UN protection against any military action you might want to take, and our criminals have elected to waive their right to be tried at the venue where their crime was committed.
Rogue Newbie: You have got to be kidding me...
Krioval: Nope. Great resolution, isn't it?

I agree, if someone kills 74 citizens of Kazarac they are going to die.

I'm glad I'm not member of the UN... ;)

...because after all, Krioval secretly wants to obliterate Rogue Newbies, and would invoke UN resolutions to get the job done. Oh wait. We wouldn't. You almost had me convinced for a moment, though. Krioval doesn't extradite to countries whose standards of punishment are less humane than ours for a simple reason: it would be dishonorable for us to treat one group of convicts differently from another when the crime committed is identical among the two sets. Besides, Kriovalian extraterritorial law would provide an avenue by which they could be tried and convicted of murder in Krioval and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Trust me, if Krioval were truly interested in destroying a much smaller nation, we wouldn't bother with diplomatic trickery - we'd go for annexation and invasion. Subtlety would be a waste of our time and resources. For the record, killing seventy-four people through clandestine means would be considered a subtle operation if the goal was all-out war. So please stop with the silliness. It makes you look...silly.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

...because after all, Krioval secretly wants to obliterate Rogue Newbies, and would invoke UN resolutions to get the job done. Oh wait. We wouldn't. You almost had me convinced for a moment, though. Krioval doesn't extradite to countries whose standards of punishment are less humane than ours for a simple reason: it would be dishonorable for us to treat one group of convicts differently from another when the crime committed is identical among the two sets. Besides, Kriovalian extraterritorial law would provide an avenue by which they could be tried and convicted of murder in Krioval and sentenced to life imprisonment.

And Krioval, once again, demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding with regard to what I was trying to say. I was not stating that you would actually try something like that, but that a less responsible nation could and would try something like that. This resolution isn't only going to affect responsible nations like yours.

With all due respect, Myopia, who are you to decide that sparing murderers is the "simple and decent thing" to do in all societies?

We acknowledge that we don't hold absolute moral authority. But given that we can't be sure of any universal morality, we'd rather not accept any assertions that anyone has the right to murder anyone else.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Even though this would be possible if heartless computers dictated foreign policy, a real person could easily break their personal extradition treaty and hide behind this, a UN extradition resolution, when the nation they cheated tried to retaliate.

If the treaty was drafted correctly, the right not to be attacked could probably be waived too. After all, the military action would only indirectly be due to the refusal - technically, it would be in response to the contravention of the treaty.

Just because your prisons aren't crowded doesn't mean that another nation's prisons are in the same shape. It's selfish to think that because this resolution doesn't hurt you, it can't possibly hurt anyone else.

We were merely expressing our belief that other solutions are available to the problem of crowded prisons than killing people.

Again, that's your opinion. Do you honestly think that it is fair to enforce the opinion of your nation or your people on my nation or my people?

Yes. That's what campaigning for basic human rights is all about. As far as we are concerned, your government and your people have no right or authority to commit murder.

You really dug yourself into a ditch on this one, Myopia. "Fair trials are defined by the UN as occurring at the venue of the crime." Therefore, this resolution is in breech of "Definition of Fair Trial," as it gives nations an option to ignore another resolution because of personal opinion, and it is completely illegal to pass it. Or it would be, if not for article ten (10) of that resolution. This, in fact, expressly states that the criminal could intentionally use the current proposal to escape justice in the nation where he committed the crime. The loophole that will be created by the success of this resolution will actually help criminals, via an already-existing resolution, escape punishment in the eyes of the offended - whose eyes, of course are most important. In other words, under the loophole created by this resolution in combination with "Definition of Fair Trial," criminals are allowed to decide what punishment they recieve.

We'd rather see criminals go free than allow states to commit murder. Of course, we'd do our best to persuade the nation demanding extradition to impose lesser sentences, and if that failed we'd get our legal experts on the task of finding a loophole via which the suspect could be tried and detained if found guilty, but in the end we cannot be a party to murder, especially not murders committed by governments.

Frankly, it disturbs us that you'd rather go to war or let criminals run free than refrain from murdering them.

So if Osama Bin Laden unleashed the Q-Bomb on the world and he wound up in your country you wouldn't kill him or export him to a living but harmed nation despite the fact he killed BILLIONS of people?
(Reference to a Woody Allan movie)

We were merely expressing our belief that other solutions are available to the problem of crowded prisons than killing people.
You were merely pushing that belief on thousands of nations against their will.

Yes. That's what campaigning for basic human rights is all about. As far as we are concerned, your government and your people have no right or authority to commit murder.

And as far as the law is concerned, your government and your people have no right or authority to dictate the laws of our government. My people voted, and we support the death penalty. You are not a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Rogue Newbie, therefore you do not hold any authority there.

Yes. That's what campaigning for basic human rights is all about. As far as we are concerned, your government and your people have no right or authority to commit murder.
We'd rather see criminals go free than allow states to commit murder. Of course, we'd do our best to persuade the nation demanding extradition to impose lesser sentences, and if that failed we'd get our legal experts on the task of finding a loophole via which the suspect could be tried and detained if found guilty, but in the end we cannot be a party to murder, especially not murders committed by governments.
Frankly, it disturbs us that you'd rather go to war or let criminals run free than refrain from murdering them.
Frankly, it disturbs us that you'd rather let a murderer go free (to possibly kill again) than let the nation he offended try him as was in their best interest.

Hey, let me get this straight. this thing is saying that criminals can do something in Country A and flee to Country B, a country that may or may not like Country A, and that it's up to Country B to decide what to do with them?

To put that in context: Osama bin Laden launched an attack on the United States on September 11, remember? The Afghan Government didn't want to hand him over so we went in to find him, remember? If someone attacked your country and hid out in another one, you sure should want to go beat the crap out of him regardless of what that other country thinks.

Look at it from another angle; you're a UN nation who lets refugees into your borders because you're a nice caring person. Then this resolution is signed and criminals flock to your country, knowing that they'll be let in and that they won't get the death penalty. You'd become the trash of your Region. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??? IS IT??? BE SENSIBLE! VOTE NO!

An individual nation has every right to not export a fugitive, but if he is a political fugitive or a terrorist, the nation who wants the fugitive has a right to use force to retrieve the criminal against the witholding nation. If this resolution is passed, Green Sun will simply ignore it altogether.

To put that in context: Osama bin Laden launched an attack on the United States on September 11, remember? The Afghan Government didn't want to hand him over so we went in to find him, remember? If someone attacked your country and hid out in another one, you sure should want to go beat the crap out of him regardless of what that other country thinks.

Or, you could just guarantee not to kill him. Then, if they still refuse, the resolution does not prevent you invading.

You happen to have picked a rather good example, by the way. Executing a religious terrorist only makes him a martyr, so it makes even more sense to guarantee not to use the death penalty.

