NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure we don't have the death penalty, although if we do, this could be used for that, too. Even if it ends up that this resolution really isn't needed, any input on how I drafted it too would always be welcomed: here goes! :)

Banning Illegal Execution by Stoning
A resolution to end the inhumane practice of stoning as a means of illegal execution

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Federation of Saorse

Description: The United Nations:

RECOGNIZING that stoning is an exteme form of illegal execution in its barbaric process

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that stoning denies the person illegally executed proper human rights in their decision to be executed

ALARMED BY the possibility of using stoning as a means of illegal execution:

1. SUPPORTS beliefs that stoning as a means of illegal execution is a violation of human rights

2. CONDEMNS the use of stoning as a means of illegal execution in all member nations

3. MANDATES that all nations have the responsibility to ensure that stoning is not used as a means of illegal execution in their nation

snip

first off: http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png

now: while I agree that stoning should be banned, this appears to be micromanagement. I would suggest a proposal that bans all barbaric or overly violent forms of capital punishment.

Stoning is very low-cost and efficient. It also provides a stronger deterrent than what you would call more "humane" methods of execution. Why are other, more expensive, methods of execution better than stoning? Begoned does not consider it "barbaric" if it could potentially save lives.

Sounds even better: I thought of that, yet thought to work in baby steps first: thank you.

Here's how I tried defining exactly what this form of capital punishment would be!


Banning Barbaric and Inhumane Capital Punishment
A resolution to end all barbaric inhumane practices of capital punishment

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Federation of Saorse

Description: The United Nations:

RECOGNIZING that there are many forms of barbaric and inhumane capital punishment

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that these forms of barbaric and inhumane capital punishment deny the person being executed human rights

DEFINING barbaric and inhumane forms of capital punishment as any type of capital punishment that is not lethal injection

ALARMED BY the possibility of using barbaric and inhumane capital punishment:

1. SUPPORTS beliefs that barbaric and inhumane capital punishment is a violation of human rights

2. CONDEMNS the use of barbaric and inhumane capital punishment in all member nations

3. MANDATES that all nations have the responsibility to ensure that barbaric and inhumane capital punishment is not used in their nation

Stoning is very low-cost and efficient. It also provides a stronger deterrent than what you would call more "humane" methods of execution. Why are other, more expensive, methods of execution better than stoning? Begoned does not consider it "barbaric" if it could potentially save lives.

Our concern here in Saorse is its lack of human rights. People are tied in sacks, dug in inescapable holes, and are pelted with stones until dead. We have also now extended this, for the time being, to any means not lethal injection. Saorse fails to see how cheaper costs offsets a lack of human rights, especially here in the United Nations, when such execution means do not guarantee such guaranteed rights.

We are interested in hearing your angle on how it will save lives, though. Do you mean in terms of the economy? It is felt here that if the economy is in such dire straits that barbaric forms of capital punishment may save it, then alternative, more humane means can be introduced to protect one's economy!

This have given me an idea.

such execution means do not guarantee such guaranteed rights.

Which rights does it violate? We try to be as humane about it as possible while conveying the message that criminals will be punished for their actions in a manner befitting their crime.

how it will save lives

We feel that stoning is a strong deterrent. Many other more "humane" forms of punishment, such as lethal injection, simply kill someone painlessly. Stoning, on the other hand, is a slightly more "brutal" and public process. Criminals are dragged into the town square where they may be pelted by stones. This may prevent some potential murderers from committing a crime, because they fear the punishment. We value the rights of the innocent individual over that of a convicted murderer.

I absolutely agree that the punishment should fit the crime, and here in Saorse, we are 100% behind any means of hopefully finding a way to deter would-be murderers away from the crime. However, we believe that capital punishment would be capital punishment either way if it were approved, through stoning or through lethal injection, and in the end, a death is a death, and the process leading up to this really should not scare off any offender who is commited to his act.

