NationStates Jolt Archive

Murder and Manslaughter Laws

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Adolf Barham


Description: Article 1: UNDERSTANDING that this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act in all UN member nations anyway.

Article 2: HOWEVER ENSURING that no nation can slip out of this law, by making it a UN resolution.

Article 3: NOTING ,so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

a. Murder
b. Conspiracy to commit murder
c. Attempt to commit murder
d. Complicity in murder

Article 4: NOTING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being shall constitute murder.

Article 5: NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

Article 6: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.

Article 7: MANDATING that if during the investigation of the murder, the government of the nation decides that the criminal has mental problems, the criminal shall be sent to a secure mental asylum with constant supervision and if possible, rehabilitation.

Article 8: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

Article 9: NOTING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.

Article 10: NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

Article 11: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone.

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution clears up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

Approvals: 123 (Adolf Barham, The Cargo-Fetishists, Quaon, Electronic Chicken, Skahro, Ecchi Unlimited, Lower Sigil, Ohrder, Immortallia, Desert Storm Iraq, Fwuffy, Belarum, Eugenameliorate, Itosi, Tsar Praetere, Gateborg, The duuude, Tarmsden, Al Kassad, Heiryaku, CAOAPO, Jaguas, Faullenzer, Pazin, Peyotes, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Drynwhyl, Caraz, Thorny Fruit Sucker, MiniCoruscant, Erith Avlantia, Dez2, Dragoon Empire III, Armenius, The Maltese Federation, Snafuna, Rahulotopia, The Maddox Clan, Daglar, Puerto Rico States, Val Rossena, Industrial Manchester, Cylea, So1idus, Darpatia, Hadristan, Ecosia, Zushika, Havl, Trious aliuos, The Derrak Quadrant, Iwishiknew, Orgasmica Land, CMMM, Sorgloss, Ultrasilvania, Ronrovia, Montyclifford, Dmaster_chief, Lygonia, Mr_steven, Imajination, Millipede Liberation, Muftwafa, OmniMega Pharma-Corp, Prasin, Parge73, Cookierawks, StarcoreZach, Square rootedness, Alfonsonia, Aakron, Regius, Nordur, Sidosermo Indah, Melawati, James_xenoland, Zanem, Scientific Government, Maxovia, Bumsenland, New Corsimenia, Ternovia, Seleucos, Landstreicher, Kimtatorship, Wak Wak, Calla Locktown, Aroughnah, JadeNewleaf, Otaku Stratus, Arendias, Ashmore, Cybernetic Superheros, Metalgolem, Attikus, Astaris, Darth Mall, Locosquid, Mappia, Quiet Strife, Meloniland, Faerie-Sprite, Ekoz, Gee Dog, States fo America, Oneechan, Butterscotchia, Kamikastan, Rivvidia, New Quahogium, Various Things, WFMHRQVJOPIA, 07LauAH, Sri Varanasi, Tykanni, Alexandrian Ptolemais, Hickling, Wermania, Hniz, Vespeterium Minor, Principality Salernum, Carcarcia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 2 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 19 2006

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

This is about to achieve quorum. The principle is sound but I can see real problems with the proposal as drafted, especially for nations without prisons.

Anyone else concerned?

Yes, very, because we are one of those nations without prisons. I've been watching this one with increasing dread as it gathered more and more endorsements.

To be honest, I can't see this one passing. I'm a fluffy leftist, but can't accept that the UN needs to interfere with a nations justice system like this, so can take an educated guess at what the more soverignist nations will think of it.

...so can take an educated guess at what the more soverignist nations will think of it.

Fuck this! That's what I think of it. Not to mention that the definition of murder is so broad that it would make war, the death penalty, and euthanasia illegal in one fell swoop.

Article 4: NOTING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being shall constitute murder.

I've already submitted a GHR, asking that it be deleted for that very reason.

It's illegal, because it contradicts Resolution #43, fortunately.

However, it may well return. It's a priority to a) TG the author and b) campaign like fuck against it if it does.

I like it, but the definition of murder is far too loose. Perhaps if we edit it a bit and repeal resolution #43 then it can be brought to the floor.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I like it, but the definition of murder is far too loose. Perhaps if we edit it a bit and repeal resolution #43 then it can be brought to the floor.
You can't be serious. Why is this any of the UN's business?

You forget I'm a radical IntFed. Everything has the potential to be the U.N.'s business.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

You forget I'm a radical IntFed. Everything has the potential to be the U.N.'s business.
That's not a reason, it's an excuse. Why is how murder is punished the UN's business? Besides, Otterby, you're a liberal - shouldn't you be foaming at the mouth about the mandatory minimums?

That's not a reason, it's an excuse. Why is how murder is punished the UN's business? Besides, Otterby, you're a liberal - shouldn't you be foaming at the mouth about the mandatory minimums?'

Reason, excuse, the two become blurred over time. Anyways, if you can legislate for the better than why avoid legislating. I know that sounds flippant, but I can't be bothered to go into a long-winded explanation of the philosophy right now. Maybe on the UNOG forums some time.

And I object to the term liberal, liberals are wimps, I'm a social-democrat. But your point about the mandatory minimums is a good one, I somewhat skim-read articles 6 and 11, but they were what I had in mind when I mentioned that editing might be in order.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

By the logic then, Otterby, maybe we can get proposals on burglary, jaywalking, and spitting in public, too.

Res #43?

*search*

Ah, Legalise Euthanasia. I wish people would use titles - I don't even know the number of the last resolution or my own resolution, let alone any of the others.

It could also potentially run afoul of Resolution #147, depending upon one's point of view.

That's the Abortion Legality Convention, Eco. ;)

Bastard.

Only three required for quorum, by the way.

Ugh...this thing so needs to be deleted...

Ugh...this thing so needs to be deleted...


Deleting it just doesn't quite cut it for me. I think this proposal ought to be banned. The sheer amount of overhauling I'd have to do to my legal and - uh - "correctional facilities" makes me want to vomit and then shoot evertone who's supporting it.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/chaingun.gif

Especially since I'd be looking at - what - a two year minimum sentence. I could deal with that. The Master might not even make me give up my UN seat.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Locked away from society? Alright....keep them in a corrections facility. There aren't very many cases where you can beat a year anyway.....an extra one on top won't be too much of a stretch......

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

Still needs its butt whooped

By the logic then, Otterby, maybe we can get proposals on burglary, jaywalking, and spitting in public, too.

And we can't because.......?

And we can't because.......?


Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich proceeds to bang his head on his desk repeatedly.

And we can't because.......?
Because private property is not a universal concept, so burglary is right out. Because not all nations even have cars, so jaywalking is too narrow for legislation. And because spitting in public is acceptable in some societies, and not in others, and there seems no clear reason to clash with the cultures of one half of those.

To expand on what Gruen was just saying slightly, we in Kivisto have just made it legal to engage in duels to the death over matters of honour, and we would see it as an affront to our honour to imply that such a noble endeavor should be viewed as criminal.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

We confidently expect that this truly unfortunate proposal will be deleted by the moderators as requested by the honorable representative of Cluichstan. It is clearly contradictory of NSUN Resolution #43. In addition, a good case could be made that it contradicts NSUN Resolutions #94, "Right to Self-Protection", and #110, "United Nations Security Act".

Besides being patently illegal, the proposal is a horrible example of an attempt to have the NSUN meddle, with no reason or justification whatsoever, in the strictly internal affairs of member nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Empire of Kirisubo will be strongly opposing this proposal if it makes it to a vote.

This is yet another prime example of NSUN micromanagement of a members justice systems.

And because spitting in public is acceptable in some societies, and not in others, and there seems no clear reason to clash with the cultures of one half of those.

Says who I would be calling for outlawing of spitting?

By the logic then, Otterby, maybe we can get proposals on burglary, jaywalking, and spitting in public, too.

Why not indeed?

Why not indeed?

Sheik Nadnerb continues to bang his head on his desk.

Because private property is not a universal concept, so burglary is right out. Because not all nations even have cars, so jaywalking is too narrow for legislation. And because spitting in public is acceptable in some societies, and not in others, and there seems no clear reason to clash with the cultures of one half of those.

I would argue that anti-burglary legislation could apply even in societies without a formal concept of private property simply because where one lives is usually considered one's home, what one is wearing typically is said to belong to that individual, and so on. I would guess that in a working communist society, people's rights to protect their place of residence, their tools for working, and the food that they planned to eat that evening.

I think we might need legislation to ban scarecrows from the Assembly chambers, however, with the jaywalking and public spitting strawmen showing up uninvited.

Ultimately, anybody can point to the extremes in UN members to decry a UN resolution as somehow deficient. For instance, Krioval is future tech. Thus, nearly all of the environmental resolutions dealing with fossil fuels are completely irrelevant to the nation's industry. But I don't see the need to dump on something that does affect 90+% of member nations in the exact way that the resolution means to do.

All of that said, I find the proposal under discussion to be far too loosely phrased to support it as is.

Originally Posted by Cluichstan
By the logic then, Otterby, maybe we can get proposals on burglary, jaywalking, and spitting in public, too.Why not indeed?

Because, my dear sir, we believe that the NSUN has far more important matters to attend to than twiddling with the legal systems of its member nations when there are no issues of international import or human rights involved. Your approach would trivialize and demean the entire concept of the United Nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Because private property is not a universal concept, so burglary is right out.

You could still legislate on it. If there is private property, it can be stolen and such theft can be outlawed. If there isn't private property, then there's nothing to be stolen so there is no such thing as theft.

Because not all nations even have cars, so jaywalking is too narrow for legislation.

Running across in front of a horse drawn carriage or a hover car probably also cause problems, so I wouldn't agree with that claim.

Your approach would trivialize and demean the entire concept of the United Nations.

The entire concept? Do tell me, Mr Minister, what the concept of the United Nations is. I am so interested to know as I've never heard of such a concept actually being stated by anyone - least of all, the Great Max Barry (all hail the almighty), who founded this body

The entire concept? Do tell me, Mr Minister, what the concept of the United Nations is. I am so interested to know as I've never heard of such a concept actually being stated by anyone - least of all, the Great Max Barry (all hail the almighty), who founded this body

The concept, we suggest, is stated in the NS FAQ section concerning the NSUN: "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest." We do not believe that wasting the time and attention of this body on petty micromanagement of the internal affairs of member nations is the way to do that.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for foreign Affairs

Bloody thing reached quorum. :headbang:

The concept, we suggest, is stated in the NS FAQ section concerning the NSUN: "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest." We do not believe that wasting the time and attention of this body on petty micromanagement of the internal affairs of member nations is the way to do that.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for foreign Affairs

Would you disagree that there are members who's vision of the world includes micromanaging every last detail to the point that lower governments are irrelevant details? How do they undermine the system or trivialize the single statement we have been given?

Originally Posted by Forgottenlands
And we can't because.......?


I think he means that, legally, these things can be legislated, whether or not its worth it, or morally correct to legislate these issues is another argument altogether.

As for this proposal...man, I really don't like this proposal. Not only is the definition of murder way to broad, but it demands minum sentances of a certain type, when, as previously stated, some nations don't have prisons etc... It also demands that murder be a crime...now, I don't like murder more than the next guy, but, this has to be somewhere in another resolution, and if not it just seems a little bit trivial to legislate. Perhaps to demand murder be a crime, and declare some sort of punishment must be made, but to decide the punishment etc is just interfering way too much.

OOC: I've been sounding very NatSov lately, which is unusual for me...

Actually, I took issue with the attitude associated with the post. It was the same attitude that sparked the "moral superiority" debate last month. I'm just sick of seeing these NatSovs who think they are superior (yes, everyone believe's their idea is better, but I think you get my point) because they "respect sovereignty". I don't care for the proposal for it shows many failings already noted, nor do I think jaywalking or spitting are issues worthy of UN attention (burglary.....I can't say one way or the other because there might be a good proposal that comes along sometime and I'll decide my opinions on it when that happens).

Would you disagree that there are members who's vision of the world includes micromanaging every last detail to the point that lower governments are irrelevant details? How do they undermine the system or trivialize the single statement we have been given?

We would not disagree at all. A quick review of the proposal list on any given day would probably provide evidence. If such proposals reach quorum, they undermine the system by diverting time and attention from truly significant matters of international substance.

