NationStates Jolt Archive

I won't bother explaining the proposal because the proposal itself is fairly straightforward. I shall merely ask that you join with me and throw your weight behind it... So many of my best friends have been all but destroyed by rapists that I feel the need to make a difference, if only a make-believe one.

Oh, and as a side note - would all those nations who have been producing badly spelt and badly explained proposals please read your proposal over before submitting it, perhaps even getting a second opinion? I may only speak for a minority here, but a badly spelt proposal loses 50% of my support before I even read it...

Excuse the rather pointed question here, but how exactly is your proposal going to make rape punishments more severe for all UN members? Some nations may very well have the death penalty as punishment for rape. Still others may have life imprisonment. In both cases, one is at the logical extreme for acceptable punishments for the crime, considering that many forms of torture are illegal by UN resolution. I can only conclude that your proposal is either hopelessly vague or else, in many cases, actually reduces the punishments for rape.

~ Yuri Sokolev

EDIT: It doesn't decrease any penalties, but it still breaches national sovereignty - I like to determine the punishments for crimes myself, thank you.

Here's the proposal text (to save you from any ravenous wolves prowling the forum ;)):

Stronger rape sentences
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Yiplonia

Description: Rape is the destruction and defilement of an innocent life for the gain of mere short term personal pleasure. As such, it is more heinous than murder, which can occasionally have 'good' motivation behind it. Additionally, rather than possessing the closure of death, rape victims are forced to live on in constant torture. Many choose to end their lives through suicide rather than go on.

As such, Yiplonia proposes the following:-

1) Any nation which has instituted a death sentence for any crime, regardless of what that crime is, shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with the death sentence too.

2) Any nation which does not fall into the above category shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with life imprisonment. Note: this is not a 'life' sentence - the convicted person is sent to prison until they die, and not allowed to leave under any circumstances.




Oh, and as a side note - would all those nations who have been producing badly spelt and badly explained proposals please read your proposal over before submitting it, perhaps even getting a second opinion? I may only speak for a minority here, but a badly spelt proposal loses 50% of my support before I even read it...


'It happens' is what I say. There are a lot of not well thought through proposals in the UN, and some of over-deliberated proposals, as well. Both seem to have the inevitable spelling errors (though the former probably have more than the latter). So long as Max doesn't hire an editor to run through and correct the spelling of everything on the site, I say: 'it happens'.

Description: Rape is the destruction and defilement of an innocent life for the gain of mere short term personal pleasure. As such, it is more heinous than murder, which can occasionally have 'good' motivation behind it.

That is just laughable. No, rape is just not more heinous than murder. It just isn't.

Additionally, rather than possessing the closure of death, rape victims are forced to live on in constant torture.

Here you are victimising rape victims even more, by reducing them to feeble creatures unable to go on with their life.

Many choose to end their lives through suicide rather than go on.

Irrelevant.

As such, Yiplonia proposes the following:-

1) Any nation which has instituted a death sentence for any crime, regardless of what that crime is, shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with the death sentence too.

We must strongly oppose this, as this will actually give UN sanction to the death sentence. It as a poorly veiled attempt at making the death penalty legitimate and making a possible future UN ban on it dependant on the repeal of this resolution. It is just sickening.

2) Any nation which does not fall into the above category shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with life imprisonment. Note: this is not a 'life' sentence - the convicted person is sent to prison until they die, and not allowed to leave under any circumstances.

Umm, we do not like for the UN to set the types of punishments we have. We do not have life imprisonment, and we'll be damned if you are going to make us instate such barbarism into our judicial system.

I oppose the proposal on the usual national sovereignty grounds. Penal codes are clearly a domestic issue except in cases of international crime.

I generally take the opposite position on national sovereignty than my colleague from Texan Hotrodders. However, I do not do so here. The UN has little place discussing specific sentencing issues, and at any rate such a matter should be left up to judges in specific cases. I would oppose this legislation in the Goobergunchian Low Council and oppose it here.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

So be it... your opinions and votes are your own.

Nevertheless..

That is just laughable. No, rape is just not more heinous than murder. It just isn't

Not a very civilised argument... no reasoning. I wonder if you know anyone who has been subject of rape... I know a girl who, 7 years on, still gets depressed whenever she so much as hears the word 'rape'. This to me qualifies as mental torture... and to me 7 years of mental torture is more heinous than murder. What you think is up to you.

