NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft proposal " UN DEATH ROW PARDON"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN Death Row Pardon
Category: Human Rights
Creation:
An opportunity for the incarcerated on Death Row to give back to the community will be created, which allows for the incarcerated to enjoin his/her punishment with that of a non-profit Gameshow which benefits a charity of the incarcerated’s offense and that of the Nation State’s choosing via 50/50 to each charity. UN Death Row Pardon is a pardon from the death penalty because a basic fact about the criminal has made enough substance for the Nation State that it vies to let the criminal live.


Philosophy: Criminals can pay for their crimes if they sacrifice enough for it. The intention of the game is to learn the greatness inspired by the desperation for the struggle to survive. And the advancements of Science, the polling for Moral decency, Human Rights, Social Justice and influx of monies generated by gambling and promotions all contribute to political stability.

Fairness and the Definition of “Game” for UN Death Row Pardon

To reflect the integrity of the UN, the “Game” will be fair. (ie. A computer hacker won’t be put against a Gladiator and expected to live nor will a moron with an IQ of 2 be given a Genius task.)
The game will be constructed so that the criminal has 100 days in which he must survive
--a side description (Fear Factor on Crack or Severe Survivor)--.
The game must be controlled within a heavily guarded arena or monitored by highly trained military. All available tracking devices can be used
Challenges for each day must have a statistical level associated with it in which the criminal may or may not live.
The Game can be made like any Gameshow but must have the possibility of death involved and the possibility for escape of that death. (ie. Criminal won’t be strapped in an electric chair unless there is the real possibility for escape.)
If two or more criminals are up for the Honor of the UN Death Row Pardon, then they may be pitted against each other or work together to face more severe odds.
If injured during game play time will be given to criminal contestant for recoup so that there are no lame dog deaths.
Gambling allowed must give fairness to both sides of the confrontation. To ensure that an event is not fixed, illicit approaches to the gambling involved in the “Game” will terminate the game, set the criminal free and disband the “Game” from it’s present company and send all those responsible straight to DEATH ROW (in which they themselves may enter the UN Death Row Pardon.)


A Winner will be defined by the person who survives the steeply calculated challenges of 100 days (5 day work week including 2 day weekend of rest) and will be set free into a Nation State that will ascribe to bring him into populace.

A loser is dead. A portion of the proceeds will go to the funeral home, The UN Burial Grounds for the Less Fortunate.

THIS IS A DEFINITION NOT AN INACTMENT OF THE GAME.

AND THE PROPOSAL IS AN ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE UN WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE GAME BEING SOLELY AN ADOPTIVE PROCESS THAT THE UN WIL DECLARE AS A RESOLUTION NOT A MODIFICATION OF THE NATION STATE PROGRAM.


Your Critizisms will be greatly admired.

Request that you keep your drafts to a single thread until at least initial submission.

UN Proposal "UN DEATH ROW PARDON" deleted. I don't know what it is, but it CERTAINLY isn't a "Human Rights" proposal. The fact that you felt compelled to add "AND THE PROPOSAL IS AN ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE UN WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE GAME BEING SOLELY AN ADOPTIVE PROCESS THAT THE UN WIL DECLARE AS A RESOLUTION NOT A MODIFICATION OF THE NATION STATE PROGRAM." tells me that this needs a LOT more work before it is suitable for the UN. Besides, that line breaks the Metagaming rule of proposals.



ME
Try taking it to the UN forum and get some help refining it.

"Human Rights" A resolution to Improve Worldwide Human and Civil Rights.

Currently, Do The incarcerated have Rights?
In giving them A chance to redeem themselves and get back their Rights, wouldn't that be an improvement in their rights?

How can a moderator "not" Know what it is. It is very simple. Too Simple Maybe?

It's not Moral Decency,(As you have defined) Although an ample amount of it is "sacrifice for your freedom" which is a lifting of the restriction of civil freedoms because of moral decency.



(Who came up with these definitions?)
I like the Wikipedia's definition better but I was instructed to use your definitions.

Social Justice is a concept that has fascinated philosophers ever since Plato rebuked the young Sophist, Thrasymachus, for asserting that justice was whatever the strongest decided it would be. In The Republic, Plato formalised the argument that an ideal state would rest on four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

The addition of the word social is to clearly distinguish Social Justice from the concept of justice as applied in the law — state-administered systems which label behaviour as unacceptable and enforce a formal mechanism of control may produce results that do not match the philosophical definitions of social justice — and from more informal concepts of justice embedded in systems of public policy and morality, and which differ from culture to culture and therefore lack universality. Social justice is also used to refer to the overall fairness of a society in its divisions and distributions of rewards and burdens and, as such, the phrase has been adopted by political parties with a redistributive agenda.

Now essentially this Is where my Proposal falls as far as a "real" proposal goes but the fault of this system is that it doesn't have the "real" or more closely associated definition.

you have.
Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
And that is not this resolution.

So back to how The PROPOSAL CATEGORIES WERE DEFINED
" Human rights" increase (civil) freedoms while "moral decency" reduces them.

Quote "If it is an issue about how you choose to live your life then its civil freedom" Unquote

And also by design
A "resolution" includes within it the charateristics that it establishes.
Simply put I could have left out the last part.
It isn't a change in the Nation States Program

It is just bY your definition
An increase in civil Freedoms which falls under Human Rights

When I've used the definitions by the people who have constructed this game I would expect them to know them.

personally, I think that pitting death row criminals against each other would
1. Be great entertainment and
2. Be a great way to rid ourselves of these scumbags.

However, I would like to see lame dog deaths allowed to take their course.

I will certainly agree with the moderator's comment regarding a lot more time needed for editing (I'll help tomorrow), but the category is amazingly difficult to place. If this task is optional......it would seem like a human rights proposal. If it is not optional, it is unquestionable moral decency. There's a minor argument for....well....gambling. There's a lot of really murky points on this proposal overall