NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution to reduce Executions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Signifigant
Proposed by: Tajiri_san

NOTING with regret that despite the best efforts of governments, their judicial systems, and their law enforcement agencies innocent people may still be convicted of a crime only to have evidence of their innocence surface after sentencing.

RECOGNIZING that in such cases if a custodial sentence is imposed a wrongfully convicted individual may be freed and compensated for the error while if a capital sentence is carried out the damage done is irrevocable.

NOTING further that within the context of being proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” there are still varying degrees of how certainly that guilt may be proven, and that some types of evidence are considerably more compelling and less probable to be potentially misleading or incorrect than others.

RECOGNIZING further that in certain circumstances where the evidence presented is truly overwhelming, considerations of the possibility of innocence become of significantly less concern when considering sentencing.

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused, and where the crime in question involves the accused being directly responsible for the death, mutilation, disfigurement or permanent disablement or rape of another person or the commission of a sex act against a child, the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution, however no protections of the right to use capital punishment in such circumstances is established by this resolution and its use is strongly discouraged.

DECLARES that in cases where the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of the previously listed evidence, or without the crime involving the previously listed factors, the use of capital punishment is prohibited and the maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

This is comprimise deal on reducing executions rather than a total ban.

i'll tell you what this sounds like to me. i'm no lawyer so i use simple language.

i can only speak for the Empire of Kirisubo but a lot of nations would be concerned about the NSUN trying to interfere in their justice systems.

NOTING with regret that despite the best efforts of governments, their judicial systems, and their law enforcement agencies innocent people may still be convicted of a crime only to have evidence of their innocence surface after sentencing.

thats why we have an appeal mechanism.

RECOGNIZING that in such cases if a custodial sentence is imposed a wrongfully convicted individual may be freed and compensated for the error while if a capital sentence is carried out the damage done is irrevocable.

OK. thats something i can agree with

NOTING further that within the context of being proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” there are still varying degrees of how certainly that guilt may be proven, and that some types of evidence are considerably more compelling and less probable to be potentially misleading or incorrect than others.

thats something i'll leave to lawyers and judges to sort out. obviously if there's insuficent evidence it won't reach a court in the first place.

RECOGNIZING further that in certain circumstances where the evidence presented is truly overwhelming, considerations of the possibility of innocence become of significantly less concern when considering sentencing.

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused, and where the crime in question involves the accused being directly responsible for the death, mutilation, disfigurement or permanent disablement or rape of another person or the commission of a sex act against a child, the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution, however no protections of the right to use capital punishment in such circumstances is established by this resolution and its use is strongly discouraged.

so what these two paragraphs tell me is we need conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt before the death penalty can be considered. even then you're trying to discourage its use. sounds like you're trying to interfer.

DECLARES that in cases where the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of the previously listed evidence, or without the crime involving the previously listed factors, the use of capital punishment is prohibited and the maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

what right has the UN to tell to tell me and other nations what is permisable evidence in a court room and the punishment required?

theres no way i could agree to this. we may have absorbed UN acts into our statute book but we draw the line at the UN dictating to our courts what they can and cannot do.

Tajiri_san, I admire your courage for proposing this. It's going to be a very difficult resolution to pass though because it's going to piss off just about everyone. Nations that are strong supporters of the death penalty won't like it because it restricts their ability to execute as many as they like. Nations that oppose the death penalty will be appalled to learn that the UN now says it's alright to execute under certain circumstances. I wish I had some advice for you, but I honestly don't know how (or even if) the UN should address this issue.

At the same time though I would say to those that oppose any use of the death penalty of which I am actually one, that to completely stop executions would not be possible in the current climate of the UN. This has the best chance of saving at least some lives by making sure that the accused is undeniably guilty. Argueably it could also leave the door open for a more liberal UN to add a complete ban at another time.

Yelda has no death penalty (nor does Yeldan UN Mission), so I would be unlikely to actively oppose either this resolution or an outright ban. I would vehemently oppose any legislation which legalised the death penalty outright. We will study the matter further and consult with the other members of our region before deciding how to cast our vote.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support any attempts to limit the use of the death penalty in any way shape or form.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

NOTING with regret that despite the best efforts of governments, their judicial systems, and their law enforcement agencies innocent people may still be convicted of a crime only to have evidence of their innocence surface after sentencing.

thats why we have an appeal mechanism.

Which only works if the evidence comes to light while the appeal process is still an option for the individual in question. ie: before they're dead.

NOTING further that within the context of being proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” there are still varying degrees of how certainly that guilt may be proven, and that some types of evidence are considerably more compelling and less probable to be potentially misleading or incorrect than others.

thats something i'll leave to lawyers and judges to sort out. obviously if there's insuficent evidence it won't reach a court in the first place.

Having evidence necessary to establish guilt to the degree being required here is not generally a requirement of bringing a case to trial.

RECOGNIZING further that in certain circumstances where the evidence presented is truly overwhelming, considerations of the possibility of innocence become of significantly less concern when considering sentencing.

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused, and where the crime in question involves the accused being directly responsible for the death, mutilation, disfigurement or permanent disablement or rape of another person or the commission of a sex act against a child, the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution, however no protections of the right to use capital punishment in such circumstances is established by this resolution and its use is strongly discouraged.

so what these two paragraphs tell me is we need conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt before the death penalty can be considered. even then you're trying to discourage its use. sounds like you're trying to interfer.

