NationStates Jolt Archive

See what you think:

REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all persons have a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no persons shall subsequently be subjected to any form of cruel or unusual punishment.

EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty.

CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals who face such punishment.

Therefore, this proposal:

CONSTITUTES the immediate reconsideration of death penalties delivered to convicted individuals in all member nations, and

SUGGESTS the replacement of the death penalty system with another system of disciplinary reaction, such as life in prison, and

INSTIGATES, the peaceful movement against other cruel and unusual punishment such as torture or injection of handicapping poisons.

As a nation we believe in the death penalty. We enact it for people who have the potential to do continuous and irreparable damage to society. Specifically, serial killers, serial rapists, child molesters, terrorists and other violent criminals who create situations which will cause long term negative criminal effects on society.

Regards,

Myles Ming Brown, Commonarch

This is not a matter for international consideration. Gruenberg's sentencing policies have no affect on any other nation. If you want to deal with extradition...it's been done. Execution of prisoners of war/foreign nationals/etc...we could probably live with that. Just so long as we retain the right to make them not live with that.

See what you think:

REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all persons have a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no persons shall subsequently be subjected to any form of cruel or unusual punishment.

EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty.

CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals who face such punishment.

Therefore, this proposal:

CONSTITUTES the immediate reconsideration of death penalties delivered to convicted individuals in all member nations, and

SUGGESTS the replacement of the death penalty system with another system of disciplinary reaction, such as life in prison, and

INSTIGATES, the peaceful movement against other cruel and unusual punishment such as torture or injection of handicapping poisons.

It's always good to see a new member of the NSUN making an honest effort to contribute to the affairs of the organization. We'd like to welcome the representative of Rannatia to the Assembly.

We could not support the proposal at hand. Ausserland eliminated the death penalty from its criminal justice system some years ago. We did that, though, for reasons other than a belief that it violated fundamental human rights. We simply don't believe that argument has merit. That, of course, is a very contentious issue on which people and nations rightfully disagree.

That aside, we'd suggest that "CONSTITUTES" and "INSTIGATES" are not the appropriate terms with which to open those clauses. We'd suggest replacing them with "REQUIRES" and "ENCOURAGES".

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I applaud you for your proposal. It shows that you as a ruler have compassion over your country. Sadly, my country cannot support this act because in reality, many criminals will not be as compassionate.

If this passes, we're resigning from the United Nations. Oh, wait ...

REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
The resolution was actually called The Universal Bill of Rights. Theoretically this reference isn't allowed (see Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) - House of Cards). This didn't seem to stop Abortion Legality Convention from becoming a resolution, though. Also note:

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members.
A State could have an article in its own Bill Of Rights saying 'Convicted criminals sacrifice any rights listing in this document', so the reference doesn't necessarily support your case.

Theoretically this reference isn't allowed (see Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) - House of Cards).

The reference is allowed. The rule allows referencing, as long as it is not excessive, and the resolution can still stand on its own. There is precedent for quoting past legislation on the preamble, not just the ALC.

A State could have an article in its own Bill Of Rights saying 'Convicted criminals sacrifice any rights listing in this document', so the reference doesn't necessarily support your case.
If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby [sic] protected.
No, they couldn't.

The resolution was actually called The Universal Bill of Rights. Theoretically this reference isn't allowed (see Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) - House of Cards). This didn't seem to stop Abortion Legality Convention from becoming a resolution, though. Also note:


The representative of Safalra is mistaken. This proposal in no way violates the "House of Cards" rule, the pertinent portion of which we quote for his information:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Since you asked what I think. :p It's a nice draft. It is going to need a lot of work, but bringing it up here is one way to give it the exercise it needs to stand up on its own as a resultion. (Although you have to frequently wash off or ignore the manure that generally flies around here.)

I don't agree with the premise (which is odd because I'm generally anti-death penalty in the first place) and I'm not sure that a blanket prohibition of the death penalty without exceptions is necessary. Not all manners of death constitute "cruel." Certanly being drawn and quartered is cruel, keelhauling is cruel, hanging is certanly in there along with a firing squad. But is lying on a reclining bed listening to classical music and sourrounded by a 360 degree panaramic movie of the great outdoors cruel? (Got to admit it's unusial.)

