NationStates Jolt Archive

>>LINK FOR APPROVALS<< (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=capital%20crimes)

Seeing as how a recent poll (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453544) conducted in this forum finds that fully half of all respondents are opposed to any ban on the death penalty (although admittedly the poll is hardly representative of the UN as a whole), I thought that introducing alternative legislation allowing the UN to fight for the rights of the accused while still preserving the rights of member nations to impose their own penalties for serious crimes would be in order.

This proposal has been submitted, but only to test the waters. I will not be telegramming in support of this proposal, yet.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant(?)
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: This Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many member states consider the imposition of the death penalty a necessary evil for addressing the threat that violent criminals pose to their societies;

CONCERNED that innocent persons may be sentenced to death in member nations;

ACKNOWLEDGING that a total ban on the death penalty by this body would be culturally insensitive, especially in cases where religions command that certain criminals be put to death;

REGRETTING that substantial differences among member nations of evidentiary standards for capital offenses punishable by death -- as well as the varying reasons and justifications for those standards -- prevent this body from imposing a uniform standard of guilt for those crimes;

CONDEMNING the death penalty as a means to deter crime, as research shows the opposite is true in many cases; and

STRONGLY ENCOURAGING member states to abolish the death penalty and find alternative means for punishing violent criminals:

1. AFFIRMS the right of member governments to determine the penalty for capital crimes committed against their nation (or the provincial governments therein), barring cases where this body through previous legislation has restricted that right;

2. STRONGLY URGES member states to verify the guilt of those charged with capital offenses by requiring that, wherever possible, the cases against them be confirmed with DNA evidence;

3. IMPLORES member states, wherever possible, to authorize DNA testing in cases where an individual has already been found guilty and sentenced to death without DNA evidence;

4. ESTABLISHES a commission of jurists and forensic scientists* to study the application of the death sentence in affected nations by selecting a scientific sample of death-row inmates convicted without DNA evidence, re-examining the evidence against them, and using DNA evidence, where applicable, to verify their guilt;

5. CALLS UPON member nations, where these studies find that a statistically significant number of probably innocent individuals have been imprisoned, to impose a moratorium on all future death sentences, in order to give national and provincial governments the opportunity to revisit their standard for imposing the death penalty and assure its just administration.All appropriate suggestions, questions and comments are welcomed.

*Yes, I do think it is possible find mystical beings for this commission who are also jurists and forensic scientists. :p

this again??? see my last point in the limited ban thread for my view...

5. CALLS UPON member nations found by these studies to have imprisoned a statistically significant number of probably innocent individuals to impose a moratorium on all future death sentences, to give national and provincial governments the opportunity to revisit their standard for imposing the death penalty and assure its just administration.

I would reword this statement too;

CALLS UPON a moratorium of future death sentences if studies conducted fine that a significant number of innocent individuals have been imprisoned, and allows the national and provincial/state government to revisit their standing on the death penalty.

this again??? see my last point in the limited ban thread for my view...Have you even read the proposal?

2. STRONGLY URGES member states to verify the guilt of those charged with capital offenses by requiring that, wherever possible, the cases against them be confirmed with DNA evidence;

3. IMPLORES member states to authorize DNA testing in cases where an individual has already been found guilty and sentenced to death;

4. ESTABLISHES a commission of jurists and forensic scientists* to study the application of the death sentence in affected nations by re-examining the evidence against a scientifically selected sample of death-row inmates that were convicted of their crimes without DNA evidence, and using DNA evidence to verify their guilt;


What is it with DNA evidence? It has been proven to be unreliable, and a lot of it is based on statistics, as opposed to solid facts. Using it on it's own to sentence people to death is as bad as using the phrase "I saw Lizzie Procter communing with the devil" to sentence someone to death.

Don't get me wrong - it has it's place. But to put blind, absolute faith in it is just asking for thousands of innocent dead people.

okay, i will put in my argument from the other thread (not the restricting death penalty, but the poll one): i call NS on this. this, to me, would be again the overstepping of the boundry where the UN stops and the nation starts. whilst we have such resolutions as 'Fair Trial', i believe that is about as far as it should go into the judicial process.

i think you could classify this as a strong resolution.

what about treason? in a lot of countries thats an automatic death penalty.

lets take point 3. dna testing would most likely have been used already in the case if able to be used. sometimes its not even applicable to the case. it only really comes into play in rape cases and thats dosen't earn you a death sentence in Kirisubo.

point 4. thats something i can agree with as long as the gnomes can meet our deadlines.

point 5. the best time to do this is at the trial. a gnome can be present to see justice being carried out. however i would remind you that most nations who practise the death penalty want to make sure that guilt is proven before the sentence is considered.