Of course. If there wasn't a need to interfere a resolution wouldn't be required in the first place.

DECLARES that in cases where the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of the previously listed evidence, or without the crime involving the previously listed factors, the use of capital punishment is prohibited and the maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

what right has the UN to tell to tell me and other nations what is permisable evidence in a court room and the punishment required?

You do know what the UN does don't you? It passes and enacts resolutions regarding various subjects which define acceptable and unacceptable terms and conditions for it's membership based on a majority vote... the majority vote being the thing that gives them the right to do so... something you sign off on when you voluntarily join in the first place...

Any of this sounding familiar?

That said, this resolution is telling you neither. People can still be convicted of a crime without any of the listed evidence, and the resolution does not in any way tell you what punishment you are required to impose on them. It just says that if you can't at least meet a certain standard of evidence then the Death Penalty is off the table.

Tajiri_san, I admire your courage for proposing this. It's going to be a very difficult resolution to pass though because it's going to piss off just about everyone. Nations that are strong supporters of the death penalty won't like it because it restricts their ability to execute as many as they like. Nations that oppose the death penalty will be appalled to learn that the UN now says it's alright to execute under certain circumstances.

Actually, the resolution didn't say it was alright. It is explicitly stated that absolutely no protections of the use of the death penalty are established by the resolution even in cases where it is not being explicitly banned at this time, and it's use in any of those situations is still strongly discouraged.

Actually, the resolution didn't say it was alright. It is explicitly stated that absolutely no protections of the use of the death penalty are established by the resolution even in cases where it is not being explicitly banned at this time, and it's use in any of those situations is still strongly discouraged.
I know. It's not condoning it so much as it's just not really addressing it. It leaves the decision to execute or not up to the nations, so long as the criteria are met. It's hard to reach any sort of compromise on this matter and I'm not opposed to this resolution. If the other two UN members in my region say support it, I will.

I shall be adding them to the TG list then when the time comes ;)

While we commend the intent of the honorable representative from Tajiri_san and the obvious thought and effort invested in drafting this proposal, we cannot support it.

As we stated in an earlier discussion of the idea, we cannot accept that it is reasonable to attempt to establish a standard of proof in excess of "beyond a reasonable doubt". We object especially to the idea that this standard of proof could be obtained through the use of eyewitness testimony, which is almost universally considered in the legal and law enforcement communities to be of widely varying reliability.

Ausserland has not employed capital punishment in decades. It was abolished in our nation because (1) erroneous conviction and execution of a person is irreversable error, and (2) because our people were unconvinced that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent to crime. We would support a proposal which contained a total ban. We would support--as a second choice--a proposal which exempted willful, premeditated murder from the ban. We cannot support a proposal which sets forth a standard of proof that we believe unattainable and which promotes the notion of reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We respectfully suggest that "DNA evidence" is included to the criteria which establishes guilt.

We would second Ausserland's commendation, but feel the proposal will fail for support if the death penalty is prohibited in any circumstances.

No, no and no. Habardia sees this as a masked step towards the Banning of the DP, which Habardia will never, ever support.

Tajiri_san, I admire your courage for proposing this. It's going to be a very difficult resolution to pass though because it's going to piss off just about everyone. Nations that are strong supporters of the death penalty won't like it because it restricts their ability to execute as many as they like. Nations that oppose the death penalty will be appalled to learn that the UN now says it's alright to execute under certain circumstances. I wish I had some advice for you, but I honestly don't know how (or even if) the UN should address this issue.
the pro- and anti-DP camps arent the only ones it will piss off. the NS camp would be pissed off too in the fact that the UN would be overstepping the line..

We respectfully suggest that "DNA evidence" is included to the criteria which establishes guilt.


Only on the assumption that there has to be a lot of other evidence as well (motive, means, witnesses etc).

DNA on it's own is entirely unacceptable as evidence to establish guilt.

I've heard of cases (well actually it was on CSI or similar, but sounds plausible) where a woman was killed and they found semen in her and arrested the guy it transpired they were lovers and he was innocent, though I may consider DNA evidence being added once it is discussed with Reformentia in private. TBH the proposal was my idea but he is more experienced and has written most of the current version.

NOTING further that within the context of being proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” there are still varying degrees of how certainly that guilt may be proven, and that some types of evidence are considerably more compelling and less probable to be potentially misleading or incorrect than others.

Let us consider this article for a moment. Apparently, in the case of capital crime, governments are expected to prove guilt to a higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Does the esteemed representative from Tajiri_san expect Our courts, in capital cases, to prove guilt beyond an unreasonable doubt?

I've heard of cases (well actually it was on CSI or similar, but sounds plausible) where a woman was killed and they found semen in her and arrested the guy it transpired they were lovers and he was innocent, though I may consider DNA evidence being added once it is discussed with Reformentia in private. TBH the proposal was my idea but he is more experienced and has written most of the current version.

I think it was a case in Scotland where they used DNA to convict a man, despite the fact the woman said it wasn't him, and he had an alibi (not a convincing one) and generally speaking NO ONE thought he was guilty, but the DNA was all they needed.

