NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently Myself and Reformentia along with the other members of the great region of Aarmania are creating two proposals on the death penalty.

One would simply be a blanket ban on executions for any crimes the second would only allow the death penalty in such cases where the consequence of the crime was the death of another citizen/subject of the nation the crime took place in. Further more the burden of proof would be increased to protect the innocent who may be wrongly convicted. A sentance of death would only be allowed where 3 or more independent witnesses identify the perpetator of the crime or where there is a recording of the crime where by the perpetrator can be accuratly identified.
I would like to poll weather the UN would tend to prefer a full or partial ban or if any legislation would be opposed.

Currently Myself and Reformentia along with the other members of the great region of Aarmania are creating two proposals on the death penalty.

One would simply be a blanket ban on executions for any crimes the second would only allow the death penalty in such cases where the consequence of the crime was the death of another citizen/subject of the nation the crime took place in. Further more the burden of proof would be increased to protect the innocent who may be wrongly convicted. A sentance of death would only be allowed where 3 or more independent witnesses identify the perpetator of the crime or where there is a recording of the crime where by the perpetrator can be accuratly identified.
I would like to poll weather the UN would tend to prefer a full or partial ban or if any legislation would be opposed.

I don't think the natsov's will be impressed.

Personally, I think a nation should have the right to the death penalty, but I feel that the accused should have the right to a fair trial, and a right to many, many appeals if it is the death penalty which is the ultimate punishment.

Yeah, it would be a pain for nations, but you've got to ensure you are not killing someone who is innocent.

I would be so vehemently opposed that I would have to withdraw from the UN if one passed. I do not believe it should be the place of the UN to tell us how to exercise the rule of law, nor to practice blind cultural insensitivity.

yes the nations should have their own rules for crime punishment

I would be so vehemently opposed that I would have to withdraw from the UN if one passed. I do not believe it should be the place of the UN to tell us how to exercise the rule of law, nor to practice blind cultural insensitivity.

Not permitting a nation to execute their citizenry as a means of punishment is hardly reaching into the realm of "blind cultural insensitivity".

Not permitting a nation to execute their citizenry as a means of punishment is hardly reaching into the realm of "blind cultural insensitivity".

It is when ritual sacrifice is a part of that nation's heritage.

I knew we had some old world nations but I never realised we had ancients about.

It is when ritual sacrifice is a part of that nation's heritage.

In such a case we're willling to bite the bullet and be declared "culturally insensitive" for interfering.

In such a case we're willling to bite the bullet and be declared "culturally insensitive" for interfering.
Ha! You ,know that I am the named author on the resolution as it stands so I'd be the one branded as insensitive... though I wouldn't mind if I was either.

"the right to kill and die are rights we are ready to kill and die for"

It is when ritual sacrifice is a part of that nation's heritage.
I fail to see how this is connected to the death penalty, as it is meant as a punishment, whereas a sacrificeis a gift to the Gods, and since it is not meant as a penalty, it is not even touched by a ban. However, I do oppose a ban for the simple reason that Habardia does have the death penalty and would see it as great evil to ban it.

I fail to see how this is connected to the death penalty, as it is meant as a punishment, whereas a sacrificeis a gift to the Gods, and since it is not meant as a penalty, it is not even touched by a ban. However, I do oppose a ban for the simple reason that Habardia does have the death penalty and would see it as great evil to ban it.

Those sacrifices need to come somewhere. In some cultures, a crime against the gods is considered a punishment that merits sacrifice to them.

I accept that there is a widespread opposition to capital punishment. However, so long as we don't execute foreign nationals (and I have no objection to a resolution enforcing that), I fail to see how this is an issue of any concern to the UN.

Thats why we have also suggested a partial ban to allow the death penalty to be used under very strict circumstances where a person has died and the killer has been ID'd by several independent witnesses or by video/photograph.

Thats why we have also suggested a partial ban to allow the death penalty to be used under very strict circumstances where a person has died and the killer has been ID'd by several independent witnesses or by video/photograph.

