NationStates Jolt Archive

Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is killed for his or her actions.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release.

Recognizes:
1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty (123 in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment)

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.

3. The abolishment of the death penalty is a requirement in order to become part of the European Union.

4. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.

States:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime.



Well there it is, if you're a delegate and like the idea, please support it, it is currently on page 4 of the proposals section and voting on it will end ont tuesday, so again if you like the idea please support the proposal

Please consult the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before submitting proposals. This proposal is illegal, as it contains references to real life ('the United States', 'the European Union').

Sorry man, but he is right.

Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is killed for his or her actions.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release.

Recognizes:
1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty (123 in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment)

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.

3. The abolishment of the death penalty is a requirement in order to become part of the European Union.

4. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.

States:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime.



Well there it is, if you're a delegate and like the idea, please support it, it is currently on page 4 of the proposals section and voting on it will end ont tuesday, so again if you like the idea please support the proposal

I am quite sorry friend, but the island of Edoniakistanbabweagua cannot agree with this proposal. I believe that criminals thrive off of the leanience of the government and keeping laws strict but fair is the only way to keep crime down. I do however agree in the fact that the death penalty is a last punishment only availible to the worse criminals and even then after an extensive trial to prevent innocent persons from dying. Although I do not agree with the propsoal, I still respect your opinion on the matter as this is a subject that can get very controversial and heated.

Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is killed for his or her actions.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release.

Recognizes:
1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty.

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.

3. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.

States:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime.



My apoligies, I did not read the rules before i posted my proposal now i have edited it and it is posted as "Abolish The Death Penalty", again if after reading the proposal you agree with it please help me gain the support of your regional delegate. Voting on this proposal ends on Thursday and it is currently on page 7 of the proposals section.

Note also that you are banning the death penalty for "extraordinarily violent crimes," therefore allowing governments to kill jaywalkers for fun.

Merged your two threads. In the future, keep revisions to the same thread as the original.

Although the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is debatable, the barbaracity isn't. Simply put, killing people as a punishment just isn't suitable for 21st century society. Certainly there is the rare criminal who deserves the death penalty, but if you legalize it, you end up with it being used in cases when it is not warranted. Not to mention the always constant risk of convicting an innocent man. It is the beleif of the Dancing Bananalandian delegates that few if any criminals are beyond redemption, should they chooses to seek it. The death penalty conflicts with this philosphy, and so we do not support it.

However, considering the rarety of it's use in a civilized nation, and the fact that though no (or few) criminal is beyond redemtion, many do not seek it and will die before finding it. Thus, although we do not practice it, we do not wholeheartedly support it's banning in the UN. However a resolution restricting it's use, supporting painless killing legislation, and legal safeguards preventing the execution of innocents would be most recommended.

Certainly there is the rare criminal who deserves the death penalty, but if you legalize it, you end up with it being used in cases when it is not warranted.Slippery slope. If it's acceptable to be used for Crime A, there is nothing mandating that it also be used for Crimes B, C, D, E, and F.

Slippery slope. If it's acceptable to be used for Crime A, there is nothing mandating that it also be used for Crimes B, C, D, E, and F.

Problem is that the slippery slope he gives has never been countered in reality. Someone like Robert Pickton who killed 50 women and fed him to the pigs might deserve death. Someone like Joe Schmoe who killed 5 but might be still rehabilitatable is not deserving of death. In such a case, it's probably more effective just to lock Pickton away for life than have a death penalty just for extreme cases like him.

Problem is that the slippery slope he gives has never been countered in reality.Doesn't change the fact that he is claiming that there are crimes deserving of death, but death can't be used because we will apply it to crimes where it doesn't belong. Stuff and nonsense.

Furthermore, if a crime (or series of crimes) deserve death, it is morally unacceptable to mete out any punishment other than death.

Doesn't change the fact that he is claiming that there are crimes deserving of death, but death can't be used because we will apply it to crimes where it doesn't belong. Stuff and nonsense.

Considering that he would want to sit the deciding factor on the head of a pin (I kid you not that's how difficult it is to sit in the right spot), he might as well accept their survival and just call for a full ban on it all.

Furthermore, if a crime (or series of crimes) deserve death, it is morally unacceptable to mete out any punishment other than death.

Why?

Lock them in solitary confinement for 25 years. If they didn't go off food, they sure as heck aren't going to be sane enough to be returned to society. Boom, a fate worse than death!

Considering that he would want to sit the deciding factor on the head of a pin (I kid you not that's how difficult it is to sit in the right spot), he might as well accept their survival and just call for a full ban on it all.It's much faster and simpler in the Hack. G.E.O.R.G.E. is the police, the judge, the jury, and the executioner if needs be. Granted, low crime rates means he spends most of his time in a warehouse, but still...

The point is that if nations had the will, they could limit the death penalty. Take a look at many states' rape laws. Many of them have escalators which increase the allowed punishment. For instance: Rape gets you 20 years; rape of someone who's mentally incompitant gets you 30. Extend that up for crimes warrenting death. Accidentally running someone over with your car is rather different than the BTK serial killer, after all.

Lock them in solitary confinement for 25 years. If they didn't go off food, they sure as heck aren't going to be sane enough to be returned to society. Boom, a fate worse than death!So the death penalty is a "barbaric" punishment, but purposefully driving someone insane isn't...

It's much faster and simpler in the Hack. G.E.O.R.G.E. is the police, the judge, the jury, and the executioner if needs be. Granted, low crime rates means he spends most of his time in a warehouse, but still...

Ah, but you see, the discrepencies between what crimes G.E.O.R.G.E. feels are worthy and the crimes DBL feels are worthy of death are quite a bit different. Thus you have actually just validated his argument that if given the opportunity to use death penalty, you would undoubtedly use it for things he doesn't want. Gruenberg (yeah, I love picking on him :p) would almost certainly "bend" any definition DBL used to include abortions - a thing that DBL would certainly oppose. On the other hand, if he bans it outright, chances of abusing it are much different.

The point is that if nations had the will, they could limit the death penalty. Take a look at many states' rape laws. Many of them have escalators which increase the allowed punishment. For instance: Rape gets you 20 years; rape of someone who's mentally incompitant gets you 30. Extend that up for crimes warrenting death. Accidentally running someone over with your car is rather different than the BTK serial killer, after all.

Indeed. However, your initial claim that DBL's statement is an invalid slippery slope argument has yet to be proven - and, actually, you've done more to prove DBL's claim than you have done to disprove it. Yes limitations could be voluntarily put in place by nations. Yes nations may even voluntarily ban the death penalty. Yes there are thousands of other scenarios we could consider. Still doesn't disprove DBL's argument. Just merely raises a question on whether the UN needs to legislate on the matter - that wasn't your argument.

So the death penalty is a "barbaric" punishment, but purposefully driving someone insane isn't...

I didn't say barbaric.

Actually, while I personally wouldn't employ it, I certainly would support it over the deaty penalty for one major reason: it's actually always a punishment. When we consider some of the most abhorent crimes that are put on for death penalty, a lot of these guys are looking at the fate of death from just the life they live in the first place. So all we're doing is making them go through the torture of criminal proceedings to get the guilty verdict they already know they deserve.

On the other hand, you toss them into solitary confinement, you are offering them a punishment they don't see in the real world. It would be difficult for a crime boss to create a cell that would work for solitary confinement. Especially when death is so much easier. All of a sudden the state has an actual deterrent.