Well i am a believer in capital punisment, I feel that this resolution is well thought out and seems to be a good comprimise between both sides of the arguement. The use of DNA evidence, plus allowing for national soverignty has my vote. I would fully support this, if it comes to vote here in the UN. Good job, Ambassador Riley.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,
The Dominion of Palentine UN office

New Nation, same Corrupt and Unholesome practices!:D

My main objection still stands - the UN should not be dealing with this at all - not conding state sanctioned murder, not condemming the lawful execution of prisoners. The UN should run away, flee and skidaddle from this situation as fast as possible, and not look back.

AHHHH!!! Blocker!!!

ipoint 5. the best time to do this is at the trial. a gnome can be present to see justice being carried out. however i would remind you that most nations who practise the death penalty want to make sure that guilt is proven before the sentence is considered.
this to me would be a NS interference. as i have stated before, what has already been established in passed resoulutions should be the line. the moment you step over the line of interfering with a nation's sentencing, it breaches NS

i think you could classify this as a strong resolution.

I don't agree there. The only thing this actually does is establish a comittee. The rest is just nat sov pretty please stuff. Not sure that makes it deserve a strong classification. My personal opinion is this is no more than mild.

What is it with DNA evidence? It has been proven to be unreliable, and a lot of it is based on statistics, as opposed to solid facts. Using it on it's own to sentence people to death is as bad as using the phrase "I saw Lizzie Procter communing with the devil" to sentence someone to death.

Don't get me wrong - it has it's place. But to put blind, absolute faith in it is just asking for thousands of innocent dead people.This is not a proposal to place "absolute faith" in DNA evidence. It only calls upon nations to apply DNA evidence to confirm either guilt or innocence.

i call NS on this. this, to me, would be again the overstepping of the boundry where the UN stops and the nation starts. whilst we have such resolutions as 'Fair Trial', i believe that is about as far as it should go into the judicial process.Honestly, national sovereignty?! This proposal is specifically tailored to respect national sovereignty. I refer you to this clause:

1. AFFIRMS the right of member governments to determine the penalty for capital crimes committed against their nation (or the provincial governments therein), barring cases where this body through previous legislation has restricted that right; ...It means exactly what it says. Nations may or may not impose the death penalty, or any other penalty for capital crimes, as they see fit. The only exception is where previous legislation has already infringed on that right.

As to the rest of the proposal, it only: STRONGLY URGES member states ... IMPLORES member states ... ESTABLISHES a commission ... CALLS UPON member nations.

what about treason? in a lot of countries thats an automatic death penalty.What about it? This proposal does not obligate you to restrict the death penalty in your own nation in any way.

lets take point 3. dna testing would most likely have been used already in the case if able to be used.This clause refers to cases that were already decided before DNA advances allowed law enforcement to determine the probable scientific accuracy of the violent-criminal convictions. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are based on a famous study conducted in (RL) Illinois that found that of 25 inmates on death row, DNA evidence demonstrated that 13 were probably innocent. The governor at the time imposed a death-penalty moratorium, basing his decision on that study.

sometimes its not even applicable to the case.You're right; sometimes it's not. I might have a tweak a couple clauses.

point 5. the best time to do this is at the trial. a gnome can be present to see justice being carried out. however i would remind you that most nations who practise the death penalty want to make sure that guilt is proven before the sentence is considered.Well, I hardly think it would be appropriate for the UN to interfere with criminal trials in member states. This commission is only created to confirm that inmates who were convicted without DNA evidence (and where DNA evidence can confirm their guilt) were done so correctly. It's based upon the RL study cited above.

Honestly, national sovereignty?! This proposal is specifically tailored to respect national sovereignty. I refer you to this clause:

It means exactly what it says. Nations may or may not impose the death penalty, or any other penalty for capital crimes, as they see fit. The only exception is where previous legislation has already infringed on that right.

As to the rest of the proposal, it only: STRONGLY URGES member states ... IMPLORES member states ... ESTABLISHES a commission ... CALLS UPON member nations.

What about it? This proposal does not obligate you to restrict the death penalty in your own nation in any way.
what? so then it is a toothless tiger that can be safely ignored but wastes money?

This is not a proposal to place "absolute faith" in DNA evidence. It only calls upon nations to apply DNA evidence to confirm either guilt or innocence.