He was innocent, and he was freed recently by the way.

This is my objection to DNA being used on its own with no other establishing factors in the trial. While it is a good indicator, DNA is not perfect and relies quite a lot on statistics to be useful. Further more the blind faith people put in it to solve crimes harks back to "spectral evidence" of the old-world witch trials, which is something I am sure no one wants to go back to.

(Yes - this kind of drifted in and out of character. Sorry)

Let us consider this article for a moment. Apparently, in the case of capital crime, governments are expected to prove guilt to a higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Does the esteemed representative from Tajiri_san expect Our courts, in capital cases, to prove guilt beyond an unreasonable doubt?

You are putting someone to death, with no way of reversing that action once it has been taken.

I am not so sure that unreasonable doubt is too much to ask for. If someone was going to execute you, would you want them to be absolutely and totally sure, not just reasonably sure?

You are putting someone to death, with no way of reversing that action once it has been taken.

I am not so sure that unreasonable doubt is too much to ask for. If someone was going to execute you, would you want them to be absolutely and totally sure, not just reasonably sure?
That is the arguement I would use with executions too :)

I am not so sure that unreasonable doubt is too much to ask for.

The HOCEK Deputy NSUN Nuncio turns to one of his colleagues in the debate hall, and comments, "...and we're considered the crazy ones around here?"

Hold on here. Now we're expected to prove something beyond unreasonable doubt? What does that even mean? And let me tell you, you are all assuming the DP is used to protect society. It might be in some nations, though not in mine. There it is used to frighten society into good behaviour. Relative guilt is all we need.

Hold on here. Now we're expected to prove something beyond unreasonable doubt? What does that even mean?

Would everyone please stop rewriting what's actually in the proposal if they're going to be discussing its impact? It says nothing whatsoever about "unreasonable doubt". As for what the proposal actually does mean, it's quite clear. If the standards listed are not met at a bare minimum then the death penalty is off the table.

And let me tell you, you are all assuming the DP is used to protect society. It might be in some nations, though not in mine. There it is used to frighten society into good behaviour. Relative guilt is all we need.

Was that intended as an argument against the proposal? Because it makes a pretty good argument in favor.

Would everyone please stop rewriting what's actually in the proposal if they're going to be discussing its impact? It says nothing whatsoever about "unreasonable doubt". As for what the proposal actually does mean, it's quite clear. If the standards listed are not met at a bare minimum then the death penalty is off the table.

We agree with the honorable delegate from Reformentia that "unreasonable doubt" is an unfortunate term and tends to muddy the debate. Perhaps it would be good to look at what the operant provision of the proposal actually sets as the standard of proof:

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused,...the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution....

So, the death penalty is prohibited unless the prosecution produces "multiple independent independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses" or "video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused". You could have mountains of scientific evidence, overwhelming amounts of circumstantial evidence, multiple uncoerced confessions, or all of these things together, clearly establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you still could not impose the death penalty. To be accurate, the proposal does not set a standard of proof. It sets two narrow types of evidence as the only ones which are relevant to imposition of the death penalty. We cannot accept this, especially given the widely varying reliability of eyewitness testimony.

The idea that the proposal establishes a standard of proof in excess of "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes from the provision immediately following:

DECLARES that in cases where the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of the previously listed evidence,...the use of capital punishment is prohibited and the maximum possible sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Since only a lesser degree of punishment is permitted, it's reasonable to infer that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is considered a lower standard of proof. Perhaps not technically accurate, but reasonable. Even if you proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by other types of evidence, you would have to add on eyewitnesses and videos to impose the death penalty.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We agree with the honorable delegate from Reformentia that "unreasonable doubt" is an unfortunate term and tends to muddy the debate. Perhaps it would be good to look at what the operant provision of the proposal actually sets as the standard of proof:

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused,...the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution....

So, the death penalty is prohibited unless the prosecution produces "multiple independent independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses" or "video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused". You could have mountains of scientific evidence, overwhelming amounts of circumstantial evidence, multiple uncoerced confessions, or all of these things together, clearly establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you still could not impose the death penalty. To be accurate, the proposal does not set a standard of proof. It sets two narrow types of evidence as the only ones which are relevant to imposition of the death penalty. We cannot accept this, especially given the widely varying reliability of eyewitness testimony.

As the proposal is still in the draft phase if you would care to provide examples of the scientific or circumstantial evidence you feel should be included it could always be added if you provide strong enough reason.

[/quote]The idea that the proposal establishes a standard of proof in excess of "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes from the provision immediately following:[/quote]

And quite properly, that's what it's meant to do. That doesn't mean we need to start up with that "unreasonable doubt" nonsense.

Even if you proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by other types of evidence, you would have to add on eyewitnesses and videos to impose the death penalty.

More accurately, the process of establishing that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt must involve the use of the listed evidence. It is not an "add on".