As I said, I am generaly in support with doing away with the death penalty. But I am concerned with border conditions such as in times of war or disaster where the alternatives to the death penalty may not be possible.

2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266. The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm -- without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

No, they couldn't.
The resolution explicity stated that it did not override the Bill Of Rights of member States. The only way I can see of reconciling that statement with the one that followed it is to assume that a member State's prior Bill Of Rights can place limits on the applicability of these rights (but not deny them outright). It does seem, however, that in some circumstances the resolution contains a contradiction. *adds The Universal Bill Of Rights to personal list of bad resolutions*

The representative of Safalra is mistaken. This proposal in no way violates the "House of Cards" rule, the pertinent portion of which we quote for his information:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
[emphasis added] This resolution clearly 'builds on' The Universal Bill Of Rights - it argues that the death penalty violates articles 3 and 5 (EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty), and then suggests States stop using it.

The references to the Universal Bill of Rights are all in the preambulatory clauses. The operative clauses, and thus the substance and effect of the proposal, would stand on their own even if the prior resolution was repealed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The references to the Universal Bill of Rights are all in the preambulatory clauses. The operative clauses, and thus the substance and effect of the proposal, would stand on their own even if the prior resolution was repealed.
Isn't this clause, while placed in the preamble, actually an operative clause?:
CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals who face such punishment.

[emphasis added] This resolution clearly 'builds on' The Universal Bill Of Rights - it argues that the death penalty violates articles 3 and 5 (EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty), and then suggests States stop using it.

First of all - you didn't claim it was an ammendment.

Second, ammendments are not HoC violations and the reason that Hack mentioned them in the HoC section is because he was showing when it wasn't HoC but still illegal.

Third, "builds on" means it adds a new right and calling it yet another universal human right (which, actually, would probably STILL be technically legal if they reworded it so it looks more like an addendum rather than an ammendment).

Fourth, if there is ANY possibility of there being an HoC violation (which is, seriously, the lesser of two possible ways its legal), it's in the claim that by violating Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Human Rights, nations are in violation of those rights by using the death penalty - which begs the question, what if clauses 3 and 5 are repealed. However, I think that by reaffirming them, he's addressed the issue

Fifth, if I were to claim anything in terms of illegality, it would be duplication with the last clause. Easily fixable. (UNR 41: End Barbaric Punishments)

thanks to all of you for the feedback. Keep it coming if you can..... its great help. If you look at the officia UN website, the document in question is in fact called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Universal Bill of Rights, but that to me is irrelevant. I have added a few other things to the proposal now, so be watching out for a second draft very soon. It will, of course, be in a new thread, which will be called "Anti-Death Penalty Act (DRAFT 2)". Please don't hesitate if you would like to telegram me a specific message. All help is very valuable to me.

Rannatian Representative Nessius Varro

Heres a redraft of my proposal. See what you think. (Oh yeah, and I would love it if you could send your feedback through the poll provided). Here it is:


REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all persons have a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no persons shall subsequently be subjected to any form of cruel or unusual punishment.

EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty.

CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals which face such punishment.

Therefore, this proposal:

REQUIRES the immediate reconsideration of death penalties delivered to convicted individuals in all member nations prior to this resolution, and (*)

DEMANDS for the complete replacement of the death penalty system with another system of disciplinary reaction (such as life in prison), and

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES (in compliance with UNR #41) other nations to decrease entirely or in the uttermost possible amount, cruel and unusual punishment.

(*): Exceptions may stand during times of war, disaster or emergency circumstances. See following article quoted by Tzorsland:

2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266. The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm -- without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Before I read it, for future reference, please keep your drafting to the same thread (recommended that you edit the first post and than post that you've released the next draft)

Before I read it, for future reference, please keep your drafting to the same forum
By this he means "the same thread", which is the preferred way to do it. I've merged the two threads.

We are entirely against this resolution! The death penalty has many merits, and is much better than imprisonment.

We suggest this make sure that the death penalty is excecuted in a humane manner. (For example: All of our excecutions are done via robotic firing squad. We press a button, guns fire.)

Also, the only people we give the death penalty to are:

Murderers

Rapists

Terrorists

Emergencies (if he's going to commit something bad, the police can shoot him.)

