NationStates Jolt Archive

El Caminos In The West, Texan Protectorate of The Lightly Salted Goat of Gruenberg, is proud to present the Fair Sentencing Act.

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that some nations employ the death penalty as a sentence for the most serious crimes,

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that nations can where possible find alternate means of punishment,

APPLAUDING nations who take steps to avoid judicial errors, to ensure that the death sentence is applied fairly,

AWARE that for some nations the death penalty is intrinsic to a cultural value system,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of the death penalty as a deterrent to acts of criminal damage in some nations:

DECLARES that all nations have the right to use the death penalty as punishment for infringements of national laws which they decide constitute capital crimes.

The author would like Texan Hotrodders for their assistance

Will be The Furtherment of Democracy, Mild (probably).

While this would give nations the right to use the death penalty, the only problem I see is that it does not prevent abuse of this power. It just says that the UN hopes nations won't.

I'm not sure if this reservation could be expressed well in an amendment though. I'm not sure the UN could 'force' a set way of making sure the death penalty is applied only for the most severe cases. Heck, I'm not even sure if it's "right" to argue that.

I guess the question is...if this is ratified, will the death penalty be able to be used for the smallest of offenses?

I guess the question is...if this is ratified, will the death penalty be able to be used for the smallest of offenses?
Good point. I'll need to change that list line a bit.

With that change, the people of Cluichstan would fully support this proposal.

You have my support for this with or without that added line.


Fulci

From a legal standpoint, the value of the death penalty as a deterrent is minimal. Life in prison without parole, or something similar, is already a strong enough deterrent. If someone is dedicated enough to face life in prison for a crime that he/she is going to commit, the added penalty of death will probably not sway him/her.

From a moral standpoint, the death penalty is a final, irreversible decision. If a man is executed and new evidence comes to light that exonerates him, there is no way to change the verdict. If the trial is not fair, the judge corrupt, etc., then the decision cannot be overturned. There are many instances in which the death penalty could be abused to further one's goals. Also, the death penalty is contrary to many countries' view of prisons as places where criminals can be rehabilitated. The death penalty is simply an eye for an eye justice.

From an economic standpoint, the cost of executing somebody after a fair trial and appeals, etc., in many countries, is higher than the cost of keeping somebody in prison for the rest of their life.

The death penalty does not serve a major function in the modern day as a major deterrent, money saver, or moral decision. If anything, the death penalty should be banned.

From a legal standpoint, the value of the death penalty as a deterrent is minimal. Life in prison without parole, or something similar, is already a strong enough deterrent. If someone is dedicated enough to face life in prison for a crime that he/she is going to commit, the added penalty of death will probably not sway him/her.
You can't say that. Executions in Gruenberg tend to incredibly brutal. There is no concept of a 'life sentence': we just kill them. I'm not saying the death penalty is a deterrent in Begoned, or that you should use it as such. I'm saying there are some nations for which it has deterrent value. In those, removing it would cause a fundamental tear to the social fabric.

From a moral standpoint, the death penalty is a final, irreversible decision. If a man is executed and new evidence comes to light that exonerates him, there is no way to change the verdict. If the trial is not fair, the judge corrupt, etc., then the decision cannot be overturned. There are many instances in which the death penalty could be abused to further one's goals. Also, the death penalty is contrary to many countries' view of prisons as places where criminals can be rehabilitated. The death penalty is simply an eye for an eye justice.
Why should our justice system be predicated on your morals? I'm sure the death penalty does go against some countries' views. I'd suggest they NOT USE IT. Under systems, there is no system of rehabilitation, because capital crimes equate to a mortal sin. You might note, also, the proposal does call for nations to promote fair sentencing - hence, perhaps, its title - and that the NSUN has repeatedly legislated this, such that the 'abuse' you refer to would be hard under the terms of Definition of Fair Trial and other resolutions.

From an economic standpoint, the cost of executing somebody after a fair trial and appeals, etc., in many countries, is higher than the cost of keeping somebody in prison for the rest of their life.
Er...don't understand that logic at all. The cost of feeding them, of having guards, of prison upkeep, electricity, sanitation...the list goes on. An execution is cheap. Granted, sometimes the stadium rent can be a little pricy...but the axe you can buy for 9.95 at B&Q.

The death penalty does not serve a major function in the modern day as a major deterrent, money saver, or moral decision. If anything, the death penalty should be banned.
So ban it in Begoned. In Gruenberg, where it serves as a major deterrent, money saver, and moral decision, we'd like to keep it.

Begoned,
Just wondering, but do you happen to have statistics for the claim that executing a prisoner costs more than keeping them in prison for life?

Also, I think the 'cultural' aspects of the death penalty wasn't addressed. I'm not sure if it's a strong leg to stand on.