Our main concern is that Saorse believes barbaric and inhumane practices of capital punishment violates UN Resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights. Article 5 says that, "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." Barbaric and inhumane forms of capital punishment falls under what is currently banned under UN resolution! This is our measure of extending this already solidified resolution into how our criminals are dealt with as well, as they are human beings, and to ensure that capital punishment would be in line with this UN resolution, as this particular resolution can be read by some to potentially "leave out" those sentenced to death.

Begoned does not consider stoning torture or inhuman. We even go so far as to give them drugs to alleviate their pain prior to the stoning.

We also feel that the public spectable that a stoning is deters many would-be murderers. Our low crime rate is a testament to this fact.

Our main concern is that Saorse believes barbaric and inhumane practices of capital punishment violates UN Resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights. Article 5 says that, "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." Barbaric and inhumane forms of capital punishment falls under what is currently banned under UN resolution!Then why is this even necessary?

Saorse can definitely respect your differing opinion, although we will hope to seek the approval of this resolution given our stance that having human beings dragged to a public display of being executed by any one present in the slow, ridiculing, and drawing manners such as stoning, and other acts that are not lethal injection, such as the dangers associated with a gas chamber of the electric chair, does not provide basic human rights to those being executed.

To date, if capital punishment were to be used, lethal injection is the most commonly used, and the process up to the lethal injection provide all human rights guaranteed by the UN. While Saorse does not necessarily encourage capital punishment, we do encourage outlawing all types of capital punishment outside of lethal injection, as it is the most humane method devised to date. There is no proof that stoning deters murderers, although lethal injection currently is the ever-accepted means of capital punishment.

Then why is this even necessary?

As you can see, some nations do not regard practices such as stoning as such cruel punishment.

Begoned also respects your differing opinion. However, we feel that is measure is an unnecessary drain on economies that cannot afford. Furthermore, we feel that this resolution gives criminals more rights at the expense of the innocent people. Our method of stoning is the harshest possible measure allowed within the previous UN resolution. As such, we feel it will be the strongest possible deterrent. We do it not our of a lack of human rights, but because of human rights -- we want to save lives, not cuddle those who are going to die anyway.

Which rights does it violate? We try to be as humane about it as possible while conveying the message that criminals will be punished for their actions in a manner befitting their crime.



We feel that stoning is a strong deterrent. Many other more "humane" forms of punishment, such as lethal injection, simply kill someone painlessly. Stoning, on the other hand, is a slightly more "brutal" and public process. Criminals are dragged into the town square where they may be pelted by stones. This may prevent some potential murderers from committing a crime, because they fear the punishment. We value the rights of the innocent individual over that of a convicted murderer.

Begoned, do you think that the possibility of death is not a strong enough deterrent?
Do you have any evidence that stoning helps to reduce crime rate where it is allowed?

Cutting the hands off every person in a society at birth would certainly be a good way to prevent theft. But it does not seem to be a fair one. And stoning the individual for the sake of society does not seem to be worth the value of treating prisoners with dignity and executing them humanely.

Begoned, do you think that the possibility of death is not a strong enough deterrent?

No. As long as there are still murders, the deterrent is obviously not powerful enough.

Do you have any evidence that stoning helps to reduce crime rate where it is allowed?

No, I don't know of any places where it's allowed. Also, the places where it is allowed might have instituted that measure because of a high crime rate and the crime facts may not be representative of the deterrence potential. However, I would like to see the drop in crime that would come after a stoning measure has been instituted. It's common sense, anyway. The harsher the punishment, the less likely someone is to commit a crime.

Cutting the hands off every person in a society at birth would certainly be a good way to prevent theft. But it does not seem to be a fair one.

That is morally abhorrent! Why would you chop off the hands of someone who is innocent? And how does that relate to killing one who is guilty? It is simply the method of execution that is being debated.

And stoning the individual for the sake of society does not seem to be worth the value of treating prisoners with dignity and executing them humanely.

