NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Death Row Pardon
Category:
Human Right, Moral Decency, Social Justice, Political Stability, Gambling
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.
Whereas:
The UN Death Row Pardon is a pardon from the death penalty because a sacrifice has given the criminal enough substance and retribution 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.

To those who were in support,

Please help me interpret the UN Rules. Essentially the one's from the glorius Hack.

Human Rights were defined by him to be Rules which add to civil liberties.
This legislation would do just that.

It does give the populace entertainment etc. But the importance lays in the retribution and reinstating of an individuals life and freedoms.

moral decency as defined by The Hack are proposals which subtract civil liberties. And thus isn't a true category in which this proposal should be in.


The true definition on social justice fits but The Hack's does not.

See the Conundrum?

this has to be one of the MOST morally outrageous proposals I have ever seen! I really hope this is a joke and that it doesn't get any votes.

We second the member for Tajiri-San's condemnation.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live humane-punishment Compadria!

Personally I think capital punishment should be banned altogether, but if it's to be allowed it should be applied evenly, not based on a gameshow.
Absolutely disgusting idea.

This proposal smacks of overtly sadistic behavior. The People's Republic of Bolshikstan could never in good faith support such a morally corrupt proposal. Such a law would give way to the rich paying to have people tortured for their pleasure.

Colonel Jonathan St. Claire, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Bolshikstan, The East Pacific

Category:
Human Right, Moral Decency, Social Justice, Political Stability,

These catagories are wholly inapproriate for this travesty of a motion. It appears to contravene the motion "End Barbaric Punishement";

The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment

and the motion "Definition of a 'Fair Trial'"

a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:...

...2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. ...

...6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

And I shudder to think of a moral code that would define this motion as "Moral Decency".

For the reasons outlined above, there is no way this can be defined as "Social Justice"

And I fail to see how "Political Stability" is even relavant.

Given the reception this motion has been given thus far, I am sure the UN can be relied upon to condemn "UN Death Row Pardon" to the fate that it deserves

I have to agree with those who say this is barbaric, sadistic and just plain wrong. I'd never want to live in a society that would allow such a thing, and not only that, enjoy the spectacle.

This also has the potential to reward the wrong kind of person.

Imagine a Charles Manson type person winning the right to life over some poor smuck who caught his wife with his best friend and shot them both.

First of all, I believe it does not contradict the Definition of Fair Trial resolution as this happens after the trial.

Morality wise..... make an opt-out clause and I will be morally neutral (ie: allow them to choose between just taking the lethal injection, or going to the games), and thus abstain

Also, if you make an opt-out clause, human rights will probably match the best (which is messed, I know). Otherwise......Moral Decency.

Regardless, get a mod review, because it doesn't really match any category very well and its possible contradiction with 41 doesn't help it too much.

Esteemed delegates and representatives. Although We have heard previous speakers denounce this proposal, We rise in support of this resolution. We draw attention to the faulty logic used by some members of this august body to dismiss this proposal without giving it a fair hearing:

These catagories are wholly inapproriate for this travesty of a motion. It appears to contravene the motion "End Barbaric Punishement";

On the contrary, a "barbaric punishiment" would be death without a fighting chance. Even a condemned man deserves better.

and the motion "Definition of a 'Fair Trial'"

Irrelevant here, since the proposal deals with already tried and convicted criminals.

And I shudder to think of a moral code that would define this motion as "Moral Decency".

What is indecent about demonstrating to the public the ultimate fate of a life of evil? Those who choose to live by violence should be made to see what that life leads to, and those who may be deluded into thinking such a life is glamorous should be made to see the folly of their beliefs.

For the reasons outlined above, there is no way this can be defined as "Social Justice"

On the contrary, by its public nature, it is exemplary social justice. Justice not only must be done, it must be seen to be done.

And I fail to see how "Political Stability" is even relavant.

Political stability derives from the peoples' trust in their government to exercise justice. As We state above, this provides governments with an excellent method for such trust to be established and strengthened.

UN Death Row Pardon
Category:
Human Right, Moral Decency, Social Justice, Political Stability, Gambling
Creation:
An opportunity for the incarcerated on Death Row to give back to the community will be created, which allows the incarcerated to enjoin his/her punishment with that of a non-profit Gameshow which benefits a charity of the incarcerated offense and that of the Nation State’s choosing via 50/50 to each charity.
To Enjoin
Is an option given the incarcerated to choose life over death. If the incarcerated chooses Death Row within a Nation State, the game shall not apply. If the incarcerated chooses to “play” the pardon out of his/her own volition, then monies used to send the incarcerated to his death shall be halted, the incarcerated will be handed over to the Gameshow, and the incarcerated and the Nation State will waive the Death Row for the UN Death Row Pardon. Another Nation State must be a cosigner to the pardon as the excepting Nation State if said incarcerated person wins.
Whereas:
The UN Death Row Pardon is a pardon from the death penalty because a sacrifice has given the criminal enough substance and retribution for the Nation State.
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
No persons shall be coerced into the game.
No Nation can force a unwilling participant.
No criminal can enjoin the incarceration without Nation State Approval.
The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.
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:
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.) If the criminal is associated in the fix, then the criminal will be returned to Death Row.
It is a serious matter to infringe upon the last rights of an individual.