Edit made in light of Begoned's concerns.

Begoned,
Just wondering, but do you happen to have statistics for the claim that executing a prisoner costs more than keeping them in prison for life?

I just Googled it briefly, but there seem to be a lot of sites that say that the death penalty typically costs more (in the US, at least) than life in prison without parole. According to Amnesty International, USA:

The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out.

I really have no clue how it can cost so much, but it seems to be so.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html

Will the death penatly be applicable to any type of crime (not washing your hands, for example), only to the relatively severe ones, or up the nation to decide?

...up to the nation to decide. That's the whole point. Should I make it explicit that states have the right to ban or not use the death penalty?

No, that part's clear. Just to make it clear, are you implying that a state has the power to execute people indiscriminately?

No, that part's clear. Just to make it clear, are you implying that a state has the power to execute people indiscriminately?
I'm saying the state has the right to decide which crimes are capital. Given the existence of Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Due Process, etc., no, the state could not execute people 'indiscriminately', but that's not what this proposal is about.

El Caminos

Instead of...

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that nations can where possible find alternate means of punishment,

Maybe it'd be stronger if it said..

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that nations will limit the death penalty to only the most severe of crimes, and find alternate means whenever possible

Or something like that.

Nice suggestion, but I think it's redundant, because the first clause 'OBSERVING...' assumes the capital punishment is only being used for serious crimes anyway.

I'm saying the state has the right to decide which crimes are capital. Given the existence of Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Due Process, etc., no, the state could not execute people 'indiscriminately', but that's not what this proposal is about.

True...but fair trial etc would still apply even if a country decided to impose the death penalty for all crimes.

Does the UN want to support a nation that could theoretically do this? (Install the death penalty for all crimes)

I'm not really saying that the UN should outlaw a country's ability to use the death sentence, but they should put the STRONGEST wording possible in there.

I don't want the UN interfering with the death penalty. That's pretty much the end of the line.


The line
|
|
|
v

________ <--- The end

According to the definition of a fair trial, a fair criminal trial must "render verdicts which are proportional to the crime." In light of this, I have no objections (I'll vote for it without the additional clauses, if you want to take them out).

Edit: Your great drawing fully persuaded me -- it's so straight and clear. Who can argue with that?

According to the definition of a fair trial, a fair criminal trial must "render verdicts which are proportional to the crime." In light of this, I have no objections (I'll vote for it without the additional clauses, if you want to take them out).
Ok, thank you.

According to the definition of a fair trial, a fair criminal trial must "render verdicts which are proportional to the crime." In light of this, I have no objections (I'll vote for it without the additional clauses, if you want to take them out).

Edit: Your great drawing fully persuaded me -- it's so straight and clear. Who can argue with that?

Hm...that 'render verdicts which are proportional to the crime' seems a bit vague. Who makes that basis? The countries themselves correct? So what if they think that the death penalty is fair?

(it's a bit extreme of a position, but just pointing out a possible flaw)

After all, if it's fair to say that some nations won't allow the death penalty because they think it is not proportional to ANY crime, then certainly there would be one or two nations that would support the death penalty for each crime.

That's a problem which is too hard to legislate. Personally, we feel a death sentence for littering is overly harsh. There are some who feel a death sentence for genocide is overly harsh. It's a distinction the UN is not competent to make, and so it's best left to the national level.

Bear in mind further killing is in almost all cultures looked down upon. Some people may say "we have the death penalty for everything", but I doubt that persistence of brutality would be sustainable without popular insurrection. The idea that the punishment should be proportional is something which I think to an extent is self-fulfilling.

Gruenberg, you might be right about it, and like I said, I wouldn't know how or even IF the UN should try regulating these things.

However, this is why I suggested using the harshest wording possible to tell people, "Ok, if you want you can use the death penalty, but we REALLY REALLY REALLY prefer that you wouldn't." :)

I just Googled it briefly, but there seem to be a lot of sites that say that the death penalty typically costs more (in the US, at least) than life in prison without parole. According to Amnesty International, USA:



Ugh...citing Amnesty... :rolleyes:

Also: we're asking for a category check. I was going to go for TFod, Mild, but Hack has suggested it should be Political Stability. Any suggestions welcome.

Also: we're asking for a category check. I was going to go for TFod, Mild, but Hack has suggested it should be Political Stability. Any suggestions welcome.
Human Rights, everyone votes for those.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Human Rights, everyone votes for those.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Environmental, Woodchipping would probably be better.

Not sure, I'm new to this thing.

Since we're not allowed to amend anything, how would one go about doing this?

Could I just copy the rest of the old law verbatim except for the 2 week law?

Or would it be better to draft a resolution defining jobs and services and contracts?
Er...I think you have the wrong thread?