We would remind the distinguished representative of Forgottenlands that the name of this world is Nation States. If the NSUN were to consign lower governments to the level of "irrelevant details", we cannot see how this would not be an undermining of what this is all about.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is a regretably flawed resolution. I like it in theory, as I do not think the minimums are unreasonable and murder should indeed be punished. Unfortunately, that loose definition of murder kills this resolution (and yes does it make it illegal imo). Wyldtree will be opposed to it.

Because, my dear sir, we believe that the NSUN has far more important matters to attend to than twiddling with the legal systems of its member nations when there are no issues of international import or human rights involved. Your approach would trivialize and demean the entire concept of the United Nations.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Not at all sir, we concern ourselves with things that are of relevance to everyone and I believe (as do clearly enough regional delegates for this to have reached quorum) that correcting perceived oversights and inadequacies in the judicial systems of our member nations is a concern to us all. It highlights our committment to enforcing the universal values agreed upon by previous resolutions as well as expressing the common sentiments of reform and progress that may be held by a majority of member nations and delegates of the U.N. I do not say that I agree with this completely, but I am willing to work on it and make the necessary adjustments for it to succeed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Not at all sir, we concern ourselves with things that are of relevance to everyone and I believe (as do clearly enough regional delegates for this to have reached quorum) that correcting perceived oversights and inadequacies in the judicial systems of our member nations is a concern to us all. It highlights our committment to enforcing the universal values agreed upon by previous resolutions as well as expressing the common sentiments of reform and progress that may be held by a majority of member nations and delegates of the U.N. I do not say that I agree with this completely, but I am willing to work on it and make the necessary adjustments for it to succeed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We must admit that we admire the elevated rhetoric of the honorable representative of Compadria, empty though it may be. What perceived oversights? What perceive inadequacies? Even the author of the proposal admits that "...this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act [sic] in all UN member nations anyway."

What universal values? Agreed upon by what previous resolutions?

The representative of Compadria obviously believes that the NSUN should legislate on every issue and any subject someone happens to stumble upon. We prefer to spend our time dealing with issues that have true international import and impact and will benefit the peoples of our nations.

By Direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for foreign Affairs

We find the concept of "we're wasting time on this issue" to be a ludicrous concept. Considering the UN sees periods of die down and many proposals fail to reach quarom, the concept of "wasting time" is nothing short of a cheap attack at the areas which others feel are important and are worthy of attention. We have the time to address these issues, and if someone feels that such issues are worthy of consideration, we should at the very least consider the issue. We may conclude that the issue is too complex or best suited for a different level of government, but that doesn't mean we have wasted our time. It is a matter of simple respect to at least consider the issue, even if we disagree with it being here.

Fuck this! That's what I think of it. Not to mention that the definition of murder is so broad that it would make war, the death penalty, and euthanasia illegal in one fell swoop.

I've already submitted a GHR, asking that it be deleted for that very reason.
Your request has been reviewed by several mods, all of whom are familiar with UN processes and history. It is our consensus that the illegality is too subtle for us to unilaterally enforce. It's up to the UN opposition to convince the electorate of the flaws in the proposal.

Better get out your telegraph senders, folks.

Your request has been reviewed by several mods, all of whom are familiar with UN processes and history. It is our consensus that the illegality is too subtle for us to unilaterally enforce. It's up to the UN opposition to convince the electorate of the flaws in the proposal.

Better get out your telegraph senders, folks.
It directly contradicts another resolution.

"Article 4: NOTING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being shall constitute murder."

Resolution #43, "Legalise Euthanasia": "Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact."

Furthermore, it prohibits war, which surely classifies as "bloody stupid".

If those are deemed not serious infringements, then does Article 5 - "NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place" not render the proposal completely optional (which is illegal)?

Well, as I said on DEFCON: how in hell do we campaign against a ban on murder? I think it'll be too hard if it makes the floor, so we'll have to bomb the endorsers to get them to change their votes. Anyone up for some TGing? If not, I'll do them now.

Not at all sir, we concern ourselves with things that are of relevance to everyone and I believe (as do clearly enough regional delegates for this to have reached quorum) that correcting perceived oversights and inadequacies in the judicial systems of our member nations is a concern to us all. It highlights our committment to enforcing the universal values agreed upon by previous resolutions as well as expressing the common sentiments of reform and progress that may be held by a majority of member nations and delegates of the U.N. I do not say that I agree with this completely, but I am willing to work on it and make the necessary adjustments for it to succeed.

You know you are a day early. 0420 isn't until tomorrow. :eek:

And frankly I have a one sided concern which I will freely admit. I believe that the innocent should be free. Whether the guilty are imprisoned (assuming that the crimes are not against humanity or international in nature) is a matter for local governments, not the UN. Let individual nations define murder, tax fraud, grand larcony, and so forth. Let individual nations decide on the proper punishment. This issue is of no concern to the UN.

Moreover, as previously stated, this issue is far too broad in its definition of murder and (which has not been mentioned) manslaughter.

NOTING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being shall constitute murder.
NOTING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.

We have already highlighted the murder, (which ironically also covers the death penalty every lawful executioner gets a mandatory 2 year sentence for carrying out the will of the people), but consider the problems of manslaughter. A man is driving down the road when suddenly his brakes fail. The man, although technically innocent of any crime, is now sentenced to six months isoloation and treated like a loon.

A police officer who tries to apprehend a person and instead of wounding a dangerous man kills that man is therefore locked away from friends and family for six months for doing his duty.

Frankly I don't care if this resolution with its inept and insane definitions was approved by every deligate, this resolution is so blatently illegal and stupid that I will fight this with every fiber of my being. I will have the dedication of Winston Churchil if necessary. For the good of the UN this resolution must never come to pass!

As for those who have approved this, I suggest the following. When you approve resolutions as blatently illegal as this God kills one of your brain cells. THINK OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A FEW LEFT!

Tzorsland: are you up for some TGing?

Tzorsland: are you up for some TGing?

I am.

Furthermore, it prohibits war, which surely classifies as "bloody stupid".Not necessarily. To call the impersonal killing in a war "premeditated killing" is something of a stretch. Furthermore, war is a side-effect of failed diplomacy, thus the actions of the soldiers are an extension of the wishes of the government.

If those are deemed not serious infringements, then does Article 5 - "NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place" not render the proposal completely optional (which is illegal)?Again, not necessarily. That article essentially states that nations still get to have courts. The Proposal defines murder and mandates punishment, but doesn't mandate how a person is convicted of murder.

Well, as I said on DEFCON: how in hell do we campaign against a ban on murder?I think that I just pointed out a massive loophole that renders this entire Proposal toothless. You can also drum up massive NatSov support. I mean, you managed to Repeal "Gay Rights". This should be a cake-walk.

Don't get me wrong, I think this Proposal represents the worst of NSUN excesses, much like that horrid Solar Panals... abomination. As a player, my puppet will vote against it, but if that damnable Hippos Proposal could be deemed legal...

I've received a TG from Adolf Barham:

Hello,

I have read your forum regarding my proposal "Murder and Manslaughter Laws", but am unable to write new posts for some unknown reason.

Therefore, I telegrammed my defence to Cluichstani and asked him to post it in the thread. However, he has not done so yet, so I feel the need to telegram everyone who has been annoyed by my proposal in that thread with my defence before you make rash decisions such as telegramming delegates telling them how bad my proposal is, so here goes:

I have stated that 'the intentional premeditated killing of a human being constitutes murder.' This is in fact one official definition for murder. The official definition of Euthanasia is the intentional premeditated killing of a human being FOR THE BEST INTEREST of the person dying. Therefore, my proposal is clearly not illegal because my definition of murder does not involve euthanasia meaning that UN resolution #43 could still stand with my proposal. The same can be said about abortion (NSUN resolution #147) as it is only done for the best interest of the person.

I have briefly looked, but I don't think that there was another UN resolution making murder illegal, which why I made the proposal in the first place. Please correct me if you can find one.

People seem to be talking about prisons a lot and that some nations don't have them. I don't remember mentioning prisons at all in my proposal. I said 'locked away from society'. Thereofre, I am sure that every nation has a building with a lock somewhere in their country.

As for the minimum punishments set, I feel that they are very reasonable minimums. I think it would be a disgrace if anyone committing murder got away with any less than 2 years locked away from society. Just 6 months for manslaughter with psychiatric help to get over their crime is very reasonable too. (No-one has actually complained about the manslaughter part to my proposal though, so I won't talk about that too much.)

As for making the death penalty illegal, well yes, that was part of the plan as well because the death penalty is actually classed as murder.

Best Regards

Adolf Barham

Her Holiness Aristhia is prepared to withdraw her territory of Aringull from the United Nations should this proposal pass. She also doubts that any of the other Great Nobles of Darsomir will accept such interference in our laws. As such, Darsomir is prepared to withdraw from the UN should this pass.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia.

We must admit that we admire the elevated rhetoric of the honorable representative of Compadria, empty though it may be. What perceived oversights? What perceive inadequacies? Even the author of the proposal admits that "...this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act [sic] in all UN member nations anyway."

Well such inadequacies as are decided that exist by a sufficient number of members of the U.N.

The representative of Compadria obviously believes that the NSUN should legislate on every issue and any subject someone happens to stumble upon. We prefer to spend our time dealing with issues that have true international import and impact and will benefit the peoples of our nations.

I'm not suggesting we legislate on irrelevancies, but we should define an irrelevance by common consent and here enough people evidently viewed the topic of the resolution as pressing enough to warrant a full debate. I'm not passing judgment on the proposals we discuss, just that they have a right to be discussed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Your request has been reviewed by several mods, all of whom are familiar with UN processes and history. It is our consensus that the illegality is too subtle for us to unilaterally enforce. It's up to the UN opposition to convince the electorate of the flaws in the proposal.

Better get out your telegraph senders, folks.

With all due respect, Fris...subtle? As Gruenberg pointed out, it directly contradicts an existing resolution: #43, which legalised euthanasia. The definition of murder in this proposal would make euthanasia illegal. I don't get how that's subtle.

I agree with Cluichistan, the murder definition is way too broad.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Tzorsland: are you up for some TGing?

Normally my life can get chaotic at times. I am currently working on a very simplified argument suitable for telegrams, and should hopefully have that by the weekend. The murder definition is too broad and doesn't cover the term malice aforethought which many RL nations used to define categories of murder. Manslaughter, on the other hand is completely wrong.

Here is a portion of my telegram reply to Adolf Barhan.
However I disagree with your assertion. The definition of murder for the purpose of the resolution encompasses the definition for euthanasia because while the definition for euthanasia is constrained the definition for murder is not.

The definition for murder requires more conditions than simple premeditation, for the reasons I’ve just cited. Various sources can provide a model for a more reasonable approach, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder, and http://www.answers.com/topic/murder

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the common law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that the killer felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or recklessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). California also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

Manslaughter, on the other hand is completely inaccurate as written in the resolution. http://www.answers.com/topic/manslaughter?method=22 defines it as “The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.” Manslaughter is further voluntary or involuntary, and the latter is further divided into criminal-negligence and unlawful act.

The more I look into this the more the manslaughter definitions concern me. There is no standard for mrder in the real life UN; there isn't really a common standard for murder in the US. The thought of getting this as a NS resolution, given the massive restrictions on the nature of NS UN resolutions is exceptionally annoying.

(Although trying to sneak a death penalty ban on the UN is, I have to admit, priceless.)

Well, this is going to make war interesting...

Well, this is going to make war interesting...


And euthanasia, the death penalty, abortions, accidents during medical procedures, feeding your child without the utmost care (they could choke), as well as any number of other things.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Another TG from the author (who's having problems trying to post on Jolt - good ol' Jolt, impeccable timing as always):

Hello,

Thankyou very much for being the first person to actually help me out by posting my telegram in the thread about my proposal. If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to trust you again in forwarding this telegram to the thread.

I have seen that Tzorsland was the first person to moan about the manslaughter part to my proposal. He stated two scenarios where he feels that my punishments are harsh. These were the two scenarios:

1. A man is driving down the road when suddenly his brakes fail. The man, although technically innocent of any crime, is now sentenced to six months isoloation and treated like a loon.

2. A police officer who tries to apprehend a person and instead of wounding a dangerous man kills that man is therefore locked away from friends and family for six months for doing his duty.

Here's my defence:

1. Firstly, the idea of giving the person who committed manslaughter psychological help was not because we are treating them like a loon. It is to help them get over their accident of killing a person because we understand that they didn't mean to do it. The person who's brakes failed should be shocked at what they have done, so would need psychological help for them to emotionally get over their crime. A person in this state who accidentally killed a person would probably need 6 months locked away from society anyway. They would obviously still be allowed to see their family.