An individual nation has every right to not export a fugitive, but if he is a political fugitive or a terrorist, the nation who wants the fugitive has a right to use force to retrieve the criminal against the witholding nation. If this resolution is passed, Green Sun will simply ignore it altogether.
Let's not be hasty, Green Sun. Rather than directly infuriate the UN like the UN is angering the majority of pro death penalty nations, just use a different excuse to attack them. I'm sure a nation stupid enough to withhold a murderer from justice with the people he offended, thereby angering the offended nation and possibly prompting them to start a war with you for being pushy and obnoxious, has something else in their legal system that you can use as an excuse to destroy them.

Or, you could just guarantee not to kill him. Then, if they still refuse, the resolution does not prevent you invading.
Because we all know that an unaffected nation should be allowed to force you to spare his life.

Because we all know that an unaffected nation should be allowed to force you to spare his life.

We don't believe that you have the right to take anyone's life. Therefore, it's legitimate for anyone to stop the act if they can.

If a community within a nation was committing "honour killings", punishing members of their community for contravening their religious laws, the rest of society would be perfectly justified in trying to prevent such things, even if they had nothing to do with the victims.

We don't believe that you have the right to take anyone's life. Therefore, it's legitimate for anyone to stop the act if they can.
Not according to international law.

If a community within a nation was committing "honour killings", punishing members of their community for contravening their religious laws, the rest of society would be perfectly justified in trying to prevent such things, even if they had nothing to do with the victims.
Fair enough, if you ignore the fact that we are separate societies.

Okay, I understand that this death penalty thing has you all a little nervous; you peacemakers don't want to be accesories to murder. Have you thought about this? If you don't extradite the criminals and allow them to be tried and executed, then they will continue to commit their crimes and you will STILL be an accessory to murder.

So no matter what you do someone's going to die. Is it going to be another innocent person, or a guilty murderer? Really, do you need to think about that?
:headbang:
And as I said before, if you sign this because you DON'T have a death penalty and you DON'T BELIEVE in it (and therefore don't want to put someone in the hands of a government that might execute them), then criminals will race to your country, where they will live out their lives in prison on your funds while their victim's families never see justice acted out. Your prisons will overflow with criminals who want to live off of your funds and your government will collapse. Hey, if that's what you want, go right ahead; if this passes, I'm seriously considering resigning.

Look, this isn't some sort of pro-death-penalty advocate talking here, this is someone who's just stating the facts as he sees them and hopes to be heard.

This resolution just does not make sense. People ALREADY do this. All you're doing is putting in pencil and paper what's already been done, just with consequences. I have a right to get my criminals back, for whatever crimes they may be. A murderer is no longer human if he kills in cold blood.

Not according to international law.

Which is why we want to add this to international law, so that we do have the right to prevent some murders.

Fair enough, if you ignore the fact that we are separate societies.

What if this was a community that isolated itself from the rest of society? You might say that they can't be totally isolated, but nor can communities in separate nations in the modern world. Or you might say that it's justified because they're under the same government - but our societies are also both under the rule of UN law.

Mace Squid Jam, to use a real life example, do you see millions of Americans committing capital crimes then fleeing to the UK, or Italy, or Poland? Because the EU forbids its members from extraditing without a guarantee that the death penalty will not be used.

I have a right to get my criminals back. Green Sun is dead right. You crazy peacekeepers and pro-lifers want to let somebody get away with murder?

I think this might put things in perspective for you. This is not a threat, no matter how much it might seem like one. This is merely a hypothetical scenario. YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY is killed or maimed by John, a noted terrorist. :mp5: John then flees to Terroristville, a (fictional) UN nation that, because of this resolution, doesn't have to return him to you. So John goes about living his happy murderous life and YOUR FAMILY IS DEAD. ANYONE who claims to CARE in the slightest about JUSTICE SHOULD NOT vote for this. ANYONE who doesn't support the death penalty BUT ALSO doesn't want their nation to become a cartel of criminals SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS.

I gues what it comes down to is; would you rather be partially responsible for a murderer's death (if you extradited) or would you rather let everyone get away with everything, because we all know that there are countries that harbor terrorists. Now, if anyone other than maybe four or five of you would bother to READ this, that 5 thousand majority might quickly diminish.

I'm setting up a scenerio right now in II.
A NeoBlack Sun terrorist has been detected on one of our ships headed of a Planet Federation lab/storage facility. Now, if this resolution is passed and PF decides not to extort him, I have a right to go in there and take him back to my country. Why?
Because NeoBlack Sun is a terrorist organization that has vowed to the collapse of Green Sun. By harboring this terrorist, this basicly says that they support NBS, therefore has also pledged to destroy my nation. See how Extortion works beauties?

I really hate Liberals.

Which is why we want to add this to international law, so that we do have the right to prevent some murders.
Alright, being heartless, it is hard for me to explain something to someone with a heart. But bear with me for a few moments here. In the Democratic Republic of Rogue Newbie, the harshest crimes - those being first degree murder, violent rape, and each of these in combination - are given extremely harsh punishment. We do not perform executions in a friendly manner, as, in the majority of our people's minds, those who commit such atrocious acts are not deserving of sympathy. All criminals are given, by the power of the state, five appeals at no cost to the defendant. Technology that serves in convicting criminals recieve huge government endorsement. As a result of all of this, a criminal has never been found to have been unjustly punished by our three HSC's (HSC is a legal abbreviation in our nation meaning Highest Severity Crime). As a result of the brutality of their execution, and our stance of incessant pursuit of such criminals, HSC's happen very rarely. Now, if a criminal had the option of fleeing to a nation where the death penalty was illegal, and being protected by the UN from any physical pursuit of justice, murder and violent rape rates within our nation would surely increase durastically. So, in trying to protect criminals from a penalty which you believe is too severe, you have killed many, many more people than would have died, the vast majority of which were probably innocents.

Mace Squid Jam, to use a real life example, do you see millions of Americans committing capital crimes then fleeing to the UK, or Italy, or Poland? Because the EU forbids its members from extraditing without a guarantee that the death penalty will not be used.
Yes, but instead they flee to Mexico and Canada because they're closer. This happens all the time; in fact, this is going on right now if you have been paying attention to the news.

Forget what was originally in this paragraph, just look at Newbie's post above (the part regarding Mexico and Canada). Newbie's explanation is much better.

If this passes, I'm not going to excersise that right at all. I'm just going to extradite prisoners left and right, and if you won't extradite my criminals, then that's eventually going to be your problem. Because that's all this is; a RIGHT to refuse extradition. I still think this is a stupid idea, but in all honesty, I don't need your criminals filling up my prisons, and I certainly don't need my criminals running around inside my own country.

The reason that I think this is stupid is because there are some people who just want to catch their criminals and they don't particularly like this idea. I also want everyone to be aware that their society could collapse in a cesspool of crime if they don't extradite. Just FYI.

Green Sun, just so you know, this resolution won't enable you to attack someone who's sheltering terrorists.

Green Sun, just so you know, this resolution won't enable you to attack someone who's sheltering terrorists.
If anything it will do the opposite.