While it does look reasonably well written, I'm afraid I could never support this. The only death penalty proposal I would ever support would be one banning the use of the death penalty. I regard human rights as being more important than national boundaries.

Environmental, Woodchipping would probably be better.
In that case why not Environmental, All Businesses.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

While it does look reasonably well written, I'm afraid I could never support this. The only death penalty proposal I would ever support would be one banning the use of the death penalty. I regard human rights as being more important than national boundaries.
I would contend this is not a matter of human rights, but of representative justice.

I would contend this is not a matter of human rights, but of representative justice.
And therein lies the difference in our opinions of the death penalty.

And therein lies the difference in our opinions of the death penalty.
Such differences on its nature then add to the argument that it is not suitable for international legislation.

Er...I think you have the wrong thread?

It's 11:30, I'm drinking, and to boot, I'm an idiot. :)
Editing now.

No problem. :)

While it does look reasonably well written, I'm afraid I could never support this. The only death penalty proposal I would ever support would be one banning the use of the death penalty. I regard human rights as being more important than national boundaries.What about the "right" to liberty and personal freedom? Imprisoning violates both of those rights.

What about the "right" to liberty and personal freedom? Imprisoning violates both of those rights.
I'd imagine that death would violate those too.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What about the "right" to liberty and personal freedom? Imprisoning violates both of those rights.
Well, I'm not the greatest fan of imprisonment either, but I do believe that there can be justification for that.

Well, I'm not the greatest fan of imprisonment either, but I do believe that there can be justification for that.
Still sounds to me like you're asserting an individual moral position. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.

Still sounds to me like you're asserting an individual moral position. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.
I never said you were. I was just putting forth my opinion on the draft proposal, and then replying to Hack's comment.

I never said you were. I was just putting forth my opinion on the draft proposal, and then replying to Hack's comment.
I know. My point is: individual moral stances are good, and should not be put down by the UN. They're not necessarily the soundest basis for binding international legislation. Personally, I think killing people is great, but I wouldn't force other nations to adopt that position.

Go Enn. My individual moral stance is that the death penalty is abhorrent, the right to life is fundamental, and I would be quite happy imposing it on all nations if I felt it could ever have enough support. I can accept death penalty in martial law, but that is a whole different issue.

Also, I personally dislike proposals that do nothing except restricting the future decisions of the UN. I am not questioning the legality, just pointing out that red-taping is anti-democratic.

So, sorry, no support here.

OOC: No sooner did Texan Hotrodders announce the resignation of Minister Jones than the new puppetmaster emerged. All hail the talented Mr. Gruen. ;)

Go Enn. My individual moral stance is that the death penalty is abhorrent, the right to life is fundamental, and I would be quite happy imposing it on all nations if I felt it could ever have enough support. I can accept death penalty in martial law, but that is a whole different issue.
Your individual stance is based on a whole host of assumptions and values, all of which are far from universal. I support your right to hold that stance, to legislate on it in Fonzoland and in agreeable nations, but not to force it on nations for which it is inappropriate.

Also, I personally dislike proposals that do nothing except restricting the future decisions of the UN. I am not questioning the legality, just pointing out that red-taping is anti-democratic.
'Anti-democratic'? Let's take this to the UN floor, and have a vote on it - that sounds pretty fucking democratic to me. If it's knocked down, fair enough. I would incidentally add that an outright UN-wide ban on the death penalty would be far more 'anti-democratic'.

OOC: No sooner did Texan Hotrodders announce the resignation of Minister Jones than the new puppetmaster emerged. All hail the talented Mr. Gruen.
OOC: This is based on his attempt, and I would like to get it to quorum in his honour. And yes - truly the powers of my puppetwank know no bounds.

From a legal standpoint, the value of the death penalty as a deterrent is minimal. Life in prison without parole, or something similar, is already a strong enough deterrent. If someone is dedicated enough to face life in prison for a crime that he/she is going to commit, the added penalty of death will probably not sway him/her.

From a moral standpoint, the death penalty is a final, irreversible decision. If a man is executed and new evidence comes to light that exonerates him, there is no way to change the verdict. If the trial is not fair, the judge corrupt, etc., then the decision cannot be overturned. There are many instances in which the death penalty could be abused to further one's goals. Also, the death penalty is contrary to many countries' view of prisons as places where criminals can be rehabilitated. The death penalty is simply an eye for an eye justice.

From an economic standpoint, the cost of executing somebody after a fair trial and appeals, etc., in many countries, is higher than the cost of keeping somebody in prison for the rest of their life.

The death penalty does not serve a major function in the modern day as a major deterrent, money saver, or moral decision. If anything, the death penalty should be banned.

(OOC: There are NSUN member-nations which aren't in "the modern day"...)