2. The police officer clearly did not carry out his duty well enough. He should be able to ensure that he doesn't kill criminals. Therefore, because he has accidentally ended a person's life early, he deserves 6 months locked away from society and obviously with psychological help to get over his crime.

OOC: I got the same TG.

I have stated that 'the intentional premeditated killing of a human being constitutes murder.' This is in fact one official definition for murder. The official definition of Euthanasia is the intentional premeditated killing of a human being FOR THE BEST INTEREST of the person dying. Therefore, my proposal is clearly not illegal because my definition of murder does not involve euthanasia meaning that UN resolution #43 could still stand with my proposal.
Could the mods perhaps review this section? Here, a definition of euthanasia which does NOT exist in UN law is used. THe definition in #43 is:

Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact.

This is a ban on euthanasia. Euthanasia is intentional and premeditated, and is killing. It is a contradiction.

Not necessarily. To call the impersonal killing in a war "premeditated killing" is something of a stretch. Furthermore, war is a side-effect of failed diplomacy, thus the actions of the soldiers are an extension of the wishes of the government.
A battle involves intentional, premeditated killing. Furthermore, the military planning of this, as protected by Article 4 of Rights & Duties, would then fall under

b. Conspiracy to commit murder
c. Attempt to commit murder
d. Complicity in murder
I think you're probably right that a soldier pointing his gun at an enemy would not be murder. However, I do think that an air strike clearly would: it is premeditated, it is intentional, it is killing.

IC: The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg will obviously be withdrawing from the UN in the unfortunate event of this being ruled legal and passing, but however will lobby for its repeal using its protectorate in Texas.

I am officially amused... :D

Outlawing the death penalty and war in one swift stroke...brilliant! I bow to the new master of proposal-writing.

If it didn't violate my principles quite so badly, I might vote for it just because of that.

As it is, I'll help draft the repeal should it become necessary.

While I still take issue with the form of response that has been shown by various NatSovs, this is not resolution material. Since the author is reading....let him see this

Murder and Manslaughter Laws

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Adolf Barham



Any resolution that pushes a strong strength I always cringe. You are probably right, in this case, for setting the strength to strong. Alas, let us begin.

Description: Article 1: UNDERSTANDING that this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act in all UN member nations anyway.

The concept of outlawing death might be an obvious issue, but the reasons to not outlaw death might also exist - just not be as obvious to some. On the same note, your comments about the death penalty are far from an obvious decision as the death penalty is held as precious by so many. Further, there are reasonable arguments for the death penalty, justified homicide, assisted suicide and (depending on your view of the fetus) abortion. When one considers all that, this law is far from obvious - just an obvious possible solution.

Add on that this is a preamble statement, not an article.

Article 2: HOWEVER ENSURING that no nation can slip out of this law, by making it a UN resolution.

Why? Why should nations be required to outlaw murder? What reason is there to believe that death is so simplistic that all nations would automatically be opposed to it? Nowhere in your entire proposal do you justify the outlawing of murder. You just outlaw it. Again, you show that you have spent way too much time thinking "obviously, this is true" but not stopping to think of "could people disagree?"

Article 3: NOTING ,so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

Noting? Where was that defined? Which resolution decided these acts where unlawful? I think you're looking for "DECLARING"

a. Murder

Obviously

b. Conspiracy to commit murder

So every single government that has ever considered war. Every single government that's ever hired an assassin. Every single individual within those respective governments. Hell, we could probably expand that enough to everyone that voted for those governments.

c. Attempt to commit murder

Obviously

d. Complicity in murder

I cringe on that one. I've never actually been able to settle with myself about the guilt of one who's complicit in murder

Article 4: NOTING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being shall constitute murder.

What I think it hilarious is that this resolution outlaws first-degree murder (including justified and state sponsored) AND manslaughter, but it doesn't even touch second-degree murder (intentional non-premeditated).

I've already listed all the areas that this outlaws and should be permitted

Article 5: NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

Good. Honestly, this and 10 are the two best in this entire resolution.

Article 6: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.

I hate this. Psychological reconditioning is far from an exact science. There are people who could be changed in a matter of months, there are people that will take YEARS to change. Minimum punishment for them seems ridiculous. My nation sends them through the rounds of the psychological system and occasionally, they will have first-degree murderers that are reconditioned in a few months. We now have to hold them for an additional 16 months because you think a minimum sentence needs to be applied? Wow, we just ruined all the reconditioning we've done for they now have frustration with the system and feelings of betrayal to the psychiatrists.

Article 7: MANDATING that if during the investigation of the murder, the government of the nation decides that the criminal has mental problems, the criminal shall be sent to a secure mental asylum with constant supervision and if possible, rehabilitation.

I dislike the wording of this. If you decide to redraft, TG me 'cause I've got a few things I'd like fixed about this.

Article 8: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

See - mandating - you're declaring something rather than noting. You're acknowledging that this hasn't yet become fact within the NSUN and you'd like to make it fact

Article 9: NOTING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.

And here you screw it up again. Manslaughter was never defined by the NSUN so how can it be noting? Should be "DEFINING"

Article 10: NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

Like I said before.

Article 11: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone.

This is my LEAST favorite part of the entire resolution. You are deciding that the death of a human being is so abhorent that a mistake that results in a human being dieing is worth jail time/whatever. There are other, much more suitable punishments for such a crime, and mandating a minimum for it is absolutely ridiculous. I like the psychiatric help, but the minimum is driving me nuts.

Absolutely ridiculous!

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution clears up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

Um......no. First of all, it's believing or hoping since you're stating an opinion, not a fact. This clears up very little and it changes a lot of definitions

Approvals: 123 (Adolf Barham, The Cargo-Fetishists, Quaon, Electronic Chicken, Skahro, Ecchi Unlimited, Lower Sigil, Ohrder, Immortallia, Desert Storm Iraq, Fwuffy, Belarum, Eugenameliorate, Itosi, Tsar Praetere, Gateborg, The duuude, Tarmsden, Al Kassad, Heiryaku, CAOAPO, Jaguas, Faullenzer, Pazin, Peyotes, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Drynwhyl, Caraz, Thorny Fruit Sucker, MiniCoruscant, Erith Avlantia, Dez2, Dragoon Empire III, Armenius, The Maltese Federation, Snafuna, Rahulotopia, The Maddox Clan, Daglar, Puerto Rico States, Val Rossena, Industrial Manchester, Cylea, So1idus, Darpatia, Hadristan, Ecosia, Zushika, Havl, Trious aliuos, The Derrak Quadrant, Iwishiknew, Orgasmica Land, CMMM, Sorgloss, Ultrasilvania, Ronrovia, Montyclifford, Dmaster_chief, Lygonia, Mr_steven, Imajination, Millipede Liberation, Muftwafa, OmniMega Pharma-Corp, Prasin, Parge73, Cookierawks, StarcoreZach, Square rootedness, Alfonsonia, Aakron, Regius, Nordur, Sidosermo Indah, Melawati, James_xenoland, Zanem, Scientific Government, Maxovia, Bumsenland, New Corsimenia, Ternovia, Seleucos, Landstreicher, Kimtatorship, Wak Wak, Calla Locktown, Aroughnah, JadeNewleaf, Otaku Stratus, Arendias, Ashmore, Cybernetic Superheros, Metalgolem, Attikus, Astaris, Darth Mall, Locosquid, Mappia, Quiet Strife, Meloniland, Faerie-Sprite, Ekoz, Gee Dog, States fo America, Oneechan, Butterscotchia, Kamikastan, Rivvidia, New Quahogium, Various Things, WFMHRQVJOPIA, 07LauAH, Sri Varanasi, Tykanni, Alexandrian Ptolemais, Hickling, Wermania, Hniz, Vespeterium Minor, Principality Salernum, Carcarcia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 2 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 19 2006

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

Save the list, redraft, start again.

We too received the telegram from the honorable representative of Adolf Barham. We must say we applaud his energetic efforts to defend his proposal. Unfortunately, in attempting to defend the legality of the proposal, he makes a good case that it is, in fact, illegal and should be deleted.

I have stated that 'the intentional premeditated killing of a human being constitutes murder.' This is in fact one official definition for murder. The official definition of Euthanasia is the intentional premeditated killing of a human being FOR THE BEST INTEREST of the person dying. Therefore, my proposal is clearly not illegal because my definition of murder does not involve euthanasia meaning that UN resolution #43 could still stand with my proposal. The same can be said about abortion (NSUN resolution #147) as it is only done for the best interest of the person.

He defends the legality of the proposal on the grounds that euthanasia is in the best interest of the person and therefore, somehow, exempt from the proposal's definition. That is simply not the case at all. The proposal makes no mention of motive. It simply states that "intentional premeditated killing" is murder. Since, in the author's own words, euthanasia is "intentional premeditated killing", the proposal would outlaw euthanasia and is in direct contradiction of NSUN Resolution #43.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: Unfortunately, intent matters little, as I'm sure the mods will inform us.

Who'd have thought that there could be a resolution that would force resignations from both Gruenberg and Ecopoeia? That's a hell of an achievement.

OOC: Unfortunately, intent matters little, as I'm sure the mods will inform us.

Who'd have thought that there could be a resolution that would force resignations from both Gruenberg and Ecopoeia? That's a hell of an achievement.

That it is. I'm sending the author of this a bottle of the finest HotRodia Tequila in honor of his acheivement.

Now that he's been rewarded for his efforts, who wants to invade him before war becomes illegal? :D

Edit: Too subtly illegal to unilaterally enforce, but what about a multilateral coalition destroying the nation? ;)

Also, what about category violation? This espouses no basic rights - all it deals with is punishment. Should be Moral Decency.

Also, what about category violation? This espouses no basic rights - all it deals with is punishment. Should be Moral Decency.

Dammit Gruen, how are we going to invade if you find a good reason to rule it illegal? :cool:

But seriously, this is good. It's a straightforward rules violation. No subtlety required.

When I first wrote the proposal, I did not think about war. I did not realise that it actually outlawed war. However, if you're right and it does outlaw war, I don't see much wrong with that. You could say that it is a first step towards the cliche 'World peace'.

Best Regards

Adolf Barham
We have no response to this.

When I first wrote the proposal, I did not think about war. I did not realise that it actually outlawed war. However, if you're right and it does outlaw war, I don't see much wrong with that. You could say that it is a first step towards the cliche 'World peace'.

Best Regards

Adolf Barham

Must...resist.....urge to post a stupid-oriented UN card...

We have no response to this.

Perhaps you could inform Adolf that the UN is not the entire NS world...only about 1/3 in fact. To outlaw war only for UN nations completely prevents the ability to defend our borders.

Also, the category violation is apparent, and, hopefully, is enough to warrant deletion.

That is exactly what I did tell him - that it would in fact detract from world peace efforts, because UN nations would be unable to defend themselves.

Gruen....you sound like you're close to tears here or something.....

Gruen....you sound like you're close to tears here or something.....
No - I actually find this quite funny, in that just as you begin to build up a bit of respect for the UN, wham, three decent proposals fail and this one makes quorum

No - I actually find this quite funny, in that just as you begin to build up a bit of respect for the UN, wham, three decent proposals fail and this one makes quorum
Decent proposals/repeals failing shouldn't be regarded as an indictment of the UN, assuming you intend 'decent' to mean 'well-crafted'. Eco only supported one of them (and even then only grudgingly). Indeed, of the five queued, Eco will only definitely vote for one. I maintain that the last three failed because of differences in opinion, not ignorance or stupidity.

2 delegates have removed their approvals, so it's down from 137 to 135.

Update: 6, so it's down to 131.

Must...resist.....urge to post a stupid-oriented UN card...



World peace? Um...yeah...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tatu.jpg

When I first wrote the proposal, I did not think about war. I did not realise that it actually outlawed war. However, if you're right and it does outlaw war, I don't see much wrong with that. You could say that it is a first step towards the cliche 'World peace'.

Best Regards

Adolf Barham

Wow... just wow.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

While I still have a chance! :p

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/army.jpg

Yeah, well, a lot of good it'll do me if this bloody thing passes... :mad:

I maintain that the last three failed because of differences in opinion, not ignorance or stupidity.

I wouldn't say that.

(glances misty-eyed towards moth-balled Auto Free Trade Agreement)

It's dropped 7 approvals, which is promising. It'll need to lose at least another 10, though, which is unlikely. Even then, we don't know if it'll automatically be deleted.

Update: lost another but gained another, so still 130 approvals.