We're not hacks, you know. We have a full system of checks and balances. And, yes, when the weight of evidence is overwhelming, and when we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that we have the right guy for a severe crime...off with his head.

Thats why we have also suggested a partial ban to allow the death penalty to be used under very strict circumstances where a person has died and the killer has been ID'd by several independent witnesses or by video/photograph.
Wait a second. To me that just sounds like fancy wording for "you can only execute when the UN gives you permission". I'm all for UN regulations, but I'll leave the UN before my government becomes no more than an underling who has to ask the UN for permission to exist.

I was refering to Habardia's point not yours. I would also argue that there is a plausible arguement under the barbaric treatment resolution that the death penalty could be banned.

I was refering to Habardia's point not yours. I would also argue that there is a plausible arguement under the barbaric treatment resolution that the death penalty could be banned.

So ban it Tajiri_san. We won't stop you.

We would disagree with the proposal if presented as an outright ban, but not if it was worded as a principled position.

Criticism is one thing, since cultural insensitivity is often used an excuse for what is really moral relativism, but taking over the legislative function of a nation is another.

Wait a second. To me that just sounds like fancy wording for "you can only execute when the UN gives you permission". I'm all for UN regulations, but I'll leave the UN before my government becomes no more than an underling who has to ask the UN for permission to exist.
Do you not feel that stricter regulation of the death penalty would not be a reasonable price to pay to be certain that there would never be an innocent person killed for a crime they do not commit?

We would disagree with the proposal if presented as an outright ban, but not if it was worded as a principled position.

Criticism is one thing, since cultural insensitivity is often used an excuse for what is really moral relativism, but taking over the legislative function of a nation is another.

Absolutely. I really won't object to a CONDEMNS or DEPLORES resolution. But I would be very worried about the idea of an outright ban.

Do you not feel that stricter regulation of the death penalty would not be a reasonable price to pay to be certain that there would never be an innocent person killed for a crime they do not commit?
In a way yes. I have no problem regulating the Death Penalty so that no innocent gets killed. We actually already do that, from within our Nation. But as for what I consider more important, further regulations of the Death Penalty vs. National Sovereignty, then I'll happily and proudly tell you that the Sovereignty of my nation is way more important in my book.

the UN has too much power they shouldnt even have a right to propose a ban on the death penalty

the UN has too much power they shouldnt even have a right to propose a ban on the death penalty
The UN only has power over those in it. If you don't want the UN to have any authority over you, its as easy as leaving.

the UN has too much power they shouldnt even have a right to propose a ban on the death penalty

The UN has as much power as we give it. If you don't want a ban, propose a 'Right to Capital Punishment' proposal.

It appears the natsov contingent is out in force early, the majority of the negative opinion expressed so far appearing to fall under the "You can't tell us what to do!" category of argument...

I was going ot say somethign similar that provided a resolution is within the specified guidelines then UN members can propose anything they darn well please.

It appears the natsov contingent is out in force early, the majority of the negative opinion expressed so far appearing to fall under the "You can't tell us what to do!" category of argument...

I think the UN can tell us what to do. I don't believe the UN always should tell us what to do.

I think the UN can tell us what to do. I don't believe the UN always should tell us what to do.
That is precisely the UN's role, to provide rules for what can and can't be done. It is the members' ole, however, to decide where we draw the line, and for me, the death penalty is the line.

The thing is that a proposal banning, say, the eating of babies is quite a clear-cut moral issue, but the death penalty is a matter of sentencing, so more of a policy grey area.

[edit] - this was a reply to Tajiri San

That is precisely the UN's role, to provide rules for what can and can't be done. It is the members' role, however, to decide where we draw the line, and for me, the death penalty is the line.