And that's my problem. The proposal appears to say that "if you think someone is guilty, apply DNA evidence and you will know one way or the other". Which is bollocks.

Doesn't it seem like we just can't get off this topic these days? I for one think it is fruitless, since just as the anti-DP people feel very strongly about this, so do the pro-DP and the NatSov people. I don't think we'lll ever get anywhere with this.

Myself, I will never get tired of voicing my nation's views. Habrdia will never accept any sort of UN legislation that even mentions the DP. On this I believe I have been clear, and I hope that solves anyone's doubts about how Habardia feels about this proposal.

My main objection still stands - the UN should not be dealing with this at all - not conding state sanctioned murder, not condemming the lawful execution of prisoners. The UN should run away, flee and skidaddle from this situation as fast as possible, and not look back.

It is the finding of the government of Krioval, myself included, that the United Nations must have some level of power to propose resolutions; resolutions that will invariably either conflict with or affirm national sovereignty. It would be incredibly difficult to imagine a proposal that neither restricts, in some fashion, nor enshrines the ability of a nation to form its own decisions on various matters of governance.

As to the finer points of this proposal, might I suggest changing the sections on DNA testing to something a bit more general, like "using all available technologies known to this body" in its place? I realize that this may cause problems among nations of reduced technological advancement relative to other nations, but those nations are not required to use "overly advanced" technology, and one would hope that those nations would do so in order to verify more completely the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal.

Krioval will likely support this proposal in the coming days.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
United Nations Ambassador
Krioval

looks over the 'Fair Trial' resolution
cut out the references to this being about the death penalty, and it could be a worthy replacement of the 'Fair Trial' resolution... maybe, with a bit of reworking. maybe you should head down that path, Omigodtheykilledkenny

It is the finding of the government of Krioval, myself included, that the United Nations must have some level of power to propose resolutions; resolutions that will invariably either conflict with or affirm national sovereignty. It would be incredibly difficult to imagine a proposal that neither restricts, in some fashion, nor enshrines the ability of a nation to form its own decisions on various matters of governance.


You will note that I didn't say the UN shouldn't pass proposals in general - just about this topic. I am a great supporter of the UN, and am not a huge National Sovereignty supporter. The UN is one of the best institutions in the NS world, and we should support it.

But on this topic - the death penatly in individual nations - it should not be ruling at all, one way or the other.

looks over the 'Fair Trial' resolution
cut out the references to this being about the death penalty, and it could be a worthy replacement of the 'Fair Trial' resolution... maybe, with a bit of reworking. maybe you should head down that path, Omigodtheykilledkenny
scratch that, just found the 'definition of fair trial' resolution, and you would only be augmenting that.

You will note that I didn't say the UN shouldn't pass proposals in general - just about this topic. I am a great supporter of the UN, and am not a huge National Sovereignty supporter. The UN is one of the best institutions in the NS world, and we should support it.

But on this topic - the death penatly in individual nations - it should not be ruling at all, one way or the other.

What makes the death penalty a topic on which the United Nations should hold no position when said institution has already passed resolutions on both matters of life and death and matters concerning one's nation's legal system? I suppose it makes sense if one believes strongly in both barring capital punishment and respecting other nations' sovereignty, but I continue to find that such a position becomes untenable in the longer run of things.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
United Nations Ambassador
Krioval

What makes the death penalty a topic on which the United Nations should hold no position when said institution has already passed resolutions on both matters of life and death and matters concerning one's nation's legal system? I suppose it makes sense if one believes strongly in both barring capital punishment and respecting other nations' sovereignty, but I continue to find that such a position becomes untenable in the longer run of things.


Generally - I don't believe anything should be off limits to the UN - that it should be able to make law about what ever it's members think it should.

But somethings should remain local - drug control policies, gun control policies and this (to name but a few). Because they are unique to a nation. And it doesn't entirely relate to the legal system - I would aruge it is a basic human right to have a fair trial when you are being tried for something - that justice should be universal, and not something that comes at the whim of whoever is in power that day. But once justice has been served - once someone has been fairly convicted of a crime they were accused of - then (one could argue) the punishment should come from the nation. I know - there are arguements against that (what if the nation wants to hang, draw and quarter them?) but generally the nation will have a better idea of what will work within it's borders.

For example - Pallatium has no death penalty, because a long time ago, the people decided that wasn't the way to go - that people can not be threatened in to behaving. And we have very little crime, so clearly it works.