I'd imagine that death would violate those too.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative"Irrelevent. If one is using moral obligations and the superiority of the protect of so-called 'human rights', then imprisonment is just as repugnant as the death penality. This is the problem with the entire concept of rights. If a government is going to violate the 'right to freedom' by tossing someone in jail for the next 50 or 60 years (or, in the case of the Hack, the next 100 or 120 years) then there is no logical reason to not save taxpayer money by simply executing them.

"By all means, argue against the death penalty -- it's not like we're in the UN anyway -- but to do so wrapped in the flag of moral superiority is disengenuous."

- Dargan Zaraad
Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Your individual stance is based on a whole host of assumptions and values, all of which are far from universal. I support your right to hold that stance, to legislate on it in Fonzoland and in agreeable nations, but not to force it on nations for which it is inappropriate.

Well, as you know, I don't care about NatSov that much. In some issues, individuals need protection from the state, and I believe it to be within the scope of the UN to provide such protection. If these assumptions and values were universal, my position would be consensual among nations, and the issue would not be an issue at all.

Sometimes, the leaders are in the wrong, and restricting them makes way for a better world. I feel a whole lot better slapping down one hypothetical power hungry autocratic freak than watching said freak slapping down his population.

Of course, I am fighting for my values, but they only become the values of the UN after passing a democratic process. Subjectivity holds little water for me; it can be quoted against any legislation.

'Anti-democratic'? Let's take this to the UN floor, and have a vote on it - that sounds pretty fucking democratic to me. If it's knocked down, fair enough. I would incidentally add that an outright UN-wide ban on the death penalty would be far more 'anti-democratic'.

Don't twist my words, I didn't explain my point because I know that you know that I know that you know what I mean.

The nations currently have the right to impose the death penalty. If passed, this resolution ensures the nations have the right to impose the death penalty.

Fact #1: Impact on the world = 0.

All this resolution would do is creating the need for an extra TGing effort and vote in case the UN at some point desires to ban or impose a death penalty. More time, more effort, less desire to legislate. Even if, at some point, the majority of the UN desires to further legislate on the issue.

Fact #2: Impact on the UN: Fillibustering.

Let me make some word play here. This proposal basically says, in a more elegant fashion, only this:

The UN shall not be allowed to debate the death penalty until this resolution is repealed.

Sounds very close to metagaming, don't you think? (Again, this is not a legality challenge, just an opinion.)

OOC: This is based on his attempt, and I would like to get it to quorum in his honour. And yes - truly the powers of my puppetwank know no bounds.

OOC: I would tease you by interpreting your words as an appeal to emotion, but TH deserves better. Good luck with your efforts, but on this issue I will have to oppose them all the way.

National sovereignty be damned. The real issue here is that, should this pass, the UN will be making a positive endorsement of capital punishment. This would be bad enough in a proposal that was written from a neutral perspective; here we witness an author freely trumpeting their complete lack of objectivity in the matter. Disgusting.

I understand that my predecessor assisted the Texan Hotrodder delegation in drafting a far more sensitive proposal on this issue. It's a sorry sight indeed to see how far standards have fallen since then.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Well, as you know, I don't care about NatSov that much. In some issues, individuals need protection from the state, and I believe it to be within the scope of the UN to provide such protection. If these assumptions and values were universal, my position would be consensual among nations, and the issue would not be an issue at all.

Sometimes, the leaders are in the wrong, and restricting them makes way for a better world. I feel a whole lot better slapping down one hypothetical power hungry autocratic freak than watching said freak slapping down his population.
Admitting that you would limit the ability of states to control law and order is an argument I'd keep out of this debate, as it doesn't seem an especially strong one. Gruenberg is not an autocracy; its penchant for cruel and unusual punishments is heartily endorsed by its population.

Of course, I am fighting for my values, but they only become the values of the UN after passing a democratic process. Subjectivity holds little water for me; it can be quoted against any legislation.
Fuck other legislation; I'm quoting it against the one specific to this case. There are too many subjective values in this - the value of the life of someone who does not value others' lives, the merits of reciprocal violence, the effectiveness of harsh punishments as deterrents - for the UN to competently legislate.

Don't twist my words, I didn't explain my point because I know that you know that I know that you know what I mean.
Actually, I didn't know what you meant. I was twisting your words only insofar as I was trying to find out what they meant.

And yes, I know precisely what this resolution does; so do you; with this, unlike with NSoT/UNSA/RiT, and perhaps like Nuclear Armaments, everyone else does too. However, I think you're demonstrating your problem: your approach is too mechanical. You see it simply as another round of TGing. No. I see this resolution as doing something: as making a statement. "Capital punishment, whatever we may personally think of it, is not something the UN is competent to ban." Sure, if this passes, people will try to repeal it. But until they do, it stands not only as an affirmation of confidence in national systems of justice, but also as a statement of policy. We don't have a UN charter; we don't have a mission statement. Each resolution we pass serves to map the direction the UN will take. This is one, and I hope it serves to direct attention from national matters to international matters.