Sorry to derail the debate for a moment, but this is an interesting point not just in relation to the death-penalty ban, but to the mooted UN court. As you said, the UN's role is to provide rules. But if nations are unsure about the precise meaning of a rule, or don't care and interpret them any way they want, then the UN's rules are pretty 'toothless'. The usefulness of a court, even one which is only advisory, is to clear up misunderstandings and queries, and to set an observable standard. Even if their opinions can't be enforced, their stated standards remain as a measure of state compliance and good faith.

Apologies for the diversion.

I realise some people will have problems in believing this, but I would oppose a full ban, even a partial ban, on the grounds of national sovereignty.

I oppose the death penalty - it's an appalling thing to kill someone in cold blood, and even worse for the state - that is supposed to protect its people - to do it.

But if a nation feels that it can't find a better way to deal with its citizens - that it lacks the ability to help them and basically just abandons them - then who am I to judge them?

I'm a bit torn on this issue.

On the one hand, my nation has just outlawed the death penalty because we consider it barbaric and with no prisons didn't have the facilities to carry one out even if we wanted to.

On the other hand, we don't feel this is a an issue we should push our views of onto other nations because of the many varied justice systems in use around the NS world and the many different problems with crime levels ect within other nations. What works for us within our justice system probably wouldn't work somewhere else and vice versa.

We could support a partial ban, as in what has been previously mentioned about increasing the onus on the state to prove guilt before a death sentence can be passed. I think something like that would help prevent innocents being executed while still allowing a nation to use the death penalty if they feel its the best way for them to deal with their crime rates.

I realise some people will have problems in believing this, but I would oppose a full ban, even a partial ban, on the grounds of national sovereignty.

I oppose the death penalty - it's an appalling thing to kill someone in cold blood, and even worse for the state - that is supposed to protect its people - to do it.

But if a nation feels that it can't find a better way to deal with its citizens - that it lacks the ability to help them and basically just abandons them - then who am I to judge them?
I do find it hard to believe that Pallatium and I are on the same side, for once, even if its for totally different reasons.

Kirisubo had the death penalty even when it was a loose group of kingdoms and that was over 400 years ago.

today its rare to see it carried out because we have very little crime to begin with.

theres currently a trial ongoing with a neo-nazi who tried to kill police officers who were breaking up their illegal rally. the rest of his colleagues surrended peacefully so all they'll have to deal with is a prison sentence and all the social care we can give them.

if he's convicted and loses his repeal he'll suffer death by decapitation.

we look at the death penalty as a last resort but its like putting a rabid animal out of its misery so it dosen't bite anybody else.

I'm a bit torn on this issue.

On the one hand, my nation has just outlawed the death penalty because we consider it barbaric and with no prisons didn't have the facilities to carry one out even if we wanted to.

On the other hand, we don't feel this is a an issue we should push our views of onto other nations because of the many varied justice systems in use around the NS world and the many different problems with crime levels ect within other nations. What works for us within our justice system probably wouldn't work somewhere else and vice versa.

We could support a partial ban, as in what has been previously mentioned about increasing the onus on the state to prove guilt before a death sentence can be passed. I think something like that would help prevent innocents being executed while still allowing a nation to use the death penalty if they feel its the best way for them to deal with their crime rates.
Although I personally prefer a full ban I am more inclined to attempt to have the partial ban passed by the UN as it seems the best option. Though I may put the fuill ban on the list first so that we can show nations who only want a full ban that at this point in time such a proposal cannot be passed and a partial ban is a compromise measure that has a better chance of passing.

Kirisubo had the death penalty even when it was a loose group of kingdoms and that was over 400 years ago.

today its rare to see it carried out because we have very little crime to begin with.

theres currently a trial ongoing with a neo-nazi who tried to kill police officers who were breaking up their illegal rally. the rest of his colleagues surrended peacefully so all they'll have to deal with is a prison sentence and all the social care we can give them.

if he's convicted and loses his repeal he'll suffer death by decapitation.

we look at the death penalty as a last resort but its like putting a rabid animal out of its misery so it dosen't bite anybody else.
This is a good case of why I feel this should be passed. Of course attacking the police officers is not to be tolerated at all but he didn't actually kill anyone and the only reason the police were trying to take action against him was that he and the others he was with were trying to exercise their basic human rights to free speech and freedom of assembly which may actually be rights already protected by the UN.