Here you are victimising rape victims even more, by reducing them to feeble creatures unable to go on with their life.

I'm describing the situation as I see it and have seen it far too often. And aye... many are unable to go on with their life.

We must strongly oppose this, as this will actually give UN sanction to the death sentence. It as a poorly veiled attempt at making the death penalty legitimate and making a possible future UN ban on it dependant on the repeal of this resolution. It is just sickening.

Actually I specifically aligned the proposal to compensate for nations which do not wish to use the death penalty. *If* a nation uses the death penalty for one crime, I see no problem with the UN requesting it to use it for another crime also. It in no way makes the death sentence legitimate, because if there is a UN ban on the death sentence then all nations will fall under category 2. Please read the text more carefully.


As per national sovreignity... I admit that didn't cross my mind at the time of my proposing. If you hold your sovreignity higher in value than the matters in hand, then by all means ignore the proposal; if you are willing to forego your sovreignity and support me then please do so. I apologise for not considering sovreignity issues before proposing.

I'll keep this brief as it mainly just reiterates points made by my colleagues: Yes, rape is a heinous crime and is recognised as such in Saint Uriel. That said, this is a very poorly though out proposal. It has no international relevance, therefore it does not belong in the UN. Also, and more importantly, it is an unacceptable encroachment on national sovereignty. Every nation has the right to decide their own crimes and penalties. If you want to set the death penalty for rape in your nation - so be it. If nation ABC wants to make rape legal - so be it. That's their right.

Not a very civilised argument... no reasoning. I wonder if you know anyone who has been subject of rape... I know a girl who, 7 years on, still gets depressed whenever she so much as hears the word 'rape'. This to me qualifies as mental torture... and to me 7 years of mental torture is more heinous than murder. What you think is up to you.
I believe you're new here, so I'll let you know, real life (RL) anecdotes really have no place in UN debates. This is not the RL UN.

Actually I specifically aligned the proposal to compensate for nations which do not wish to use the death penalty. *If* a nation uses the death penalty for one crime, I see no problem with the UN requesting it to use it for another crime also. It in no way makes the death sentence legitimate, because if there is a UN ban on the death sentence then all nations will fall under category 2. Please read the text more carefully.
Your proposal does not REQUEST anything. It REQUIRES it. Please read your proposal more carefully.

As per national sovreignity... I admit that didn't cross my mind at the time of my proposing. If you hold your sovreignity higher in value than the matters in hand, then by all means ignore the proposal; if you are willing to forego your sovreignity and support me then please do so.
Well OK. Consider it ignored.

Description: Rape is the destruction and defilement of an innocent life for the gain of mere short term personal pleasure.

You really need to define this better. As it is, this covers a wide variety of crimes, including mutilation, torture, necromancy (in some nations), and autopsies (in some nations). Note that we do not hold the last two as illegal. Your definition needs to be refined to be the actual act of rape. And don't try to dress it up in rainbows, bunny rabbits, and pink lollipops.

As such, it is more heinous than murder, which can occasionally have 'good' motivation behind it. Additionally, rather than possessing the closure of death, rape victims are forced to live on in constant torture. Many choose to end their lives through suicide rather than go on.

This really is unnecessary and really drags down rape victims even farther. You are using their defilement in a method to benefit yourself, which makes the defilement even worse. This is about as shameful as selling 9/11 souveniers.

As such, Yiplonia proposes the following:-

1) Any nation which has instituted a death sentence for any crime, regardless of what that crime is, shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with the death sentence too.

We would rather not. We have Prison Ages for a reason. We simply drop them off there with some basic supplies and let them live the rest of their lives isolated from society. It's easier than execution.

2) Any nation which does not fall into the above category shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with life imprisonment. Note: this is not a 'life' sentence - the convicted person is sent to prison until they die, and not allowed to leave under any circumstances.

Wow. They get stabbed by a cellmate and need emergency surgery the prison can't commit. But, under this, they may not go to the hospital. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if the prison caught on fire.

Okay okay I cower before the impossibly logical points which assault me -.- I give in!