OOC: I would tease you by interpreting your words as an appeal to emotion, but TH deserves better. Good luck with your efforts, but on this issue I will have to oppose them all the way.
OOC: That wasn't quite what I meant. But ok.

The Death Penalty costs too much and some of them want to die publicly. Only those who are the most extreme cases should receive it. I support Hard Labor for violent hardened criminals and for many of those who would have received the death penalty. Some people think this is cruel and unusual and possible slavery, but if the alternative is death, it often makes sense. As long as safety and working conditions are met, hard labor should be available as a punishment.

National sovereignty be damned. The real issue here is that, should this pass, the UN will be making a positive endorsement of capital punishment. This would be bad enough in a proposal that was written from a neutral perspective; here we witness an author freely trumpeting their complete lack of objectivity in the matter. Disgusting.

I understand that my predecessor assisted the Texan Hotrodder delegation in drafting a far more sensitive proposal on this issue. It's a sorry sight indeed to see how far standards have fallen since then.
I'd be interested to see that 'more sensitive proposal', should Ms Yefremova have maintained records. There is time for alteration yet.

And I freely admit my partiality: all I am requesting is that others admit their biases too.

I'd be interested to see that 'more sensitive proposal', should Ms Yefremova have maintained records. There is time for alteration yet.

And I freely admit my partiality: all I am requesting is that others admit their biases too.
I acknowledge my own bias here, too. That's why I'd prefer to see no action taken on the matter. An uneasy compromise, I know, but preferable to an endorsement of the practice.

I'm afraid that I don't have the records to hand but I'll have a look for you, despite my opposition. I should note that Varia's assistance wasn't an endorsement of the policy, merely a response borne of respect for the manner in which the Texan delegation were conducting themselves.

LC

OOC NB: actually, I think it was pre-Varia but we'll gloss over that. I may have a copy saved somewhere but I suspect not. This dates back to before TH was even founded - I think it was HotRodia who drafted the original proposal. And it was ruled illegal...

I acknowledge my own bias here, too. That's why I'd prefer to see no action taken on the matter. An uneasy compromise, I know, but preferable to an endorsement of the practice.
This is by no means an endorsement of the practice: merely an acceptance that it exists. If you would like a clause raising a motion of support for nations abolishing the death penalty, that can surely be accommodated.

Incidentally, I do believe this is the first time we've had the pleasure of discussion. I'd like to extend, on behalf of the Gruenberger UN Office, our sincerest welcome to you. Perhaps I could buy you a drink at the Strangers' Bar later; I'm sure once we get past nooses and electric chairs, we'll find a lot of common ground.

Moltan Bausch
Ambassador for the Lightly Salted Goat of Gruenberg
Drafting aide to the Texan Protectorate of El Caminos In The West
Senior Minister of Sleazily-Hitting-On-The-New-Gal

OOC: Ok. Ta.

Having reread an old thread, which we believe is relevant, we think we understand what that draft may have concerned...and we're not interested in that sort of compromise. So, the proposal will stand as it is. It'l be submitted on Monday, and called "Right to Kill".

Admitting that you would limit the ability of states to control law and order is an argument I'd keep out of this debate, as it doesn't seem an especially strong one. Gruenberg is not an autocracy; its penchant for cruel and unusual punishments is heartily endorsed by its population.

Gruenberg is also not hypothetic. But since we are on the subject, I seem to recall a resolution on types of punishment that must really get on the nerves of your citizens.

Fuck other legislation; I'm quoting it against the one specific to this case. There are too many subjective values in this - the value of the life of someone who does not value others' lives, the merits of reciprocal violence, the effectiveness of harsh punishments as deterrents - for the UN to competently legislate.

My general idea, that you eloquently expressed some time ago, is that most of us end up deciding "screw natsov" on an issue close to heart. T'is one o'those, I fear.
Still, since we are not discussing a ban, and I don't believe one is passable, I will not discuss it's merits. I am lazy.

And yes, I know precisely what this resolution does; so do you; with this, unlike with NSoT/UNSA/RiT, and perhaps like Nuclear Armaments, everyone else does too. However, I think you're demonstrating your problem: your approach is too mechanical. You see it simply as another round of TGing. No. I see this resolution as doing something: as making a statement. "Capital punishment, whatever we may personally think of it, is not something the UN is competent to ban." Sure, if this passes, people will try to repeal it. But until they do, it stands not only as an affirmation of confidence in national systems of justice, but also as a statement of policy. We don't have a UN charter; we don't have a mission statement. Each resolution we pass serves to map the direction the UN will take. This is one, and I hope it serves to direct attention from national matters to international matters.