But Hyrule has a death penatly, because people decided it was the only way to ensure people obeyed the law.

Same with gun control and drug policies - they are unique to the nation because only people who live and work in the nation can understand what works.

Other topics - the right to privacy, the right to sexual freedom, the right to scientific freedom - these are all what I would consider basic human rights that trump national sovereignty in a debate (for me at least - I know other nations disagree). But these three (plus maybe others I hadn't considered) don't.

I have no wish to see the UN block future attempts to eliminate the death penalty from member states. No support; indeed, vehement opposition.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Generally - I don't believe anything should be off limits to the UN - that it should be able to make law about what ever it's members think it should.

But somethings should remain local - drug control policies, gun control policies and this (to name but a few). Because they are unique to a nation. And it doesn't entirely relate to the legal system - I would aruge it is a basic human right to have a fair trial when you are being tried for something - that justice should be universal, and not something that comes at the whim of whoever is in power that day. But once justice has been served - once someone has been fairly convicted of a crime they were accused of - then (one could argue) the punishment should come from the nation. I know - there are arguements against that (what if the nation wants to hang, draw and quarter them?) but generally the nation will have a better idea of what will work within it's borders.

I think the above is crucial, and basically hits the nail on the head. Governments killing people for no reason, or to subdue them, is one thing. But after, say, a murder, the victim's human rights (to life) have already been violated, and the government has to do something (a) to punish the behaviour, and (b) to stop it happening again. This takes it into a much harder moral area, and all we can hope for is that if someone does decide in favour of the death penalty, they don't reach that decision lightly.

The thing is, human rights are only relevent in the context of a society. Imagine a guy stranded on a desert island. What human rights does he have. The right to life? Who would take it from him? Does he have the right not to be killed by a falling coconut, or bitten by smakes? Then, what about the right to free speech? Who can stop him? The right to religion? Freedom of conscience? By himself, all these things are just characteristics of being human, the human condition. They only become rights when you demand them from someone else, and when you have a group of people agreeing to demand certain rights from each other in order to live together, that's a society. So once someone breaks those rules, you could argue they put themselves outside of that society, and aren't protected the same way as if they'd lived by the rules.

The only thing I would add to Pallatium's opinion is that in a institution like the UN, there is also the matter of participation to think of when passing laws. Say you have 20 nations grouped together, all ready to pass a resolution to stop torture, gender discrimination, and environmental pollution in their countries. Then 11 of them also decide to pass a ban on the death penalty, but the other 9 aren't happy, and say they'll leave if this passes. The question is, do you go for all the resolutions but lose nearly half the participants, or drop the DP ban and get 100% coverage on the rest? Personally I think it's better to lean in favour of wider participation, since disagreements now can be negotiated in the future, as long as the other party is still around to negotiate with.

Finally, (phew! fingers sore!), I'm in the position probably most people can identify with, where I'm technically in favour of the death penalty, but in practice certain that it could never work.

(Until they find a way of isolating and removing the part of the brain that allows humans to lie) -

[JUDGE: You are charged with murder. What do have to say for yourself?]

[ACCUSED: Your honour, I fear very much that this may harm my defence, but yes, I killed him, and I'm glad I did it.]

This proposal has been submitted as the Capital Crimes Justice Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=capital%20crimes). If you agree with it, please approve it or ask your regional delegate to do so.

"CONDEMNING the death penalty as a means to deter crime, as research shows the opposite is true in many cases"

Research in St Edmund indicates that very few executed criminals go on to commit further crimes...

Hirota has just made the submitting of death penalty resolutions a criminal act punished by execution.

Don't send your ambassador into Hirota anytime soon :D

Research in St Edmund indicates that very few executed criminals go on to commit further crimes...
Yes, I appreciate that you're making a flippant remark. Nonetheless, the point being made by Mr Riley is a valid one. There is no conclusive proof that having the death penalty as a retributive option has any bearing on crime figures.

VY

Research in St Edmund indicates that very few executed criminals go on to commit further crimes...

Hmm, your research has come to the same conclusion as mine. As Mel Allen would say, "How about that!":D

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

New Nation, Same Corrupt and Unwholesome practices!:D

Now, I agree fully with Pallatium, there is a limit on what the UN can legislate. The DP works in my nation ,as it seems it doesnt work in Pallatium. Because this is an issue that its more efficient to deal with at a national level. About the research that says the DP is not a good deterrent against crime, in Habardia's experiece, this is because you fellows have your executions in basements, as in a secret. All of Habardia's punishments are in public, and let me tell you, after seeing a murderer or oathbreaker ( breaking oaths to the Gods is capital offense in my country? being tortured and beheaded in your city's square, anyone is going to think harder about doing what he did.