Could you clarify what a 'partial ban' would entail? Do we stop halfway through the neck?

The partial ban would entail only allowing capital punishment wherea person has commited a crime resulting in a death (may listen to cases for expansion to cases where a person is disfigured severely losing a limb, their sight or sex crimes especially paedophilia.) and the crime has either been witnessed by several independent witnesses or is video/audio taped and can be Identified on the recording in the act of the crime.

i can show the news reports (from a foreign news agency) and their statements if you want to see them. several police officers were badly injured by his mini Uzi.

it looks like we'll have to disagree on this issue.

Love and esterel will favor a full ban, as it seems to us there had been so many errors in the past

We will vote again a partial solution, but we will also approve something "INSISTING", as the very good following proposition at vote right now, we approved it:

http://www.nationstates.net/11317/page=UN_proposal/start=8

Ban Capital Punishment

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Dominicai

Description: The UN

HAVING ESTABLISHED that in former legislation it has banned inhumane punishment,

DECLARING capital punishment to be the epitome of inhumanity,

RECOGNIZING the fact that capital punishment does not serve as a particular deterrent over other punishment,

REALIZING the need for rehabilitation over retribution or punishment,

also REALIZING the possibility of innocent death and life not being returnable

and DEFINING capital punishment as the punishment of breakers of law being death.

INSISTS that all member states of the UN immediately desist from capital punishment and outlaw its use

Love and esterel will favor a full ban, as it seems to us there had been so many errors in the past

We will vote again a partial solution, but we will also approve something "INSISTING", as the very good following proposition at vote right now, we approved it:

http://www.nationstates.net/11317/page=UN_proposal/start=8
As I said I would LOVE to see a full ban, infact thats what I voted when I made the poll but at this point in time i think the overall mood of the UN means that a full ban cannot be passed at present. That is why I would propose a partial ban to try to get some votes from those nations that are a little more towards the centre and centre right. Also ofcourse the proposal would not make anyone impliment the death penalty that don't want it.

The death penalty is barbaric and I personally support a full ban. Using national sovereignty is not an excuse, otherwise why would the NSUN have moved to outlaw torture, or to support and enshrine freedom of expression? We must accept that in joining the NSUN, we have relinquished a great deal of our sovereignty for the service of global democracy and working together on a trans-national scale to better our world(s). If we reject a measure on these grounds, regardless of its merits, then we risk ending any progressive or worthwhile proposal or resolution, by forcing it to be as inoffensive and non-engaged as possible. Surely we can accept this, otherwise why would we create any new legislation to debate?

The fight against crual and unusual punishment is one that is worth joining. I hope other members will come to agree with this.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

The death penalty is barbaric and I personally support a full ban. Using national sovereignty is not an excuse, otherwise why would the NSUN have moved to outlaw torture, or to support and enshrine freedom of expression? We must accept that in joining the NSUN, we have relinquished a great deal of our sovereignty for the service of global democracy and working together on a trans-national scale to better our world(s). If we reject a measure on these grounds, regardless of its merits, then we risk ending any progressive or worthwhile proposal or resolution, by forcing it to be as inoffensive and non-engaged as possible. Surely we can accept this, otherwise why would we create any new legislation to debate?

The fight against crual and unusual punishment is one that is worth joining. I hope other members will come to agree with this.

IC: Just because the UN has done something does not mean it should have done that, or that it should do that again. UN law is dynamic, and subject to potentially perpetual repeal and replacement. It does not have an agenda, or a position: it has a set of rules, some binding, some negotiable, and any and all of those can change, or be removed.