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 Nation State that will bring an incarcerated back into populace must be defined before gameplay.

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

Originally posted by The Eternal Kawaii;
On the contrary, a "barbaric punishiment" would be death without a fighting chance. Even a condemned man deserves better.

And death as a form of public entertainment is civilized? I would describe being killed on a TV show to be pretty barbaric.
Besides condemned criminals have a chance for their sentences to be commuted, or to be released. This process is generally carried out through the legal system, where those found to be innocent can be released or have their sentences commuted.
Justice should be a matter of law, not public entertainment.

Originally posted by The Eternal Kawaii;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernera
and the motion "Definition of a 'Fair Trial'"



Irrelevant here, since the proposal deals with already tried and convicted criminals.

I'll concede this point on purely legalistic grounds, but refer you to my thoughts on the legal system above.

Originally posted by The Eternal Kawaii;
What is indecent about demonstrating to the public the ultimate fate of a life of evil? Those who choose to live by violence should be made to see what that life leads to, and those who may be deluded into thinking such a life is glamorous should be made to see the folly of their beliefs.

What is indecent is people dying to provide public entertainment. That is what this proposal is all about, and as long as that remains the case, I will continue to oppose this motion.

Originally posted by The Eternal Kawaii;
Justice not only must be done, it must be seen to be done.

That is true, but justice is not served by turning it into a reality TV show. Justice is a very grave matter and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by The Eternal Kawaii;
Political stability derives from the peoples' trust in their government to exercise justice. As We state above, this provides governments with an excellent method for such trust to be established and strengthened.

As I have already said, this motion degrades criminal punishment to the level of public entertainment. I fail to see how regarding it in this light strengthens the public's faith in the legal system.

And death as a form of public entertainment is civilized? I would describe being killed on a TV show to be pretty barbaric.
Besides condemned criminals have a chance for their sentences to be commuted, or to be released. This process is generally carried out through the legal system, where those found to be innocent can be released or have their sentences commuted.
Justice should be a matter of law, not public entertainment.


Actually Civility comes with a certain (large) amount of publicity. We have come to believe the programming of our forefathers. Education yes. Seeing It. NO?

We want to tell you what is right, not show you.
Humanity has never understood that secrecy and lies will always be its downfall.
The Cerebral Liberation Front wants to open the publics eyes to reality-- even if it has to start with a game show.

The stuffy politicians think that it’s barbaric to have public displays of an execution? I want to take that right from them and give it to the person who is going to executed. I want freedom in all of its good forms and bad. I want choice.

The ramifications of the instigation of such gameshow scare you because of the many that would applaud it. It would be your choice to watch it. It’s your choice whether to watch any form of entertainment.

And it would be your choice not to watch it.

Do you gamble?
This is your choice.

The last bargaining chip a person has on death row is what?
For their life?


And people want to hide this from the public.

They must get a politician to agree on leniency and that decision is rarely based on what is best for the criminal or the public. It’s based on the popularity that the decision would have with the public and rest solely on whether the politician wants re-election.

That Is Civility?


As I have already said, this motion degrades criminal punishment to the level of public entertainment. I fail to see how regarding it in this light strengthens the public's faith in the legal system.

I undestand the strenghth if this statement. But let me illuminate you to the truth.

This motion presents a challenge to the public. The condemned are still people. We do not SEE it. We rarely read about it. And we very rarely see it live.

The legal system is something that you may have faith in. But as the son of a judge I 've been told to question everything. The legal system was never meant to be trusted. Why?
Because people made it.
It's first problem is very flawed people .
From definition we can only come so close to reality.
But definition will get us closer to reality.
Hiding the truth of the power of choice will alway hide the defintions and cease the ability for mankind to come closer to reality.

A vote for this proposal will cast aside the veil of lies that man has positioned in front of the condemned. It will illluminate the crime in front people. Conversation and direction, communication and definition will begin to form around the lives of those who have been condemned by people to die.

the political machine cuts the fat of truth off the steak of reality and serves it to us cold and wants us to believe that its good?

I'm a reality person.

See a person die and maybe you won't be so quick to condemn him.

this has to be one of the MOST morally outrageous proposals I have ever seen! I really hope this is a joke and that it doesn't get any votes.


The people of Cluichstan concur with the views of our Tajiri friends and believe that our esteemed colleague from the Cerebral Liberation Ft has seen The Running Man too many times.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

They must get a politician to agree on leniency and that decision is rarely based on what is best for the criminal or the public. It’s based on the popularity that the decision would have with the public and rest solely on whether the politician wants re-election.

That Is Civility?

Why not just ban the death pently and all other cruel and unusual punishments?

This is the weirdest conundrum.