Now, I agree fully with Pallatium, there is a limit on what the UN can legislate. The DP works in my nation ,as it seems it doesnt work in Pallatium. Because this is an issue that its more efficient to deal with at a national level. About the research that says the DP is not a good deterrent against crime, in Habardia's experiece, this is because you fellows have your executions in basements, as in a secret. All of Habardia's punishments are in public, and let me tell you, after seeing a murderer or oathbreaker ( breaking oaths to the Gods is capital offense in my country? being tortured and beheaded in your city's square, anyone is going to think harder about doing what he did.

But - to give you the other side - have you ever seen "Life Of Brian"? ("You are only making it worse for yourself" "Worse? How can it be worse?")

Or - to put it another way - if I go out and kill someone, and I know I am going to die for that crime, what is to stop me going on a rampage? Killing everyone and anyone I see? I can only be executed once, so the fact I am going to be executed has, infact, cause MORE crime, not less.

Also - on a purely "I want to defend my nation" level, we have never had the death penalty, so arguably your assertion that "it doesn't work in Pallatium" is not true :}

But - to give you the other side - have you ever seen "Life Of Brian"? ("You are only making it worse for yourself" "Worse? How can it be worse?")

Or - to put it another way - if I go out and kill someone, and I know I am going to die for that crime, what is to stop me going on a rampage? Killing everyone and anyone I see? I can only be executed once, so the fact I am going to be executed has, infact, cause MORE crime, not less.

Also - on a purely "I want to defend my nation" level, we have never had the death penalty, so arguably your assertion that "it doesn't work in Pallatium" is not true :}
OOC: No I havent seen Life of Brian, is it good?
IC: My point was that applied rightly, it does work. About the rampage thing, well that's I meant that it deters crime for those who havent committed it yet, I really dont know what you can do about people already committing crime. Perhaps you would call my justice system backwards or barbaric, but we just really dont care that much about criminals, we worry about the upright Habardians. Oh and one more thing, I was just agreeing with you.

OOC: No I havent seen Life of Brian, is it good?


(ooc) That depends - are you a Christian who believes that mocking God and The Bible is a crime worse than eating babies? Cause if you are it's probably not a film you would want to watch :}


IC: My point was that applied rightly, it does work. About the rampage thing, well that's I meant that it deters crime for those who havent committed it yet, I really dont know what you can do about people already committing crime. Perhaps you would call my justice system backwards or barbaric, but we just really dont care that much about criminals, we worry about the upright Habardians. Oh and one more thing, I was just agreeing with you.

(smirk) (ic smirk, of course). This is drifting towards a "general" discussion, so I will just say that I think even if you apply it "rightly" it is still not a deterrent in any way, shape or form. And I care about the rights of my citizens - all of my citizens, even those accused and convicted of horrible crimes - they are still my people, and if they have lost their way so badly they have to resort to murder and so forth, then it is I who have failed them, and I who must help them get back to who they should be.

(ooc) That depends - are you a Christian who believes that mocking God and The Bible is a crime worse than eating babies? Cause if you are it's probably not a film you would want to watch :}
OOC: no im not that kind of person... i do believe mocking of Divinity is wrong, but despite my RP personality Im very open minded...



((smirk) (ic smirk, of course). This is drifting towards a "general" discussion, so I will just say that I think even if you apply it "rightly" it is still not a deterrent in any way, shape or form. And I care about the rights of my citizens - all of my citizens, even those accused and convicted of horrible crimes - they are still my people, and if they have lost their way so badly they have to resort to murder and so forth, then it is I who have failed them, and I who must help them get back to who they should be.
IC: Alrigh, in the interest of getting back to the original discussion, I'll just recognise that Pallatium is a nation quite different to Habardia and that we will probably never see eye to eye in these matters.

OOC: no im not that kind of person... i do believe mocking of Divinity is wrong, but despite my RP personality Im very open minded...


There is a LOT of mocking of divinity, and (and this sounds so bad) I think it is one of the best films of all time :}

There is a LOT of mocking of divinity, and (and this sounds so bad) I think it is one of the best films of all time :}
OOC yeah i dont really care about it in comedy just to make an example one of my fav movies is dogma, but maybe we should get back to NS discussion...