Now that he's been rewarded for his efforts, who wants to invade him before war becomes illegal? :D

We can invade him if it gets passed, after we've left the UN, so that our troops will be able to use deadly force but his troops [legally] won't... ;)

We can invade him if it gets passed, after we've left the UN, so that our troops will be able to use deadly force but his troops [legally] won't... ;)

Good point. Either way this goes, invasion party at Adolf's place! :D

Watch out for those rubber bullets and tazers while bombing them ;)

It's dropped 7 approvals, which is promising. It'll need to lose at least another 10, though, which is unlikely. Even then, we don't know if it'll automatically be deleted.

Update: lost another but gained another, so still 130 approvals.

Latest update: 125, you're doing something right Gruen.

P.S. Do you need a hand at all?

Latest update: 125, you're doing something right Gruen.

P.S. Do you need a hand at all?
No, I've TGed all but Ferristoya (who approved after I finished TGing, and lost the original TG text).

It will be interesting to see what happens if it loses one more.

You know there is a way to completely devistate a nation without using a single troop of being accused of murder. (Besides placing the nation on the world heritage list I mean.)

(Is this microphone on?) Ladies and gentlemen. I have an important WORLD ANNOUNCEMENT. Elvis has been sighted somewhere in the nationstate of Adolf Barham. Thank you very much.

It's a shame he can't use land mines to stop the invasion. :rolleyes:

Wena dammit; 2 new approvals.

Wena dammit; 2 new approvals.

You didn't try DSI did you? He's the new WZ Forums of our times. :p

You didn't try DSI did you? He's the new WZ Forums of our times. :p
I left him out originally, but then went back anyway and TGed him.

The author has now indicated he will send in a GHR to have it removed. He does, however, want to work on a replacement. He can't post on Jolt, but is aware of this thread. Could people post any suggestions they have?

While he's at it, submit a GHR about his troubles posting on the forums so the mods can try fixing that issue.

I've already TGed some suggestions to the author on a revised resolution. Mostly added exemptions to the definition of murder for the purpose of the resolution (euthanasia, death penalty, war). I do appreciate him being willing to remove this resolution in light of the problems and work out the bugs. Good show.

Well that's it then.

*cancels Invasion party*

*sends more tequila*

:D

He is going to apply for deletion; in any case, it's now down to 124 approvals. If it stays that way, it may expire next update. Thanks to all those delegates who removed their approvals.

Here's his redraft:

HOPING that this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act in all UN member nations anyway.

HOWEVER ENSURING that no nation can slip out of this law, by making it a UN resolution.

Article 1: DEFINING, so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

a. Murder
b. Conspiracy to commit murder
c. Attempt to commit murder
d. Complicity in murder

Article 2: DECLARING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being, against the victim’s will, shall constitute murder.

Article 3: STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

Article 4: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.

Article 5: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

Article 6: DECLARING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.

Article 7: UNDERSTANDING that there are two main types of manslaughter: Manslaughter with intent to harm and manslaughter with no intent to harm the victim.

Article 8: STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place and if there was intent to hurt or not. This will depend on their justice system.

Article 9: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter with intent to harm shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone, even if they did want to harm them.

Article 10: MANDATING that there will be no punishment for what the government has deemed to be manslaughter with no intent to harm. However, they must be allowed to see a psychologist to get over what they have done.

Article 11: STATING that the following are exceptions to the laws made about murder:

a. Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
b. The death penalty shall not constitute murder
c. Any killings during a war shall not constitute murder

Article 12: STATING that the following is an exception to the laws made about manslaughter with intent to harm:

a. A policeman would get no punishments if he is trying to arrest a person, but accidentally kills them.

Article 13: STATING that the following is an exception to the laws made about manslaughter with no intent to harm:

a. If the criminal was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed manslaughter, I.e. drink-driving, then they will face the same punishment as those who committed manslaughter with intent to harm.


UNDERSTANDING that this resolution clears up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

If the current porposal is removed and replaced with this redraft, I will support it. Clears up the issues I had with th first draft. Well done.

I still don't like this and won't support it because the punishments are still in there. All he needs to do is define the crimes, make them illegal, and urge/mandate nations use a punishment that fits the crime, then leave it up to the nation to decide what punishments to hand down based on their judicial system.

I still don't like this and won't support it because the punishments are still in there. All he needs to do is define the crimes, make them illegal, and urge/mandate nations use a punishment that fits the crime, then leave it up to the nation to decide what punishments to hand down based on their judicial system.


We are in agreement for once.:) However I don't even like an international body even defining the definition of a crime. I'm taking a hard NatSov line on it for now. I'll decide how to vote, once I see the new resolution.

Alright. I'm going to play devil's advocate to many parts here, in the hopes that any issues might get cleared up before it gets resubmitted.

HOPING that this proposal is an obvious law and is hopefully one that is in act in all UN member nations anyway.

HOWEVER ENSURING that no nation can slip out of this law, by making it a UN resolution.

Article 1: DEFINING, so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

a. Murder
b. Conspiracy to commit murder
c. Attempt to commit murder
d. Complicity in murder

Alright. No problems. The preamble wasn't the issue though.

Article 2: DECLARING that the intentional premeditated killing of another human being, against the victim’s will, shall constitute murder.

What if the victim is not in their right mind, or has no will to speak of. Perhaps as a result of intoxication (drug or alcohol)?

Article 3: STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.

This I have no issues with at this time.

Article 4: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.

As this is simply a minimum requirement, there shouldn't be an issue here. As long as no maximum penalties are mandates.

Article 5: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

Article 6: DECLARING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.

Alright. We can run with this for a bit.

Article 7: UNDERSTANDING that there are two main types of manslaughter: Manslaughter with intent to harm and manslaughter with no intent to harm the victim.

It is good to see the distinction made here. Problem I see is that this doesn't cover crimes of passion where there is no proper forethought, simply the instictual desire to kill something.

Article 8: STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place and if there was intent to hurt or not. This will depend on their justice system.

Article 9: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter with intent to harm shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone, even if they did want to harm them.

My only issue here will not be shared by too many. We in Kivisto have very strict punishments set in place for any form of unsanctioned killing. eg - if you drive drunk and run someone over and kill them, you could potentially face the death penalty. As a result of that sentence being handed down, you would be unlikely to spend much time with a psychologist to help you get over your crime. I suppose it wouldn't interfere with our legal process to allow it, but it almost seems like cruel and unusual punishment to help them get over it just to chair them.

Article 10: MANDATING that there will be no punishment for what the government has deemed to be manslaughter with no intent to harm. However, they must be allowed to see a psychologist to get over what they have done.

Here I have a definite problem. Even without the intent to harm, if one is reckless enough to result in the demise of another human being, there should be consequences.

Article 11: STATING that the following are exceptions to the laws made about murder:

a. Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
b. The death penalty shall not constitute murder
c. Any killings during a war shall not constitute murder

11c. this should perhaps be narrowed a bit to encapsulate military personnel involved in the conflict in question. Otherwise you risk abuse where civilians killing each other during a time of war get away with it because the killing took place during a time of war. Your intent is clear, but the wording is foggy.

Article 12: STATING that the following is an exception to the laws made about manslaughter with intent to harm:

a. A policeman would get no punishments if he is trying to arrest a person, but accidentally kills them.

Once again, this needs tightening. While it would be nice to believe that all police officers are above reproach, unfortunately this is just not true. With the phrasing of 12a a police officer would be able to, quite literally, get away with murder as long as he can demonstrate that he/she was going to arrest the person and sound convincing that it was an accident.

Article 13: STATING that the following is an exception to the laws made about manslaughter with no intent to harm:

a. If the criminal was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed manslaughter, I.e. drink-driving, then they will face the same punishment as those who committed manslaughter with intent to harm.

Good distinction to make.

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution clears up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

Not all of them, but you're on the right path.

There are still some issues with whether or not this is something worthy of UN attention, but we'll get to that later.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

[Yet another shameless plug]

If the author is reading this but cannot post, maybe he would consider drafting this to a higher standard in another forum, like Reclamation. *points at sig for link* Not that I am likely to support this, but at least the loopholes could be closed and we could move on to debating the intended effects.

[/Yet another shameless plug]

I still don't like this and won't support it because the punishments are still in there. All he needs to do is define the crimes, make them illegal, and urge/mandate nations use a punishment that fits the crime, then leave it up to the nation to decide what punishments to hand down based on their judicial system.
Removing the minimums would make it utterly toothless and a waste of space in this delegate's opinion. The idea behind this resolution, as I understand it, is to make sure murder is a punished crime. Eliminating the minimums could easily make it so a slap on the wrist is all murderers get. I don't think the minimums are harsh and I'm generally NatSov on issues of domestic crime, but this is simply trying to secure the most basic human right of all (life). Defining murder through the UN with simply an urging for punishment is not enough. With the murder definition cleared up I am strongly in favor of this proposal.

I probably will not get a chance to respond to this draft until the weekend.

The Democratic States of Adolf Barham
Received: 102 minutes ago

Hello,

Due to popular demand, I would like you to remove my proposal "Murder and manslaughter Laws" from the proposal list. I have come to realise that even I disagree with it. Also, as I am unable to use the forums, in the thread regarding my proposal, could you tell them that I asked you to delete it otherwise they will gloat a lot. I would be very thankful if you could do this.

Best Regards

Adolf Barham
Per author's request, removed. (and the bit about forum access is correct. He's one of the unfortunatant few that Jolt will have to fix.)

Looks like the Unapprove campaign was also working, though I'm not sure what would have happened to a proposal that dropped quorum past its expiration date. I don't think it's ever been tested

Approvals: 124 (Adolf Barham, The Cargo-Fetishists, Electronic Chicken, Skahro, Ecchi Unlimited, Lower Sigil, Ohrder, Immortallia, Desert Storm Iraq, Belarum, Eugenameliorate, Itosi, The duuude, Tarmsden, Heiryaku, CAOAPO, Faullenzer, Pazin, Peyotes, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Drynwhyl, Caraz, Thorny Fruit Sucker, MiniCoruscant, Erith Avlantia, Dez2, Dragoon Empire III, Armenius, The Maltese Federation, Snafuna, The Maddox Clan, Daglar, Industrial Manchester, Cylea, So1idus, Darpatia, Hadristan, Ecosia, Havl, Trious aliuos, The Derrak Quadrant, Iwishiknew, Orgasmica Land, CMMM, Sorgloss, Ronrovia, Montyclifford, Dmaster_chief, Lygonia, Millipede Liberation, OmniMega Pharma-Corp, Prasin, Cookierawks, StarcoreZach, Square rootedness, Alfonsonia, Regius, Nordur, Sidosermo Indah, Melawati, James_xenoland, Zanem, Maxovia, Bumsenland, New Corsimenia, Ternovia, Seleucos, Landstreicher, Kimtatorship, Wak Wak, Calla Locktown, Aroughnah, JadeNewleaf, Otaku Stratus, Arendias, Ashmore, Cybernetic Superheros, Metalgolem, Attikus, Darth Mall, Locosquid, Mappia, Quiet Strife, Meloniland, Faerie-Sprite, Ekoz, Gee Dog, States fo America, Oneechan, Butterscotchia, Kamikastan, New Quahogium, Various Things, 07LauAH, Sri Varanasi, Alexandrian Ptolemais, Hickling, Wermania, Vespeterium Minor, Principality Salernum, Carcarcia, Vampire Piggies, Marjatta, Air-Strip-One, Gangster cheesewheels, Mutated elephants, New Daleland, Ladolia, Trajasistan, Bigbadmadmanistan, Kraots God of War, Athens and Midlands, Grinchland, True Brujah, Boggod, Maegeri, Face Invaders, Ferristoya, Laptevia, Evil McDonalds, Stevie Wevie, Wealthy common9128, Rhursbourg, Seireitei)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 1 more approval)
Voting Ends: Wed Apr 19 2006

When it went down to 124, it said it would expire on Wednesday. I assume the system would have recognised this, and deleted it at the major update. Anyway, thanks to Adolf Barham for seeing sense.

Removing the minimums would make it utterly toothless and a waste of space in this delegate's opinion. The idea behind this resolution, as I understand it, is to make sure murder is a punished crime. Eliminating the minimums could easily make it so a slap on the wrist is all murderers get. I don't think the minimums are harsh and I'm generally NatSov on issues of domestic crime, but this is simply trying to secure the most basic human right of all (life). Defining murder through the UN with simply an urging for punishment is not enough. With the murder definition cleared up I am strongly in favor of this proposal.