Only one hole in that, unfortunately. I don't believe in deterrence as the manner to address crime. Certainly, you have to have a level of deterrence (some form of punishment), but going up the scale to death just doesn't seem to be the answer. I believe in rehabilitation alongside deterrence. There are some crimes (manslaughter, most second degree murder) where rehab does nothing. There's other crimes (first degree murder, IMO) where greater punishments actually create any more deterrence.

Ah, but you see, the discrepencies between what crimes G.E.O.R.G.E. feels are worthy and the crimes DBL feels are worthy of death are quite a bit different.Yes, but G.E.O.R.G.E. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388755) is a giant robot, so nobody's going to argue with him.

Thus you have actually just validated his argument that if given the opportunity to use death penalty, you would undoubtedly use it for things he doesn't want.Just because its application in the Hack is... loose... doesn't mean it needs to be everywhere.

Yes limitations could be voluntarily put in place by nations. Yes nations may even voluntarily ban the death penalty. Yes there are thousands of other scenarios we could consider. Still doesn't disprove DBL's argument.You just did. His argument centered around the believe that having capital punishment necessarily results in crimes that should receive it receiving it. The fact that nations can limit their application disproves his assertation.

Actually, while I personally wouldn't employ it, I certainly would support it over the deaty penalty for one major reason: it's actually always a punishment.Killing someone isn't a punishment. Interesting.

When we consider some of the most abhorent crimes that are put on for death penalty, a lot of these guys are looking at the fate of death from just the life they live in the first place.A charming sentiment, but impossible to prove, and quite inaccurate. Many serial killers aren't likely to die because of their lifestyles. Witness the serial killer at the Chicago World's Fair.

All of a sudden the state has an actual deterrent.The criminal executed has certainly been "deterred".

There's other crimes (first degree murder, IMO) where greater punishments actually create any more deterrence.Pardon?

1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty (123 in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment)
Yes they have and thus those who killed them have earned to die for their actions not spend the rest of their lives in prison making victums of the family of those who lost loved ones at their hands. How many recently in the US have been set free that should have died or been in prison for life and repeated their crimes....? As they just caught a man sentenced in 1991 to do 16 years for rape but he got out in 2000 and just this month took two gals and locked them up and abused them. How many of these are free today because that imperfect legal system let them out?
2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.
Not here as we have a very effective and cheap legal system that does well at putting an end to crimes.. You take a like and thus cause a citizen to loose their rights then you loose yours... All it cost up is for a rope as there are many tall stroung trees for them to swing from. Then if their family is not will or able to bury the remains we feed the local sharks with them.
3. The abolishment of the death penalty is a requirement in order to become part of the European Union.
So what I don't want to be in this so called European Union but do in the NSUN. Who needs to leave the death penality issue up to individual nations not act on it at all.
4. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.
Name one person that got the death penalty that has gotten out and repeated their crimes. When you can do this then maybe we will do away with the death penalty. Life in prison even when passed on a person often ends up getting cut because some group comes along and protests it and then... We do away with it and the rapest and murders are free and making victums of us all over and over again.

A good rope and tall tree is a fast cure for crimes that take lives. Then if their family don't want the remains we feed them to the sharks... thus feeding part of our border defenses....

So the death penalty is a "barbaric" punishment, but purposefully driving someone insane isn't...


And the crime done was not BARBARIC.... when a man rapes a twelve year old child then locks them up so he can come back later and do it again. Then when done takes them and dumps them some place beaten abused and dead. Criminals loose their rights when they are found guilty of any crime that is BARBARIC.... as their victums have lost all their rights at the point the action started and completely if they are killed.

Thus death is the only thing they deserve and if you find a good rope and tall tree it's fast and effective. Often a lot less BARBARIC than what they did to get the sentence of death.

Why are we considering the rights of convicted criminals and forgetting those of their victums still living? As when they kill a person a family loses a loved one.. Thus they end up paying again and again to support this criminal who took their loved one.

Originally posted by Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
Name one person that got the death penalty that has gotten out and repeated their crimes.

Name one person who has gotten life in prison WITHOUT PAROLE who has gotten out and killed someone.

Although the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is debatable, the barbaracity isn't. Simply put, killing people as a punishment just isn't suitable for 21st century society.

Possibly not, but we aren't all in the 21st century...

Well, I as the leader of the People's Democracy of Zabbar Malta want that the Death Penalty not to stay since:

1) It is inhumain
2) Since my country is democratic, no person shalt be killed thou their misbehavoiur.

That are the main principiles so I accept the proposal.

Please consult the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before submitting proposals. This proposal is illegal, as it contains references to real life ('the United States', 'the European Union').The obvious counter to the references to real life are that the proposal actually refers to NS nations and/or regions. I can’t see Nationstates.net at work, but I bet there is a European Union out there ^_^

It’s a pretty poor escape, of course :D

Anyhow, Ski Town. I hope you don’t mind if I go through your proposal and make comments along the way?Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is killed for his or her actions.An objection was raised about this death penalty definition having large loopholes. A better definition might be Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is killing as an irrevocable punishment for a crimeLife In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release.A reasonable definition. Might need to be looked at, but on first glance looks alright.

Recognizes:
1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty (123 in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment)Ignoring the RL reference, we can do better. Try something like….RECOGNISING the danger of innocents being incorrectly punished by the death penalty for a crime they did not commit

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.I think this section is too long and rambling. Try NOTING the cost and distress caused by trials which can lead to death penalties, and the extending of trials further via appeals

The problem with this point is that not all nations have trials, and not all nations have an appeal process.

3. The abolishment of the death penalty is a requirement in order to become part of the European Union.I think that this is removed as the RL reference is the only point4. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty. Not bad, try rewriting to something like [I]UNCONVINCED about the deterrence capital punishment is perceived to provide[I]Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.I’m not sure if you have shown it’s failures strongly enough.States:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime.Could be rewritten, but otherwise is fine.Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime.I agree, to an extent.

Now, even if this proposal gets rewritten to make changes as advised thus far, I would be inclined to vote against. Hirota feels that capital punishment is an option, which member states have to have the right the exercise. Hirota has not practiced an execution for several decades, but the death penalty remains an option.

The obvious counter to the references to real life are that the proposal actually refers to NS nations and/or regions. I can’t see Nationstates.net at work, but I bet there is a European Union out there
Which is illegal for meta-gaming.

It’s a pretty poor escape, of course
Well, it's not an 'escape' at all. But yes, it is.

Our position on this proposal is that we do not see it as worthy of UN attention to ban the death penalty. It is an integral part of many criminal justice systems, and whilst some no doubt see it as a human rights violation - just as we, in Gruenberg, see the use of "life without parole", a barbaric system in which people are deprived of liberty for decades, as unjust - they are wrong (whilst we in Gruenberg are right). Therefore, we fully oppose any attempt to ban the practice.

Avenues which we would be more amenable to legislation might include:
- collaboration in DNA research
- some system of international observers
- a freedom of speech proposal about public execution

Name one person who has gotten life in prison WITHOUT PAROLE who has gotten out and killed someone.


Then let me ask you how many of those that have been sentenced to life in prison have killed somebody while in prison? We can toss this around time after time and do nothing. As this is not the real world it's NS so many nations here have a very effective legal system and this is saying they don't and are flawed.