The cards are on the table, anything else would be ping-pong. I disagree, I prefer legislating on the world, rather than on the UN itself. But I agree to disagree on the scope of the UN.

OOC: That wasn't quite what I meant. But ok.

I know you didn't mean it. That doesn't usually stop me from posting though. ;)

Gruenberg is also not hypothetic. But since we are on the subject, I seem to recall a resolution on types of punishment that must really get on the nerves of your citizens.
Probably why our citizens plan to repeal it. End Barbaric Punishments is fortunately not actually too vague, but too specific - it omits, for instance, to ban electrode treatment - but yes, then UN has traditionally not been particularly respectful of our culture. It's a burden we live with.

My general idea, that you eloquently expressed some time ago, is that most of us end up deciding "screw natsov" on an issue close to heart. T'is one o'those, I fear.
Still, since we are not discussing a ban, and I don't believe one is passable, I will not discuss it's merits. I am lazy.
Right. So you would agree we need to actively preclude the UN from wasting our time on the matter?

The cards are on the table, anything else would be ping-pong. I disagree, I prefer legislating on the world, rather than on the UN itself. But I agree to disagree on the scope of the UN.
I prefer legislating on the world too; specifically, which bits of the world I'm allowed to kill with fire.

Probably why our citizens plan to repeal it. End Barbaric Punishments is fortunately not actually too vague, but too specific - it omits, for instance, to ban electrode treatment - but yes, then UN has traditionally not been particularly respectful of our culture. It's a burden we live with.

Meh. Again, good luck, I look forward to debating sadistic topics with you.

Right. So you would agree we need to actively preclude the UN from wasting our time on the matter?

As you might have inferred from my previous posts, not at all. I would agree to keep the door as open as possible, in hope that one day this assembly will see the light of progress. Whatever our personal stances maybe, I would not expect you to refer to debate on the death penalty, and in general on barbaric law enforcement methods, as a waste of time. Well, it is your right to believe it.

I also agree that I am too lazy to initiate this debate myself, unless I am persuaded that it is not a lost cause. (A record breaking silly proposal has not furthered the cause at all.)

I prefer legislating on the world too; specifically, which bits of the world I'm allowed to kill with fire.

At last, we agree on something! Might I suggest:

<preambulatory stuff>

1. ESTABLISHES the Fire-Killing UN Comission (FKUC), with the power to:
a) Regulate the specific bits of the world that Gruenberg is allowed to kill with fire;
b) Punish Gruenberg in non-barbaric ways everytime the previous limits are exceeded;

2. RESTRICTS the aforementioned bits of the world to uninhabited Gruenbergian forests;

3. ENCOURAGES member nations to support the Teddy Bear industry.

Meh. Again, good luck, I look forward to debating sadistic topics with you.
Always a pleasure. Although, if the debate gets boring, we have photographs.

As you might have inferred from my previous posts, not at all. I would agree to keep the door as open as possible, in hope that one day this assembly will see the light of progress. Whatever our personal stances maybe, I would not expect you to refer to debate on the death penalty, and in general on barbaric law enforcement methods, as a waste of time. Well, it is your right to believe it.

I also agree that I am too lazy to initiate this debate myself, unless I am persuaded that it is not a lost cause. (A record breaking silly proposal has not furthered the cause at all.)
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'll give it a shot.

The death penalty is good. It's a cheap, popular, fun way of getting rid of those who would otherwise not contribute to society, drain tax money, or commit further crimes, to deter others from transgression, and above all, as just reward for a mortal sin. Those who have disrespected the lives of their fellow citizens, and the codes of Wenaism, deserve only to die. It is a ritual sacrifice. It is intrinsic to Gruenberg.

And all of that renders it totally unsuitable for Fonzoland. Wouldn't, for a second, consider forcing it on you. But perhaps you can see how forcing it off us would be equally unjust?

Human sacrifices, the death penalty, killing for fun, raping people, eating children for breakfast, stealing teddy bears. All these acts are considered barbaric in Fonzoland. We do not accept cultural relativism as an argument.

If the death penalty is banned, you still have plenty of effective instruments for law enforcement. Granted, you will have less fun.
If the death penalty is imposed, you kill potentially innocent people, violate the mother of all fundamental rights, send an "eye for an eye" message, legitimise violent punishment in social situations (especially troublesome when coupled with liberal gun ownership), and you remove all possible rights from criminals.
Do not compare the two. They are uncomparable. Or then again, feel free to compare them, we are happy to let this assembly judge our arguments on their merits.