I believe in the use of capital punishment. That is an absolute. I accept that my arguments are largely not rational, and that however well-presented the case for the opposition, I would be exceedingly unlikely to ever change my opinion. I expect no more of anybody else in this regard. I acknowledge the imperfections inherent in any judicial system that uses capital punishment. We, the Gruenberger government, have decided those cons are outweighed by the pros, in our specific case. We do not doubt there would be nations where such an approach would not be, and may never have been, appropriate.

I will fight this proposal every step of the way. And it's only partially a NatSov 'thing'. In fact, to an extent it's quite the opposite: I do want to force my views on others, that view being that they have no place trying to undo years, no wait, centuries of legal precedent in Gruenberger law, that has been effective, and suffered minimal miscarriages of justice, where it is of absolutely no concern of their national interest. I will not execute foreign nationals. I will not execute anyone for whom a foreign government presents a reasonable plea of sanctuary. I will execute criminals who have proven that they are no longer capable of contributing to my society.

If this comes across as a lecture, then I apologise. I have no desire to patronise, and am in no position to do so. But capital punishment is, for me, Moltan Bausch, a blind spot. I acknowledge this, accept this, and nonetheless will have my say.

We must accept that in joining the NSUN, we have relinquished a great deal of our sovereignty for the service of global democracy and working together on a trans-national scale to better our world(s).
Yes, but the line has to be drawn somewhere or we might as well hand our governments over to the UN. As I said before, I draw the line at the DP.

whilst we dont and never will have a death penalty, we believe that nations should have the right to set their own sentencing. we always advise travellers from our country to observe the laws of other countries, for they could be different to ours

(OOC: i am from australia, but i do not support the clemency appeals for those australians convicted of smuggling drugs in SE asia. they should have known the laws and consequences in those countries. ignorance of laws is never accepted as an excuse)

whilst we dont and never will have a death penalty, we believe that nations should have the right to set their own sentencing. we always advise travellers from our country to observe the laws of other countries, for they could be different to ours

(OOC: i am from australia, but i do not support the clemency appeals for those australians convicted of smuggling drugs in SE asia. they should have known the laws and consequences in those countries. ignorance of laws is never accepted as an excuse)
Ignorance in general should never be an excuse.

OOC: Wow, it's been a while since I've had to dig out this reply.

IC: The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will never support a ban of the death penalty, nor will we support any resolution forcing UN members to implement it, as we feel that this issue is best left up to the individual nations to deal with how they see fit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The people of the Krioval and associated territories find that the penalty of death in certain crimes, especially treason, is justifiable. However, it is to be noted that it is hardly ever carried out, and then only when a strong threat to the integrity of Krioval's government or people is imminent or in progress. Thus, I am unable to lend support to a total ban of capital punishment, as a representative of the people of Krioval and as an ardent follower of the forces which guard our way of life.

A restriction on capital punishment to cases involving murder, rape, treason, or incitements to violence against the government or population of a given nation would meet with little resistance from my office, as it would be no more restrictive than the current policies of our government. At the same time, Krioval is loath to impose our social values onto other societies in which more general application of the death penalty are needed to keep basic social order. I apologize for our unusual position on this matter, but it has been the product of several administrations in Krioval, and it will likely remain as such for some time to come.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
United Nations Ambassador
Krioval

OC: good luck with banning the death penalty, I honestly hope to see it banned one day. This is a time when playing an evil tyrant run nation has its drawback

IC: We feel that the UN has done great work in the past, banning torture and barbaric punishments, something we assure all nations that our goverment has never disobeyed.

However in this case, I suggest just urging that the death penalty be banned or intraduce laws to make sure it is fair. A blanket ban would greatly limit the Cuation goverment from dealing with rebels, murderers as, due to a small crime rate we have few jails. It would take time to build such things to a correct standard.

Sun Loyalds
UN Diplomat for Cuation
Grand Duke of of Manillenga province

The PDSRA would favour a full ban on the death penalty, as would any progressive, civilised nation. Such barbaric acts as putting a person to death have no place in the world today, all the more so given the constant risk of executing an innocent person, which many of my fellow representatives in this august Assembly seem strangely unconcerned about.