Oh, but one minor point :-

Wow. They get stabbed by a cellmate and need emergency surgery the prison can't commit. But, under this, they may not go to the hospital. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if the prison caught on fire.

As a Dictatorship I'd call that an indirect death penalty ;)

I hereby withdraw from this thread and flee back to my palace... I hope any future proposals I offer will have fewer obvious flaws :P

I believe you're new here, so I'll let you know, real life (RL) anecdotes really have no place in UN debates. This is not the RL UN.
Saint Uriel, there is no such restriction on forum discussion. As long as it remains on the topic of the UN proposal under consideration, real life examples are fine. It's only in proposals that they are expressly forbidden.

Description: Rape is the destruction and defilement of an innocent life for the gain of mere short term personal pleasure. As such, it is more heinous than murder, which can occasionally have 'good' motivation behind it. Additionally, rather than possessing the closure of death, rape victims are forced to live on in constant torture. Many choose to end their lives through suicide rather than go on.


HA!

While a proposal is a form of sharing your opinion, soap boxin' your veiws on Rape vs. Murder are inappropriate and I made my decision as soo as I read "...more heinous than murder, which can occasionally have 'good' motivation behind it..." Why? a) You can't prove that b) See if the victims of both agree and c) if this resolution DID pass, technically my justice system will suffer as murderers could cite this resolution as "hey, it had good motivations so don't punish me" type things.

The "closure of death" ?!? Glad you're rootin' for the rape victims. *cough*

As such, Yiplonia proposes the following:-

Hm.. if I wasn't lazy, I'd look up the rules, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal to put your nation's name in a purposal.

1) Any nation which has instituted a death sentence for any crime, regardless of what that crime is, shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with the death sentence too.

HA! No. That's ridiculous.

2) Any nation which does not fall into the above category shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with life imprisonment. Note: this is not a 'life' sentence - the convicted person is sent to prison until they die, and not allowed to leave under any circumstances.

No, again.

I personally believe that first time offenders can be rehibilitated, and my nation will do as such. If they are repeat offenders (twice for child molesting, three times for rape/sexual assult) than they will be imprisioned for life. I'm not letting this "proposal" destroy that for my nation, especially with all the flim-flam that you've tacked on to this.

Saint Uriel, there is no such restriction on forum discussion. As long as it remains on the topic of the UN proposal under consideration, real life examples are fine. It's only in proposals that they are expressly forbidden.
Acknowledged and understood. Mea cupla for confusing the two. Thanks.

I hereby withdraw from this thread and flee back to my palace... I hope any future proposals I offer will have fewer obvious flaws :POK, now you've hit my guilty Catholic conscience and made me feel bad. Please DO offer future proposals. Please continue to be a part of the UN. We were all new once and we've all made mistakes (mine were MUCH worse than yours). Hell, I'm STILL relatively new.

The only way to learn is to keep trying (and read the stickies, and FAQ's, rules, etc). I sincerely apologise if we (I) jumped on you too much. For a first proposal, it was comparatively not bad at all. In short, you are a welcome part of the UN.

In the sovreign of the Great Dominator, Criminals are either sent to battle island, or fully castrated. ALthough Rights are subjective, what few the people deserve should be removeds when one violates one of the few of the other.

Those who violate the rights of other have no rights.

I would propose, that all sex offenders, regardless of age, be publicly castrated- and without the aid of anisthesia. Preferrably with rusty vise-grips. Assuring that they could never possible become repeat offenders -as nearly all sex offenders seem to do. After which they are usually sent to Battle island! (tm) to fight to the death.

The Fact is - this is not torture. Since It would be poppycock to say that a rapist is in any way human. Or even animal.

as they deserve to do.

Just to be a pedantic ass...

2) Any nation which does not fall into the above category shall be required to punish rapists and child molesters with life imprisonment. Note: this is not a 'life' sentence - the convicted person is sent to prison until they die, and not allowed to leave under any circumstances.What if aquitted on an appeal?

Hm.. if I wasn't lazy, I'd look up the rules, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal to put your nation's name in a purposal.You are correct, sir.