Bottom line, we vehemently oppose the hard line of Conservative "criminals have no rights" vendetta stance, the same way we oppose the fluffy "criminals are victims" stance. The state should set an example of moderation and fairness, rather that stimulating revenge and mob culture.

The death penalty is a bad bad thing, and you should be flogged in a non barbaric way for defending it. For the love of God, think of the children!

Human sacrifices, the death penalty, killing for fun, raping people, eating children for breakfast, stealing teddy bears. All these acts are considered barbaric in Fonzoland. We do not accept cultural relativism as an argument.
Yes, they are considered barbaric...in Fonzoland. (It should be noted rape and child-eating are in Gruenberg - and are thus worthy of just retribution. Swift and harsh.) We do not accept the idea that your culture is superior to ours. (Although, we do accept the idea that our culture is superior to yours.)

If the death penalty is banned, you still have plenty of effective instruments for law enforcement. Granted, you will have less fun.
If the death penalty is imposed, you kill potentially innocent people, violate the mother of all fundamental rights, send an "eye for an eye" message, legitimise violent punishment in social situations (especially troublesome when coupled with liberal gun ownership), and you all remove possible rights from criminals.
Do not compare the two. They are uncomparable. Or then again, feel free to compare them, we are happy to let this assembly judge our arguments on their merits.
Killing innocent people is not an argument against the death penalty: it's an argument against poor sentencing. You think being condemned to life without parole is sunshine? When, fifty years after the poor bastard has shrivelled to bones in a cold cell, they realize he didn't do it, how is it measurably better that he died alone and sad, rather than in front of a cheering crowd of thousands?

We'd also like to add that gun laws have little relevance to this debate.

Bottom line, we vehemently oppose the hard line of Conservative "criminals have no rights" vendetta stance, the same way we oppose the fluffy "criminals are victims" stance. The state should set an example of moderation and fairness, rather that stimulating revenge and mob culture.
We don't believe criminals have no rights. We believe they should have no rights; but the UN has done more than enough to ensure they, sadly, are protected by law. And what you fail to grasp is that capital punishment can be both moderate and fair. In a case where a criminal is clearly going to reoffend, should they be released, and would thus require lengthy and costly incarceration, where the blackness of their heart reveals itself it in their actions, then killing them is fair, whilst a swift execution can be moderation personified for, for example, a child molester, who would otherwise have to face a life in prison, where everyone knew his crime.

The death penalty is a bad bad thing, and you should be flogged in a non barbaric way for defending it. For the love of God, think of the children!
God? In Gruenberg, we know only Holy Mother Wena, She of Goaty Goodness, whose proclamations are undoubtedly to be interpreted as not just condoning but commanding the death penalty be used. And when we execute pederasts, believe me, we are thinking of the children.

We'd also like to add that gun laws have literal relevance to this debate.
We'd also like to add that gun laws have little relevance to this debate.
:D For entertainment value.

In Gruenberg, we know only Holy Mother Wena, She of Goaty GoodnessWhat about Shub-Niggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with the Thousand Dark Young?

What about Shub-Niggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with the Thousand Dark Young?

Aren't RL Lovecraft references illegal? ;)

If the death penalty is imposed, you kill potentially innocent people, violate the mother of all fundamental rights, send an "eye for an eye" message, legitimise violent punishment in social situations (especially troublesome when coupled with liberal gun ownership)


"Liberal Gun Ownership? Isnt that an oxymoron?:p *rimshot!*

Seriously though, If proper procedures are used, like DNA evidence to prove the innocence or guilt of a perp, and more tougher standards on eye witness testimony I have no problem with the death penalty. Actually I normally have no problem with the death penalty as long as it is the will of the people. If you want to go further, in a Judeao-Christian background the death penalty is almost divinely ordained. Paul in his letter to The Romans(Chapter 12 I believe...I might be mistaken I'm doing this from memory) states the God specifically gave the power of the sword to governments. Remember historically the sword repesented the State's power to punish(as in the statues of Lady Justice in our courts). Mosaic Law is eye for an eye, with the specific loophole of having cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed another person. Well that is my two cents woth to this discussion.
Excelsior,
sen. Horatio Sulla

"Liberal Gun Ownership? Isnt that an oxymoron?:p *rimshot!*

Liberal as in unrestrictive and permissive. Check the etymology of the word, rather than the politically charged term.