However, for purely practical reasons, we would suggest implementing a 'partial ban', aimed at restricting the use of the death penalty and the risk of putting innocent persons to death, as it appears a partial ban would muster greater support.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ariddian Ambassador to the United Nations

IC: Just because the UN has done something does not mean it should have done that, or that it should do that again. UN law is dynamic, and subject to potentially perpetual repeal and replacement. It does not have an agenda, or a position: it has a set of rules, some binding, some negotiable, and any and all of those can change, or be removed.

I believe in the use of capital punishment. That is an absolute. I accept that my arguments are largely not rational, and that however well-presented the case for the opposition, I would be exceedingly unlikely to ever change my opinion. I expect no more of anybody else in this regard. I acknowledge the imperfections inherent in any judicial system that uses capital punishment. We, the Gruenberger government, have decided those cons are outweighed by the pros, in our specific case. We do not doubt there would be nations where such an approach would not be, and may never have been, appropriate.

I will fight this proposal every step of the way. And it's only partially a NatSov 'thing'. In fact, to an extent it's quite the opposite: I do want to force my views on others, that view being that they have no place trying to undo years, no wait, centuries of legal precedent in Gruenberger law, that has been effective, and suffered minimal miscarriages of justice, where it is of absolutely no concern of their national interest. I will not execute foreign nationals. I will not execute anyone for whom a foreign government presents a reasonable plea of sanctuary. I will execute criminals who have proven that they are no longer capable of contributing to my society.

If this comes across as a lecture, then I apologise. I have no desire to patronise, and am in no position to do so. But capital punishment is, for me, Moltan Bausch, a blind spot. I acknowledge this, accept this, and nonetheless will have my say.

Thank you for your reply. I now, it has to be said, understand the objections of those who oppose any form of a ban better than I did before. It is true that legal precedent is an important part of national sovereignty, in that it is unique to each and every nation and therefore serves as a symbol of an independant judiciary.

Where I would disagree is that U.N. law qualifies as different simply because of its fluctuating nature; in terms of formulation and of not having a set agenda, the same arguments could be said of any legislature. They all have opposing sides, changes of the balance of power, changes of policy and often laws are introduced and repealed just as frequently as in the NSUN, particulary if there are coalition governments.

As I final point, I would like to reassure you that you sounded in no way lecturing, only explanatory.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Not permitting a nation to execute their citizenry as a means of punishment is hardly reaching into the realm of "blind cultural insensitivity".
It appears the natsov contingent is out in force early, the majority of the negative opinion expressed so far appearing to fall under the "You can't tell us what to do!" category of argument...
You could always add a "no UN nation may trade with a non-UN nation that has the death penalty" clause. I'm sure that'd make your proposal very popular ;).

I was going ot say somethign similar that provided a resolution is within the specified guidelines then UN members can propose anything they darn well please.Yup, if I want to write a proposal that says "all nations must execute jaywalkers" I could. And, if a majority of the UN voted "For", it would be UN law. And I highly doubt you'd be in support of that bill, even though it's well within the abilities of the UN.

The thing is there's a difference between what the UN "can" do and what the UN "should" do. Everyone recognizes this difference on some level. Your nation feels that certain legislation shouldn't be passed by the UN, and my nation feel that certain legislation shouldn't be passed by the UN. And there's no categorical reason either of our nations' subjective realities should command authority over the other, our nations' opinions being of equal value. Your nation feeling "kill all jaywalkers" shouldn't be UN legislation ought to be given just as much respect as my nation, or other nations, feeling "ban the death penalty" shouldn't be UN legislation. Unless there's just some reason your nation is intrinsically better than mine (*licks itself involuntarily*).