Hmm. From what I can gather from this thread alone, Reformentia and Tajiri_san assume that eyewitness accounts are sufficient for imposing the death penalty, while Ausserland questions the the overall credibility of eyewitnesses; Unstable Former Nuns believes that DNA evidence should be included among the evidence required to warrant the death penalty, while Pallatium thinks DNA evidence alone is unreliable; Tajiri_san, Reformentia and Pallatium think the evidenciary standard for imposing the death penalty should exceed "beyond a reasonable doubt," while Ausserland and the Eternal Kawaii do not; Habardia claims "relative guilt" is all that is needed to impose the death penalty, while Reformentia disagrees.

Given that the nations replying to this thread alone have broadly differing standards as to which types of evidence establish an executable offense, wouldn't it be best left to individual nations to use their own discretion on this matter?

A side note about the text:

... and where the crime in question involves the accused being directly responsible for the death, mutilation, disfigurement or permanent disablement or rape of another person or the commission of a sex act against a child, ...... Which of course means that unless a people commit treasonous acts in the commission of any of the above offenses, traitors cannot be executed. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Look, I appreciate that a lot of hard work likely went into the drafting of this proposal, but I can divine its fate (http://www.mtephraimschools.org/RWK/Images/trashcan.gif) right now. It seems the only sovereign rights of nations this General Assembly respects are: 1) owning nukes, and 2) executing criminals, and trying to restrict or revoke either is, frankly, suicidal.

In some ways, this proposal is even more offensive than an outright ban, in that it is effectively an instrument of anti-death-penalty zealots to tie the hands of nations in which capital punishment is still legal. These people must envision the NSUN as some sort of glorified Amnesty International, complete with ambassadors, a Secretariat, commissions, magical enforcement gnomes, supernational legislation automatically applicable in 31,000 member states, and a bar full of drunken diplomats.

The unbound elitism exhibited in the discussion of this same proposal on an off-site forum makes me even more disgusted at the thought of this resolution's success. We oppose this proposal, and any other that would presume to instruct nations on the administration of justice in their own borders.

Hmm. From what I can gather from this thread alone, Reformentia and Tajiri_san assume that eyewitness accounts are sufficient for imposing the death penalty,

Hell no they are not.

The resolution establishes that a guilty verdict and all that encompasses which is arrived at with the aid of multiple, independent eye witness testimony is sufficient to not result in an outright ban on the death penalty.

Given that the nations replying to this thread alone have broadly differing standards as to which types of evidence establish an executable offense, wouldn't it be best left to individual nations to use their own discretion on this matter?

You mean given that not everybody has the same high standards of when it is justified to execute a human being we should just let them do it whenever they feel like it's called for and hey, who needs standards for such a trivial thing anyway?

A less than compelling argument...

... Which of course means that unless a people commit treasonous acts in the commission of any of the above offenses, traitors cannot be executed. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Well gee whiz, throwing them in a prison cell for the rest of their natural lives is just going to have to suffice.

This is comprimise deal on reducing executions rather than a total ban.Actually, it'd be better to sell it not a partial ban on the death penalty, but rather as "advice for death penalty sentencing", or "increasing protection of possible innocence" or somesuch. I don't see the proposal (if I'm reading it clearly) as being well-served by the description "partial ban on the death penalty" (or even a "reduction of death penalties"), nor do I see it as either of those. I mean, if "Epidemics Prevention Protocol" were instead of encouraging prevention discouraging actions that are against the fabric of the resolution, it likely wouldn't have come across as clearly.

I just think that that would need to be more the central focus of the proposal text, to make things crystal clear to the moderate crowd you'd have to convince. Eliminate the entire discussion of the justice of the death penalty, focusing instead on the possible injustices of "loosely guilty" (as defined by the text) people being sentenced to the death penalty. I haven't really read through what the proposal says is just and injust reasoning for sentencing a person to death, so I really have nothing to add to that discussion as of yet.

You mean given that not everybody has the same high standards of when it is justified to execute a human being we should just let them do it whenever they feel like it's called for and hey, who needs standards for such a trivial thing anyway?

A less than compelling argument...
And, if I may dare say so, a less than compelling response. Everything I've ever experienced with regards to proposal drafting indicates that drafts, expecially first ones, need to be treated with thick-skin, open-minded understanding by its proponents. It is easier to attract flies with honey than vinegar. And, believe me, proposals are all about flies.

Or something.

That, and I'd hate to see you quickly create a large swarm of enemies, toppling a possibly worthwhile proposal--just because you can't be bothered with measured, non-snippy responses.In fact, I'd say you owe it to Tajiri_san, who to my knowledge has responded to comments and complaints with ample even-handedness, openness and understanding, to be bothered with making lots of friends on the forums.

Actually, it'd be better to sell it not a partial ban on the death penalty, but rather as "advice for death penalty sentencing", or "increasing protection of possible innocence" or somesuch. I don't see the proposal (if I'm reading it clearly) as being well-served by the description "partial ban on the death penalty" (or even a "reduction of death penalties"), nor do I see it as either of those. I mean, if "Epidemics Prevention Protocol" were instead of encouraging prevention discouraging actions that are against the fabric of the resolution, it likely wouldn't have come across as clearly.

I just think that that would need to be more the central focus of the proposal text, to make things crystal clear to the moderate crowd you'd have to convince. Eliminate the entire discussion of the justice of the death penalty, focusing instead on the possible injustices of "loosely guilty" (as defined by the text) people being sentenced to the death penalty. I haven't really read through what the proposal says is just and injust reasoning for sentencing a person to death, so I really have nothing to add to that discussion as of yet.
So a title like 'Protection of innocents from execution' (little clumsy sounding I wrote it off the top of my head)would be a more attractive title from this resolution you feel?