If you look at the officia UN website, the document in question is in fact called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Universal Bill of Rights, but that to me is irrelevant.
Yes, but this is not real life. The pertinent NationStates resolution is the Universal Bill of Rights.

We Darsomiri face a conundrum in regards to the death penalty. The death penalty is not allowed in any jurisdiction, when it comes to Darsomiri law. However, the same is not true when it comes to the Law of the Flame. While we applaud any proposal to remove the death penalty from secular law, we could never support anything that removed the death penalty altogether, as that would go against the Flame.

That said, this proposal doesn't appear to require a ban on the death penalty, so we see no reason to oppose.

I would be against any anti-death penalty resolution for two reasons. First of all, we agree with Gruenberg about this not being a UN concern. Secondly, we do in fact make use of the death penalty in Wyldtree. There is no version of this that I believe I could support.

See what you think:

REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all persons have a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no persons shall subsequently be subjected to any form of cruel or unusual punishment.

EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty.

CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals who face such punishment.

Therefore, this proposal:

CONSTITUTES the immediate reconsideration of death penalties delivered to convicted individuals in all member nations, and

SUGGESTS the replacement of the death penalty system with another system of disciplinary reaction, such as life in prison, and

INSTIGATES, the peaceful movement against other cruel and unusual punishment such as torture or injection of handicapping poisons.

When we can give these same rights to those victums of such criminals as might get a death penalty sentence; then we will be happy to reconsider how we punish these criminals.

This forgets the victums had rights also and thus makes victums of them again as well as the family that lost loved ones due to the cruel actions of such criminals as might murder their family member.

Anyone in prison has to be supported thus honest citizens become victums as their tax money goes to maintaining these criminals for life. Often granting them better health care and such than the citizens themselves might afford because funds are going to criminals.

A good rope and strong tree are cheaper than keeping a criminal in prison for more years than his victum may have lived. Thus hang them and if the family wants the body let them bury it. Otherwise do as we do, toss in ocean and feed the hungry sharks..

Don't hollor about their trial because our legal system works and if they are found guilty then that's what they are. Once trial is over they are sentenced and then executed.... all under legal procedures set to insure the truth comes out. and the guilty are dealt with in a fast effective manner.

While Ceorana is adamantly against the death penalty (and would most likely vote for this, with some changes, if it came to vote), we don't think this has much of a chance of passing with the natsov position.

However, perhaps you could legislate on having more stringent trial standards when the death penalty is involved?

While Ceorana is adamantly against the death penalty (and would most likely vote for this, with some changes, if it came to vote), we don't think this has much of a chance of passing with the natsov position.

However, perhaps you could legislate on having more stringent trial standards when the death penalty is involved?
Now that I could support (actual product depending naturally). In Wyldtree we of course try to be as thorough as possible when a man's life is at stake and would encourage others to do the same.

However, perhaps you could legislate on having more stringent trial standards when the death penalty is involved?To be fair, that wouldn't lessen NatSov resistance. Trial procedures are also an internal affair.

To be fair, that wouldn't lessen NatSov resistance. Trial procedures are also an internal affair.
It's true NatSov is still an issue, but it's all in the different levels of interference. It's not a black & white issue for most. I think that version would encounter less resistance at least. Personally speaking I'd be able to support something that encouraged high trial standards where the death penalty is involved. So the changes could gather my support at the very least.

To be fair, that wouldn't lessen NatSov resistance. Trial procedures are also an internal affair.

NSO, perhaps not.

However, there are plenty of partial NatSovs/IntFeds that fill the gaps and many of them are in favor of death penalty - whether they dislike or like the NSO's position on sovereignty.

NSO, perhaps not.

However, there are plenty of partial NatSovs/IntFeds that fill the gaps and many of them are in favor of death penalty - whether they dislike or like the NSO's position on sovereignty.
*Ahem* I am part of the NSO. We're not all of one mind on everything. I'd appreciate it if you weren't so general. There is debate on issues within the organization.

To be fair, that wouldn't lessen NatSov resistance. Trial procedures are also an internal affair.
But I think it will meet with more "it's a human rights issue" if the focus is on making sure the death penalty is not used on the innocent.

Personally speaking I'd be able to support something that encouraged high trial standards where the death penalty is involved..

So this opens door for a proposal to set how we judge and convict a criminal in our nation. As long as it's not mandating we spend more on giving these so called murders, rapists, and terrorists a trial; than we might to help the family that lost a loved one due to his actions then we could support such.