That said, I'm very leery of a ban, though a moratorium on the death penalty (as it is studied) is in place in most regions of Powerhungry Chipmunks. I'm leery of the idea that the UN would be taking away the ability of nations to choose for themselves, and rather adopting the opinion of one, two, or even twenty nations over the possibly infinitely varied opinions of the 33,000+ membership--because I feel it’d be a miscarriage of democracy within those nations. I'd be in favor of a proposal giving en masse education of the problems with the death penalty (in democracies) to encourage the people, the source of all governmental power, to spurn their government eliminate the death penalty. If you respect the peoples' right to decide what's right and wrong, I'm pretty sure I won't oppose it.

Chipmunks maybe your watch is slow and thats why you are late ;)

Also a draft for the partial ban proposal will be up soon for debate here or maybe in its own thread which I will link to in this thread pending internal approval.

Further more the burden of proof would be increased to protect the innocent who may be wrongly convicted. A sentance of death would only be allowed where 3 or more independent witnesses identify the perpetator of the crime or where there is a recording of the crime where by the perpetrator can be accuratly identified.

We could not support a proposal which contained a provision as outlined in the quoted text. If we can assume that the common burden of proof is to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", then we believe that a standard of proof beyond that is realistically impossible in the case of most crimes.

When you consider what is needed to establish guilt, you must consider each of the elements of proof required for the specific crime charged. The elements of proof are very different for different crimes, which makes the whole issue extremely complicated. Taking one cited requirements as an example, a very clear, high-quality videotape might establish some of the elements of proof required for a conviction of premeditated murder, but not others.

We would also note that eyewitness testimony, even that of multiple, "independent" eyewitnesses, is regarded by many as the least reliable type of evidence. There are too many conditions which can adversely affect the accuracy and reliability of such testimony, even when the witnesses have the best of intentions and are trying to be entirely truthful.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

No support for a ban from this quarter. If you wish to discourage the death penalty and educate the membership via a well-written and informative proposal, I would willing to support it.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

If a ban is implemented on the death penalty we will have no choice but to resign from the UN. The death penalty is in no way unjust or uncalled for. The death penalty should be automatic for any criminal found guilty of murder or directly involved in taking the life of another person. When a criminal takes the life of another person, he forfeits his own life. When you only put him behind bars, you allow him to continue to live, see, hear, think, love, read, learn, even make money and more. All things that they denied their victim. And when you release a criminal or go soft on them, you let them out to strike again. Over 60% of criminals released from jail after committing a violent crime commit a violent crime again. And the death penalty is statistically proven in countried around the world to intimidate criminals. And even if it didn't, then all you've done is killed a bunch of murderers.

If a ban is implemented on the death penalty we will have no choice but to resign from the UN. The death penalty is in no way unjust or uncalled for. The death penalty should be automatic for any criminal found guilty of murder or directly involved in taking the life of another person. When a criminal takes the life of another person, he forfeits his own life. When you only put him behind bars, you allow him to continue to live, see, hear, think, love, read, learn, even make money and more. All things that they denied their victim. And when you release a criminal or go soft on them, you let them out to strike again. Over 60% of criminals released from jail after committing a violent crime commit a violent crime again. And the death penalty is statistically proven in countried around the world to intimidate criminals. And even if it didn't, then all you've done is killed a bunch of murderers.
Thats why I anlong with others in the region i belong to have written a compromise that restricts the death penalty to only be used in certain cases, murder being one of them, but it also increases the burden of proof for the death sentance to be allowed.

If a ban is implemented on the death penalty we will have no choice but to resign from the UN. The death penalty is in no way unjust or uncalled for. The death penalty should be automatic for any criminal found guilty of murder or directly involved in taking the life of another person. When a criminal takes the life of another person, he forfeits his own life. When you only put him behind bars, you allow him to continue to live, see, hear, think, love, read, learn, even make money and more. All things that they denied their victim. And when you release a criminal or go soft on them, you let them out to strike again. Over 60% of criminals released from jail after committing a violent crime commit a violent crime again. And the death penalty is statistically proven in countried around the world to intimidate criminals. And even if it didn't, then all you've done is killed a bunch of murderers.

I agree that I will be forced to resign, but I entirely disagree with the rest of your arguements. We have no death penalty in Pallatium - we believe everyone deserves a second chance no matter what they have done. If we start killing people just because we can't deal with them, then we have failed our people entirely.