I do have a solution other than the death penality and ask that you take our worst criminals into your nation and let them stay there. As we would let any who wish swim the 600 miles to the nearest land point from our nation. Thus from there they can go live with you. We have no use for these criminals and those we sentence to a death penality are guilty without any questions. Thus a good rope and tall tree are theirs to swing from in due time.. Not years of legal actions to prove their guilt when they are already proven guilty and are... As here if we hang you then you deserve to be hung for your crimes and will not make victums of our citizens ever again.

Only thing is they may have troubles getting past all the sharks who have not been fed in a while.

Name one person who has gotten life in prison WITHOUT PAROLE who has gotten out and killed someone.
Don't know about getting out, but murders within prisons are not unknown.

Don't know about getting out, but murders within prisons are not unknown.

Killing criminals to prevent them from killing criminals...

Killing criminals to prevent them from killing criminals...
No, we kill them because it's cheaper.

Furthermore, if a crime (or series of crimes) deserve death, it is morally unacceptable to mete out any punishment other than death.

There are cases of mitigating circumstances, as well as situations where the the application of punishment is against the national interest. A good case of this is suicide/martyr syndrone in which the crime was committed in order to produce a death penalty making the person a martyr/hero to some anti-government forces.

Yes, but G.E.O.R.G.E. is a giant robot, so nobody's going to argue with him.

I have an assistant who loves to deactivate giant robots. I promise not to mention G.E.O.R.G.E. to either her or her cat.

Yes, but G.E.O.R.G.E. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388755) is a giant robot, so nobody's going to argue with him.

Just because its application in the Hack is... loose... doesn't mean it needs to be everywhere.

You just did. His argument centered around the believe that having capital punishment necessarily results in crimes that should receive it receiving it. The fact that nations can limit their application disproves his assertation.

Oh look, I've found the problem. I was speaking Swedish to a Dutch speaker.

Alright, time to get us on the same page

-------------------

From the position of the UN, that is to say considering all nations, if we tried to pass any resolution that limited the death penalty to the small number of cases where the criminal is beyond hope of being reformed, you would find the number of times someone stretched the resolution or used its loopholes to be rather obscene (as with any other resolution ever conceived). He's not arguing that you can't create a nation that would have the perfect balance of when and when not to employ the death penalty (though there may be good argument against that too). He's arguing that you can't do it at a global scale. Thus far, your claims have not succeeded in disproving such a sentiment.

Killing someone isn't a punishment. Interesting.

When the choice is between certain death from your boss, certain death from opponent, and committing a crime where death is the penalty if you're caught, the no, death actually wouldn't be a penalty. Death would be par for the course.

A charming sentiment, but impossible to prove, and quite inaccurate. Many serial killers aren't likely to die because of their lifestyles. Witness the serial killer at the Chicago World's Fair.

Don't actually know of the case.....

The criminal executed has certainly been "deterred".

From what? Recommission of crime?

RL statistical evidence, interestingly enough, does not actually prove deterrence. The US, which is the only industrialized nation still employing the death penalty, has the highest homicide rates, the highest gun crime rates, and one of the highest overall crime rates (if not the highest). Yes you have problems with societal differences, but it certainly makes one think about the concept of deterrence in a much different light.

Pardon?

Yeah....that was a typo

Should read: There's other crimes (first degree murder, IMO) where greater punishments don't actually create any more deterrence.

Yes they have and thus those who killed them have earned to die for their actions not spend the rest of their lives in prison making victums of the family of those who lost loved ones at their hands. How many recently in the US have been set free that should have died or been in prison for life and repeated their crimes....? As they just caught a man sentenced in 1991 to do 16 years for rape but he got out in 2000 and just this month took two gals and locked them up and abused them. How many of these are free today because that imperfect legal system let them out?

And how many aren't reformed because the government is more interested in punishment rather than giving help to people? How many innocent people have been executed by the government because an imperfect legal system gave the wrong verdict?

Hint, it's more than 1

Not here as we have a very effective and cheap legal system that does well at putting an end to crimes.. You take a like and thus cause a citizen to loose their rights then you loose yours... All it cost up is for a rope as there are many tall stroung trees for them to swing from. Then if their family is not will or able to bury the remains we feed the local sharks with them.

I wonder just how many of those cases you check over after new evidence arrives and realize just how many innocent people you've thrown to the sharks.

So what I don't want to be in this so called European Union but do in the NSUN. Who needs to leave the death penality issue up to individual nations not act on it at all.

Whatever

Name one person that got the death penalty that has gotten out and repeated their crimes.

I'm sure there have been a few that broke out....

When you can do this then maybe we will do away with the death penalty. Life in prison even when passed on a person often ends up getting cut because some group comes along and protests it and then... We do away with it and the rapest and murders are free and making victums of us all over and over again.

Again, because some people are so god damned intent on punishing them rather than helping them.

A good rope and tall tree is a fast cure for crimes that take lives. Then if their family don't want the remains we feed them to the sharks... thus feeding part of our border defenses....

Seriously, WTF

"I would rather let a guilty man walk free than send an innocent man to his grave"

Note also that you are banning the death penalty for "extraordinarily violent crimes," therefore allowing governments to kill jaywalkers for fun.

I would agree with that and furthermore argue it ought to be extended to people who stand by a zebra crossing looking as if they're about to cross the road, causing you to stop to let them do so, but then don't actually cross the road and eventually walk off in the opposite direction.

Name one person who has gotten life in prison WITHOUT PAROLE who has gotten out and killed someone.I take it prison walls are inviolable and can never be breeched? Of course, there is that Fox TV series (http://www.fox.com/prisonbreak/) about prisoners plotting their escape, but it is based on the premise that convicts can break out of prison, a concept so utterly fantastical it boggles the mind ...

Oh, wait (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/national/main679837.shtml) ...

RL statistical evidence, interestingly enough, does not actually prove deterrence. The US, which is the only industrialized nation still employing the death penalty, has the highest homicide rates, the highest gun crime rates, and one of the highest overall crime rates (if not the highest). Yes you have problems with societal differences, but it certainly makes one think about the concept of deterrence in a much different light.

OOC: Okay, so how about the RL UK? In the last full year before the use of the death penalty for punishing murderers was ceased (when, in fact, its use was already restricted to people convicted of killing policemen and -- if memory serves me right -- to people who'd killed during thefts, not to all murderers...), back in the 1960s, there were approximately 250 murders. In the most recent year for which I've seen the official figures (which I think was around 1999) there were over 800 murders, i.e. more than three times as many. Now, given that the population certainly hadn't increased by anywhere near a factor of three during that time (the actual rise being no more than +20%, I think), doesn't this suggest that maybe it had had a deterrent value here?

*snip*Same post count (till just now). Scary ...

Same post count (till just now). Scary ...

I out-spam the both of y'all combined! :p

OOC: Okay, so how about the RL UK? In the last full year before the use of the death penalty for punishing murderers was ceased (when, in fact, its use was already restricted to people convicted of killing policemen and -- if memory serves me right -- to people who'd killed during thefts, not to all murderers...), back in the 1960s, there were approximately 250 murders. In the most recent year for which I've seen the official figures (which I think was around 1999) there were over 800 murders, i.e. more than three times as many. Now, given that the population certainly hadn't increased by anywhere near a factor of three during that time (the actual rise being no more than +20%, I think), doesn't this suggest that maybe it had had a deterrent value here?No because values have changed in the 30-40 year period, guns are more available. Social ills are more pronounced. You get the picture.

Give us statistics which back up your claims directly after the death penalty and we can talk. If, for example in 1965 (plucked out of the air) there were 200 murders and in 1966 (after the death penalty, and again plucked out of the air) there were 400, you might have a point.