We treat the prisoners with dignity. The execution may not be considered humane by some, but we consider it humane. Saving lives is humane, at the cost of the humiliation that it caused the executionee and the fear it strikes in the hearts of the people. Anyway, it's up to a nation to deem what executing prisoners with dignity is worth when weighed against the death of innocent people.

The one thing Saorse is still left wondering is how it can be outright said that methods such as stoning act as a definite deterrent against the crime rate, and what says it is more of a deterrent than a less humiliating yet more instant death, is all.

Admittedly, I can offer no proof that it does act as a better deterrent than death by lethal injection. However, it has helped decrease Begoned's crime rate. This is probably due to the fact that children, from a very young age, have a vision of how criminals are dealt with. This image is ingrained in their minds and the shock value helps to ensure that they will not commit similar crimes. Also, many criminals fear such public retribution and embarassment. This is a cultural note in our society -- the shame intrinsic in being stoned to death often deters criminals in Begoned. Some also fear the pain of being stoned to death, and are too scared to commit the crime. I can understand your objections to such treatment of human beings, which is worse than by lethal injection, and commend you on your sense of duty and justness to those that are going to be executed. I cannot offer evidence that it definitively decreases crime rate. But I also hope that you understand why Begoned feels so strongly that stoning helps fight crime and is necessary in protecting the guiltless.

Understand this we can. :)

Very well -- in that case, I'll vote for it. Perhaps a slightly weaker deterrent is necessary to strengthen the case for human rights -- even for convicted murderers. :)

To date, if capital punishment were to be used, lethal injection is the most commonly used

OOC: Not for all of RL history "to date", I'm fairly sure, and probably not in the modern world as a whole either: [mainland] China uses shooting, and executes a lot of people... NS is not the USA!

Shooting is also a more barbaric means, which has quite a few attempts of firing squads not successfully executing a person in some instances until the second round of shots.

Ah, we sigh for the return of Lady Guillotine... And yet, we enjoy sadistic threads! :)

Shooting is also a more barbaric means, which has quite a few attempts of firing squads not successfully executing a person in some instances until the second round of shots.

I wasn't calling it more humane, just [probably] more commonly used...

Incidentally, have you noticed that whilst specifying "lethal injection" as the only method of execution to be allowed, you've failed to specify just which substances must be used in this? Your proposal would actually leave nations free to use whichever chemicals they chose, even if these were definitely less humane than some of the alternative methods...
Strychnine might have a reasonably good deterrent value...

No. As long as there are still murders, the deterrent is obviously not powerful enough.



No, I don't know of any places where it's allowed. Also, the places where it is allowed might have instituted that measure because of a high crime rate and the crime facts may not be representative of the deterrence potential. However, I would like to see the drop in crime that would come after a stoning measure has been instituted. It's common sense, anyway. The harsher the punishment, the less likely someone is to commit a crime.



That is morally abhorrent! Why would you chop off the hands of someone who is innocent? And how does that relate to killing one who is guilty? It is simply the method of execution that is being debated.



We treat the prisoners with dignity. The execution may not be considered humane by some, but we consider it humane. Saving lives is humane, at the cost of the humiliation that it caused the executionee and the fear it strikes in the hearts of the people. Anyway, it's up to a nation to deem what executing prisoners with dignity is worth when weighed against the death of innocent people.

I'm sorry, but without evidence I can not agree. Do the societies where people are being stoned show a significant drop in crime rate? Is this only because of the stoning?

Would you commit a death sentence penalty to EVERY crime? Certainly that would also lower the rates of stealing, cheating, etc etc.

Saving lives IS humane, but unless you have evidence that stoning reduces the amount of crime, and there is no other way to do so, then I oppose your ideas that stoning is 'necessary'. A public execution of the guillotine, for instance, would likely garner the same effects of public humiliation, as well as having the effect of being a quick death.

Suffering great physical injury before death is unnecessary and in excess. We are putting these people to death so they will no longer be able to be a detriment to society. By stoning these people, they become a form of 'entertainment' for the populace, and that is not what prisoners should be.