True, but how my nation punishes murder is no-one's business but our own. It doesn't impact on other nations in any way whatsoever, nor does how your nation punishes criminals have any impact on us. This doesn't secure any right to life because it doesn't address any causes of these crimes, so act to prevent them happening. All it does is close the gate after the horse has bolted, and grossly interfere in our justice systems while it does it.

I don't want my nation to be forced to use a punishment we consider barbaric, like locking criminals up. We have other metholds, and judging from our crime rate those metholds work very well for us. Why should we be forced into a UN mandated "fix" of our system, when it is working fine for us. Why should any other nation?

True, but how my nation punishes murder is no-one's business but our own.
I agree.

True, but how my nation punishes murder is no-one's business but our own. It doesn't impact on other nations in any way whatsoever, nor does how your nation punishes criminals have any impact on us. This doesn't secure any right to life because it doesn't address any causes of these crimes, so act to prevent them happening.
Deterent through punishment. How would you suggest addressing causes of murder then? I think the actual mechanics of law are of little importance to the UN but such fundamental basics as 'murder bad. punish murder' I do think are and should be within it's scope.

OOC: As far as game stats on crime go... that has little to nothing to do with arguing it in RP.

Well, I don't RP. Never have, so I do use the game stats because I haven't made up a fancy background for my nations.

Well, I don't RP. Never have, so I do use the game stats because I haven't made up a fancy background for my nations.
OOC: Fair enough ;) I don't consider the NS stats to be all that important though. The population stats in particular have been brought up frequently as a wee bit unrealistic. I consider the crime stats to be as well.

Totally agree with you about the population stats, and don't use them in any arguement. They are more for personal pride, ie having an old nation, than anything else.

The crime stats I do think are relevant though because they have to be worked on. It took a lot of hard work answering the right issues the right way to get mine where they are. Waterana had a moderate or high (can't remember) rate when I first made it because it has no prisons.

I'm not totally against this proposal, the only sticking point for me is the minimum sentences. If they go, my attitude towards this could well take a rapid U-turn.

Totally agree with you about the population stats, and don't use them in any arguement. They are more for personal pride, ie having an old nation, than anything else.

The crime stats I do think are relevant though because they have to be worked on. It took a lot of hard work answering the right issues the right way to get mine where they are. Waterana had a moderate or high (can't remember) rate when I first made it because it has no prisons.

I'm not totally against this proposal, the only sticking point for me is the minimum sentences. If they go, my attitude towards this could well take a rapid U-turn.
OOC: Indeed. Crime stats do need to be worked on. I think they're rather on the idealistic side though. (give enough welfare and education and everything is peace, love, and happiness it seems).

[Yet another shameless plug]

If the author is reading this but cannot post, maybe he would consider drafting this to a higher standard in another forum, like Reclamation. *points at sig for link* Not that I am likely to support this, but at least the loopholes could be closed and we could move on to debating the intended effects.

[/Yet another shameless plug]

We'd like to second the suggestion of the distinguished representative of Fonzoland. We think Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx) would be a good place for the author to work on a redraft. We don't think he'll find much support for the proposal, but our members are usually willing to help smoothe out rough spots anyway.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Per author's request, removed. (and the bit about forum access is correct. He's one of the unfortunatant few that Jolt will have to fix.)

Looks like the Unapprove campaign was also working, though I'm not sure what would have happened to a proposal that dropped quorum past its expiration date. I don't think it's ever been tested[Sighs and shakes head]

What a waste of everyone's time .... :rolleyes:

Looks like the Unapprove campaign was also working, though I'm not sure what would have happened to a proposal that dropped quorum past its expiration date. I don't think it's ever been tested
Too bad you didn't wait until after the major update so we could find out.

OOC: Indeed. Crime stats do need to be worked on. I think they're rather on the idealistic side though. (give enough welfare and education and everything is peace, love, and happiness it seems).

OOC: Agreed.

Not always (http://www.nationstates.net/drogano)

That puppet has no welfare, and very little education spending at all, and it has a lower crime rate than Waterana. There is more than one methold of cutting crime in a nation. Increased welfare and education spending is just one of them :).

Article 4: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.

We prefer simply shooting the murderer.

We prefer simply shooting the murderer.

Fair enough: As that deprives them of all of their remaining life expectancy, and "all" is logically more than "2 years of", it's clearly above the specified minimum level of punishment...

OOC: I don't have the time available right now to become active in 'Reclamation' (on top of the various other fora that I've already joined), but I've got a possibly-viable redraft of this proposal almost finished and expect to get it typed up into this thread tomorrow...

We prefer simply shooting the murderer.
Then lock the corpse up for two years.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

First of all, I have severe doubts about being able to get a good bill on murder dafted. The biggest reason is that this is a "world" community and we have people from all over the world playing this game, so whose system would we use as a base? US? England? Israel?

Definitions are important. Let's assume that we use Wikipedia as the source for our definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder and we use the US model as an example:

"Modern codifications tend to create a genus of offenses, known collectively as homicide, of which murder is the most serious species, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime at all."

We can in turn divide murder into various degrees, and manslaughter into "voluntary" and "involuntary." I will just define one term for murder and two for manslaughter.

Murder: "The crime where one or more human beings causes the death of others, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is traditionally termed 'malice aforethought.'"

Voluntary Manslaughter: "This arises in cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the application of a defense."

Involuntary Manslaughter: "This is where death occurs due to recklessness or criminal negligence with no intention to kill or cause serious injury."

Starting from this definition might be a good first step.

But I don't know how you would either approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide from the limited space for resolutions.

Then lock the corpse up for two years.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That would get rather...stinky.

Then lock the corpse up for two years.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bury the corpse?

It's seperated from society!

That would get rather...stinky.
Lock it in a freezer, then all you have to worry about is freezer burn.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Aggh!
I had a response all written and I closed my window!!
Here I go again...

Murder and Manslaughter Laws
Should not be within the purview ofthe UN.
Period

Description: Article 1: UNDERSTANDING that this proposal is an obvious law
There is no such thing as an obvious law. If it were obvious, then it would constitute common sense and you wouldn't need a law.

Article 6: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society.
Article 7: MANDATING that if during the investigation of the murder, the government of the nation decides that the criminal has mental problems, the criminal shall be sent to a secure mental asylum with constant supervision and if possible, rehabilitation.
And what if you have indentured service and not prisons?
Furthermore, what if your nation has capital punishment, regardless of the mental state of the criminal?

Article 8: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.
Article 9: NOTING that the accidental killing of another human being constitutes manslaughter.
Article 10: NOTING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place. This will depend on their justice system.
Article 11: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone.
These articles are certainly the worst.
Does killing someone while driving under the influence of either alcohol or illegal substances constitute manslaughter? Note also that it is assumed that ther perpetrator will feel "upset." It can certainly be shown that in many cases, addicts are not capable of feeling remorse for their actions, even if it if does involve a loss of life. Does this make them more or less in need of a psychologist?
Also note that poor nations may not be able to afford the enormous cost of providing a psychologist for all their murderers. If you have to choose between dealing with murderers and feeding your people...

This is about to achieve quorum. The principle is sound...
The principle isn't remotely sound.
It's a horrible idea.
I know, I know. I'm repeating myself.
But
Laws like this are not within the purview of the UN, nor should they be.

--Rooty

Bury the corpse?

It's seperated from society!

Unless it rises (or is pulled) from the grave as some kind of 'undead' being...

Not always (http://www.nationstates.net/drogano)

That puppet has no welfare, and very little education spending at all, and it has a lower crime rate than Waterana. There is more than one methold of cutting crime in a nation. Increased welfare and education spending is just one of them :).
OOC: True. There's also the ruling with an iron fist method/boosting law & order to the extreme. My puppet The Stygian Shores uses that method ;)

Unless it rises (or is pulled) from the grave as some kind of 'undead' being...

Which is precisesly why we need the Zombie Protection Act! :p

what would be the point of COMPLETELY outlawing manslaughter? why not make it...different. a test, that all on earth must take. if failed, the taker will be burned for fuel, fixing the OIL PROBLEMS? although manslaughter is wrong, stupidity is unneccessary, and fuel is low...

in addition, unreasonable manslaughter is WRONG! i wasn't TRYING to be bloodthirsty before that was personality 4, the point is, if manslaughter is to be committed this...propasal can be taken to court and if what the subject did was wrong enough, manslaughter may actually be REASONABLE.

what would be the point of COMPLETELY outlawing manslaughter? why not make it...different. a test, that all on earth must take. if failed, the taker will be burned for fuel, fixing the OIL PROBLEMS? although manslaughter is wrong, stupidity is unneccessary, and fuel is low...

OOC: I'm sorry to say this, but WTF do are you talking about?

OOC: I'm sorry to say this, but WTF do are you talking about?

We think he's alluding to justifiable homicide, which this proposal, in its first draft, ignores. That's being addressed on Reclamation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

justifiable homicide...hmm...reclamation?

reclamation?

This forum is what he's referring to.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx

why thank you.

why thank you.

You're quite welcome. :)

STRESSING that the early ending of a human life must be punished

ENSURING that all nations have murder as illegal

1: DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution that:

a. Murder is the intentional premeditated killing of another human being, against the victim’s will
b. Voluntary Manslaughter is where the defendant may have had intent to kill or seriously harm the victim, but the application of a defence mitigates the crime, so that it cannot constitute murder
c. Involuntary Manslaughter is where death occurs due to recklessness or ignorance with no intention to kill or cause serious injury

2: DEFINING, so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

Murder
Conspiracy to commit murder
Attempt to commit murder
Complicity in murder

3:STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This depends on their justice system.

4: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society. If the nation cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

5: FURTHERMORE MANDATING that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

6: UNDERSTANDING that there are two main types of manslaughter: Voluntary Manslaughter (intent to harm) and involuntary manslaughter (no intent to harm the victim)

7: STATING that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place and if there was intent to hurt or not. This depends on their justice system.

8: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be voluntary manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and if the criminal requests psychological help, it must be given to them. This is because they may feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone, even if they did want to harm them. If the nation is cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons or have no qualified psychologists, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

9: MANDATING that there will be no punishment for what the government has deemed to be involuntary manslaughter. However, they must be allowed to see a psychologist to get over what they have done. If the nation has no qualified psychologists, an equivalent form of rehabilitation must be used.

10: STATING that these are exceptions to the laws made about murder:

Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
The death penalty shall not constitute murder
Any killings made by military personnel against the enemy combatants during a war shall not constitute murder within the bounds of passed UN resolutions
Abortion shall not constitute murder

11: STATING that this is an exception to the laws made about voluntary manslaughter:

A policeman on duty would get no punishments if he is trying to arrest a person, but accidentally kills them, as long as he can prove that he was trying to arrest them.

12: STATING that this is an exception to the laws made about involuntary manslaughter:

If the criminal was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed manslaughter (e.g. drink-driving), they will face the same punishment as those who committed voluntary manslaughter

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution clears up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

New draft posted at the request of the author, because he is having problems accessing jolt.

Last line strikes me as unnecessary. It reads like a highschool summation paragraph at the end of the dreaded FIVE PARAGRAPH ESSAY!

That last line, you are making a claim of knowledge that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF! Use HOPING, BELIEVING, or something along the lines of "you don't know that it's understood, but you want it to be" UNDERSTANDING sounds like you are better than us in your knowledge of what constitutes murder and manslaughter. The rest, I'll look at tomorrow.

Article 11: MANDATING that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and allow the criminal to see a psychologist to get over their crime. This is because they will feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone.?


We hope this one doesn't pass before we can get enough sharks trained as psychologists to deal with these criminals that we must send to them... but we should have at least two hundred trained and in place before it passes...

:) Alleluia Alleluia, Right, I've created a puppet nation, Adolf-Barham and it appears that I can now post in jolt myself. ;) :p

Zeldon, you quoted my very first proposal, which everyone disliked, so I will ignore your comment.

The proposal that Waterana posted on my behalf wasn't quite the most recently updated proposal. On the forum reclamation, Ausserland kindly edited my proposal to make it sound more appropriate. I understand that this draft isn't quite finished. For example, I'm thinking about punishing negligence that leads to involuntary manslaughter, but for the time being, here is the proposal: Any comments?