I need to go find stats

On 8th of November 1965 was when the death penalty was effectively overridden in the UK

The effects of abolition on the murder rate.
According to the Home Office Report (Murder 1957-1968) the murder rate in England and Wales steadily increased after the passing of the 1957 Act and further accelerated after suspension (effective abolition) of capital punishment in 1965. The graph below, produced from that report, shows the rates for murders that would have been classed as capital and non capital under the 1957 Act. It continued to increase and in the 21st century has reached over 900 a year by 2004.
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/image63.gif
Two cases in 1966 were to quickly re-ignite the debate over abolition and lead to a public demand for re-instatement.
On the 27th of April 1966, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady came to trial at Chester Assizes for the infamous "Moors murders." They escaped the death penalty by just a couple of months as it had effectively been abolished just 4 weeks before their arrest. On the 6th of May 1966, they were both jailed for life, having been convicted of the murders of Lesley Ann Downey, aged 10, in 1964, and Edward Evans, aged 17, in 1965. Brady was also convicted of the murder of 12 year old John Kilbride. Hindley was found guilty of being an accessory to this. These murders were committed while capital punishment was still on the statute books. The second case, which shocked the nation, occurred on Friday the 12th August 1966 when 3 career criminals, Harry Roberts, John Witney and John Duddy brutally murdered 3 police officers who were trying to question them at the roadside in Braybrook Street, London. They were all convicted and given life sentences
Source: http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/abolish.html

Now the best way to compare the effects of the death penalty is to compare to a nation which did not abolish in 65. The US makes a good example.

I've tried to find full information for the number of murders per 100000 in the UK from 1960 - 1970. Sadly little success, but what little I have implies much

Murder and non- negligent man- slaughter (per 100000)
Year US UK
1960 5.1 0.6
1961 4.8
1962 4.6
1963 4.6
1964 4.9
1965 5.1 0.6
1966 5.6
1967 6.2
1968 6.9
1969 7.3
1970 7.9 0.8

It can thus be argued that the occurance of murder is unaffected by the removal of the death penalty. There is no sign that the death penalty prevents the crime.

What's interesting is your stats show a parallel increase with the US, despite the fact that the US did not see an abolition of the death penalty.

What's interesting is your stats show a parallel increase with the US, despite the fact that the US did not see an abolition of the death penalty.

I used the US for that reason.:)

The murder rate rose in both countries, but it did not appear to have any effect when the death penalty was removed. I think there was little to no effect.

What's interesting is your stats show a parallel increase with the US, despite the fact that the US did not see an abolition of the death penalty.

Actually, the Americans did have an effective 10 year moratorium between 1968 and 1978.

Actually, the Americans did have an effective 10 year moratorium between 1968 and 1978.

Actually, it was 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) to 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia).

Then when was Manson convicted? Was sure till now it was in '69.

I am glad to see that this proposal has sparked this much debate, because now even if it doesn't pass i have people thinking about it and realizing that it is an issue worth looking at so now even if it doesnt pass or go to vote there will at least be the knowledge of the pros and cons of the death penalty.

The death penalty should aboloshed. It costs 10 million in America to lethaly inject someone oposed to around 1 million to live in jail from avg age of 18-65. Yes you will see people killing in jail, does it really matter if they kill in jail, most likely they are gang related, In america gangs control the jails not individuals who have killed maybe 10 people. Yes a rope and a tree would be effective but thats inhumane killing somone from a tree watching them suffer while they cant breathe.

The death penalty should aboloshed. It costs 10 million in America to lethaly inject someone oposed to around 1 million to live in jail from avg age of 18-65. And it costs less than $1 to shoot them in the back of the head. This may be barbaric and without fair trial, etc., but it doesn't have to cost 10mil to kill someone.
Yes you will see people killing in jail, does it really matter if they kill in jail, most likely they are gang related, In america gangs control the jails not individuals who have killed maybe 10 people.This is not entirely true. Besides, you should quote some stats for that instead of making a rough guess. In addition, you are counting reported prison killings... many others happen without any report of the incident.

Yes a rope and a tree would be effective but thats inhumane killing somone from a tree watching them suffer while they cant breathe.
Whereas by shooting them in the back of the head, you can be sure they won't suffer.

Capital punishment doesn't have to be expensive.

Ski town: I'd focus more on the barbarity and the lack of reduction in crime rates than the costs... again, killing someone doesn't have to be expensive.

alright, i think i will focus on the barbaric nature of the death penalty if the proposal currently in place does fail to pass (as it appears it will). I will look at the barbaric nature of killing humans, the perpetuation of violence through the death penalty, and the irreversibility of the death penalty when considering this second revision of my proposal. Also i will talk about how a fair death penalty sentence is very expensive and how innocents are killed in the act. Any more suggestions for this second revision?

alright, i think i will focus on the barbaric nature of the death penalty if the proposal currently in place does fail to pass (as it appears it will). I will look at the barbaric nature of killing humans, the perpetuation of violence through the death penalty, and the irreversibility of the death penalty when considering this second revision of my proposal. Also i will talk about how a fair death penalty sentence is very expensive and how innocents are killed in the act. Any more suggestions for this second revision?


Long live Eonopolis! Exercise Your Right as A Sovereign Nation to Execute Citizens at Will! Yes!

Sincerely,
The Dear Eternal Omnipotent Leader General Dante Spano

OOC: Okay, so how about the RL UK? In the last full year before the use of the death penalty for punishing murderers was ceased (when, in fact, its use was already restricted to people convicted of killing policemen and -- if memory serves me right -- to people who'd killed during thefts, not to all murderers...), back in the 1960s, there were approximately 250 murders. In the most recent year for which I've seen the official figures (which I think was around 1999) there were over 800 murders, i.e. more than three times as many. Now, given that the population certainly hadn't increased by anywhere near a factor of three during that time (the actual rise being no more than +20%, I think), doesn't this suggest that maybe it had had a deterrent value here?

Between this base argument, and various RL statistics I have concluded one thing. The death penalty has no significant effect. First off, the rise in crime rate is incrimental over a period of years, matching national population growth. The more people, the more crime, its that simple. Thus, if the death penalty is not a significant deterrent, isn't it safer to not have it, and not risk killing an innocent man, or denying someone re-habilitation, then to have it. Also, if the death penalty where heavily restricted, then it would only apply to the sickest if criminals. Although there is an exception to every rule, I'm inclined to beleive that most serial killers and phsychos out there don't fear death, removing its deterrent capability. In fact, some may rather die than go a long lifetime without raping and murdering...but that argumetn is simply musing, and lacks validation.

Under the definitions used in the proposal, Darsomir sees no reason to oppose this. Blasphemy isn't a violent crime, and it is not Darsomiri courts that deal with those charges, but rather Courts of the Flame, typically chaired by Exarchs.

OOC: The definition is flawed. You specified 'for violent crimes' or something along those lines, which means that your proposal doesn't cover many other things that could result in the death penalty. For instance, Blasphemy in Darsomir.

In Cobdenia, we have found that hanging is not a very good deterrent for violent crimes, as they usually crimes of passion, and thus the consequences of such action means little to the perpertrator.

Conversely, we find it a superb deterrent for other crimes. Since we introduced hanging for minor traffic offenses, we have not had a single problem with people parking on double yellow lines...

Then when was Manson convicted? Was sure till now it was in '69.