The resolution doesn't ensure that criminals will evade all punishment; only that criminals will not be subject to the final punishment. A nation which does not have the death penalty would be free to extradite criminals for offences not carrying the death penalty.

Furthermore, it is exaggeration to suggest that this resolution will cause non-death-penalty nations to be flooded by people who will continue their criminal careers. If they commit a crime under that nation's laws, they've got 'em.

The point such exaggeration is trying to make is, I think, that responsible governments try to prevent harm to their citizens, and see themselves as wrong if their inaction allows their citizens to be harmed. (And if you notice an echo of the Laws of Robotics, it's deliberate.)

So it would be foolish to allow a person accused of serial murders of toddlers in nation X to walk freely around nation Y. Similarly, a confessed terrorist who has acted in Nation X should not be allowed to operate in Nation Y. (Italics included in bid to pre-empt further diversions from topic.)

OK: Nation Y puts 'em in temporary custody. They appeal. Y's courts consider the appeal. Y can't send 'em back; they'll die. Y can't let them loose: Y's citizen(s) will die. So temporary custody becomes permanent. Nation Y publicises this fact internationally. Those who flee to Y know what they face.

It's difficult to argue on this topic without straying into the deeper moral argument of "death penalty, right or wrong". I can see why death penalty nations might think this a surreptitious attempt to outlaw the death penalty. It's not. It's saying that nations that have a moral objection to the death penalty should not be forced, by extradition or by fear of military action, to act against their views.

I'm sure the preceding sentence will come back to haunt me the next time NS indulges in a gay marriage debate. However, such 'social' issues can be imposed and overturned at will. Death, however, is final. (No "not in my nation" arguments on the underlined statement will be entered into.)

The resolution doesn't ensure that criminals will evade all punishment; only that criminals will not be subject to the final punishment. A nation which does not have the death penalty would be free to extradite criminals for offences not carrying the death penalty.
That's been admitted... certain opponents of this proposal have gotten carried away and missed out on that fact.

Furthermore, it is exaggeration to suggest that this resolution will cause non-death-penalty nations to be flooded by people who will continue their criminal careers. If they commit a crime under that nation's laws, they've got 'em.

The point such exaggeration is trying to make is, I think, that responsible governments try to prevent harm to their citizens, and see themselves as wrong if their inaction allows their citizens to be harmed. (And if you notice an echo of the Laws of Robotics, it's deliberate.)

So it would be foolish to allow a person accused of serial murders of toddlers in nation X to walk freely around nation Y. Similarly, a confessed terrorist who has acted in Nation X should not be allowed to operate in Nation Y. (Italics included in bid to pre-empt further diversions from topic.)

OK: Nation Y puts 'em in temporary custody. They appeal. Y's courts consider the appeal. Y can't send 'em back; they'll die. Y can't let them loose: Y's citizen(s) will die. So temporary custody becomes permanent. Nation Y publicises this fact internationally. Those who flee to Y know what they face.

Exactly, they know what they face: lesser punishment than death, when death is what they deserve in the opinion of the nation that they offended. Ultimately, the article in "Definition of Fair Trial" that states that such a trial takes place in the area where the crime was committed should be considered much more thoroughly, even if the criminal is for some reason allowed to overturn this right.

It's difficult to argue on this topic without straying into the deeper moral argument of "death penalty, right or wrong". I can see why death penalty nations might think this a surreptitious attempt to outlaw the death penalty. It's not. It's saying that nations that have a moral objection to the death penalty should not be forced, by extradition or by fear of military action, to act against their views.
But, by not being able to force this extradition, 1.) The victims and the offended nations well-established laws are ignored and disrespected, and 2.) Loopholes are created and protected by international law that I have detailed various times; if you wish to refer to some of my previous statements, you can see what I mean by this.

This is a god thing. This provides more freedom for countries and create a justice system to their wishes.

It's saying that nations that have a moral objection to the death penalty should not be forced, by extradition or by fear of military action, to act against their views.

Actually, it's even more elementary than that. It's saying that nations who don't punish crimes with killing shouldn't be coerced into killing by proxy.

This is a god thing. This provides more freedom for countries and create a justice system to their wishes.
I really have no idea what you're talking about; this provides more freedom for criminals, and equalizes national freedoms by taking them from the victimized nation and giving them to the capturing nation.

Actually, it's even more elementary than that. It's saying that nations who don't punish crimes with killing shouldn't be coerced into killing by proxy.
You still don't understand, do you Krioval? Alright, logic is lost on you, so that's out. Sarcasm seems to be as well, so that's out. Heart seemed to temporarily quiet Myopia, but even that didn't work on you. The existence of various, obvious loopholes and incredible ease of abuse didn't work, either. This kind of falls under a few categories, but it is the last thing I can think of to try to change your mind:

You say that "nations who don't punish crimes with killing shouldn't be coerced into killing by proxy." I must make it clear to you that this is exactly what you will be doing by approving this proposal. If criminals are given the option to escape the death penalty via this proposal, they will use it, and capital punishment will serve as less of a deterrant in nations where it currently serves as one, such as mine. Now, being less of a deterrant, many people that had reservations with performing capitally punishable offenses will now continue with what they may or may not have been planning, and use this resolution to protect themselves afterwards. So, for the sake of directly sparing a few criminals, you have indirectly murdered countless civilians.

So, finally, I ask you, Krioval, and what's more, all who support this resolution: Which is worse, going against your nation's moral code for the sake of justice, thereby directly causing the death of one murderer, or stubbornly sticking to your nation's moral code and indirectly causing the death of thousands of innocents?

Give this some honest consideration before you reply.

This resolution places an unnecessary legislative burden on any nation that exercises capital punishment. Specifically, it forces such nations to enact laws allowing the option of a lesser penalty (such as life imprisonment) for extradited criminals.

Additionally, the clause regarding military reprisal is either unenforceable (since a nation can find or even invent another reason for an invasion) or could prevent a nation from defending itself against another nation from which a criminal was recently extradited.

This matter should be settled in the extradition treaties between individual nations rather than in a blanket UN resolution.

To the representative from Rogue Newbie:

First, capital punishment seldom acts as a strong deterrent to crime, but even if it does, it's not as if one is going to commit murders and rapes and then flee to designated countries with ease. I declare your statements on this to be hyperbolic and irrelevant. Krioval kills only in cases of treason, and for no other reason. Somehow, if life imprisonment is insufficient deterrent, I think that the policies of that country with regard to education, healthcare for the mentally ill, and a decent economy are lacking. It has nothing to do with Krioval.

Second, saying that Krioval doesn't follow logical arguments is completely false. We have yet to be presented with one that isn't weighted entirely by biased statements as to the efficacy of capital punishment and bombastic claims as to the perfection of one's justice system.