STRESSING that the early ending of a human life must be punished;

BELIEVING that murder must be illegal in all nations, and

HOPING that this resolution will clear up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter,

The United Nations

1: DEFINES the following for the purposes of this resolution:

a. Murder is the intentional premeditated killing of another human being, against the victim’s will
b. Voluntary Manslaughter is where the defendant may have had intent to kill or seriously harm the victim, but the application of a defence mitigates the crime, so that it cannot constitute murder
c. Involuntary Manslaughter is where death occurs due to recklessness or ignorance with no intention to kill or cause serious injury

2: MANDATES, so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

Murder
Conspiracy to commit murder
Attempt to commit murder
Complicity in murder

3: EMPHASISES that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This depends on their justice system.

4: MANDATES that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society. If the nation cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

5: FURTHER MANDATES that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

6: UNDERSTANDING that there are two main types of manslaughter: Voluntary Manslaughter (intent to harm) and involuntary manslaughter (no intent to harm the victim)

7: EMPHASISES that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place and if there was intent to hurt or not. This depends on their justice system.

8: MANDATES that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be voluntary manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and if the criminal requests psychological help, it must be given to them. This is because they may feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone, even if they did want to harm them. If the nation is cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons or have no qualified psychologists, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

9: MANDATES that there will be no punishment for what the government has deemed to be involuntary manslaughter. However, they must be allowed to see a psychologist to get over what they have done. If the nation has no qualified psychologists, an equivalent form of rehabilitation must be used.

10: ESTABLISHES the following exceptions to the laws made about murder:

Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
The death penalty shall not constitute murder
Any killings made by military personnel against the enemy combatants during a war shall not constitute murder within the bounds of passed UN resolutions
Abortion shall not constitute murder

11: ESTABLISHES the following exception to the laws made about voluntary manslaughter:

A policeman on duty would get no punishments if he is trying to arrest a person, but accidentally kills them, as long as he can prove that he was trying to arrest them.

12: ESTABLISHES the following exception to the laws made about involuntary manslaughter:

If the criminal was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed manslaughter (e.g. drink-driving), they will face the same punishment as those who committed voluntary manslaughter

Any comments?

Of course there are comments. :D

You're quite welcome for the tequila, by the way. It wasn't poisoned, but it technically is a poison by itself so I'm not sure that the distinction means much unless you have a taste for it like I do. :)

Firstly, after looking at this Gruen was of course correct about it needing to be submitted in the Moral Decency category. Strength would probably be Significant, in my opinion.

STRESSING that the early ending of a human life must be punished;

Hmmm. Already with the "human" life. The non-human sentient biologicals and AI in my nation may not feel particularly good about this one. Where's the protection for their lives? Some might at this question point to resolution #94 "Right to Self-Protection," but we all know it's not the same thing. This resolution doesn't just say that people are free to protect themselves, it mandates state action in punishing those who kill others.

BELIEVING that murder must be illegal in all nations, and

Why must murder be illegal in all nations? Let's take, for example, a nation like The Texan Biker Tribes of Gearhead Cowboys in which people are killed prior to natural death because they are no longer benefitting their tribe sufficiently to equal the total cost of maintaining their life. While it might strike a compassionate person as simply wrong, a very pragmatic and logical person might see it as a good idea and support the practice out of a utilitarian ethic.

HOPING that this resolution will clear up any misunderstanding as to the laws regarding murder and manslaughter,

I have to say, it is truly a lovely hope you have going there.

The United Nations

1: DEFINES the following for the purposes of this resolution:

a. Murder is the intentional premeditated killing of another human being, against the victim’s will
b. Voluntary Manslaughter is where the defendant may have had intent to kill or seriously harm the victim, but the application of a defence mitigates the crime, so that it cannot constitute murder
c. Involuntary Manslaughter is where death occurs due to recklessness or ignorance with no intention to kill or cause serious injury

I still have some difficulty with this definition. While you do list exceptions to it later in the text to curtail many of the earlier problems, there is still a question of non-humans being unprotected by this definition.

2: MANDATES, so that it is clear to all UN nations, that the following acts are unlawful:

Murder
Conspiracy to commit murder
Attempt to commit murder
Complicity in murder

Great! Unlawful it is then. But what about the law being enforced? More on that later.

3: EMPHASISES that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of murder had taken place. This depends on their justice system.

Ah, a BFL. Kind of you to add a Big Fucking Loophole for us to take advantage of. You may be mucking around in the justice system of UN nations, but at least you're letting them do some counter-mucking to make the effects negligible.

4: MANDATES that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be murder shall be two years locked away from society. If the nation cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

I appreciate the note about nations that don't have prisons, being such a nation and all, but what about those of us who do have prisons but also have much more effective means of punishment available for non-sociopaths? In HotRodia, taking away a person's ability to drive a car for two weeks usually leaves them broken and crying and promising never to do it again. And that's just what many parents do to unruly teenagers. ;)

5: FURTHER MANDATES that it is unlawful to commit manslaughter.

Okie dokie.

6: UNDERSTANDING that there are two main types of manslaughter: Voluntary Manslaughter (intent to harm) and involuntary manslaughter (no intent to harm the victim)

Aww. Isn't that sweet. The resolution understands the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. It's just too bad it doesn't understand that national justice systems should be tailored to fit each nation's cultural, technological, biological, and political needs.

7: EMPHASISES that every UN member nation can choose how to determine whether an act of manslaughter had taken place and if there was intent to hurt or not. This depends on their justice system.

Nice. Another BFL.

8: MANDATES that the minimal punishment for what the government of a nation has deemed to be voluntary manslaughter shall be six months locked away from society and if the criminal requests psychological help, it must be given to them. This is because they may feel upset that they have accidentally killed someone, even if they did want to harm them. If the nation is cannot use this punishment as they do not use prisons or have no qualified psychologists, an equivalent minimum punishment must be used by the nation’s justice system.

Same objection as before, and this time you're mandating psychological help. Bonus points for that one. Alienating some of your conservative voter base with feel-good liberal policies rocks. I actually agree with your feel-good liberal policy, by the way, just not you mandating it on every nation in the UN.

9: MANDATES that there will be no punishment for what the government has deemed to be involuntary manslaughter. However, they must be allowed to see a psychologist to get over what they have done. If the nation has no qualified psychologists, an equivalent form of rehabilitation must be used.

Same problem as previous clause.

10: ESTABLISHES the following exceptions to the laws made about murder:

Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
The death penalty shall not constitute murder
Any killings made by military personnel against the enemy combatants during a war shall not constitute murder within the bounds of passed UN resolutions
Abortion shall not constitute murder

I'm in agreement with essentially legalizing all of these, just not on a UN level. What you need is to make a clause that lets you address murder in a specific and narrow fashion, setting aside other issues. To this end, I suggest a rewording of this clause like so:

10: ESTABLISHES that the following are not defined, made lawful, or made unlawful by this resolution, and that they are or shall be addressed by other means:

a. euthanasia
b. the death penalty
c. abortion
d. killings performed by military personnel during war

11: ESTABLISHES the following exception to the laws made about voluntary manslaughter:

A policeman on duty would get no punishments if he is trying to arrest a person, but accidentally kills them, as long as he can prove that he was trying to arrest them.

What the hell for? I hardly see that an officer being on duty suddenly absolves him of wrongdoing.

12: ESTABLISHES the following exception to the laws made about involuntary manslaughter:

If the criminal was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they committed manslaughter (e.g. drink-driving), they will face the same punishment as those who committed voluntary manslaughter

Cultural imperialism blah blah blah.

Now there's the question every resolution has to face: how well does this do what it intends to? If your only goal was to make murder illegal in all nations, I dare say you've accomplished it just by defining it and saying "it's unlawful". But if you actually wanted the law to be enforced, you may have a bit of a problem. For one, the BFLs are going to be very handy for those few nations who actually like murder, but nation's who're that crazy...we probably don't want them around anyway so just let them kill themselves off like they have been before the resolution on murder, I say. This resolution doesn't actually change anything for the better that I can see aside from a nice statement of principle from the UN. If that was all it did, fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, it also sets up a definition of murder that won't fit all nations and punishments that won't fit all nations, so I have a problem with it.

My suggestion:

Either turn it into a Mild statement of principle resolution or re-write it to make it about international murders where we may actually be able to do some good as a neutral body.

Woah

TH actually discussed a proposal text more than saying "Against, National Sovereignty"? :p

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

I still find it amazing that you said "If it's voluntary, you get a minimum 6 months and if its involuntary, you get nothing!" What if we want to make them take a training course of safety standards or stupid acts or being morons or do speeches at various locations of what they did accidentally and how others might be able to stop it from happening in the future or a thousand other things that I could not hope to list.

Woah

TH actually discussed a proposal text more than saying "Against, National Sovereignty"? :p



Ummm...I was nostalgic and went DLE on its ass. ;)

But seriously, national sovereignty is just a speciality. I do have other tricks. :D

Now the author can post: why do we need this proposal?

Now the author can post: why do we need this proposal?
I'd like to know that myself.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

2. The police officer clearly did not carry out his duty well enough. He should be able to ensure that he doesn't kill criminals. Therefore, because he has accidentally ended a person's life early, he deserves 6 months locked away from society and obviously with psychological help to get over his crime.


Let's look at this one again.. You are a police officer and have two of your fellow officers bleeding on the ground and help can't get to them because some criminal is shooting at anyone moves. You shoot and kill this criminal.. now you have two dead officers because help got to them to late and you go to see a shrink...

You don't need one for shooting the criminal you need one to overcome the loss of your fellow officers.. often times relatives or near such to you... Thus how can you lock this police officer away for six months and even say he didn't do his job... well... suppose he was wounded and managed to get off a shot to kill the person who wounded him before he could get off that second or third shot and add a third dead officer.

As stated earlier we have a group of 'sharks' being trained at this time to provide any and all the psychological help murders and rapest might need should this pass. As for those like a police officer doing his duty we also have people to help them.... as we feel the sharks are better suited to care for those special needs criminals.... with real physco problems...

In HotRodia, taking away a person's ability to drive a car for two weeks usually leaves them broken and crying and promising never to do it again.Yes, well, you're rather unique. Let's not get too DLE and start yammering about spaceships and the fact that you ort' murderers or launch them into nebulae, or whatever nonsense he liked to blather on about ;)

--snip--
OOC: Dude, why do you keep attributing these quotes to me? I didn't write this proposal, you know...

IC:
It is unlikely that Darsomir will vote for this proposal, should it reach quorum (again). Not all our courts run under civil authority, and we do not approve of attempts to interfere in the Court of the Flame.

OOC:
Yes, well, you're rather unique. Let's not get too DLE and start yammering about spaceships and the fact that you ort' murderers or launch them into nebulae, or whatever nonsense he liked to blather on about ;)
Glassing was the term DLE preferred, as I recall.

"10: STATING that these are exceptions to the laws made about murder:

Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
The death penalty shall not constitute murder
Any killings made by military personnel against the enemy combatants during a war shall not constitute murder within the bounds of passed UN resolutions
Abortion shall not constitute murder"

These additions don't work for my nation, since both euthanasia and abortion do, in fact, constitute murder.

--Rooty

These additions don't work for my nation, since both euthanasia and abortion do, in fact, constitute murder.

--Rooty
No, euthanasia doesn't. You're a UN member, that means you follow its laws. "Legalise Euthanasia" is one of them.

And the exceptions only mean they're not UN-mandated murder: I agree it should be rewritten in such a way that it makes clear that nations can still declare such murder.

"10: STATING that these are exceptions to the laws made about murder:

Euthanasia shall not constitute murder
The death penalty shall not constitute murder
Any killings made by military personnel against the enemy combatants during a war shall not constitute murder within the bounds of passed UN resolutions
Abortion shall not constitute murder"

These additions don't work for my nation, since both euthanasia and abortion do, in fact, constitute murder.

--Rooty
The clause needs to be worded as such that the resolution does not make such acts illegal in the UN, instead leaving the choice to individual nations. It needs a little work but its inclusion is essential.

Zeldon, could you please stop quoting things that I said ages ago when I was trying to defend my original proposal. I agree with what you said zeldon. Look back through the posts and you may actually find the most recent proposal. You're a bit behind the times Zeldon. I'll post replies to other questions in a minute.