The death penatly is not a deterrent in any way, shape or form, and generally it can encourage further crime.

Finally - justice should not be sort for the victim, but for the state.

I really don't want a ban, but the fact I am siding with you in no way means I endorse your opinions :}

Thats why I anlong with others in the region i belong to have written a compromise that restricts the death penalty to only be used in certain cases, murder being one of them, but it also increases the burden of proof for the death sentance to be allowed.

It is still too much - the UN should not be legislating on it at all.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9921367#post9921367
the proposals text has a thread here

I will fight this proposal every step of the way. And it's only partially a NatSov 'thing'. In fact, to an extent it's quite the opposite: I do want to force my views on others, that view being that they have no place trying to undo years, no wait, centuries of legal precedent in Gruenberger law, that has been effective, and suffered minimal miscarriages of justice,

...that you are aware of.

And there lies the sticking point.

On a note to Tajiri_san, I forgot to add. After being found guilty, there should be several years of waiting, in which case they can make appeals and such and if they really are innocent try to prove it.

We believe everyone deserves a second chance no matter what they have done.

A second chance is a beautiful thing. But murderers don’t deserve a second chance, because murder is rarely accidental, and rape never is. If someone is found guilty of accidental murder, then yes, they should be spared death and given a second chance. But how about the man who killed and ate 33 teenage boys? Should he have a second chance? What if your mother was killed, would you want her killer to have a second chance? By taking another’s life they forfeit their own and their claim to a second chance.

If we start killing people just because we can't deal with them, then we have failed our people entirely

Yes, we have. But if we let people who have killed and raped others go, then we have failed our society and people even more so. If we kill people who commit violent crimes and endanger our society, even go so far as to remove people from it, then we have taken a great productive step in securing the safety of our people. We have gotten vengeance, justice, and a safer world.

The death penalty is not a deterrent in any way, shape or form, and generally it can encourage further crime.

It's statistically proven to deter crime. For example in the United States, crime rates, namely violent crime, more than doubled as soon as the death penalty was repealed. Earlier in Borman history, all crimes were punished with death. Crime was virtually non-existent, and where it did occur were far off reaches of the imperial Borman Empire. I ask you, how logically can, knowing that murder or rape etc. would be punished with the criminal's death, encourage them to commit those acts? Your statement is completely opposite of logic and statistics.

Finally - justice should not be sort for the victim, but for the state.

Justice for the victim and the state can coincide. The death sentence for a murderer is justice for his victim. It is also justice for the state in that their role, in addition to other things, is to protect the lives of their citizens. When one these citizens becomes a criminal in the action of taking the life of another they forfeit their own right to life and protection of their life by the state. The state then exacts justice for the state itself in killing a criminal who stood in they way of its role and it also removes a dangerous criminal from the streets who could go on to kill others.

I have said it before, and I will say it as many times necessary. Habardia will not support any form of ban, restriction, or regulation of the death penalty from outside its borders. This is an issue my nation feels very strongly about and if it ever got to that, we would just have to resign, easy as that.

I have said it before, and I will say it as many times necessary. Habardia will not support any form of ban, restriction, or regulation of the death penalty from outside its borders. This is an issue my nation feels very strongly about and if it ever got to that, we would just have to resign, easy as that.
we would too. whilst we don't have, and will never have the death penalty, putting in any resolution mandating either aplication or ban of it oversteps the fine line between singular national sovereignty and the UN becoming a multi-national nation

I agree with the above too posters. This should not be a confederacy (the word I think that representative from The Lynx Alliance was looking for :))

I agree with the above too posters. This should not be a confederacy (the word I think that representative from The Lynx Alliance was looking for :))
(OOC: i was thinking more of the EU as an example, but that will do)

(OOC: i was thinking more of the EU as an example, but that will do)
I suppose that needed clarification, because I was thinking of the Spanish Empire.