Third, thousands of people aren't being killed because Krioval has abolished the death penalty - thousands of people are being killed because thousands of other people have decided to murder. Again, the solution would be to better educate, provide strong economic opportunities, and hire additional police. Krioval finds that unrestricting weapons laws and mandating basic self defense training to its citizens has also helped immeasurably. Consider trying some of those options instead of just saying that spilling blood solves all problems, and you might not look like a barbarian to most Kriovalians.

Finally, we get to the crux of your argument:

Which is worse, going against your nation's moral code for the sake of justice, thereby directly causing the death of one murderer, or stubbornly sticking to your nation's moral code and indirectly causing the death of thousands of innocents?

False dichotomy. And you know better. Instead, Krioval chooses to stick to our moral code and have no substantive effect on the death of innocents, as we are not committing or encouraging the commission of crimes. Again, if the people of your country view life imprisonment as "cushy", we suggest revamping your prison system. Besides, it turns out that life imprisonment makes the general population just as safe as execution, and since our prisoners are put to work, there is an economic benefit as well.

Consider thought as an alternative to pomposity.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Originally posted by Rogue Newbie: Which is worse, going against your nation's moral code for the sake of justice, thereby directly causing the death of one murderer, or stubbornly sticking to your nation's moral code and indirectly causing the death of thousands of innocents?

This boils down to: Know that you have killed someone, or fear that you may indirectly kill many.

But could also boil down to: Know that you have killed someone unjustly, or fear that you may indirectly kill many unjustly. Convictions are not always just.

The temptation in this discussion is to take a high moral stance: "No nation, or group of nations, has the right to force another nation to kill." Which would allow someone else to write, "But wouldn't it have been better to force Germany to kill Hitler ....", and we're off on the death penalty/no death penalty argument.

Bringing in the "deterrence" angle is another side-track. That sets the scene for any number of snide comments -- "My nation doesn't have the death penalty and we have far fewer murders per head of population than your country, which has, so how's your deterrence, nyah-nyah-nyah!" While this could be fun, especially if we deliberately blind ourselves to all other factors, it's not relevant here.

This is not a pro/anti death penalty resolution. It is saying that nations are free to decide either way without fear of reprisal.

If a person found guilty of a capital crime in Nation X flees to Nation Y, Nation Y can decide not to hand him back. Nation Y may also decide to detain him. In doing so, it may refer to the evidence of a crime in Nation X. But that's not re-trying the crime, or trying it elsewhere than where the crime was committed. If a court case ensues from the decision, it's about the decision.

Skredtch, it doesn't force death penalty nations to 'enact' laws. What it does do is put death penalty nations in the position your agrument would put non-death-penalty nations in: acting by default, letting others do it. The difference being that non-death-penalty nations are putting death-penalty nations in a reversible position. You can't reverse the death penalty.

So: either make some nations take a decision that can be altered, or make other nations take a decision that can't be altered and that makes them guilty of killing.

If a criminal commits murder in a nation that he knows he will receive the death penalty he is accepting that fact.

No nation should have say over another’s judicial policy unless it is one of their citizens who is accused of the crime.

I do not see how turning over a suspect to a nation that has the death sentence contributes in any way to assisting in the suspects death. However by harboring said suspect you could be putting your own citizens in danger.

As far as hold the suspect in custody for a undetermined amount of time, what would you charge them with? Unless they had committed a crime in your nation you would be holding someone for no reason. What happened to due process? You would not be able to hold them with out charging them with something.

So your options are to trump up a charge or hold them with out trial and without rights....hummm....does not seem to sit with the sensibilities of a nation so strongly opposed to the death sentence.

So you would have to either make up a charge or let them free in your nation and risk the death of a citizen. Which means that you still could be responsible for causing a death of a human, only this time an innocent one.

The suspect is a citizen of another nation, subject to their laws and punishments. Regardless of what your nation believes I do not see what right you nation would have to refuse sending another’s citizen back to them.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Vastiva remains of the opinion, the Death Penalty is a necessary, if unfortunate, part of justice, particularly in the case of exceptionally heinous criminal action.

That being said, the entire discussion so far is mostly irrelevant - should one nation decide another should not put a particular murderer, pedophile, father raper, serial killer - whatever - to death, then Vastiva will gladly acquiesce to that request.

Consider, if you will, our climate, our weather, the cold unending nights... there are many, many ways we can make a particular lawbreaker realize the full meaning of "life at hard labor", particularly in a climate where Mother Nature herself can make life... exceptionally hard. Why a nation should wish for an individual to be made... exceptionally uncomfortable for a prolonged period of time, rather then be swiftly and humanely put down, is beyond our consideration - and again, does not matter. We have found many with similar interests. Perhaps it amuses them...

In any case, our opinion is to adapt. If that nation did not wish them dead, so be it. Perhaps their citizenship could be moved to the new nation - I'm sure they will be most happy to accept the pediophile into their population; mayhaps they are running a bit short on serial killers, and this one is just what they need?

If that is not the case, there is no limit on what the nation wronged can do - save it cannot execute them. Vastiva is absolutely happy to make them wish they were dead - and to deny them that release for as long as medical science allows.

((I hate whatever engine this uses, keeps bumping me off))

To begin with, this policy is unacceptable on the grounds that it's one side trying to force foreign and domestic policy on another. If your two views are so radical in comparison to one another, then have a World War. Otherwise, let either side, if one is wrong and one is right, decide for themselves what the better punishment is. One country does not have the right to violate the sovereignty of another country.

Also, you are merely considering the criminals. This is one man, who murdered 74 natives of the victim country, attempting to attain diplomatic privlege, and escape the wrath of this victim country. Wars have been started over less.

One country should not be permitted to have negotiative dominance over another, no matter how humane their view is. It's one step short of conquering them witless. And no country has the right to dictate policy (foreign or domestic) upon another country, unless they have conquered them.

On the basis of the fact that the rights of the criminal should not be sacramount to the foreign relations between the countries in question, let such matters be handled on a case by case basis only. Let the venue of the crime be used first, and let the ambassadors of the country of the miscreants come and plead their case. The country wronged, by principle of pride, will be of the feeling of protecting their sovereingty as it is, and the people will be calling for his beheading in the streets, in the way of most large mobs. This practice of having the ambassadors come and negotiate in the venue of the crime should show the compassion of the other nation, and preserve international relations.

The country come to negotiate the extradition shall attempt in every manner to negotiate a suitable reparation for the deed, to the government and the families and community of the victim, who have been wronged by this injustice.

If the reparations are considered...unsatisfactory...the trial shall commence in the victim country. Of course, these same diplomats shall attend the trial, to ensure it's not a farce, and shall be given a say in the sentencing.

The jury pooled for the trial shall consist of equal parts from each country.

To put it short and sweet, most criminals don't posess diplomatic privlege. Let each extradition request be negotiated over, and the criminal should never be given leway to enter a country and murder it's people, without expecting that country to fight tooth and nail, over how the process of punishment shall be carried out.

Let the punishment fit the crime. Let there be a fair trial. And let both countries be assured of proper, conclusive vindication.