As long as they DON'T forget the victums and DON'T continue to make victums of the citizens it could be okay with us. As the main problem we see with any such is they forget that most criminals who get capital punishment took a life; that can never get it's rights back or speak again. On any issue such as this..

Thus we owe it to them to insure their family and friends are not made victums by the criminals who did them in.

I know the legal system is not perfect and neither is anything else. So why spend funds to see to it that a criminal; who has been found guilty by the system; gets more funding and help than his victums might from his actions? As any funds spent after sentence sould be to see execution is carried out as fast as possible in a proper manner, or to help those that lost a loved one due to this criminal act.

So this opens door for a proposal to set how we judge and convict a criminal in our nation. As long as it's not mandating we spend more on giving these so called murders, rapists, and terrorists a trial; than we might to help the family that lost a loved one due to his actions then we could support such.

As long as they DON'T forget the victums and DON'T continue to make victums of the citizens it could be okay with us. As the main problem we see with any such is they forget that most criminals who get capital punishment took a life; that can never get it's rights back or speak again. On any issue such as this..

Thus we owe it to them to insure their family and friends are not made victums by the criminals who did them in.

I know the legal system is not perfect and neither is anything else. So why spend funds to see to it that a criminal; who has been found guilty by the system; gets more funding and help than his victums might from his actions? As any funds spent after sentence sould be to see execution is carried out as fast as possible in a proper manner, or to help those that lost a loved one due to this criminal act.
Well as I said... I could support the idea in theory. It would of course depend on the actual legislation.

Well as I said... I could support the idea in theory. It would of course depend on the actual legislation.

Trouble is most forget the victums and citizens who will end up paying more. Thus these criminals make them their victums again each time they:
1) Stand in a court with free legal support.
2) Go to bed in a warm dry place with tree meals a day for; free
3) Get medical and dental care; free

As many outside the legal system work hard to have these and just barely make it because of what they pay out... thus honest citizens become victums over and over to criminals.

Once they are sentenced then hang them, bury them, be done with them. Let the honest people alone.

*Ahem* I am part of the NSO. We're not all of one mind on everything. I'd appreciate it if you weren't so general. There is debate on issues within the organization.

Fine, NSO hardliners. The guys who believe it's satanistic to mandate any form of regulation or law or anything - everything must be encouraged or whatever. Those guys.

The government of St Edmund opposes this proposal, for two main reasons.
Our first reason is that we regard sentencing policy -- in all its potential complexity -- as something that should be left for the national governments to handle.
Our second reason is that we do not recognise the claimed 'Right to Life' as an absolute: It clearly isn't a matter of natural law, because after all many people die from natural causes, so if it exists at all then it must derive either from a divine commandment or from social ethics... As regards the theological possibility, I note that although almost all the religions of which we know condemn murder most of them have traditionally accepted not only the practice of capital punishment but also killings of enemy personnel in action during 'just' wars (Yes, I realise that many Buddhists, some Christian sects and some Wiccans are exceptions to this: I did only say "most"...) so that the 'Right' can hardly be considered absolute unless we accept teh teachings of one of the relatively few sects who hold to a more extreme line as the sole source of acceptable morality... That leaves us with social ethics... The government of St Edmund holds that if this Right is based on an agreement within society (handed down from the society's founders, and normally codified into law) then it must be matched by a corresponding Responsibility to respect other people's possession of the same Right; that anybody who commits premeditated murder clearly rejects that Responsibility and therefore forfeits their protection by the Right; that capital punishment is therefore an appropriately proportionate penalty for their crimes; and that in our opinion it is actually the most morally appropriate penalty for murder, because to rule its use out would be to say that one automatically valued the lives of murderers more highly than the lives of their victims which doesn't seem "moral" to us at all...

We might accept a proposal that insisted on scrupulous care being taken in trials where the death penalty was a possibility, in case the existing resolutions about due care & fair trials were to be repealed, as long as this didn't try to micromanage the proceedures involved.
We might accept a proposal that insisted on executions being carried out by relatively humane methods, in case the existing resolution against 'cruel & barbaric punishments' gets repealed, as long as this didn't try to specify any particular method or methods as the only one or ones allowed.