If you ever look at a statistic you'll find that those that want the death penalty are likely also to say that they don't think that it should be aired on TV.

Kill them dirty rascals but don't show me.

I suppose it's a way that they can wash their hands of the matter.

Actually Civility comes with a certain (large) amount of publicity. We have come to believe the programming of our forefathers. Education yes. Seeing It. NO?

The Community of Stealthmunchkania considers not executing people a prerequisite of civilisation...

i don't see how the UN has the athority to dictate how a member nation can incarcerate people who break laws in their nation? Isn't that overstepping the bounds of the United Nations?




Someone please explain to me why this would be a good resolution, cause i just don't agree.

The reason for not showing capital punishment executions stems from lessons learned from Britain's Past/USA's Old West. That is if you make it widely public then people will flock to see the executions. Over time they will come to see it as entertainment. These are the same people who serve on JURIES who decide whether or not to give the DEATH PENALTY. It's best not to let them get the impression that a execution is a Friday or Sunday afternoon entertainment venue.

This is so far outside what I beleive the UN's jurisdiction should be that it might as well be telling us that all citizens must wear purple and speak in iambic pentametre every Thursday.

However, it might make a good issue...

This is so far outside what I beleive the UN's jurisdiction should be that it might as well be telling us that all citizens must wear purple and speak in iambic pentametre every Thursday.

Everyone's not already doing this on Thursdays? :confused:

i'd like to shoot this proposal down as well.

while it may appeal to some nations it dosen't appeal to Kirisubo.

Law and order is a matter for individual nations not the UN so if our proposer wants to do a dry run their own country that is their right.

The reason for not showing capital punishment executions stems from lessons learned from Britain's Past/USA's Old West. That is if you make it widely public then people will flock to see the executions. Over time they will come to see it as entertainment. These are the same people who serve on JURIES who decide whether or not to give the DEATH PENALTY. It's best not to let them get the impression that a execution is a Friday or Sunday afternoon entertainment venue.

Why not? Would this not improve its usefulness as a deterrent? After all, if a person is contemplating committing a capital crime, would they not be more deterred if they thought that the "jury of their peers" they will end up facing might consider recommending execution just for the entertainment value?

The people of Cluichstan concur with the views of our Tajiri friends and believe that our esteemed colleague from the Cerebral Liberation Ft has seen The Running Man too many times.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala
he may also have seen the movie or read the book 'Battle Royale' or played the PS2 game Manhunt.

Why not? Would this not improve its usefulness as a deterrent? After all, if a person is contemplating committing a capital crime, would they not be more deterred if they thought that the "jury of their peers" they will end up facing might consider recommending execution just for the entertainment value?


The Eternal Kawaii Sentenced to Death for Killing a Bolshikstan District Attorney
Brian Murkey
BFP(Bolshikstan Free Press), Bolshikstan, The East Pacific

Early this morning The Eternal Kawaii was found guilty in the East Precinct of Boshikstans 9th Circuit. The Eternal Kawaii will be executed at 7:00pm on October 7th, 2005. The Eternal Kawaii is widely infamous for murdering the District Attorney of Malinburg, Bolshikstan.


Oh, wait our records show that The Eternal Kawaii has never been to Bolshikstan. As for the news story above, the District Attorney of Malinburg Parker Madison is currently alive and attending a galla ball held to honor the brave soldiers that have hailed from Malinburg.

OOC:
The Point is a lot of people died in the past because people were BORED and the countless public executions totally distorted their perceptions of them. Many people were accused of something they didn't do because someone didn't like them and they knew this was an easy way to have them killed and not face jail time or execution themselves.

The Point is a lot of people died in the past because people were BORED and the countless public executions totally distorted their perceptions of them. Many people were accused of something they didn't do because someone didn't like them and they knew this was an easy way to have them killed and not face jail time or execution themselves.

Does the esteemed representative of Bolshikistan wish to go on record as saying the justice system of their country is not up to the task of dealing with capital crime? Justice in the Eternal Kawaii is swift and sometimes ruthless--but it is fair, and widely acknowledge by Our people as such.

OOC:
Actually I meant that last part to be OOC. I point to the fact that through out history there have been many people executed not because they actually committed a crime, but because their PEERS needed entertainment or they had angered someone.

IC:
The representative of The Eternal Kawaii can be quite sure that CAPTIAL PUNISH is widely held throughout Bolshikstan as a wise and needed deterant. It is however the governments stance that turning these executions into public displays whose only real value is that of entertainment will badly damage the justice system. You'll have feuding neighbors getting their neighbor sent up for execution. You'll have juries ignoring evidence which exhonorates the defendant. All this because they want to have a good afternoon show. Where does the punishment end. Should these Jurors and neighbors be punished for something that the government unwittingly CONDITIONED them to be like. The best solution to this whole problem is to scrape this draft and let it die.

Also I'm not attacking the drafters proposal. Cerebral Liberation Ft proposal is well written. I just feel it has no place in UN legislation.