~Seth Mayvus

Greetings.

We think that this form of argument is typical of the conflict found in a certain kind of cultural era - the so-called moderns always have a problem balancing individualism, voluntarism, instrumentalism and relativism. The secret is to focus on fewer -isms.

Our solution is simple. Person X from your state enters mine. Was it a legal entry? Are you 'protecting' him (for example, with a passport-type document)? We put him to the question: do you want to a) surrender your passport and come under our jurisdiction, or b) keep your passport and return home? If under our jurisdiction, he (now 'it') is our chattel.

Negotiations about its fate can of course be entered into, and within the aegis of the UN, should be civilised. But remember, its legal status in our land of Roathin is 'thing with no rights' if it has given up your protection.

In this my hand
Brythain
Grand Duke of Roathin
Thaumaturge, psychopomp, hierophant and psionic chirurgeon
Son of the Dark Talon &c &c

If you refuse extradition, you still have to deal with the criminals.

If you refuse extradition on the grounds that you do not support the death penalty, then the innocent families and friends of the victims will never see JUSTICE.

If you refuse extradition because you don't like the other nation and want to annoy them, then you are not acting in the spirit of cooperation that the UN embodies.

If you refuse extradition, you will be hated by the JUSTICE-loving nations who want their criminals to PAY for their crimes.

If you refuse extradition, criminals will use the loophole that Rogue Newbie found to basically choose their own sentence.

Extradition is a GOOD THING. It gets criminals out of your country, JUSTICE is served, and everyone except the criminal is happy. And the criminal is a criminal who doesn't love justice and therefore someone whose opinions don't count.

To the representative from Rogue Newbie:

First, capital punishment seldom acts as a strong deterrent to crime, but even if it does, it's not as if one is going to commit murders and rapes and then flee to designated countries with ease. I declare your statements on this to be hyperbolic and irrelevant. Krioval kills only in cases of treason, and for no other reason. Somehow, if life imprisonment is insufficient deterrent, I think that the policies of that country with regard to education, healthcare for the mentally ill, and a decent economy are lacking. It has nothing to do with Krioval.
Because we all no that a born psychopath will see the error of his ways if he recieves a better-than-collegiate education for free.
Third, thousands of people aren't being killed because Krioval has abolished the death penalty - thousands of people are being killed because thousands of other people have decided to murder.
Which is exactly what I said, I don't know why you are implying that anything other than exactly that has been said. Perhaps you can't read, in which case your nation's educational system is in dire need of being revamped.

Finally, we get to the crux of your argument:

False dichotomy. And you know better. Instead, Krioval chooses to stick to our moral code and have no substantive effect on the death of innocents, as we are not committing or encouraging the commission of crimes. Again, if the people of your country view life imprisonment as "cushy", we suggest revamping your prison system. Besides, it turns out that life imprisonment makes the general population just as safe as execution, and since our prisoners are put to work, there is an economic benefit as well.
It's hardly a "false dichotomy," and you know better. It is exaggerated, that's given. But it would still inevitably happen and it would still be the fault of all who supported this resolution that many more innocents were killed. You can deny that on paper, but you cannot deny it in your mind.
And if you're admitting more innocents would die in countries where the death penalty does serve as a deterrent, how does life imprisonment make "the general population just as safe as execution?"

What if a criminal from your country flees to another and extradition is refused?

Heart seemed to temporarily quiet Myopia, but even that didn't work on you.

Actually it was a crushing need for sleep.

Now, if a criminal had the option of fleeing to a nation where the death penalty was illegal, and being protected by the UN from any physical pursuit of justice, murder and violent rape rates within our nation would surely increase durastically. So, in trying to protect criminals from a penalty which you believe is too severe, you have killed many, many more people than would have died, the vast majority of which were probably innocents.

As Krioval pointed out, if the only thing preventing mayhem breaking loose is coercion by the state using the threat of death, that's a symptom of various other issues that your government ought to be dealing with better. The solution to this is not to carry on abusing the rights of citizens to maintain order, and to coerce other governments into acting as accessories to your oppression and neglect, but to change direction and fulfil your duties as a government.

Yes, but instead they flee to Mexico and Canada because they're closer. This happens all the time; in fact, this is going on right now if you have been paying attention to the news.

Living in the UK, I'm not terribly knowledgeable about Canadian and Mexican extradition law. Do they have policies of refusing to extradite capital criminals?

Because we all no that a born psychopath will see the error of his ways if he recieves a better-than-collegiate education for free.

No. But he wouldn't be a threat if your government fulfilled its responsibilities by providing comprehensive health-care for the mentally-ill.

And a born predisposition to mental illness would be less likely to manifest itself in the first place if he'd had a better life.

Executing the insane is an even more egregious breach of human rights than other executions.

Which is worse, going against your nation's moral code for the sake of justice, thereby directly causing the death of one murderer, or stubbornly sticking to your nation's moral code and indirectly causing the death of thousands of innocents?

Give this some honest consideration before you reply.

Whilst Rogue Newbie makes a coherent and logical argument, this is a matter that is inherently subjective, many of the arguments made are of a moral nature. In the eyes of the Tazikh people, the death of one is of equal import as the death of hundreds; no life should be taken other than by the hand of God. State directed executions are still murder, and this is a vile thing to our way of life in both a subjective (to murder is blasphemous) and objective (we have yet to see evidence that capital punishment acts a deterrent, especially in cases of those who are willing to sacrifice their own life to kill others, and, as mentioned previously, become a martyr) manner.

Whilst we understand that other nations do not share our view or our religion, the Tazikh government urges those nations opposed to consider the fact that in many cases, life-time imprisonment is a fate worse than death, for two reasons.

First of all, as has been argued many times, the imprisonment of such individuals in a nation such as Krovial or Tazikhstan will not be a "holiday camp" type atmosphere - these people will be punished and will suffer during their incarceration.

Secondly, capturing these criminals and keeping them would also help in preventing further murders. If a member of a terrorist organisation was captured in a state that has the death penalty, and was sentenced to be executed, he/she knows that their life will be coming to an end regardless of how they act from that point on, and in one final "attack" on said state, may withold information relating to other members of their terrorist organisation, happy in the knowledge that they will become a martyr and inspire others to their cause.

By holding these people for life, there is a greater probability that they will repent, and recognise the evil acts that they have committed. This would provide us with valuable intelligence on the other terrorists and terrorists groups with which they were affiliated and allow us to act - preventing further deaths in the future. Remember the old adage "Dead men tell no tales."

However, even after our successful referendum and acceptance into this fine body, the Tazikh government has yet to cast its vote. Whilst we cannot concede that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment, we do recognise that this resolution could be exploited, as the Rogue Newbian Ambassador in Leninabad has illustrated to both our cabinet and the other representatives here. Additionally, as discussed by our Prime Minister, the Tazikh government feels alarmed at the prospect of economic reprisals and would not want to be put in a position where the government had to decide between the economic and spiritual well being of our people.