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused,...the imposition of capital punishment shall not be explicitly prohibited by this resolution....


Do you need me to point out the ways in which video can be tampered with? Especially digital video?

That's why Pallatium doesn't have a death penatly - because we honestly believe that "reasonable doubt" is not enough to justify the state murdering someone (which is what the death penalty is). Only absolute, undeniable, complete and total certainty is enough and no one will ever produce enough evidence for that to be the case.

do you realise that an expert in the field of video can often tell when a tape has been altered?

So a title like 'Protection of innocents from execution' (little clumsy sounding I wrote it off the top of my head)would be a more attractive title from this resolution you feel?
I'm thinking so. You know, be positive rather than negative. And you're right, "Protection of innocents from execution" seems a little clumsy (and probably outside title parameters). Perhaps shortening it to something like "protection of innocents" would work to your advantage and be within parameters.

Hell no they are not.

The resolution establishes that a guilty verdict and all that encompasses which is arrived at with the aid of multiple, independent eye witness testimony is sufficient to not result in an outright ban on the death penalty.Funny. That isn't what your proposal says:

DECLARES that in cases where evidence of guilt of a capital crime is established through multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused, ...Am I supposed to be reading between the lines here?

You mean given that not everybody has the same high standards of when it is justified to execute a human being we should just let them do it whenever they feel like it's called for and hey, who needs standards for such a trivial thing anyway?

A less than compelling argument...For some, national sovereignty is never a compelling argument. :rolleyes:

The vast majority of nations treat the administration of justice in their own borders with the utmost of seriousness, and hand down death sentences in only the gravest of circumstances. You make a flat assumption, rather than a proper, supported argument, that the inverse is true and that intervention by the international community is in order. It seems to me that where the disagreement lies between those who favor interfering in nations' internal affairs and those who do not, the "burden of proof," so to speak, should rest with the former, and that proposals calling for such intervention should make a clear, convincing case for it. This proposal makes no such case.

Well gee whiz, throwing them in a prison cell for the rest of their natural lives is just going to have to suffice.So, in effect, you're saying that even though violent criminals can be executed, those convicted of the highest crime against my country, people who threaten the very existence of my nation, must be kept alive? And what of mutineers? This proposal makes no allowance for military justice. What are we to do with people who in the course of service to their country commit dangerous crimes that threaten the security of our citizens and their fellow men-in-arms? Should we all just consign ourselves to your rather bizarre alternative reality, where Mumia Abu-Jamal is killed, but Benedict Arnold is kept alive?

I must say, your replies leave me unconvinced. Our position on this legislation remains unchanged.

Reformentia I appreciate your passion for our resolution but in the name of the Great Red Dragon please try to calm down a little for my sake.

do you realise that an expert in the field of video can often tell when a tape has been altered?

And digital video?

We've obviously not been clear enough in making our point, and we apologize if we've contributed to muddying the waters. Let us try again.

The proposal recognizes the long-established principle that, for a person to be found guilty of a crime, the guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. But then it requires that, for the death penalty to be imposed, the evidence presented must include "multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused".

We can see no possible reason for this other than the assumption that these two types of evidence have greater probative value than all other types of evidence. We cannot accept that this is true, especially in the case of the widely-recognized variance in reliability of eyewitness testimony. If the trier of fact (judge or jury) weighs all the evidence and decides that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then a guilty verdict should be rendered. Sentence should be imposed based on the penalties provided by law and considering any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The type of evidence considered in reaching the verdict should have no place in determining what sentence can be imposed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Funny. That isn't what your proposal says:

Am I supposed to be reading between the lines here?

Unless it says through the sole use of that evidence, no you are not.

The vast majority of nations treat the administration of justice in their own borders with the utmost of seriousness, and hand down death sentences in only the gravest of circumstances.

You were previously basing your argument on the fact that all the different nations responding in this thread treated it with widely varying degrees of seriousness, all the way down to "relatively guilty is enough". Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach.

You make a flat assumption, rather than a proper, supported argument, that the inverse is true

It's already been demonstrated in this thread and stated by you yourself.

So, in effect, you're saying that even though violent criminals can be executed, those convicted of the highest crime against my country, people who threaten the very existence of my nation, must be kept alive?

Is there some purpose you need to acheive that an execution accomplishes that lifelong imprisonment does not? Please elaborate on why you appear outraged that you would only be able to do the latter.

Additionally, the death penalty is an especially innapropriate punishment in cases of treason, where you are proposing giving the right to execute the accused offender to the aggreived party... ie, the government.

And what of mutineers? This proposal makes no allowance for military justice. What are we to do with people who in the course of service to their country commit dangerous crimes that threaten the security of our citizens and their fellow men-in-arms?

See above. Repeat question and request.

We've obviously not been clear enough in making our point, and we apologize if we've contributed to muddying the waters. Let us try again.

The proposal recognizes the long-established principle that, for a person to be found guilty of a crime, the guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which is a standard established in the name of expediency. If you required proof beyond almost any possible doubt or some such similar standard the majority of crimes would go unpunished, if you required a lower degree of proof then more innocents would be convicted than already are.