Admittedly, I can offer no proof that it does act as a better deterrent than death by lethal injection. However, it has helped decrease Begoned's crime rate. This is probably due to the fact that children, from a very young age, have a vision of how criminals are dealt with. This image is ingrained in their minds and the shock value helps to ensure that they will not commit similar crimes. Also, many criminals fear such public retribution and embarassment. This is a cultural note in our society -- the shame intrinsic in being stoned to death often deters criminals in Begoned. Some also fear the pain of being stoned to death, and are too scared to commit the crime. I can understand your objections to such treatment of human beings, which is worse than by lethal injection, and commend you on your sense of duty and justness to those that are going to be executed. I cannot offer evidence that it definitively decreases crime rate. But I also hope that you understand why Begoned feels so strongly that stoning helps fight crime and is necessary in protecting the guiltless.

Certainly a death by guillotine without stones would garner the same effects? I would have reservations, but would not even disagree with allowing your citizens to throw something like tomatos that do no harm. But stoning itself is barbaric, and shouldn't be allowed.

Without proof, unfortunately, it becomes a matter of opinion within the UN on whether it's correct or not. I'm sure though you'll find many states that have low crime without resorting to stoning. Perhaps you can find other, less barbaric forms of controlling crime within your populace?

Very well -- in that case, I'll vote for it. Perhaps a slightly weaker deterrent is necessary to strengthen the case for human rights -- even for convicted murderers. :)

If this means you have been convinced that perhaps stoning isn't the best way, I applaud your fair-minded view on this subject, and hope that you will find your crime rate stays as low even without stoning citizens.

I happen to have a low crime rate, and would be more than welcome to share suggestions.

I'm pretty sure we don't have the death penalty, although if we do, this could be used for that, too. Even if it ends up that this resolution really isn't needed, any input on how I drafted it too would always be welcomed: here goes! :)

Banning Illegal Execution by Stoning
A resolution to end the inhumane practice of stoning as a means of illegal execution

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Federation of Saorse

Description: The United Nations:

RECOGNIZING that stoning is an exteme form of illegal execution in its barbaric process

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that stoning denies the person illegally executed proper human rights in their decision to be executed

ALARMED BY the possibility of using stoning as a means of illegal execution:

1. SUPPORTS beliefs that stoning as a means of illegal execution is a violation of human rights

2. CONDEMNS the use of stoning as a means of illegal execution in all member nations

3. MANDATES that all nations have the responsibility to ensure that stoning is not used as a means of illegal execution in their nation

We are fine with this one as we just use stones to build the scaffles from which we hang folks only; and not to execute them and do this only when a good old tree is not there to use.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that these forms of barbaric and inhumane capital punishment deny the person being executed human rights


First of all one forgets that most times capital punishment is given means somebody was executed by an individaul who will forever be denied any human rights as their life was taken. Thus punishment for such sould reflect the manner in which the victum died; most time in a very barbaric manner. The criminal should have no rights but to a fast fair trail and then a good strong rope and tree from which they are hung.

We all think only about the criminal forgetting the victum so do that here.. Ask how barbaric it was for one to die by the hands of this criminal.. then punish them according to that. Even in many cases hanging is to easy for them compared to the manner in which a victum died by them.

what prisoners should be.

The key here is these are not prisoners they are criminals there is a difference. Criminals commit barbaric acts that take lives thus they are sent to a prison.. In war one side makes prisoners of those from the other side and puts them in prisons. A soldier is not a criminal thus will face no judge or jury to get to prison a criminal faces them. Criminals kill victums while a soldier kills his enemy or is killed by them.. To consider a crimial has rights once found guilty of a crime is wrong as we shame the victum then and make society again their victum. To call executing a criminal barbaric and not consider how barbaric an act they comminted is also wrong..

OOC:
Interesting idea for a proposal.