Whilst both arguments have been very well made, those for the resolution have yet to deal effectively with the issue of how this could be exploited and those against have yet to prove that the death penalty would prevent further heinous crimes.

Right wing elements in our government (already angered at our joining the UN) are demanding that we vote against this, seeing it as a further example of "bleeding heart liberalism" leading to the proliferation of murderers, rapists and terrorists, and are threatening to hold up our internal Further Education Care Bill whilst left wing demonstrators have taken to the streets of Leninabad and Akhmiske calling for a vote for this, in order to make the world a more humane place.

I will continue to follow this debate and stay in communication with the cabinet before deciding how to cast our vote.

Ambassador Imran Zaric of The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

Additionally, as discussed by our Prime Minister, the Tazikh government feels alarmed at the prospect of economic reprisals and would not want to be put in a position where the government had to decide between the economic and spiritual well being of our people.

The current situation is this - without legislation, governments can do whatever they like as long as they don't breach other resolutions. They can invade you, impose sanctions, cut diplomatic ties, or annihilate your entire nation with nuclear weaponry.

By passing this resolution, we at least prevent military action. And as far as economics goes, we're sure you can find plenty of willing trade partners among the tens of thousands of nations in the world. A few imposing sanctions over extradition matters is a drop in the ocean.

By passing this resolution, we at least prevent military action. And as far as economics goes, we're sure you can find plenty of willing trade partners among the tens of thousands of nations in the world. A few imposing sanctions over extradition matters is a drop in the ocean.

We recognise this as a valid and convincing argument, however, still going through the transition from Communist rule, through a Dictatorship to Democracy has had a huge impact on our economy, and without firm alliances and guarantees from other nations to "take up the slack" as it were, if this situation were to come about it could still have dire consequences for our people.

Of greater concern is the fear that this MAY lead to an increase in international crime - opinions strongly voiced by the opposition on this subject seem to have some credence and Tazikhstan is a nation that wishes to do all it can to help prevent this from taking place. As a developing nation, the Tazikh government is aware of the danger of being seen by some as a haven for terrorists and does not wish to become an international pariah. As those who are opposed have pointed out - another reason for military reprisal could be used as a pretext for war by the most extreme of nations, although we do realise that the extradition of one person is unlikely to lead to this.

My current recommendation to my government is to vote for this resolution, yet all aspects of discussion must be carefully considered before deciding on a course of action.

Ambassador Imran Zaric of The Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

We recognise this as a valid and convincing argument, however, still going through the transition from Communist rule, through a Dictatorship to Democracy has had a huge impact on our economy, and without firm alliances and guarantees from other nations to "take up the slack" as it were, if this situation were to come about it could still have dire consequences for our people.

This can happen just as easily if the resolution fails. This resolution has no effect on the legality of this. The only way that this resolution would make it more likely that you get sanctions is where a nation would have invaded you, but is forced by the UN to do something less.

As a developing nation, the Tazikh government is aware of the danger of being seen by some as a haven for terrorists and does not wish to become an international pariah. As those who are opposed have pointed out - another reason for military reprisal could be used as a pretext for war by the most extreme of nations, although we do realise that the extradition of one person is unlikely to lead to this.

If you are worried about this, the resolution doesn't stop you extraditing anyway. It just helps protection your option to refuse.

An excellent proposal all round.

We should like to offer our nation as a sanctuary for anybody who may be wanted for whatever crime in another nation. So long as they can pay their way, in monetary or intelligence values.

You will be safe here, whatever your alleged crime. There is no such thing as a War Crime.

You will be entirely safe, unless they offer more than you.

Okay, I understand that this death penalty thing has you all a little nervous; you peacemakers don't want to be accesories to murder. Have you thought about this? If you don't extradite the criminals and allow them to be tried and executed, then they will continue to commit their crimes and you will STILL be an accessory to murder.

So no matter what you do someone's going to die. Is it going to be another innocent person, or a guilty murderer? Really, do you need to think about that?
:headbang:
And as I said before, if you sign this because you DON'T have a death penalty and you DON'T BELIEVE in it (and therefore don't want to put someone in the hands of a government that might execute them), then criminals will race to your country, where they will live out their lives in prison on your funds while their victim's families never see justice acted out. Your prisons will overflow with criminals who want to live off of your funds and your government will collapse. Hey, if that's what you want, go right ahead; if this passes, I'm seriously considering resigning.

Look, this isn't some sort of pro-death-penalty advocate talking here, this is someone who's just stating the facts as he sees them and hopes to be heard.

We're dealing with criminal accusations. This may apply beyond what is normally considered "Crimes" amongst states.

The idea is to ensure one sovereign state has the right to refuse extradition of an accused criminal (accused in the foreign state of a crime)...

Not only does this deal with adversity to punishment, but may deal with adversity to the crime.

For example, I should retain the right to refuse extradition of a person wanted in another state for "selling marijuana.

Or, refusing to extradite a person for owning a firearm.

Or, refusing to extradite for any number of "moral" laws of other states, such as adultery, sodomy, blasphemy, apostacy, etc.

Since when was "justice" summarily defined as killing people anyway? Did I miss that particular announcement? Statements like:

Denying extradition of a murderer will ensure that the victim's family is denied justice!

are misleading. First, it is automatically assumed that the suspect is guilty. If a national government requested extradition and appended things like that to their request, Krioval would almost automatically deny the request on the basis that the accused is already being considered guilty by the organization that is to conduct a trial. Second, justice doesn't always have to be of the "eye for an eye" type. Really, the important thing is that the public is kept safe and that those victimized are helped as much as possible to end their grief. As it turns out, executing murderers and rapists in Krioval didn't have much, if any, positive effect on the victims (of rape) or their families (of either crime). More often than not, their emotional turmoil continued for years, and in one particularly interesting study, it was even found that they didn't consider themselves to be any safer than victims/survivors of crimes in which the perpetrator was locked away for life.

Krioval,

They get away with murder. This would ensure people that have premeditated murder schemes or enough power the ability to leave the country to one that has a reputation for refusing. A UN protected right to deny some form of justice process means that the law of all countries can be dictated by that one country. You aren't able to punish them unless they did the crime in your country, don't send them to the named country, no justice. I'm not for the death penalty, i'm for the justice system.

The only parties denying justice are those nations that refuse to use lesser penalties than death. All it takes is an agreement not to murder the suspect, and this resolution no longer covers the matter.

Our concern is also justice - but as far as we're concerned, the death penalty is not justice. It's an act of vindictive, mindless vengeance.

The only parties denying justice are those nations that refuse to use lesser penalties than death. All it takes is an agreement not to murder the suspect, and this resolution no longer covers the matter.

Our concern is also justice - but as far as we're concerned, the death penalty is not justice. It's an act of vindictive, mindless vengeance.