The point being that it is not the highest degree of certainty to which guilt can be demonstrated, it is only a bar which must be surpassed. A bar set at a level which does result in some percentage of innocent people being convicted. That is the price you must pay to have a functional justice system . However, see last point.

But then it requires that, for the death penalty to be imposed, the evidence presented must include "multiple independent and mutually corroborating accounts of eye witnesses to the crime itself, or video of the crime in progress which clearly identifies the accused".

We can see no possible reason for this other than the assumption that these two types of evidence have greater probative value than all other types of evidence.

They involve direct observation of the crime itself being committed by the accused.

We cannot accept that this is true, especially in the case of the widely-recognized variance in reliability of eyewitness testimony.

There is a reason multiple independent witnesses to the crime are required.

If the trier of fact (judge or jury) weighs all the evidence and decides that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then a guilty verdict should be rendered. Sentence should be imposed based on the penalties provided by law and considering any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Of course it should. This proposal would of course be part of that law.

The type of evidence considered in reaching the verdict should have no place in determining what sentence can be imposed.

And back to that bar. Innocent people can and will be convicted of crimes they did not commit using the "reasonable doubt" criteria. We cannot see how that fact could NOT be taken into account when considering imposing a sentence which cannot be revoked once it is carried out. And so the bar should indeed be set higher if the Death Penalty is to be permitted at all to attempt to absolutely minimize the possibility of that occuring. If you can think of any objective manner in which that bar can be defined that does not involve reference to the type of evidence used to gain a conviction then by all means present it for consideration.

with the greatest respect to the ambassadors from Tariji-san and reformentia my position is unchanged.

if anything reformentia's ranting and pontificating has hardened it. capital punishment isn't used very often in Kirisubo and only when theres no doubt whatsoever about a guilty verdict.

however since this is still at the draft stage both of you still have a chance to create a resolution that will respect a nations right to carry out its laws and punishments as well as defending the accused.

if you can manage that i'm sure you will make quorum.

And back to that bar. Innocent people can and will be convicted of crimes they did not commit using the "reasonable doubt" criteria. We cannot see how that fact could NOT be taken into account when considering imposing a sentence which cannot be revoked once it is carried out. And so the bar should indeed be set higher if the Death Penalty is to be permitted at all to attempt to absolutely minimize the possibility of that occuring. If you can think of any objective manner in which that bar can be defined that does not involve reference to the type of evidence used to gain a conviction then by all means present it for consideration.

We have explained to the distinguished representative of Reformentia in another venue and in this forum that we do not believe it is reasonably possible to "set a bar" higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt", yet he keeps challenging us to do so. We cannot support a proposal which attempts to do what we believe cannot be done. And we will not support any proposal which infers that eyewitness testimony and videotapes are some sort of exceptionally reliable evidence and requires that they be produced in determining a sentence. We've done the best we can to make that clear. We see no reason to keep beating this dead horse, and this will be our final statement in this debate.

We respect and commend the intent and careful work of the representatives of Tajiri_san and Reformentia in producing this draft. We would gladly support a total ban on the death penalty. We would also support--with a little less enthusiasm--a proposal which restricted the death penalty to conviction of premeditated murder. We cannot, in good conscience, support this proposal as written.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

we believe this issue does not trancend national borders except on one point: foreign travellers breaking national laws. on this point, we take the 'ignorance is no excuse' rule, in that if you break a law in another country, you will will have to fulfill the penalty. if you dont like this approach to your citizens abroad, than you can appeal for clemency. to us, we would never interfere with another countries judicial system unless it violates a passed UN resolution. whilst we dont have the death penalty, and never will, we only advise our citizens abroad to be weary of the laws of the nations they are entering and going through.

we believe this issue does not trancend national borders except on one point: foreign travellers breaking national laws. on this point, we take the 'ignorance is no excuse' rule, in that if you break a law in another country, you will will have to fulfill the penalty. if you dont like this approach to your citizens abroad, than you can appeal for clemency. to us, we would never interfere with another countries judicial system unless it violates a passed UN resolution. whilst we dont have the death penalty, and never will, we only advise our citizens abroad to be weary of the laws of the nations they are entering and going through.

I agree (I think I agree anyway). Any of my citizens that go abroad are told before they go that they are to abide by the laws, the government and so forth of the other country. So if the commit a capital crime in Hyrule, then they should expect to be executed if convicted. And while I disagree with it, it is the only way international law can work - if I expect Hyrule to respect the rule of law in my nation, how can I do any different to them?

i have just started a tourisim information act thread, you may be able to help there Pall

I see this as no more than an effort to make executions so hard to carry out that nations will just give them up. So no.

Unless it says through the sole use of that evidence, no you are not.It only says that guilt must be "established" through eyewitness accounts or videotaped evidence, meaning my nation very well could sentence someone to death on the basis of eyewitness accounts alone (but rest assured, we would not). This is called a loophole, and in most cases where a draft has been posted on this forum, the proposer will take steps to amend the flaws cited in his proposal. Do you intend to improve this proposal based on the suggestions of member states, or is thread only intended for sniping at nations who have the gall to point out your proposal's flaws?