He was convicted and sentenced to death in California in 1971, but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court's decision the following year in People v. Anderson, which invalidated all death sentences imposed in California before 1972. Thus, it was because of a state-level decision that he didn't fry for the murders he committed, not a federal moratorium on the death penalty.

Yes, many years ago, I'd wanted to be an attorney. ;)

First off, the rise in crime rate is incrimental over a period of years, matching national population growth.

OOC: Population increase of maybe +20%, murder rate tripled... = "matching"?!?

OOC: The definition is flawed. You specified 'for violent crimes' or something along those lines, which means that your proposal doesn't cover many other things that could result in the death penalty. For instance, Blasphemy in Darsomir.

Absolutely the biggest remaining problem if you implement the other changes. Those definitions need significant reworking in order to cover everything they should.

Yea i allready did, i noted all of the criticism of the definitions and just figured it would be a given by now that i am going to edit the definitions. probably to something along the lines of:

Death Penalty- A criminal punishment where the criminal is killed for the crime he has comitted.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A criminal punishment where the criminal is incarcerated for the remainder of their life without any chance of being paroled, released early, unless new evidence comes about proving that the criminal is in fact innocent.

Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is killed for his or her actions.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release.

Recognizes:
1. That innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty.

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.

3. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.

States:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime.



My apoligies, I did not read the rules before i posted my proposal now i have edited it and it is posted as "Abolish The Death Penalty", again if after reading the proposal you agree with it please help me gain the support of your regional delegate. Voting on this proposal ends on Thursday and it is currently on page 7 of the proposals section.

Where is all the information to prove your claims? The cost of food, electricity, and other subsistence required for life is much more expensive than a trial. How can you say that is not the case? A person that has been sentenced to life in jail, let's say he lives for 30 years, will surely cost the tax payers large sums of money. I myself do not have to worry about this, because there is hardly any crime in my nation, but this goes for everyone else. It's easier to put a bullet in someone’s head than it is to feed them for any large amount of time. This has repercussions though I do admit. The death penalty must only be initiated if the criminal is without a doubt guilty for the crime.

Death Penalty- A criminal punishment where the criminal is killed for the crime he has comitted.

Wow. Just wow.

i know that definition is just bred from brilliance isn't it!

Where is all the information to prove your claims? The cost of food, electricity, and other subsistence required for life is much more expensive than a trial. How can you say that is not the case? A person that has been sentenced to life in jail, let's say he lives for 30 years, will surely cost the tax payers large sums of money. I myself do not have to worry about this, because there is hardly any crime in my nation, but this goes for everyone else. It's easier to put a bullet in someone’s head than it is to feed them for any large amount of time. This has repercussions though I do admit. The death penalty must only be initiated if the criminal is without a doubt guilty for the crime.
oh yea and i believe all of the information you need to see backing my claim, which is assuming that the Criminal was given a fair trial and fair opportunity to rebut his sentence, can be found on the fact sheet at http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet3.html

oh yea and i believe all of the information you need to see backing my claim, which is assuming that the Criminal was given a fair trial and fair opportunity to rebut his sentence, can be found on the fact sheet at http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet3.html
Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around $500,000 each, including incarceration cost.
Ski Town, I cannot trust that number. First of all, it is not quoted from an unbiased source. Second, it just feels far to low for me. They do not provide a breakdown of costs there, either, just a statement "It costs $1-3mil to kill someone or $500t to keep them in prison."

Sorry, but I just don't think that this is substantive enough of evidence.

And I don't think Cluich's comment was supposed to be a complement... because that definition does seem a little simplistic. Why define it at all if that is what you are saying?

Ski Town, I cannot trust that number. First of all, it is not quoted from an unbiased source. Second, it just feels far to low for me. They do not provide a breakdown of costs there, either, just a statement "It costs $1-3mil to kill someone or $500t to keep them in prison."

Sorry, but I just don't think that this is substantive enough of evidence.

And I don't think Cluich's comment was supposed to be a complement... because that definition does seem a little simplistic. Why define it at all if that is what you are saying?


First off, $500,000 does seem low. The cost of one year in a maximum security prison per person is about $34,000 per year, given the average life sentence is about 40 years that accumulates to about $1.36 million of incarceration costs. Now given that in the state with the most efficient use of the death penalty,Texas, it costs an average of $2.3 million to give someone the death penalty, i am assuming it doesn't cost $940,000 to try someone in a case where the maximum penalty is life in prison without parole, even if they do file an appeal it wouldn't cost that much. Please note that I am currently taking a class in criminal justice and all of the above figures come straight out of the textbook, which in my oppinion is quite unbiased.

And with the definition thing, I was being critisized for it being too specific in that it said the death penalty was only being used in "Extraordinarily violent crimes" and many were saying that is okay but it needed to be changed to include all crime, so i simplified it, and anyways without a definition there would be a great chance of being repealed if it went to vote and passed as people would say that "it doesn't define what the death penalty is so therefore it doesn't actually have any validity"

First off, $500,000 does seem low. The cost of one year in a maximum security prison per person is about $34,000 per year, given the average life sentence is about 40 years that accumulates to about $1.36 million of incarceration costs. Now given that in the state with the most efficient use of the death penalty,Texas, it costs an average of $2.3 million to give someone the death penalty, i am assuming it doesn't cost $940,000 to try someone in a case where the maximum penalty is life in prison without parole, even if they do file an appeal it wouldn't cost that much. Please note that I am currently taking a class in criminal justice and all of the above figures come straight out of the textbook, which in my oppinion is quite unbiased.
OK, this is better. But it still assumes the US justice system, which is not the same as those in the NS world. Still, better for your argument here, but use the barbarity, lack of irreversability, etc, in the resolution.

And with the definition thing, I was being critisized for it being too specific in that it said the death penalty was only being used in "Extraordinarily violent crimes" and many were saying that is okay but it needed to be changed to include all crime, so i simplified it, and anyways without a definition there would be a great chance of being repealed if it went to vote and passed as people would say that "it doesn't define what the death penalty is so therefore it doesn't actually have any validity"
IMHO, I don't think this will be the case. It is the case where things are very contentious, i.e. if you say violent crime but don't specify what that is. But I think everyone will understand exactly what is meant by "death penalty". If others think me wrong, please chime in.
The new definition is better than the old one; I just think it might be cut down so much as to be unnecessary now.

Yea i think in a future proposal i will focus more on the barbaric and inhumane nature of the death penalty, along with its irreversibility. Also i am going to include some sort of definition, even if it is over simplified, just to be safe so that that particular reason for repealment is eliminated

Murder and non- negligent man- slaughter (per 100000)
Year US UK
1960 5.1 0.6
1961 4.8
1962 4.6
1963 4.6
1964 4.9
1965 5.1 0.6
1966 5.6
1967 6.2
1968 6.9
1969 7.3
1970 7.9 0.8

All this shows me is the US keeps better track of this type thing than the UK does. What happened in the years in between in the UK that no data is shown? Just how accurate is the tracking system for such in the UK compared to that in the US?

Also this would tell me that the US has had more experience at keeping track of such than the UK thus one might figure in errors based on lack of experience.

Also consider the imigration laws in each country and just who is doing all the crimes. UK is a smaller country who one might consider has better border control than the US who would let the 'wolf' guard the 'hen house' as don't see UK even considering that. Thus one can expect certain crimes to rise when so called 'outsiders' come and go as they please.. Think they talking 11 million illegal imigrunts in the county they want to make legal. Some been here over 30 years... and have kids born here now by that legal but still can't speak English... These are some of the factors to consider on why certain crimes rise.