...that anybody who commits premeditated murder clearly rejects that Responsibility and therefore forfeits their protection by the Right; that capital punishment is therefore an appropriately proportionate penalty for their crimes; and that in our opinion it is actually the most morally appropriate penalty for murder, because to rule its use out would be to say that one automatically valued the lives of murderers more highly than the lives of their victims which doesn't seem "moral" to us at all...
But that's assuming that your justice system is perfect and will always convict the right people. Ceorana does not have a strong objection to the death penalty on moral grounds; we have an objection because you will always end up killing someone who didn't actually commit the crime in question. Stricter trial standards would help, and we would support a resolution to that effect, but, to be honest, we believe that outlawing the death penalty altogether is the only way to guarantee that you don't kill anyone who is innocent.

But that's assuming that your justice system is perfect and will always convict the right people. Ceorana does not have a strong objection to the death penalty on moral grounds; we have an objection because you will always end up killing someone who didn't actually commit the crime in question. Stricter trial standards would help, and we would support a resolution to that effect, but, to be honest, we believe that outlawing the death penalty altogether is the only way to guarantee that you don't kill anyone who is innocent.
Are you saying that taking someone away from their family, home, job and life, and locking them in a prison cell, possibly alone, in the dark, poor food, no facilities, etc etc etc, to rot for forty years, is somehow better? Ban prisons!

Are you saying that taking someone away from their family, home, job and life, and locking them in a prison cell, possibly alone, in the dark, poor food, no facilities, etc etc etc, to rot for forty years, is somehow better? Ban prisons!
I am reminded of a quote I'm hearing a lot these days. "Growing old sucks but it's better than the alternative." The same can be said of prisons. Being in one is certanly nothing short of suck, but it's better than being in that ultimate solitary confinement, a pine box in a concrete container burried on some forgotten plot of hand, along, in the dar, with no food, and no facilities and no life!

I am reminded of a quote I'm hearing a lot these days. "Growing old sucks but it's better than the alternative." The same can be said of prisons. Being in one is certanly nothing short of suck, but it's better than being in that ultimate solitary confinement, a pine box in a concrete container burried on some forgotten plot of hand, along, in the dar, with no food, and no facilities and no life!
If I were given the option of solitary confinement for forty years in one of Gruenberg's prisons, or death, I would choose death.

We of the Constitutional Republic oppose this resolution.

For countless ages, we have held to the principle that if one takes direct action to forcibly revoke the rights of other's life or lives, then the ultimate penalty for their infraction is the loss of their own. Thus, those found guilty of first-degree (premediated) murder and treason can be made subject to the forfeiture of their own life.

But that's assuming that your justice system is perfect and will always convict the right people. Ceorana does not have a strong objection to the death penalty on moral grounds; we have an objection because you will always end up killing someone who didn't actually commit the crime in question. Stricter trial standards would help, and we would support a resolution to that effect, but, to be honest, we believe that outlawing the death penalty altogether is the only way to guarantee that you don't kill anyone who is innocent.I don't give a fuck if the innocent are executed, and frankly, I am sick of the "innocent people might die" argument. Even those who did not commit the crimes to which they were convicted are probably guilty of some other crime the government doesn't know about; everyone on Death Row is the scum of the Earth, so where exactly is the problem with mixing a few of them up? According to the law each and every one of them is guilty, and the law is all we can go by. The rule of law is the only thing that separates a civilized government from despotism or anarchy, and assuring due process, equal access and a fair and speedy trial are the only ways to uphold the rule of law. The UN already has such protections in place. They're not great, but they're there. Abolishing the death penalty will do nothing, save trigger a mass exodus of nations from this body, assuring the slaughter of the innocent goes on, and encourage other nations to stay in the UN and exploit loopholes (as far as I know, "accidental" police shootings or prison-riot deaths are still perfectly legal under this proposal). Barring that, a recent proposal to assure uniform evidentiary standards in the application of the death penalty proved an utter disaster.

See what you think:

REAFFIRIMNG conjunctionally Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that all persons have a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no persons shall subsequently be subjected to any form of cruel or unusual punishment.

EXPRESSING concern for infractions of the above Articles in member nations of this organization through actions which may include the punishment of criminals through the death penalty.

CALLING for action against such infractions to these fundamental human rights, which undoubtedly extend to convicted individuals who face such punishment.