You were previously basing your argument on the fact that all the different nations responding in this thread treated it with widely varying degrees of seriousness, all the way down to "relatively guilty is enough". Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach.I'm afraid not. Simply pointing out that individual nations have differing standards of guilt does not mean that most nations do not take the application of the death penalty very seriously and reserve it for only the gravest of crimes.

It's already been demonstrated in this thread and stated by you yourself.Begging your pardon, but no it hasn't, and no it hasn't.

Is there some purpose you need to acheive that an execution accomplishes that lifelong imprisonment does not? Please elaborate on why you appear outraged that you would only be able to do the latter.I don't know if I would classify it "outrage," but this proposal restricts my nation to execute only the scum of society, while ignoring persons who have been found by a court of law to pose a very serious threat to the nation itself. It is not uncommon for nations to impose the death sentence on traitors.

Additionally, the death penalty is an especially innapropriate punishment in cases of treason, where you are proposing giving the right to execute the accused offender to the aggreived party... ie, the government.The aggrieved party in all crimincal cases is the state, because the defendants are accused of breaking the state's laws. That of course means that you would consider all death sentences "especially inappropriate," but then again I feel that is already your position anyway. The United States does sentence traitors and mutineers to death; is that especially inappropriate?

See above. Repeat question and request.I invite you to respond to my own request from my last post, which you ignored: Justify this proposal's interference in internal national affairs, if you don't mind. The mere fact that innocent people may be executed doesn't strike me as sufficient cause for international intervention.

We have explained to the distinguished representative of Reformentia in another venue and in this forum that we do not believe it is reasonably possible to "set a bar" higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt",

And we have pointed out that it obviously is.

yet he keeps challenging us to do so. We cannot support a proposal which attempts to do what we believe cannot be done. And we will not support any proposal which infers that eyewitness testimony and videotapes are some sort of exceptionally reliable evidence

They are exceptionally reliable evidence. If you can produce multiple independent witnesses who watched the accused commit the crime and can positively identify him as the one doing it then that is extraordinarily strong evidence barring some kind of criminal conspiracy to frame them. And the same goes for having the crime on video which can positively identify the person committing the crime. If I can play back the tape and watch the accused committing the crime then again, barring some kind of conspiracy to frame I can be incredibly sure that what happened on the tape (accused committing the crime) actually DID happen.

and requires that they be produced in determining a sentence. We've done the best we can to make that clear. We see no reason to keep beating this dead horse, and this will be our final statement in this debate.

We respect and commend the intent and careful work of the representatives of Tajiri_san and Reformentia in producing this draft. We would gladly support a total ban on the death penalty. We would also support--with a little less enthusiasm--a proposal which restricted the death penalty to conviction of premeditated murder. We cannot, in good conscience, support this proposal as written.

We continue to maintain that requiring especially strong supporting evidence before a death sentence can be imposed is the best course of action if either side of the debate was at all interested in reaching a compromise on the matter but it is becoming increasingly clear judging from the responses of all participants in the thread so far that that is simply not the case. That being the case it may very wel be a better course of action to simply push for the total ban.

And digital video?
I'm not a digital video expert but then most people do not have access to facilities that can alter any video to that good of a standard that it would not be possible to notice with a well trained eye.

They are exceptionally reliable evidence. If you can produce multiple independent witnesses who watched the accused commit the crime and can positively identify him as the one doing it then that is extraordinarily strong evidence barring some kind of criminal conspiracy to frame them. And the same goes for having the crime on video which can positively identify the person committing the crime. If I can play back the tape and watch the accused committing the crime then again, barring some kind of conspiracy to frame I can be incredibly sure that what happened on the tape (accused committing the crime) actually DID happen.


Have you ever seen "My Cousin Vinny"?

I really don't care if you have multiple independent witnesses, video and audio tape of the crime and perfect motive and means. The only thing that would convince me that someone should be executed for a crime is if one of the Goddesses herself told me that the defendent was guilty.

Reasonable doubt is not good enough to kill someone - you have to be beyond certain.


And honestly - a partial ban, or an increase in evidence, is a waste of time. Either you go for a complete ban, or you leave it up to the nations. Cause halfway in between is a total cop-out.

I'm not a digital video expert but then most people do not have access to facilities that can alter any video to that good of a standard that it would not be possible to notice with a well trained eye.

You should see what government agencies can do given the right equipment. And if the government can get it, so can organized crime.

And honestly - a partial ban, or an increase in evidence, is a waste of time. Either you go for a complete ban, or you leave it up to the nations. Cause halfway in between is a total cop-out.
thats the problem with this issue: there is no such thing as half way, because the interpretation lines are so blurred that no-one can define it the same.

It only says that guilt must be "established" through eyewitness accounts or videotaped evidence, meaning my nation very well could sentence someone to death on the basis of eyewitness accounts alone (but rest assured, we would not).

So let us get this straight. You're simultaneously complaining that the resolution is trying to make it more difficult for you to execute people AND that you think there's a loophole that could make it easier for you to execute people?

I'm afraid not. Simply pointing out that individual nations have differing standards of guilt does not mean that most nations do not take the application of the death penalty very seriously and reserve it for only the gravest of crimes.