Also what has happened to these figures in UK and US since 1970...? Some thirty years of figures... As the time frame you show was during the Viet Nam era in US thus attitudes of people were changed... over the war issue as well as rise in use of certain drugs they play a factor in these crimes..

Still, better for your argument here, but use the barbarity, lack of irreversability, etc, in the resolution.


Are you forgetting these people have been found guilty in a court of a crime that warrents the death penality..? Crimes often barbaric and always irreversable against some inocent citizen who did nothing wrong and didn't even have a chance in court to plead his or her case.

If raping a minor child for days can be reversed let me know how! Then if killing that minor child so you can move on to another can be reversed let me know how!

We find it wrong to consider criminals have any rights once they have been proven guilty of barbaric and irreversable crimes thus deserve to swing on a rope from a tall tree. Keeping them in prisons only makes victums out of the citizens who are honest and trying to survive in this world without doing crimes.


Also on the issue of cost to maintain a criminal in prison for any amount of time can be best diverted for each one hung to building hospitals, schools, and other facilities that honest citizens should have. Figure how many well staffed hospitals one can build and maintain on those funds going to keep your worst criminals in prisons for any lenth of time. Many poor nations without the death penalaty would have to divert funds to build these prisons that now go to hospitals, schools, and other places used by the honest hard working citizens...

We are not looking at irreversibility as a way to bring back criminals, we are looking at irreversibility because of innocent people who were "Proven Guilty" have been later proven innocent, only after they have allready ben put to death and in that way it is irreversible and i dont think anyone will disagree that putting an innocent to death for the acts of someone else is wrong. For this reason the Death Penalty should be removed as it would eliminate any chance of your government killing someone who may have been innocent. And just so you know there have been innocent people put to death in recent history, in the 30 years since the united states has brought back the death penalty 122 people have been executed, only later to be proven innocent of them were innocent and i for one think that just over 4 executions of innocent people each year is way too much and we either need to get that number down to zero or get rid of the death penalty.

innocent people who were "Proven Guilty" have been later proven innocent, only after they have allready ben put to death and in that way it is irreversible and i dont think anyone will disagree that putting an innocent to death for the acts of someone else is wrong. For this reason the Death Penalty should be removed as it would eliminate any chance of your government killing someone who may have been innocent. And just so you know there have been innocent people put to death in recent history, in the 30 years since the united states has brought back the death penalty 122 people have been executed, only later to be proven innocent of them were innocent and i for one think that just over 4 executions of innocent people each year is way too much and we either need to get that number down to zero or get rid of the death penalty.

So is the 122 victums of some criminal that did commit these crimes as how many were put to death that did do it? Also how many murders were there each year in all those 30 years where the criminal was caught and is still sucking the honest citizens dry supporting them in prisons?

And I for one think that if we make a mistake and kill one that didn't do it then the others got what they deserved. All we need do is go find the real killer who is still out their killing more people. Or they may be locked away in some prison with all kinds of benifits given them there.. Healt Care, Dental Care, Food, Bed, Shelter, and other things that honest citizens work hard to get for them and their family only to have some criminal come along and end it all.

I still want to know how we get back the victums of murder who had no trial before a jury of their peers thus since they were never PROVEN GUILTY how do we deal with this...?

You said a criminal was PROVEN GUILTY thus the sytem worked and there exeuction ended the matter and another criminal got put away.. never again to make victums of honest citizens... As here when they are 'Proven Guilty' they are just that... so far we have not had any of those we have hung come back and prove they were inocent nor have we had them commit more crimes.

What you need to do is work to improve your legal system so that it don't happen in your nation and leave other nations along. Don't tear apart what works well here simply because you can't get it to work well there. If you have judge, police and others who don't know what they are doing thus make these types of mistakes train them to do it right and support them with the materials they need to do it right and get criminals put away.. so as they don't harm more honest citizens, or burden them with having to pay to lock them up.

And just so you know there have been innocent people put to death in recent history, in the 30 years since the united states has brought back the death penalty 122 people have been executed, only later to be proven innocent ...Very questionable claim, impossible to prove. Besides, the Federal Republic is under no obligation to protect "innocent" Americans from execution. :rolleyes:

We are not looking at irreversibility as a way to bring back criminals, we are looking at irreversibility because of innocent people who were "Proven Guilty" have been later proven innocent, only after they have allready ben put to death and in that way it is irreversible and i dont think anyone will disagree that putting an innocent to death for the acts of someone else is wrong. For this reason the Death Penalty should be removed as it would eliminate any chance of your government killing someone who may have been innocent. And just so you know there have been innocent people put to death in recent history, in the 30 years since the united states has brought back the death penalty 122 people have been executed, only later to be proven innocent of them were innocent and i for one think that just over 4 executions of innocent people each year is way too much and we either need to get that number down to zero or get rid of the death penalty.

OOC: And in the UK, since the death penalty stopped being used, literally hundreds of convicted murderers (it was over 500 when I saw the newspaper article that I mentioned earlier in this thread, and that was a few years ago) have been released from prison "on licence" after serving only part of their sentence and a number of those (over 50 at the time of that newspaper article) have committed further murders:. Add their post-release victims to the increased number of people killed when the death penalty's deterrent value (which I still am not convinced didn't exist...) was removed, and I strongly suspect that more "innocent" people killed than would have been the case due to occasional mistakes by the legal system if convicted murderers had continued to be executed...

Defines:
Death Penalty- A punishment for crime where the perpetrator of the crime is executed for his or her actions.

Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- A punishment for extraordinarily violent crime where the perpetrator of the crime is imprisoned for his or her entire life without any chance of gaining a parole hearing as a way of early release unless new evidence comes about that proves the innocence of the convicted person.

Recognizes:
1. The death penalty is irreversible and Innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty. Because of this I find that it is wrong to use a system that condemns the lives of innocent people.

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole.

3. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

4. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should not be allowed to be used, we do not need to kill people for any crimes they may have done as this would simply be going back to the barbaric nature of “An eye for an eye” which many will agree is a cruel ideal that is in fact barbaric in nature.

5. The death penalty perpetuates violence, by killing a convict for their actions you are doing nothing other than continuing the cycle of violence that you are trying to end with criminal punishments.

6. Children are being killed by the death penalty. Yes that is correct some nations here do go as far as to allow the execution of juveniles for their participation in crimes. Children should not be killed for any crime as they are usually the best demonstration of a criminal who could be rehabilitated while their brain is still growing and maturing they could learn the wrongfulness of their actions relatively easily

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime.

Mandates:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime. If you fail to meet this requirement your nation will face heavy fines for not complying with this resolution.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime as it is just as effective of a deterrent and a more economic solution than the death penalty.




Allright guys, heres a rough edit of what will probably be the third submission of this proposal, any suggestions on what should be changed or editted?

Defines:
Life In Prison Without The Chance Of Parole- *snip*Still saying "extraordinary violent crime" here.

Recognizes:
1. The death penalty is irreversible and Innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty. Because of this I find that it is wrong to use a system that condemns the lives of innocent people.Recognizes the irreversability of the death penalty and the danger of executing persons who may be proven innocent through new evidence

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole. No. Cut this part out. It is not a good argument, as some nations do not have expensive systems; rather a person could be passed through a trial once without extensive appeal processes, then be executed immediately.

3. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty. What studies? Besides, even with this it should be reworded: (RECOGNIZING) the rate of violent crime is not reduced in nations that actively employ the death penalty

4. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should not be allowed to be used, we do not need to kill people for any crimes they may have done as this would simply be going back to the barbaric nature of “An eye for an eye” which many will agree is a cruel ideal that is in fact barbaric in nature.

5. The death penalty perpetuates violence, by killing a convict for their actions you are doing nothing other than continuing the cycle of violence that you are trying to end with criminal punishments.You are repeating yourself here. Only use one, and say something like REGRETTING the cycle of violence that is perpetuated through the use of the death penalty. And some nations haven't broken out of barbarity, so appealing to this won't work. Try speaking as to the fundamental value of human life; that is what I meant by barbarity. Something like MINDFUL the most fundamental human right is the right to life, and that this is violated through the use of the death penalty

6. Children are being killed by the death penalty. Yes that is correct some nations here do go as far as to allow the execution of juveniles for their participation in crimes. Children should not be killed for any crime as they are usually the best demonstration of a criminal who could be rehabilitated while their brain is still growing and maturing they could learn the wrongfulness of their actions relatively easilyYou don't need this. It's redundant. Besides, many children do not learn the wrongfulness of their actions, and go on to commit further crimes. Cut this part out.

Proposes:
The death penalty must be abolished in all U.N. member nations because of the above reasons showing that it is not an ethical, efficient, or economic deterrent of crime. No need to repeat yourself. MANDATES the death penalty must be abolished in all UN member nations.

Mandates:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime. If you fail to meet this requirement your nation will face heavy fines for not complying with this resolution.You are just repeating the point above. Don't put in a punishment; there is no need... if this passes, no NSUN member nation will be able to use the death penalty (the UN Gnomes automatically rewrite all the relevant laws)

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime as it is just as effective of a deterrent and a more economic solution than the death penalty.
SUGGESTS life in prison without the chance of parole as an alternative punishment for those crimes that had warranted the death penalty

With these changes, a better-written draft would come out.

That said, I can't stand by this if it is proposed. I believe the death penalty is an important part of a nation's legal arsenal, even where it is not used. Besides, there are always conditions such as war where such punishments may be warranted i.e. desertion which may result in treachery.

4. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should not be allowed to be used, we do not need to kill people for any crimes they may have done as this would simply be going back to the barbaric nature of “An eye for an eye” which many will agree is a cruel ideal that is in fact barbaric in nature.This is a very provocative statement.

The preamble is your chance to persuade member nations that your idea holds merit; you are trying to win people over to your side here (at least the people who actually bother reading the text). Arguing that the death penalty is inefficient, unnecessary and less effective a punishment than, say, life imprisonment is one thing; accusing death-penalty nations of barbarism is quite another. You won't win many friends by insulting your fellow ambassadors.

You are just repeating the point above. Don't put in a punishment; there is no need... if this passes, no NSUN member nation will be able to use the death penalty (the UN Gnomes automatically rewrite all the relevant laws)No, they don't. Hate to say this, but you're Godmoding. Nations are free to comply, not to comply or only partially comply as they please (see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9900794&postcount=8)). The gnomes are a running joke, and they cannot be applied to any serious RP. If you want to pretend that little magical creatures with pointed hats are constantly rewriting your nation's laws, that's fine; if you want to pretend that little magical creatures with pointed hats are trying to rewrite your nation's laws, but are held at bay by a strict shoot-on-sight rule, deadly gnome-hunting penguin commandos or hordes of anti-UN gnomes, that fine (heck, it's what I do); but you can't tell other nations, in essence, The gnomes are comin', the gnomes are comin', the gnomes are comin'; resistance is futile!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Erm, sorry for the lecture; I started out with a simple statement, then got a good rant going. ;)

No, they don't. Hate to say this, but you're Godmoding. Nations are free to comply, not to comply or only partially comply as they please (see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9900794&postcount=8)). The gnomes are a running joke, and they cannot be applied to any serious RP. If you want to pretend that little magical creatures with pointed hats are constantly rewriting your nation's laws, that's fine; if you want to pretend that little magical creatures with pointed hats are trying to rewrite your nation's laws, but are held at bay by a strict shoot-on-sight rule, deadly gnome-hunting penguin commandos or hordes of anti-UN gnomes, that fine (heck, it's what I do); but you can't tell other nations, in essence, The gnomes are comin', the gnomes are comin', the gnomes are comin'; resistance is futile!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

OK, OK, Kenny has more experience here than I do.... But OK, lets look at the resolution if you do add a penalty. Fines? Who sets them, how much, how often, and how will fines really stop nations from using the death penalty... seems a little weak.

And the gnomes exist... I've seen them... there's one now! :eek:

Shoot it! Shoot it!!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/KennyUN1.jpg

OOC: My understanding has always been that UN member compliance is mandatory - sort of. Nothing forces a person to roleplay in a given way, but nation stats are changed when a resolution passes. Hence the "sort of".

Stats have nothing to do with roleplay. And the stat effect can always be reversed via daily issues. So no.

Shoot it! Shoot it!!

One of these days, you're going to convince me to compose the Gnomish Rights for International Protection and Enforcement of UN workers bill (GRIPE UNW) just for the fun of it.

In fact I might just erect a monument to the UN Gnome.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3378185/41533108.jpg

Be they ever so humble, there is no harder worker than a Gnome.
They are swift, right, unerring, and the UN is their home. :p

Mandates:
All member nations must remove the death penalty as a way of punishing crime. If you fail to meet this requirement your nation will face heavy fines for not complying with this resolution.

Suggests:
The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime as it is just as effective of a deterrent and a more economic solution than the death penalty.


If this person is sentenced to a crime as barbaric and violent enough to warrant the death penalty; which you now are going to MANDATE that it be banned! Then why just SUGGEST that you stick them in prison for life. Either MANDATE them both or SUGGEST them both here?

Guess we set up a nation to hold our criminals outside the UN rules just in time. As all our criminals are sent there for holding. Once there if they don't conform to rules then they can be executed by that nation. Thus we don't use the death penalty here just sentence them to prison and let things happen...

If this person is sentenced to a crime as barbaric and violent enough to warrant the death penalty; which you now are going to MANDATE that it be banned! Then why just SUGGEST that you stick them in prison for life. Either MANDATE them both or SUGGEST them both here?

Guess we set up a nation to hold our criminals outside the UN rules just in time. As all our criminals are sent there for holding. Once there if they don't conform to rules then they can be executed by that nation. Thus we don't use the death penalty here just sentence them to prison and let things happen...

Because there are nations like mine that believe in reform. There are nations that have absolutely zero jails but several rehabilitiation clinics. Oh - and my crime rate still seems to be near zero.

EDIT: I also note that most industrialized nations have actually got 25 year parole eligability as the standard for first degree murder. I don't know if you can even toss out the possibility of parole in Canada

Alright guys the third and final try for me has been submitted, you know where to find it and it is listed as "Death Penalty Act" so go on and give me the criticism i know im going to get, and again if you like it support it or get your delegat to support it, this will probably be my last post in this thread so debate as you will and pleas help me gain the support necessary for vote this time

The Federal Republic has been mulling returning to the United Nations ever since it withdrew in early February. Such a return would hinge, obviously, on this body's willingness to enact a substantial anti-terror statute. Any discussion of reapplying for membership, however, would be postponed indefinitely should this proposal reach quorum and pass this body.