Therefore, this proposal:

CONSTITUTES the immediate reconsideration of death penalties delivered to convicted individuals in all member nations, and

SUGGESTS the replacement of the death penalty system with another system of disciplinary reaction, such as life in prison, and

INSTIGATES, the peaceful movement against other cruel and unusual punishment such as torture or injection of handicapping poisons.
I think it should it be modifed so that member nations expentions:
1)Member-nations may execute prisoners who have commited extermanly violent crimes, such as multiple muders,being a leader of a large gourp that responbile for violent crimes,destorying large stucters with a large amount people int, can be executed IF they are a danger to the public(or to the pirsoners)even in if there prison(you know how prisoners somtimes call contact there friends to give them revenage)
2)Attempting to escape prison more then once
3)Treason, more specically commintering(or attempting) treson during a time of war that helps the emeny nation.

Emergencies (if he's going to commit something bad, the police can shoot him.)
That's not the death penalty. The death penalty is a sentence handed down by a court.

Unnamend: That would be undue micromanagement. Why should the United Nations tell member nations precisely when it's OK to execute someone?

Safalra: You just proved my point:

(as far as I know, "accidental" police shootings or prison-riot deaths are still perfectly legal under this proposal)

Just curious...did those who killed Kenny get the death penalty?

Safalra: You just proved my point:
It disturbs me that by pointing out a flaw in another argument I have inadvertently supported your argument.

Just curious...did those who killed Kenny get the death penalty?Ummm ... no (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9941648&postcount=53). Yet another testament to our legendary stupidity. :eek:

If I were given the option of solitary confinement for forty years in one of Gruenberg's prisons, or death, I would choose death.Big fan of oubliettes, huh?

Big fan of oubliettes, huh?
Well, yes. But I just get annoyed by the near-idolisation of prison some people seem to have. There are arguments against the death penalty, but I don't think "life without parole is fun" is a particularly strong one.

Big fan of oubliettes, huh?

I'm just a big fan of Hack's Daily Vocabulary Word. ;)

http://www.sfist.com/attachments/sfist_eve/Jareth.JPG

She should not have reached the oubliette!

I am reminded of a quote I'm hearing a lot these days. "Growing old sucks but it's better than the alternative." The same can be said of prisons. Being in one is certanly nothing short of suck, but it's better than being in that ultimate solitary confinement, a pine box in a concrete container burried on some forgotten plot of hand, along, in the dar, with no food, and no facilities and no life!


Punishment being meted out by the state isn't generally intended to take the kinder, gentler approach to things. Life w/o Parole vs. Death isn't even an issue of rehabilitation, it's deterrent and waste removal.

I'm just a big fan of Hack's Daily Vocabulary Word. ;)

Ridiculous. Every kid knows what an Oubliette is:
http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/cardpics/BLACK/oubliette.jpg

It's a red X?

Punishment being meted out by the state isn't generally intended to take the kinder, gentler approach to things. Life w/o Parole vs. Death isn't even an issue of rehabilitation, it's deterrent and waste removal.

Indeed, Capital Punishment as it is exercized in most fellow nationstates here in the UN [including this Republic] is not rehabilitative nor correctional but penal. Our entire prison system is designed to enact penalty upon the one convicted of crimes against another or others, not to rehabilitate them.

Ridiculous. Every kid knows what an Oubliette is:
http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/cardpics/BLACK/oubliette.jpg

You've gotta remember, though, that I'm an oldster and never played Magic. I think I first learned the word back when I was designing castles for D&D. ;)

But that's assuming that your justice system is perfect and will always convict the right people. Ceorana does not have a strong objection to the death penalty on moral grounds; we have an objection because you will always end up killing someone who didn't actually commit the crime in question. Stricter trial standards would help, and we would support a resolution to that effect, but, to be honest, we believe that outlawing the death penalty altogether is the only way to guarantee that you don't kill anyone who is innocent.

This is why we are prepared to accept stricter trial standards in capital cases: In fact, although St Edmund's laws allow the death penalty for all instances of various crimes, it's generally only applied in those cases where the verdict was "Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" with imprisonment (until more evidence one way or the other turns up, and another hearing has been held) usual instead for those people who were convicted with less certainty...
By the way, about 11% of murder trials in St Edmund include the presence of the victims' ghosts as witnesses and it's accepted that ghosts (being purely spirituous in nature) are much more firmly bound by their oaths than is the case for living people so that their statements must be truthful, which helps to establish certainty in many of those cases: I realise, however, that this situation may not be possible in all other nations.