The death penalty is justice.... An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. My country uses the death penalty to keep its citizens in line. Yes, I know that the black market exists in my country, but only because we allow it too. The caste system we use allows, unfortunately, for the would be criminals of the nation to fall through the cracks of assistance against such a life. However, when all fails them, and they decide to seek the life of the criminal, my governement must step in and protect the rights of the citizens we govern. That is what the death penalty is for. And through its use, we control crime. It is interesting to note that we have yet to sentence anyone to death that didn't deserve it.

The death penalty is justice.... An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. My country uses the death penalty to keep its citizens in line. Yes, I know that the black market exists in my country, but only because we allow it too. The caste system we use allows, unfortunately, for the would be criminals of the nation to fall through the cracks of assistance against such a life. However, when all fails them, and they decide to seek the life of the criminal, my governement must step in and protect the rights of the citizens we govern. That is what the death penalty is for. And through its use, we control crime. It is interesting to note that we have yet to sentence anyone to death that didn't deserve it.

This appears to be a particularly good example of a government neglecting its duties and violating its citizens' rights - in this case with a caste system - and then resorting to the death penalty.

And whether or not criminals deserve death is not an objective matter in which you hold the authority to decide.

Ah. One sees again, myopically perhaps, the problems inherent in a 'modern' worldview.

The duty (if it can be called that) of a government is to govern, no more and no less. In these worlds where our will and power may be one, we each define our own duty, and if consistent, execute it. Terms are bandied such as citizens' rights but these rights are merely universal rights interpreted through the organs of government.

The true problem in these worlds where will and power shape landscape, as they do in the lands of Our jurisdiction, is that definition of key terms might be at the arbitrary distinction of magisterial will. For example, We, speaking as overlord of the Grand Duchy of Roathin, define persons who have no legal standing by Our codes of government to be chattels; i.e. things not possessed of a common humanity. [As an aside, We ourself are only a quarter human by genetic foundation.] Such chattels include those who enter our borders without legal standing or the standing accorded by treaty. They are quickly overwhelmed by the sheer grandeur before them and succumb to a grave and debilitating inertia.

It is all rather sad.

OK, fine.

You may keep our citizens that have been found guilty by one of the most fair and equitable systems of justice in the world. If they have failed to be rehabilitated through our system, and longer periods of incarceration (2 years to a maximum of ten for ANY crime), they have probably failed to correct their criminal habits. In Wasabi Peoples, punishment by death is quite legal, but very rarely happens. You may receive it for any felony crime, but only after rehabilitation fails multiple times, and incarceration fails. Even in that case, it must be decided by two separate juries.

While we would rather do it ourselves, you are more than welcome to keep our hardened, untreatable criminals. Have fun!

Albert Hoffman, President
The Stoned Commonwealth of Wasabi Peoples.

Good evening my esteemed collegues of the United Nations.

I am here today to address you one several points I have seen within this debate as needing to be explored.

Firstly, let me make it known that I am against this proposal. I do not feel that the United Nations should govern this particular issue which has already been in discussion between our fellow nations and their treatised allies. I can offer nothing new to the argument regarding the legality or illegality of the use of capital punishment. I hold a personal belief that it is a fair and just way to deal with especially hardened criminal. I do not feel it is right for the taxpayers of my nation to pay for a life of ease for persons who commit the most heinous of crimes against their fellow man, giving them a lifetime of free shelter, food, clothing, and medical care.

These particular issues are not within our own borders. Those convicted of crimes within our borders, tried legally and fairly according to our own justice system, will not find life within our prisons easy. Our first goal is rehabilitation of a criminal, and this is in addition to his or her punishment. Therefore; our nation has instituted many programs within our prison system which require that all paroled or released criminals be able to pass basic skills testing to ensure they are employable. Criminals must also work while in prison, doing duties which allow the prison to function smoothly (ie: laundry, farming, kitchen duties and cleaning). Prisoners earn rights to luxuries through their hard work. They are monitored, upon release or parole, and offered assistance to integrate into mainstream society. Repeat criminal offenses are low, due to these programs, and therefore only the most heinous of offenses are even examined for the possible use of the death penalty. Lifetime inhabitants within our system is rare.

I noted in the proposed agreement that the rights not to extradite is voluntary. Rest assured that should any nation step forward and wish to have returned to them a person of interest in any criminal matter, my nation will be more than happy to oblige. For those nations who do not wish to extradite, due to their own personal beliefs that the death penalty is unagreeable form of punishment, you will reap the rewards of your decisions. Your nation becomes solely responsible for any acts perpetrated by said persons, including any criminal acts.

I would urge nations who disagree with this particular proposal not to resign from the United Nations if this passes. Yes, our citizens may fail to see justice prevail. It is a sorrowful thing when we can not provide that for our citizenry. But I believe that we will see fewer criminals within our borders, which equvilates lower costs to our governmental offices. And should we decide to extradite criminals, as this proposal allows, then we will uphold our own beliefs in justice. That is all that matters in the end.

Thank you for your time.

--Kestral Lei
President, PEWF
Founder, NSSRC

I've voted against. When fugitives are caught, I don't want to spend ages thinking about exucuting them, I'll just put them back in prison and try not to let them escape again.

Good evening my esteemed collegues of the United Nations.

I am here today to address you one several points I have seen within this debate as needing to be explored.

Firstly, let me make it known that I am against this proposal. I do not feel that the United Nations should govern this particular issue which has already been in discussion between our fellow nations and their treatised allies. I can offer nothing new to the argument regarding the legality or illegality of the use of capital punishment. I hold a personal belief that it is a fair and just way to deal with especially hardened criminal. I do not feel it is right for the taxpayers of my nation to pay for a life of ease for persons who commit the most heinous of crimes against their fellow man, giving them a lifetime of free shelter, food, clothing, and medical care.

These particular issues are not within our own borders. Those convicted of crimes within our borders, tried legally and fairly according to our own justice system, will not find life within our prisons easy. Our first goal is rehabilitation of a criminal, and this is in addition to his or her punishment. Therefore; our nation has instituted many programs within our prison system which require that all paroled or released criminals be able to pass basic skills testing to ensure they are employable. Criminals must also work while in prison, doing duties which allow the prison to function smoothly (ie: laundry, farming, kitchen duties and cleaning). Prisoners earn rights to luxuries through their hard work. They are monitored, upon release or parole, and offered assistance to integrate into mainstream society. Repeat criminal offenses are low, due to these programs, and therefore only the most heinous of offenses are even examined for the possible use of the death penalty. Lifetime inhabitants within our system is rare.

I noted in the proposed agreement that the rights not to extradite is voluntary. Rest assured that should any nation step forward and wish to have returned to them a person of interest in any criminal matter, my nation will be more than happy to oblige. For those nations who do not wish to extradite, due to their own personal beliefs that the death penalty is unagreeable form of punishment, you will reap the rewards of your decisions. Your nation becomes solely responsible for any acts perpetrated by said persons, including any criminal acts.