I would propose, that all sex offenders, regardless of age, be publicly castrated- and without the aid of anisthesia. Preferrably with rusty vise-grips. Assuring that they could never possible become repeat offenders -as nearly all sex offenders seem to do. After which they are usually sent to Battle island! (tm) to fight to the death.

How does one castrate a female?

We don't do any sort of physical deformation. A simple chemical neutralization works rather well in most cases, removing the ability to get angry - or to feel any strong emotions or motivations, but so be it.

For the serial types, death by flamethrower or death by shark are popular punishments. We see no reason to keep alive anyone who commits this sort of repeated act. A single case, perhaps rehabilitation is an option - once we remove the impulse.

And for the whiners out there - as in many cases we have noted the same genetic and/or chemical flaws, these can be diagnosed and therefore "treated". If these are not present, we use other alternatives.

How does one castrate a female?

You go in and remove the pleasure centers and reproductive organs of the female anatomy, removing either the entire vagina or just the parts that produce eggs. Egyptians used to practice it on certain female slaves.

On the castration issue - what about those who practice sexual molestation without penetration? Using hands, etc. Castration won't stop them molesting others.

On the castration issue - what about those who practice sexual molestation without penetration? Using hands, etc. Castration won't stop them molesting others.

"Remove the hands" seems to work...

Lobotomies work better. You simply remove the sex drive entirely.

As per national sovreignity... I admit that didn't cross my mind at the time of my proposing.

*shrug* The vast majority of people don't consider issues of sovereignty before proposing. I've gotten used to that. :)

If you hold your sovreignity higher in value than the matters in hand, then by all means ignore the proposal; if you are willing to forego your sovreignity and support me then please do so.

That is essentially the choice we all have to make when considering a universal policy proposal. Well put.

I apologise for not considering sovreignity issues before proposing.

I very much appreciate your apology. :) Not many people do that.

Don't worry :P I'm not put off, the proposal I'm considering bringing up next is, if anything, far, far more radical than this one... and although it breaches no laws that I can think of, would solve a lot of problems and is, in general, logical, I know that there will be illogical reactions about 'freedom to break the law' and such... nevertheless, I shall propose it when the number of idiotic repeat-proposals and stupidly worded ideas dies down... it is really getting on my pecks that people are not only proposing ideas that are already in proposal, but actually proposing things which have already been passed in resolutions >.<

In Yiplonia we don't like rapists much... generally I castrate them personally, and then they're led away to be punished in certain ways which don't violate torture laws but aren't wholly pleasant. And in the end they'll die. Thank the gods for Dictatorship *_*

As for putting the nation name in the proposal... I didn't see anything in the rules against it when I looked them over, and given the number of proposals and such which contain nation names, I assumed it would be acceptable. I can only apologise again for my incorrect assumption.

I'm amazed this is still going after I ceded defeat... either people aren't reading all the replies before posting or people feel too strongly about this to let me slink away :P

EDIT: Oh, I thought I'd better ask because an idea crossed my mind... are there any rules, either solid or etiquette, to prevent me from posting a thread for a *potential* proposal? I.E. A thread to see what you all think of the proposal before I create it? It seems sensible to me but then again, if everyone did it things would get rather crowded...

EDIT: Oh, I thought I'd better ask because an idea crossed my mind... are there any rules, either solid or etiquette, to prevent me from posting a thread for a *potential* proposal? I.E. A thread to see what you all think of the proposal before I create it? It seems sensible to me but then again, if everyone did it things would get rather crowded...

That would be fine. There are no rules against it and, to my knowledge, no etiquette that would make it impolite either. You could even send a telegram to me and ask my opinions that way. Having your peers review your proposal even before you post it on the forum is often a good idea. :)

Posting up draft proposals is not only allowed, but I believe it should be encouraged. If we can get a look at things before they are submitted, it means there'll be less things to complain about after. It can also be a way of letting people know about proposals prior to their submission, and creates extra publicity (which any proposal requires in order to reach quorum).

well, in response, I have put up a 'potential proposal' headed 'minimum parental age'. Please read it thoroughly, I'd appreciate any opinion I can get, if only to find out how it wouldn't work... it really feels to me like it shouldn't, but I can't think of any negative arguments >.<

You are correct, sir.

I am most defiantly a ma'am.

;)

I am most defiantly a ma'am.

Whoops.