Seriously though, If proper procedures are used, like DNA evidence to prove the innocence or guilt of a perp, and more tougher standards on eye witness testimony I have no problem with the death penalty. Actually I normally have no problem with the death penalty as long as it is the will of the people. If you want to go further, in a Judeao-Christian background the death penalty is almost divinely ordained. Paul in his letter to The Romans(Chapter 12 I believe...I might be mistaken I'm doing this from memory) states the God specifically gave the power of the sword to governments. Remember historically the sword repesented the State's power to punish(as in the statues of Lady Justice in our courts). Mosaic Law is eye for an eye, with the specific loophole of having cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed another person. Well that is my two cents woth to this discussion.
Excelsior,
sen. Horatio Sulla

Hmmm, I am sorry, but clarify me on this. Should I actually care about the religious stuff? Other than that, you present the argument for the vendetta style death penalty, not for effectiveness in deterrence, or the human rights issue.

[QUOTE=Fonzoland]Liberal as in unrestrictive and permissive. Check the etymology of the word, rather than the political charged term.


I think that was what the smiley was for....

Oh well, we all make mistakes.

(Except our executioners.)

BUMP for category suggestions.

Well, I'm not the greatest fan of imprisonment either, but I do believe that there can be justification for that.

Unless it's illegal under the 'End Slavery' resolution's clause guaranteeing the right to travel freely?

Aren't RL Lovecraft references illegal? ;)

OOC: Are you sure that there aren't any Lovecraft-influenced nations in NS? ;)

I just Googled it briefly, but there seem to be a lot of sites that say that the death penalty typically costs more (in the US, at least) than life in prison without parole.
I really have no clue how it can cost so much, but it seems to be so.

OOC: Maybe that's actually the cost of keeping the convicts concerned imprisoned for 20 or more years while they keep appealing against the verdict, including the costs of all those appeals, as I gather that this can happen in the USA?

While this would give nations the right to use the death penalty, the only problem I see is that it does not prevent abuse of this power. It just says that the UN hopes nations won't.

I'm not sure if this reservation could be expressed well in an amendment though. I'm not sure the UN could 'force' a set way of making sure the death penalty is applied only for the most severe cases. Heck, I'm not even sure if it's "right" to argue that.

I guess the question is...if this is ratified, will the death penalty be able to be used for the smallest of offenses?

Well one way to ensure that this provision would work is to suggest that the UN had the right to hear objections to the use of the Death Penalty in punishing specific offences. So that if a nation is using the Death Penalty to prevent people from say eating ice cream, then other nations can bring that up in front of the UN to prevent a nation from doing that (not quite an international court more like a UN Resolution against that countries use of the Death Penalty).
cheers
Steven

Well one way to ensure that this provision would work is to suggest that the UN had the right to hear objections to the use of the Death Penalty in punishing specific offences. So that if a nation is using the Death Penalty to prevent people from say eating ice cream, then other nations can bring that up in front of the UN to prevent a nation from doing that (not quite an international court more like a UN Resolution against that countries use of the Death Penalty).
cheers
Steven
Well, as targetting specific nations with UN resolutions is illegal doing that would most likely require one of these.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/AnotherUselessCommittee.JPG

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Are you sure that there aren't any Lovecraft-influenced nations in NS? ;)

OOC: I've seen several actually.

Well one way to ensure that this provision would work is to suggest that the UN had the right to hear objections to the use of the Death Penalty in punishing specific offences. So that if a nation is using the Death Penalty to prevent people from say eating ice cream, then other nations can bring that up in front of the UN to prevent a nation from doing that (not quite an international court more like a UN Resolution against that countries use of the Death Penalty).
cheers
Steven
No: this is about a national right to determine justice. That's it. There shouldn't be UN appeals or whatever. Furthermore, I don't believe a regime could maintain the death penalty for everything: there would be too much protest.

Now, are there any category suggestions?

Doesn't really fit any category. Maybe wait to see what the two new ones are?

Just realized we also need to protect the right to choose the methods of execution, too. Do you think this is covered?

Just realized we also need to protect the right to choose the methods of execution, too.UBoR and End Barbaric Punishments already outlaw inhumane punishments, so you'll probably need to add a clause stating "excepting those previoulsy outlawed by this body" if such a provision is included.

As to Category, it may be a stretch, but you could get away with submitting this as Political Stability ("A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order"). Heck, if Worldwide Media Act can be Social Justice, this can be Political Stability. :p

I was also toying with Moral Decency. Since Moral Decency resolutions reduce human rights, you'd be technically correct.

Moral Decency might be a good one, as I suppose some would see capital punishment as anti-HR.

OOC: Maybe that's actually the cost of keeping the convicts concerned imprisoned for 20 or more years while they keep appealing against the verdict, including the costs of all those appeals, as I gather that this can happen in the USA?

OCC: Greviously, tragically,and unfortunately yes. However I believe the Great State of Texas has speeded up the process considerably. Of course thats a reason I like Texas:D . Also I believe the legal defense "he needed killing(or Hanging)" is still a usable defense at a trial in Texas. Yet another reason to love Texas.(of course Texas still doesn't compare to Almost Heaven West "By Gawd" Virginia).