I agree with everyone that I should reword article 10, so that the choice is left to the nation unless a UN resolution affects it, such as euthanasia. Gruenberg, I feel that we need this proposal to ensure that every nation has murder as an illegal crime. Also, we need to ensure that murder is at least punished to an acceptable standard. Amazingly, some nations actually have murder as legal. (Just look at some nations that are classified as Psychotic Dictatorships)

Also, how do I quote someone else's post in my post. I'm new to jolt.:)

Gruenberg, I feel that we need this proposal to ensure that every nation has murder as an illegal crime. Also, we need to ensure that murder is at least punished to an acceptable standard. Amazingly, some nations actually have murder as legal. (Just look at some nations that are classified as Psychotic Dictatorships)
Psychotic Dictatorships would be very likely to have murder as a crime. You're thinking of Anarchies, I suspect: in which case, why should one moral code be forced upon them?

Also, how do I quote someone else's post in my post. I'm new to jolt.:)
To quote one post, click the "Quote" button at the bottom right. To quote several, you have to do it manually: copy and paste the text into the reply window, and put tags around it. E.g.:

blah blah blah

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how murder or manslaughter, or anything pertaining to crimes against the state, can be uniformly enforced in all member states? Or how this is not a stupid idea and a waste of time and resources? Or why I should return to the UN if it passes either this or any other proposal with your name on it? How it would not be completely hopeless if it ever happens?

Murder and manslaughter are prosecuted in most nations as crimes against the state, not crimes against the United Nations. Why in hell should the United Nations tell member states what crimes against their own state should be?

Hmmm. Already with the "human" life. The non-human sentient biologicals and AI in my nation may not feel particularly good about this one. Where's the protection for their lives?

Quite simply, HotRodia, I'm not much of an animal rights activist, so don't see the need to talk about killing animals


To Omigodtheykilledkenny's comment,

I understand that the UN shouldn't meddle in crimes against the state, but I feel that murder is the worst crime followed by manslaughter because it is the loss of a human life. Therefore, I feel the need to make sure that every UN member nation has murder as illegal and punishable. These two crimes must be interfered in by the UN to make sure that every nation has it in place. The fact is that there are some nations who have murder as legal!

Quite simply, HotRodia, I'm not much of an animal rights activist, so don't see the need to talk about killing animals
He's not referring to dogs, but to things like artificial intelligence, or non-human intelligence such as dwarves.

He's not referring to dogs, but to things like artificial intelligence, or non-human intelligence such as dwarves.

Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.

Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.
Why?

OOC: Bear in mind, this is the world of NationStates. Forum activity is generally based on free-form roleplay: you can do what you want, so long as others recognise it. There are nations who have posted in this thread who have non-human citizens. Not so long ago, there was a proposal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_of_Biological_Sapients) concerning their rights: however, it failed.

Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.

Since 94% of the population of our nation consists of members of the ancient and honorable race of dwarves, we condemn utterly this arrogantly speciesist statement by the Representative of Adolf Barham.

By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

With my citizenship including an estimated 15,000 Trichordians and an estimated 16,000 citizens of a variety of other species that have proven their intelligence including one senior military officer who is only partially human, I object to the claim that other intelligent beings are any less worthy of consideration by the UN for any legal considerations.

Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.
Then your PROPOSAL may well disregard RESOLUTION 56...
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.
Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726
Implemented: Thu May 6 2004

As one could assume it covers not only so called humans but anything cloned or genetically engineered 'person' that is.. or consider such.. be they Dwarf, Elf, Pigmy, Gnome, or whatever the term 'person' can be apllied, then they are covered under R56.. So since you single out 'humans' to protect; you discriminate in order to protect them from murder.. leaving 'persons' who under R56 also should be protected from murder from anyone.

Originally Posted by Adolf-Barham
Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.

As far as this not sure understand what you mean here.. If a human kills a computer or dwarf then the human does not murder them. What happens if a human is killed by a computer or dwarf or other than a human...? Do you deal with them as they commited murder?

Resolution #56 only protects cloned or genetically engineered persons, as distinct from "normal" persons. So it would protect cloned dwarves as well as natural dwarves. But it doesn't define "person", so one doesn't have to acknowledge dwarf rights.

Resolution #56 only protects cloned or genetically engineered persons, as distinct from "normal" persons. So it would protect cloned dwarves as well as natural dwarves. But it doesn't define "person", so one doesn't have to acknowledge dwarf rights.
As R56 assumes that 'persons' are any member of NSUN... regardless of what they are not just humans then to single out just human is discrimination toward humans and leaves the other member 'person' of NSUN subject to murder without the same so called protections that this might provide to just humans. Thus if the NSUN considers dwarfs legal members then they should have equal protection against murder and also be seen as a 'person' thus be covered under R56 thus have equal rights with humans as 'persons'.

Originally Posted by Adolf-Barham
Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered.

May have missed this but just how many murders can a person commit before they do more than a short time and see a shrink..? As seems you forget the honest person that got murdered and their family that end up paying to protect a criminal who is a murderer.. several times over..

My proposal will only take into account homicide where a human being kills another human being. If one of you wants to make murder illegal against these other creatures, then go ahead. I may support it, but I don't feel so strongly as to write it myself.

Well, my proposal is just to protect humans from being murdered. Forgive me, but it sounds stupid to say that someone was punished for the murder of a computer or of a dwarf.
As the Grand Poobah of a nation whose citizens include sentient non-human species such as moogles and the members of the Shumi tribe, I'd like to state that due to the recent comments by this proposals author, we stand even more opposed to this proposal than we did before.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Just a thought, but what about if the murdered has diplomatic immunity, like me?

*pulls a revolver out of his coatee and shoots a passing secretary*

As R56 assumes that 'persons' are any member of NSUN... regardless of what they are not just humans then to single out just human is discrimination toward humans and leaves the other member 'person' of NSUN subject to murder without the same so called protections that this might provide to just humans. Thus if the NSUN considers dwarfs legal members then they should have equal protection against murder and also be seen as a 'person' thus be covered under R56 thus have equal rights with humans as 'persons'.
The members of the NSUN are nations, not individuals, and it is up to the member nations to determine their citizenship qualifications. The NSUN has never mandated nations acknowledge non-humans as having rights - hence the failed "Equality For All" and "Rights of Biological Sapients" proposal.

All Resolution #56 does is outlaw discrimination based on genetic-engineered status. It has nothing to do with acknowledging non-humans.

Adolf-Barham: so you're not really interested in writing a universal murder law at all, but instead only one that applies to some nations? How does that "clear up" the murder laws of the excluded nations?

My proposal will only take into account homicide where a human being kills another human being..

Glad you cleared this up as our sharks are now being trained to execute murders since they are not subject to this resolution only for humans...

Glad you cleared this up as our sharks are now being trained to execute murders since they are not subject to this resolution only for humans...
That's absurd. Are you saying at present sharks can be charged for murder in Zeldon 6229 Nodlez?

Furthermore, training a shark to execute murders would seem to me to fall under the definition of "conspiracy" or "complicity", or at the very least a form of manslaughter.

The members of the NSUN are nations, not individuals, and it is up to the member nations to determine their citizenship qualifications. The NSUN has never mandated nations acknowledge non-humans as having rights -


We may be off the idea of this proposal here but since nations are made up of it's citizens be they human, dwarf, pigmy, or whatever it's them that the resolution give rights not a nation since it can't use them.. only the citizens of a nation. Take out the citizens and you have no nation... thus no UN... whatever form of living 'thing/person' those citizens might be... Thus one must assume a resolution through application to a nation of citizens applies to all on equal terms regardless of what they call themselves... human, dwarf, pigmy, ghost, vampire, gnome... or whatever..

We may be off the idea of this proposal here but since nations are made up of it's citizens be they human, dwarf, pigmy, or whatever it's them that the resolution give rights not a nation since it can't use them.. only the citizens of a nation. Take out the citizens and you have no nation... thus no UN... whatever form of living those citizens might be... Thus one must assume a resolution through application to a nation of citizens applies to all on equal terms regardless of what they call themselves... human, dwarf, pigmy, ghost, vampire, gnome... or whatever..
I do not understand what this means, I'm afraid. However, if you specify "human being" in a proposal, you quite obviously cannot extrapolate that to mean all non-human citizens as well.

Exactly what is "human"? Even in pure MT societies, certain people were once considered "subhuman". In a world that includes space-aliens, dwaves, and perhaps even sentient computers, we need to very very careful about who we exclude from "human" status.

I do not understand what this means, I'm afraid. However, if you specify "human being" in a proposal, you quite obviously cannot extrapolate that to mean all non-human citizens as well.
What I'm trying to say it that due to fact that HUMANS are not the only citizens of NSUN membership NATIONS then if a resolution applies equal to all NATIONS then it also applies equal to all citizens of a NATION regardless of what they might be called. If they don't apply equal to the citizens then how can they be applied equaly to each NATION.. unless those citizens that form the NATION are all equal...


Thus setting this to apply to only HUMANS who are only citizens in certain UN member NATIONS it is not equaly applied to all UN NATIONS since it's not applied to all NATIONS citizens...

Example in nation A dwarf kills dwarf and is not subject to this proposal.. in nation B human kills human and is.. thus it's not applied equal in all UN member nation as a UN resolution since not all nation have human citizens..

What I'm trying to say it that due to fact that HUMANS are not the only citizens of NSUN membership NATIONS then if a resolution applies equal to all NATIONS then it also applies equal to all citizens of a NATION regardless of what they might be called. If they don't apply equal to the citizens then how can they be applied equaly to each NATION.. unless those citizens that form the NATION are all equal...

Thus setting this to apply to only HUMANS who are only citizens in certain UN member NATIONS it is not equaly applied to all UN NATIONS since it's not applied to all NATIONS citizens...
I think we agree. I'm saying, it's not fair for this to use "humans". In fact, it's downright illogical: the whole point is to consolidate and harmonise murder laws, which it can't very well do if it doesn't acknowledge non-humans can be murdered. And I think that's what you're saying, too: that an alternative term to "humans" is needed.

I’m still not entirely convinced that this is something upon which the UN should be ruling but, as promised on Friday, have had a go at re-drafting the proposal — taking earlier remarks by some of you, as well as my own opinions, into account — anyway. I think that my current text, after dropping a clause that attempted to set a tighter limit on ‘Legitimate Acts of War’, should be just within the maximum length allowed…


Murder and Manslaughter Laws

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Author: Adolf Barham

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that protection against arbitrary killing is the most fundamental of the rights that humans and other sapient beings should possess,

RECOGNISING that most nations probably have laws against such killing already,

WISHING to ensure that all nations have laws against such killing,

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions _
a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and by the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Use of the death penalty on people who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable punishment under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths during duels, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the legal system of the nation concerned accepts were justifiable because the killers either were acting in self-defence or had no better means obviously available for keeping the people whom they killed from committing other serious crimes;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;

2. DEFINES any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Murder’, those that were due to negligence and/or recklessness rather than lethal intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Manslaughter’, and any others — whether carried out with lethal intent but no premeditation, committed by people provoked into losing self-control, or due to violence used in the commission of other crimes — to fall into whichever of those two categories the government of the relevant nation considers suitable;

3. DECLARES that attempting to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, soliciting murder, and knowingly providing resources for any organisation that practices murder, are all also illegal;

4. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

5. ACCEPTS that nations may also use their legal systems to determine whether any killings involving any of their subjects that occurred outside of their own territories were murder, manslaughter or legal;

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that setting appropriate punishments for these crimes should generally be a matter for nations’ own legal systems, which may vary the punishments (within any limits fixed under earlier UN Resolutions) based on the circumstances of specific cases, but does specify that the minimum penalty for anybody found to have committed murder whilst sane should be either five years removal from society (by whatever means is considered suitable by the relevant authorities) or — if the nation concerned has, and wishes to employ, effective means for this — full rehabilitation;

7. URGES nations to include psychiatric therapy in their treatment of anybody whom they convict of murder or manslaughter but plan on freeing sooner or later.

Co-authored by St Edmund

committed by people provoked into losing self-control…
Not sure understand this part as you list this in what is defined as illegal.. I can see you raping my mother or sister and me losing self-control and killing you... thus you say murder.. I see that we get tried in court and you still leave it up to a court to say if it murder and one should get a hard punishment. Still not sure how this can be added where it's added.. and leave that open... Since to lose self-contol is murder......

Not sure understand this part as you list this in what is defined as illegal.. I can see you raping my mother or sister and me losing self-control and killing you... thus you say murder.. I see that we get tried in court and you still leave it up to a court to say if it murder and one should get a hard punishment. Still not sure how this can be added where it's added.. and leave that open... Since to lose self-contol is murder......

Some nations might want to count it as manslaughter instead.