I would urge nations who disagree with this particular proposal not to resign from the United Nations if this passes. Yes, our citizens may fail to see justice prevail. It is a sorrowful thing when we can not provide that for our citizenry. But I believe that we will see fewer criminals within our borders, which equvilates lower costs to our governmental offices. And should we decide to extradite criminals, as this proposal allows, then we will uphold our own beliefs in justice. That is all that matters in the end.

Thank you for your time.

--Kestral Lei
President, PEWF
Founder, NSSRC
You don't need to act all polititiony, mr president. just be yourself, god i hate it when people do that.
no thankyou for your post,
--One pissed off Nation

My country, for one, will not be leaving the United Nations. This resolution simply makes our job easier. When it is decided that a citizen of this country should be executed, it is because we have failed in all attempts to rehabilitate them. Also, many things seen as criminal in other countries are not here. Drug usage is quite legal, drug abuse is not. Shoplifting and general theft are also not illegal in the same sense. Businesses are encouraged to use any legal means (cameras, RFID's, et cetera) to identify and catch theives, who will then only be ordered to return the item or pay for it. Protect your own goods. I am not paid to babysit you.

Of the almost one billion people in Wasabi Peoples, only a few thousand are incarcerated. In our prisons, prisoners are expected to do nothing but sit in their cells and think about what they have done. This is Strike Two. If rehabilitation efforts have not worked, criminals are incarcerated up to a maximum of ten years to sit and think what they have done. They are not allowed visitors, and may recieve one letter per day.

If, after multiple incarcerations, an individual is still defiant, they may be sentenced to death. However, the decision of the first jury is automatically appealed. The case will be argued twice. If it is a split vote, I decide. This may seem totalitarian, but this has happened probably only twice in our history.

Let the criminals run away from here? Go ahead. It saves us money. I did, however, vote down the resolution.

This debate has inspired some of our lawmakers into making a very unorthodox proposal...

In most cases, when someone is convicted of a Death penalty offense, much expense is incurred to insure a fair trial, and a sufficient appeals process. Besides becoming expensive, it is also a very trying time for the family of the victims. Those that are convicted usually spend years in prison while they exhaust all of their appeals, years that they are supported by the tax money of hard working citizens. Years that the family of the victim must endure before seeing whether or not justice will be served. In an effort to minimize the costs, both economically and emotionally, a group of politicians have banded together and come up with a proposal that will automatically exile someone that is convicted of a Death Penalty offense, to one of our neighboring countries that is against Capital Punishment. Once there, they may do with them what they please.

These maverick politicians believe this will help rid our country of many of our most heinous criminals, and save us a lot of money at the same time. Funds that can be redirected towards grief counselling, and/or criminal education/rehabilitation programs. Right now, support is still limited, but as this UN proposal gets ever closer to becoming law, more and more people are getting behind it. For those countries that want to "Save Our Murderers", you will no longer have to wait until someone finds their way to your country...we will give them to you, free of charge!

Ah. One sees again, myopically perhaps, the problems inherent in a 'modern' worldview.

The duty (if it can be called that) of a government is to govern, no more and no less. In these worlds where our will and power may be one, we each define our own duty, and if consistent, execute it. Terms are bandied such as citizens' rights but these rights are merely universal rights interpreted through the organs of government.

Well, then our disagreement is a fundamental one concerning the state and its relationship with citizens. The philosophy espoused by the majority of _Myopia_ns says that the existence of the state is only legitimate and justified if that state performs certain duties and protects the rights and freedoms that all sapient beings deserve. The state does not have rights, as such, only duties and the privileges necessary to fulfil those duties, and the responsibilities of individuals are towards each other and not governments or nations.

As Krioval pointed out, if the only thing preventing mayhem breaking loose is coercion by the state using the threat of death, that's a symptom of various other issues that your government ought to be dealing with better. The solution to this is not to carry on abusing the rights of citizens to maintain order, and to coerce other governments into acting as accessories to your oppression and neglect, but to change direction and fulfil your duties as a government.
I already disputed Krioval's "point," so bringing it up again as your own opinion is pointless. I already shot down his defense once, you may read back in my statements if you wish to see it.



Living in the UK, I'm not terribly knowledgeable about Canadian and Mexican extradition law. Do they have policies of refusing to extradite capital criminals?

Yes, although none protecting us from forcefully seizing them.

Whilst Rogue Newbie makes a coherent and logical argument, this is a matter that is inherently subjective, many of the arguments made are of a moral nature. In the eyes of the Tazikh people, the death of one is of equal import as the death of hundreds; no life should be taken other than by the hand of God. State directed executions are still murder, and this is a vile thing to our way of life in both a subjective (to murder is blasphemous) and objective (we have yet to see evidence that capital punishment acts a deterrent, especially in cases of those who are willing to sacrifice their own life to kill others, and, as mentioned previously, become a martyr) manner.

Either way, Tazikhstan, lives are inevitably going to be taken due to the passing or failing of this resolution. It is up to you to decide whether or not those will be the lives of innocents or the lives of killers.

Whilst we understand that other nations do not share our view or our religion, the Tazikh government urges those nations opposed to consider the fact that in many cases, life-time imprisonment is a fate worse than death, for two reasons.
That's not the case in our nation, due to the nature of our death penalty, nor is it the case in many other nations.

Secondly, capturing these criminals and keeping them would also help in preventing further murders. If a member of a terrorist organisation was captured in a state that has the death penalty, and was sentenced to be executed, he/she knows that their life will be coming to an end regardless of how they act from that point on, and in one final "attack" on said state, may withold information relating to other members of their terrorist organisation, happy in the knowledge that they will become a martyr and inspire others to their cause.

By holding these people for life, there is a greater probability that they will repent, and recognise the evil acts that they have committed. This would provide us with valuable intelligence on the other terrorists and terrorists groups with which they were affiliated and allow us to act - preventing further deaths in the future. Remember the old adage "Dead men tell no tales."

Well-done, Tazikhstan, a new argument finally hits the floor. However, although it may be true that dead men tell no tales, scared men are more reluctant to act, and if they are too scared to act, there will be many less tales to tell.

This being my first issue to be voted on since admission into the UN, it posed a serious question in our foreign policy making.

It is and will be an issue of contention. I would not to presume tell another nation how to treat its criminals, and I would hope that any other nation would respect that our laws are different than theirs. If they do not agree, fine. We will not act against another foreign power simply because they did not agree with our domestic policy.

Our own domestic policy has reflected this resolution. We look at it as if the nation harboring the criminal is willing to fully support them, so be it. We will not stand in the way of that happening. We will gladly hand over citizenship to that nation with that nation understanding that if their new citizen sets foot in Thrycae, that individual will be held in our courts and tried for their previous crime.

So if someone from my political party went to your nation where capital punishment is legal and killed several top politians and their families and flees back to my country where all he gets is community service and a fine, that would be perfectly ok? I dont think so.

Why would you just want to quickly end a criminals life after they have commited crimes that could affect people for the rest of their lives. They get of lightly!!! And what if a criminal wanted to die, he could commit many crimes and also get what he/she wanted, to die.