NationStates Jolt Archive

proposal:the united nations shall not infringe on the right of a nation to have a deathpenalty.
hereby the UN gives the right of capital punishment for murder only so the nation dosent abuse its power.

Delagates if you like it its on:the right for capital punishment

proposal:the united nations shall not infringe on the right of a nation to have a deathpenalty.
hereby the UN gives the right of capital punishment for murder only so the nation dosent abuse its power.

Delagates if you like it its on:the right for capital punishment

I like the spirit of this: a protection of the Death Penalty, I'd vote for that. However, you only protect it in murder cases, that's not enough. And "only so thenation doesn't abuse its power" is pretty vague. Work on it a bit, get a draft going, and I'll probably support it.

I like the spirit of this: a protection of the Death Penalty, I'd vote for that. However, you only protect it in murder cases, that's not enough. And "only so thenation doesn't abuse its power" is pretty vague. Work on it a bit, get a draft going, and I'll probably support it.
only goes with murder not nation sorry no comma but how do you revise a subbmitted proposal

Sorry, but no.

If you don't pass a proposal about the death penatly, the nations are free to use it as they wish.

The moment you pass one either way it limits the power of the nations to use this barbaric, horrible and insane form of punishment.

(I oppose the death penatly, but I oppose the idea of banning it or forcing it on people even more)

i dont think something like this needs international protection, in that one opposing the death penalty has never succeded in the past and is highly unlikely to succed in the future if put forward

only goes with murder not nation sorry no comma but how do you revise a subbmitted proposal
You don't. I thought this was just a draft. Just wait a bit, revise it, the re-post it. Its not going to be approved like this anyway.
Sorry, but no.

If you don't pass a proposal about the death penatly, the nations are free to use it as they wish.

The moment you pass one either way it limits the power of the nations to use this barbaric, horrible and insane form of punishment.

(I oppose the death penatly, but I oppose the idea of banning it or forcing it on people even more)
I would also oppose a regulation making the DP mandatory, but this one, at least if it was cleaned up a bit, doesn't do that, it just clarifies, at least from the way I interpret it, exactly what you say, that no one can either ban it or enforce for other nations.

I would also oppose a regulation making the DP mandatory, but this one, at least if it was cleaned up a bit, doesn't do that, it just clarifies, at least from the way I interpret it, exactly what you say, that no one can either ban it or enforce for other nations.

The UN has no business legislating on the death penatly, full stop.

The UN has no business legislating on the death penatly, full stop.
I agree. That is not what I believe we should make this proposal do, though. I think that the proposal should just make it law that precisely as you say, the UN cannot legislate on the Death Penalty. A resolution stating the UN cannot legislate regarding the DP would have to be repealed before anyone either made the DP mandatory of banned it. I believe this would renforce your stance (which also happens to be mine, that the DP is not the UN's business).

I agree. That is not what I believe we should make this proposal do, though. I think that the proposal should just make it law that precisely as you say, the UN cannot legislate on the Death Penalty. A resolution stating the UN cannot legislate regarding the DP would have to be repealed before anyone either made the DP mandatory of banned it. I believe this would renforce your stance (which also happens to be mine, that the DP is not the UN's business).

I don't believe you could phrase it like that. It would have to be more of a 'Right to Determine Sentence' proposal.

I agree. That is not what I believe we should make this proposal do, though. I think that the proposal should just make it law that precisely as you say, the UN cannot legislate on the Death Penalty. A resolution stating the UN cannot legislate regarding the DP would have to be repealed before anyone either made the DP mandatory of banned it. I believe this would renforce your stance (which also happens to be mine, that the DP is not the UN's business).

(smirk) You are totally missing my point, but I can see how that is possible.

When I say that UN has no business legislating on it, I mean just that. Passing a proposal to say that would actually be legislating on it.

The UN should just stay away from it and not interfere. In fact it should run away from it and hide under the bed until the problem goes away.

(Note - the only time I didn't support this was when The EON Convention was passed, but only because it was the UN that was trying the case, and the UN that would have had to punish the guilty, and since the UN has no business legislating, it could not very well put people to death under its own power)

I don't believe you could phrase it like that. It would have to be more of a 'Right to Determine Sentence' proposal.
Probabl, but that is not my point. I'm just arguing the spirit of the proposal. I think we're far from reaching an actual draft at this point.

(smirk) You are totally missing my point, but I can see how that is possible.

When I say that UN has no business legislating on it, I mean just that. Passing a proposal to say that would actually be legislating on it.

The UN should just stay away from it and not interfere. In fact it should run away from it and hide under the bed until the problem goes away.

(Note - the only time I didn't support this was when The EON Convention was passed, but only because it was the UN that was trying the case, and the UN that would have had to punish the guilty, and since the UN has no business legislating, it could not very well put people to death under its own power)
Fair enough. I just think having actual policy stating the UN can't legislate would be more effective in case of a turnover in general opinion, that's all. But I do see your point now.

This looks like a horrible little blocker proposal that is only created to keep the status quo rather than to actually do anything to help the UN be a better place.

This looks like a horrible little blocker proposal that is only created to keep the status quo rather than to actually do anything to help the UN be a better place.

Maybe the UN would be a better place if citizens were allowed some say in how their countries were run.

thats what 'No' votes are for, which I guess would stop this thing in its track.

Maybe the UN would be a better place if citizens were allowed some say in how their countries were run.
That is a totally different topic. Besides, we already have "Citizen Rule Required". Or by citizens did you mean nations?

That is a totally different topic. Besides, we already have "Citizen Rule Required". Or by citizens did you mean nations?

Yes, we do have CRR. And every time someone tries to implement a clumsy one-size-fits-all law like a ban on capital punishment, it tramples all over the principles of that resolution.

Yes, we do have CRR. And every time someone tries to implement a clumsy one-size-fits-all law like a ban on capital punishment, it tramples all over the principles of that resolution.
Yes. I know that from my experience with my first proposals, back when I was still getting acquainted with NS. Those flopped big-time, but served as a learning experience on what cannot be done, so I suppose they were useful to me, at least I know what not to do ;) . Only wish others could learn from my mistakes.