Rannatia
14-03-2006, 18:16
Thanks to all for your help. Keep it coming. Anyway, Im posting a redraft of the proposal here, so you can refer to that one. 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 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."
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."