The Federal Republic has been mulling returning to the United Nations ever since it withdrew in early February. Such a return would hinge, obviously, on this body's willingness to enact a substantial anti-terror statute. Any discussion of reapplying for membership, however, would be postponed indefinitely should this proposal reach quorum and pass this body.

Indeed, the failure of this body to pass the Anti-Terrorism Act was one of the lowest moments this delegation has seen since Cluichstan joined the UN.

2. It is actually less expensive to give someone life in prison without parole than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the extremely high cost of a death penalty trial, and appeals process in a death penalty case, also the cost to house someone on death row is much more expensive than the cost of housing someone in a maximum security prison. These factors make the average death penalty cost much more than the average life in prison without parole..

What I would like to know is where are we required to provide these so called high cost trials? As it cost us just as much to try a person for kicking a dog as it does for killing one. As for housing on death row, all criminals here are housed the same thus the cost to house a chicken theif is same as housing a murderer or rapest. Criminals don't get special treatment based on their crimes.. they are in prison because they did something against honest citizens that abuse those honest citizens rights or took them form that citizen... Thus as convicted criminals they lost their rights when a judge heard the jury say guilty, then passed a mandatory sentence on the criminal based on the crime done. Rape and Murder get the rope, no appeals or long wait in prison as within five days of a jury saying guilty they swing.

However we have found a solution to this so even if it passes we will comply with it as it in requiring us to keep them in prison is not saying where they are held. Thus we simply transport them outside our nation to another not under UN rule... then let nature take her course.

Well, in the end, you all must realize, there is a simple way to enforce the death penalty. Civil war, simply declare any violent criminal a rebel or terrorist or whatever you want, and you have the right to blow him away in combat. Or hire hitmen and assasinate him, you don't need the death pnealty to kill people, remember.

Ecopoeia is utterly opposed to the death penalty. If one accepts that the government acts on behalf of the population of a nation, then it makes every single person represented complicit in the act. Furthermore, a captured and tried criminal is neutralised. To take their life out of a misguided sense of vengeful justice is repugnant.

That said, I find this proposal to be substantially inferior to previous efforts to ban this abhorrent practice and. Ecopoeia's support is thus withheld for the time being.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Ecopoeia is utterly opposed to the death penalty.
And Gruenberg is utterly supportive of it. Therefore, it's time for another Fair Compromise.

If one accepts that the government acts on behalf of the population of a nation, then it makes every single person represented complicit in the act.
Same for imprisonment or banishment. Same, in fact, for any form of punishment. A speeding fine makes the whole population complicit in theft, by your logic. Additionally, we don't accept that government acts on behalf of the people anyway.

Furthermore, a captured and tried criminal is neutralised.
Yes. Neutralised WITH AN AXE.

To take their life out of a misguided sense of vengeful justice is repugnant.
Absolutely. However, to take their life out of correct sense of vengeful justice is only fair.

As it cost us just as much to try a person for kicking a dog as it does for killing one.This is one of the silliest statements I've read on this forum in a long time.

And Gruenberg is utterly supportive of it. Therefore, it's time for another Fair Compromise.
We have no interest in any more of this hall's 'fair' compromises.

One response to the rest of your comments: making people complicit in death is rather more serious matter. Regardless, the points were not raised in a bid to persuade others to discontinue their support of state-sanctioned murder, merely to present another viewpoint.

It's the death penalty we're discussing here, not "state-sanctioned murder." Please check your emotional rhetoric at the door.

It's the death penalty we're discussing here, not "state-sanctioned murder." Please check your emotional rhetoric at the door.
OOC: Heh, no chance - Lata was in discussion with the goatboy!

Awww, are Lata and the goatboy in love? :fluffle:

The Death penelty should be legal.:mp5: If it isn't legal then people will be :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: :upyours: all over the streets when they get out of jail.

Awww, are Lata and the goatboy in love? :fluffle:
Ms Chakrabarti is currently indisposed, having choked on a biscuit upon hearing the Kennyite comment. She did not appear to be best pleased.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Furthermore, a captured and tried criminal is neutralised.


Only as long as they remain confined and unable to get into society again.. As they once some judge or the system sets them free again; they are back to continue doing more crimes. Also even in prison if they are allowed contact with outside sources they can still commit crimes even while in so called prisons.

Anytime a crimal is allowed contact with another person that they may make a victum then they are not neutralized.

Holding them for rest of their lives means honest citizens pay taxes to keep them in prison and have all those things some seem to think they deserve to have. Thus honest citizens every time taxes go up because keeping more in prison cost more, they become victums.

A proper death trail then sentence then execution without a lot of long appeals and such is less of a drain on the citizens than to drag one out for years and keep these criminals in prisons. Thus honest citizens can keep their money and use it to help them not some criminal who may have killed one of their family members thus causing them to loose income due to loss of that one person. Thus your tax paid in goes down as more criminals kill off honest citizens; while the cost to cover the criminals goes up.

Life, death... minute tax increase. Interestingly cold priorities you have there.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I believe it should be left up to the individual nations to decide what to do with their own prisoners.

1. The death penalty is irreversible and Innocents have been killed through use of the death penalty. Because of this I find that it is wrong to use a system that condemns the lives of innocent people.

You seem pretty cemented in this ideal. How about providing us with an actual ratio of innocent:guilty figures.

4. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that should not be allowed to be used, we do not need to kill people for any crimes they may have done as this would simply be going back to the barbaric nature of “An eye for an eye” which many will agree is a cruel ideal that is in fact barbaric in nature.

Define barbaric, because you can rest assured that the definitions for many people are different.

5. The death penalty perpetuates violence, by killing a convict for their actions you are doing nothing other than continuing the cycle of violence that you are trying to end with criminal punishments.

What are you going to do next, try and regulate crime rates themselves? I think countries can be trusted to at least try and work things out on their own.

The use of life in prison without the chance of parole as a more effective means of punishing violent crime as it is just as effective of a deterrent

You say here that life in prison without parole is just as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. But here:

3. The death penalty is not actually a good deterrent of crime. Recent studies show that nations using the death penalty have almost twice as much violent crime as nations that do not use the death penalty.

you say that the death penalty isn't actually a good deterrent. So are you saying that neither one help stop crime? If so, why not just do away with the whole judicial/legal system as it is? I mean, if life in prison and the death penalty won't stop offenders, then what will?

"The State should never kill anyone."
~ Johannes

"Of course not. That is for the Courts of the Flame."
~Acolyte Gaeblyn

Define barbaric,?


Taking two twelve year old girls and locking them away to abuse at will for several days. Then dumping their remains in some remote area hoping they are never found. Is this close enough to being barbaric for you. As we look at how we treat criminals and call it barbaric but forget why they are criminals... and just how barbaric their crimes were.


Also as long as a person is alive they can be free of prison thus continue to commit crimes. Right now there are certain criminals who were set free on parole for a number of crimes during Katrina who are still lurking out there and nobody knows yet where they are. Then ever day the legal system lets folks go because it has no room in the inn for these criminals. Thus later they are caught again committing same type crimes. Thus life in prison is not going to stop those hard core criminals as they will find a way to continue doing crimes as long as they are alive and able to do so. Since most would call it barbaric to lock them up in a small dark room and forget them they will continue to make victums of honest citizens throught the system which is faulted their way. The death penality brings it back over to the side of the victums as at least a dead criminal will not commit more crimes as barbaric as they might have to be in prison or swinging from a rope.