If you do take it very seriously then making as certain as possible that it is only applied to guilty people should not be something you find so incredibly onerous.

Begging your pardon, but no it hasn't, and no it hasn't.

It has, and it has. There has already been claims made by at least one nation in this thread that they employ the death penalty as a tool to keep their populace in line through fear and that as far as they're concerned the guilt of the executed party is only relatively important, and you have cited the differing standards used to apply the death penalty as part of your argument... including citing the position of that nation specifically.

I don't know if I would classify it "outrage," but this proposal restricts my nation to execute only the scum of society, while ignoring persons who have been found by a court of law to pose a very serious threat to the nation itself.

A threat equally well removed by their incarceration as their execution.

The aggrieved party in all crimincal cases is the state, because the defendants are accused of breaking the state's laws.

In this particular case by comitting an offense directly against the state itself.

I invite you to respond to my own request from my last post, which you ignored:

Already done. See material following the "It has, and it has" portion of this reply.

Now kindly return the favor. What great pressing need for the application of the death penalty do you have that is not fulfilled by simply incarcerating the guilty party?

Have you ever seen "My Cousin Vinny"?

Please tell me you are not referring to a convoluted movie plot involving an extraordinary confluence of circumstantial events as evidence of the reliability of eye witness testimony from multiple independent sources. Especially a movie plot in which there was not one single eye witness to the crime.

Reasonable doubt is not good enough to kill someone - you have to be beyond certain.

And honestly - a partial ban, or an increase in evidence, is a waste of time. Either you go for a complete ban, or you leave it up to the nations. Cause halfway in between is a total cop-out.

Making it more difficult to execute people is not a cop out.

Please tell me you are not referring to a convoluted movie plot involving an extraordinary confluence of circumstantial events as evidence of the reliability of eye witness testimony from multiple independent sources. Especially a movie plot in which there was not one single eye witness to the crime.
i think its a case of 'well that is what your legal system is like, but this is what ours is like....' i have to ask the question, if this one goes through, is someone going to come up with a resolution to ban hand amputation on being found guilty for theft? man, just leave this issue out of the UN.

The Theocracy of AuralCex cannot speak for all peoples, but Auralcexers need to execute people to SURVIVE. How do we breed? by killing our own, and feasting upon their remains until nothing but the gonads are left, which is to be submerged in a pool of the former owner's urine and feces until the gestation period is over. Then Auralcexers burst out in litters of 16-20 younglings which immediately begin to attack and feast upon each other until only 4 or 5 are left. THAT is how we reproduce. Sure, we could have sexual intercourse, but have you seen our women? The Auralcexer X chromosome carries a recessive trait that causes massive hair, fang, and wing growth - not to mention saggy breasts and fatty calves and mandibile like vaginas! Excecutions are the key to our continued existence. If you deny one breeder's right to die horribly and painfully, you deny a people their right to exist. If we are gone, then who will supply you with cocaine? This world's borgeoise needs cocaine, and thus the world needs Auralcexers. Thankyou

So let us get this straight. You're simultaneously complaining that the resolution is trying to make it more difficult for you to execute people AND that you think there's a loophole that could make it easier for you to execute people?
Yes, and thank goodness he or she is. Some posters in the forum see disagreement with a proposal as grounds not to help prune it or edit it, but apparently Omigodtheykilledkenny has been able to see past the fact that he or she doesn't like the proposal and told you why he or she doesn't like it. I mean, when I want a proposal to fail, the last thing I do is point out the integral problems in the forum--they might actually get changed then.

Not only is this not contradictory or something to point out and laugh at, but you should be thanking him. 1) becuase only the worst critics of a proposal will likely be able to see its mst subtle failings, and 2) that he is arguing about the proposal's content shows that he has made his decision on support or objection on the basis of its content. That's the most you can best that can happen from your audience members: consider you arguments and make their own decisions, rather than adopting knee-jerk conclusions for or against.

Again, you should be thanking those of us who diagree with the idea and are still pointing out possible faults. And, as a general order of forum decorum, when points of arguments against your ideas are pointed out, I've found asking questions to understand the disagreement, and then being willing to accept differing opinions a better strategy than blindly oppossing everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you.

Please tell me you are not referring to a convoluted movie plot involving an extraordinary confluence of circumstantial events as evidence of the reliability of eye witness testimony from multiple independent sources. Especially a movie plot in which there was not one single eye witness to the crime.


Actually I am, because everything that happened is possible. Maybe not likely, but possible.

And that is what I would call putting it beyond reasonable doubt. And why I can not support a proposal to condone the cold-blooded murder of someone based on "reasonable doubt". You need a higer - a much, much higher - standard of evidence if the UN is going to condone muder.


Making it more difficult to execute people is not a cop out.

This is just an attempt to make yourself feel better about not getting a total ban.

The government of St Edmund opposes this proposal, on the grounds that _
1/. Our laws allow the death penalty for a number of other offences (including treason, espionage, mutiny, piracy, arson in ordnance works or naval dockyards, attempted multiple murder, and some types of aggravated manslaughter...) as well as murder, and we have no wish to change this.
and
2/. We do not see either eyewitness testimony or videotapes as being necessarily that much more accurate than certain other forms of evidence.