Gytha Haroldsson,
Firstthane for Lawstuff,
St Edmund.

________________________________________________________

OOC: My attitude towards capital punishment has been heavily influenced by the situation here in Britain since its use on murderers was discontinued in the '60s. The annual murder rate has more than tripled since then, although the population increase during that same period has probably only been +20% or less, and although some of that is probably due to the general decline in morality (for various reasons, including the major increase in "recreational" drug usage) I can't help feeling that the loss of its deterrent value was probably a factor too... Admittedly quite a few of those killings have been due to disputes over control of the trade in illegal drugs, meaning that not all of their victims were really "innocent", but when that's combined with the fact that "do-gooders" have got the typical prison sentence for murder reduced from 'life' (which was the duration promised when the use of the death penalty was ceased) down to about 10-15 years -- and that even murderers are now normally "entitled" to release 'on licence' (& under very scanty supervision) after serving only half of their terms -- and that about 10% of the murderers released so far are known to have committed further killings (official statistics quoted in a newspaper a few years ago, about 550 murderers out 'on licence' & about 55 more murder convictions amongst them!) I strongly suspect that more innocent people have been killed due to this policy than would have perished by "wrongful" execution during those years...

but I don't think "life without parole is fun" is a particularly strong one.
OOC: I perfectly agree with you there. I'm still opposed to the death penalty. My personal preference would be for maximum life sentances, with a possible parole period. That is, if a person has shown that they have been rehabilitated after the set length of time (I'm no legal expert, so I'm not sure how long that should be), they can be released on parole.

IC is a different matter. The Law of Flame requires certain crimes to be punished by execution, and the Law of the Flame is superior to any regional law in Darsomir.

OOC: I perfectly agree with you there. I'm still opposed to the death penalty. My personal preference would be for maximum life sentances, with a possible parole period. That is, if a person has shown that they have been rehabilitated after the set length of time (I'm no legal expert, so I'm not sure how long that should be), they can be released on parole.

IC is a different matter. The Law of Flame requires certain crimes to be punished by execution, and the Law of the Flame is superior to any regional law in Darsomir.
OOC I am ardently opposed to the death penalty. ICly we use it for littering. Roleplaying is fun.

OOC I am ardently opposed to the death penalty. ICly we use it for littering. Roleplaying is fun.
You got that right.
[/IC vs OOC discussion hijack]

But that's assuming that your justice system is perfect and will always convict the right people. Ceorana does not have a strong objection to the death penalty on moral grounds; we have an objection because you will always end up killing someone who didn't actually commit the crime in question. Stricter trial standards would help, and we would support a resolution to that effect, but, to be honest, we believe that outlawing the death penalty altogether is the only way to guarantee that you don't kill anyone who is innocent.


Then what about an innocent person been killed by some criminal. Why should we support this criminal for the rest of their lives once they have been found quilty and sentenced... in this case to only life in prison if you ban capital punishment.? Thus you make the citizens of the nations victums again of these criminals as they end up paying to support them in prison.

Anyone that can prove to me that hanging a person then turning the body over to family or if they don't want it feeding the sharks with it, ain't a heck of a lot cheaper in the long run than keeping a criminal in a prison for rest of their lives. As long as they remain alive they are draining the funds from a nation that could best be used for other things to help better the lives of honest citizens not criminals...

This world is not perfect or if it was then we would have no need to be here debating the issue of capital punishment as we would not need it. Trouble is those killed by criminals can't come in here and debate the issue they are gone.. Most nations have a good legal system that gets at the truth and once a criminal is found guilty they are just that. Thus there is no need to drag things out when all one needs is a good rope tall tree and it's done... then it's up to family to bury the body or we feed the sharks.... or here let those who like a little flesh for lunch have it..

Unified Narnia stands behind a policy for the death penalty.
Anyone who commits: Murder, Abortion, Rape, Treason, Trespassing after Excommunication, Crimes Against Humanity, and any form of terrorism will be all charged with death penalty. That is where my country stands.