IC:
The Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom has already banned this form of corporal punishment. Although we feel that this is a well written out proposal, we fell that this debate falls under NatSov and is up to individual nations to decide upon.

The key here is these are not prisoners they are criminals there is a difference. Criminals commit barbaric acts that take lives thus they are sent to a prison.. In war one side makes prisoners of those from the other side and puts them in prisons. A soldier is not a criminal thus will face no judge or jury to get to prison a criminal faces them. Criminals kill victums while a soldier kills his enemy or is killed by them.. To consider a crimial has rights once found guilty of a crime is wrong as we shame the victum then and make society again their victum. To call executing a criminal barbaric and not consider how barbaric an act they comminted is also wrong..

Zeldon,

If a nation drops a bomb on your nation and kills a thousand innocent victims, do you feel it is within your rights to target innocent victims in the other country?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Criminals are executed so they can no longer be a menace to society. They still have their rights though, as they are still human.

The Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom has already banned this form of corporal punishment.Stoning is corporal punishment?

What do you throw? Pummice?

Stoning is corporal punishment?

What do you throw? Pummice?

Paddles apparently.

Zeldon, If a nation drops a bomb on your nation and kills a thousand innocent victims, do you feel it is within your rights to target innocent victims in the other country? An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Criminals are executed so they can no longer be a menace to society. They still have their rights though, as they are still human.


First question is why do they drop a bomb on us! If we are at war then let the bombs fall were they will. Terrorist set bombs in a city they are not soldiers carring out war missions they are criminals.. Thus they are barbaric individual who deserve to die a slow painfull death if they don't go up with their bomb; as do those who would send them out to kill people.

You missed the criminals face a judge and jury then become a prisoner. Soldiers fight for other reasons and become prisoners as enemy caught by the other side. Thus once sentenced for a crime a criminal must be punished to insure they don't do it again. If in the case of murder they can not repay the person who was victum then the punishment is hanging. If it's another crime then the punishment sould fit it. You rape say one person and get say 12 years in prison then maybe you will serve all that time. You rape 10 people get 120 years then your are hung. What is more barbaric letting a guy who raped 10 people stay alive making citizens victums again as they pay for him to stay in prison, or a citizens paying for a good rope and allowing the use of a strong tree to hang them from. Most cry about criminal rights and forget who lost rights or whos rights are stepped on trying to deal with this crimianl for rest of their natural life. Hang em, bury them, be done with them as they had same change of doing right -- but choose to do wrong -- as any citizens does..

We definitely support ban death from stoning. Just a question, does this include death from drink and/or drugs? Because you could die from getting 'stoned'?

First question is why do they drop a bomb on us! If we are at war then let the bombs fall were they will. Terrorist set bombs in a city they are not soldiers carring out war missions they are criminals.. Thus they are barbaric individual who deserve to die a slow painfull death if they don't go up with their bomb; as do those who would send them out to kill people.

You missed the criminals face a judge and jury then become a prisoner. Soldiers fight for other reasons and become prisoners as enemy caught by the other side. Thus once sentenced for a crime a criminal must be punished to insure they don't do it again. If in the case of murder they can not repay the person who was victum then the punishment is hanging. If it's another crime then the punishment sould fit it. You rape say one person and get say 12 years in prison then maybe you will serve all that time. You rape 10 people get 120 years then your are hung. What is more barbaric letting a guy who raped 10 people stay alive making citizens victums again as theut choose to do wrong -- as any citizens does..

First of all, terrorism is not what this argument is about.

Secondly, the fact that you would be willing toy pay for him to stay in prison, or a citizens paying for a good rope and allowing the use of a strong tree to hang them from. Most cry about criminal rights and forget who lost rights or whos rights are stepped on trying to deal with this crimianl for rest of their natural life. Hang em, bury them, be done with them as they had same change of doing right -- b kill innocent civilians in a war is reprehensible, I feel, and makes you no better than a terrorist.

I have no problem with the death sentence. It is unnecessary cruelty or punishment (such as stoning) that I am against.