My proposal will only take into account homicide where a human being kills another human being. If one of you wants to make murder illegal against these other creatures, then go ahead. I may support it, but I don't feel so strongly as to write it myself.

From the desk of Forgottenlord:

The sentiment that non-humans are not worthy of the same protections as humans is a form of discrimination that the people of the Forgotten Territories and of Aberdeen stand opposed to. We will not stand idly by while we watch such blatant disregard for non-humans. The Forgotten Territories will vote against this proposal and will be encouraging its fellow members to likewise vote against if the author continues to refuse to consider non-humans. Such discrimination is no longer acceptable within these halls!

Forgottenlord
President of Forgotten Territories
Prime Minister of Aberdeen

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

The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

The bolded section is important. A cloned dwarf has the same rights as a non-cloned dwarf. A cloned human has the same rights as a non-cloned human. A cloned dwarf does not have the same rights as a cloned human because it wasn't cloned from a human

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]
The bolded section is important.


Not so as the key word is PERSON as that which you BOLDED applies to PERSON.. who can be Genetic Engineer or Unmodified or Natural Born.. Thus it sets three forms of PERSONs and clones... as the three define PERSON and single each form out.. making Genetic Engineered "Persons" egual to Natural Born "Persons" as well as Unmodified "Persons' and then clones singled out.. and not even considered "Persons" but still equal to Nat Born and Unmod "Persons" just as Gene Eng "Persons" are equal.. Also why is a PERSON always a HUMAN...? as no where is HUMAN in R56...

However since the new draft covers now not only humans in thought this is not relevent now.. As it now in assumption applies to all citizens of UN member nations regardless of what they may call themselves..

OOC: Look at how you word Clause #4 in saying 3 clauses prior.. believe that you might move Clause #2 Define out to above Clause 1 then correct the numbers.. and change in #4 3 to 2.... for some reason having #2 Define where it is seems wrong... I'm not up on form for these but just seems out of order and not right...

Okay, okay. I don't feel too strongly about it, but since others do, I will include other beings in the proposal. St. Edmunds redraft seems very suitable. I have not changed any of the major information that he had in it, but have spaced it out more and made it a bit more clear. This is hopefully the final draft that I will be able to propose tomorrow morning unless someone has any MAJOR concerns. I'll accept if you wish to vote against it, but please tell me if there are any vital concerns regarding this hopefully final draft.


BELIEVING that protection against arbitrary killing is the most fundamental of the rights that humans and other sapient beings should possess,

RECOGNISING that most nations probably have laws against such killing already,

WISHING to ensure that all nations have laws against such killing,

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions

a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and by the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Use of the death penalty on people who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable punishment under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths during duels, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the legal system of the nation concerned accepts were justifiable because the killers either were acting in self-defence or had no better means obviously available for keeping the people whom they killed from committing other serious crimes;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;

2. DEFINES any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Murder’

3.DEFINES that those that were due to negligence and/or recklessness rather than lethal intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Manslaughter’,

4. DEFINES that any other killings — whether carried out with lethal intent but no premeditation, committed by people provoked into losing self-control, or due to violence used in the commission of other crimes — to fall into whichever of those two categories the government of the relevant nation considers suitable;

5. DECLARES that attempting to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, soliciting murder, and knowingly providing resources for any organisation that practices murder, are all also illegal;

6. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

7. ACCEPTS that nations may also use their legal systems to determine whether any killings involving any of their subjects that occurred outside of their own territories were murder, manslaughter or legal;

8. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishments for these crimes should be a matter for nation's own legal systems

9. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishment may vary under different circumstances of specific cases (following previous UN resolutions)

10. HOWEVER SPECIFIES that the minimum punishment for murder when the criminal is sane shall be a 5 year removal from society or - if the nation concerned wishes to employ effective means for this - full rehabilitation.

11. URGES nations to include psychiatric therapy in their treatment of anybody whom they convict of murder or manslaughter but plan on freeing sooner or later.

Co-Authored by St. Edmund

Now the author can post: why do we need this proposal?

That was the gist of my final question too. Like Flib, I would like it if Gruen's question were answered.

In answer to your question HotRodia, read the preamble comments of the above proposal.

In answer to your question HotRodia, read the preamble comments of the above proposal.

I already have. But for reference, let's take a look at them again.

BELIEVING that protection against arbitrary killing is the most fundamental of the rights that humans and other sapient beings should possess,

RECOGNISING that most nations probably have laws against such killing already,

WISHING to ensure that all nations have laws against such killing,

Frankly, I don't agree that protection against arbitray killing is the most fundamental right we should possess, but if that's your belief...good for you. It doesn't count as a good reason for me though.

I think it's quite sensible of you to recognise that most nations already have laws against killing. When a nation wants to make a law, they generally do, and most nations figure killing without their approval is a big no-no, and a few even figure killing with their approval is a big no-no and have laws against that too. The above are roughly 90-something percent of nations. Let's look at the leftover nation who aren't in the above camps. Guess what? They don't have laws against killing because they either don't want to have such laws or don't have a government that can actually make them. The root of the problems in these nations is not something you can address with a resolution on murder. So why bother?

To sum up my assessment:

Is the resolution pretty high quality? Sure.

Is the resolution too terribly harmful? No.

Does this resolution accomplish anything but a nice statement of principle? No.

How will I vote if it reaches quorum? Unsure. It has pros and cons to it. I need more time to weigh them.

Ok, so HotRodia is unsure about it. If there is anyone who is strongly for the proposal here, I would just like to tell them that (providing there are no major concerns regarding this proposal), I will propose it at about 7 tomorrow morning (GMT) Then I will start a telegram campaign some time later in the day.

I still do not see how this is UN business.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

It is UN business because murder and manslaughter are the worst crimes that can be committed. Therefore, the UN must ensure that no nation - at least within the UN - can have murder as legal. That would be morally wrong, but there are UN nations who have murder as legal. We must put a stop to this.

I still do not see how this is UN business.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Me too. That's what I struggling with now, and why I'll probably end up voting against it.

If it was re-done as a Mild "Right to Life" proposal I might be persuaded to vote FOR it.

I'll accept that as your opinion then.

Any further comments regarding the new proposal, then? If not, I will propose it tomorrow morning.

Me too. That's what I struggling with now, and why I'll probably end up voting against it.

If it was re-done as a Mild "Right to Life" proposal I might be persuaded to vote FOR it.

I'll need a lot more persuation to get me to vote for. I have no problem with stat-wanking, but this is micro-managing for no pupose.

The new draft is an improvement, as we would expect from a re-write by the honorable representative of St Edmund, but it is still muddled and confusing. As just one example, why bother to define "murder" and "manslaughter" and then make no distiction between them in the operative elements of the proposal?

We still see absolutely no need nor any rational justification for the NSUN to legislate on this matter. It's legislation merely for the sake of legislation, and we have no use for that. Ausserland opposes and will continue to oppose this needless and unfortunately flawed proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ok, so HotRodia is unsure about it. If there is anyone who is strongly for the proposal here, I would just like to tell them that (providing there are no major concerns regarding this proposal), I will propose it at about 7 tomorrow morning (GMT) Then I will start a telegram campaign some time later in the day.
I'll give you some help, you can skip me, I check the list daily (sometimes twice a day or more) and I won't be approving it anyway.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll give you some help, you can skip me, I check the list daily (sometimes twice a day or more) and I won't be approving it anyway.

Seconded.

I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that you will help me advertise my proposal with telegrams even though you don't wish to vote for it?!

Don't worry, i'd be happy if you would.

I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that you will help me advertise my proposal with telegrams even though you don't wish to vote for it?!

Don't worry, i'd be happy if you would.

We're saying dont bother sending us TGs, for we check the list often and wont be approving it. No help in advertising at all (perhaps I will be doing some TGing...it just wont be help)

It is UN business because murder and manslaughter are the worst crimes that can be committed.

Raping a girl and then telling her that if she tells anyone, she will suffer round 2 is a much worse crime. You make the woman live in total fear for many, many days. She suffers continuously and often cannot seek help for her perpetual fear of retribution.

Torturing a person is a much worse crime - especially when one considers the methods that could be used and the reasons for it. Entertainment as an excuse could not even somewhat be called less of a crime than murder - no matter the reason.

Murder results in a single action of pain, a single sin, a single problem for that person. Please, there are much worse punishments than death - those that fear death are those who understand it the least.

Therefore, the UN must ensure that no nation - at least within the UN - can have murder as legal.

Fine

That would be morally wrong, but there are UN nations who have murder as legal.

I disagree about morality, nor have you actually provided justification

We must put a stop to this.

Alright, you've ATTEMPTED to explain the reason for declaring murder illegal. Now explain the minimum sentences, the opposing positions on voluntary and involutnary manslaughter, and a variety of other issues. You have yet to even attempt to justify the vast majority of what was written.

The minimum sentence is just to ensure that murder is a punishable crime. I still feel that murder or manslaughter are worse crimes because it is losing a human life, which can't be brought back or rehabilitated. Therefore, it has wider implications on their family and friends etc. With rape or torture, the person lives, so can still be happy along with their family and friends. If the person dies because of rape or torture, then it could be classed as murder or manslaughter, so they would then get punished for it.

The minimum sentence is just to ensure that murder is a punishable crime. I still feel that murder or manslaughter are worse crimes because it is losing a human life, which can't be brought back or rehabilitated. Therefore, it has wider implications on their family and friends etc. With rape or torture, the person lives, so can still be happy along with their family and friends. If the person dies because of rape or torture, then it could be classed as murder or manslaughter, so they would then get punished for it.
OOC: Let me get this straight. If a girl is raped, then commits suicide due to resulting depression, are you saying the rapist should be charged with her murder?

Also, what about people who are held incommunicado? They don't have any chance to live with their family and find some way of surviving their ordeal.

I still feel that murder or manslaughter are worse crimes because it is losing a human life, which can't be brought back or rehabilitated. Therefore, it has wider implications on their family and friends etc.
Are you paying attention to what is being said in here and what you are say here? Most criminal that are given a death penality have murdered thus how do they fit i the above? One life gone forever never to be rehabilitated..

With rape or torture, the person lives, so can still be happy along with their family and friends. If the person dies because of rape or torture, then it could be classed as murder or manslaughter, so they would then get punished for it.
A rape victum never gets over scars of the rape and thus can never fully enjoy life after they are raped thus it even effects their family. Then they face the fact that the animal that raped them may come back..

Again you need to read what folks are saying here. As this keeps criminals around to allow them to make new victums of others after they already have murdered one. How many chances do they get before you figure that it's time to put an end to it. Chance one raped wife Chance two raped mother Chance three raped sister Chance four raped daughter and the count and chances go on..... as only if they kill the victum can we consider murder.... how many strikes does one get before they are out...

As the rehab rates on rapest from what have seen are very poor... add child abusers and others and then how many chances do we give them before we say enough... and end it... but can't because no murder was done so we can't murder them...

As believe what folks fear is this prevents 'capital punishment' as murder... since you use the term 'legal murder' I assume this is your intent and thus a bad idea... and it will not get my support and I will vote against it once it gets to that point and advise those I know to vote against it also..

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions
a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and by the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Use of the death penalty on people who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable punishment under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths during duels, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the legal system of the nation concerned accepts were justifiable because the killers either were acting in self-defence or had no better means obviously available for keeping the people whom they killed from committing other serious crimes;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;
Okay so there are seven (7) exceptions to this proposal that are not considered 'illegal murder' thus exempt from this proposal as such..

6. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;
Now here you void the final four (4) exceptions so why did you even include them above it you now take them off the table.. As it only says the 'first (3) three...

Dealing with A) War B) Death Penalaty C) Abortion.. Thus you don't consider these areas where great abuse of 'legal murder' can take place...

Also in F) believe that it is same as 'death penality' or read it that way so may not understand it right... thus why duplicate that in B also... as one you keep it B then take it back with exempting it in the noted section... where only consider A B C not D E F G.... from clause #1...

Also in E) I would rather two chosen warriors from opposing sides duel on an issue than go to War.. and here you leave in war and take that out..

Also G) Accidents by their nature mean somebody didn't take a resonable degree of care.. or they would not be Accidents...


Are you for Wars, Death Penality, and Abortion as this seems you are moving around those issues to bring this to vote.. and you memtion them all here and they are clearly far easier means to commit murder in the name of than most other things....

*pulls a revolver out of his coatee and shoots a passing secretary*The secretary let out a brief yelp as the bullet punctured her neck; blood spurting out at regular intervals with her remaining heart beats. The files she was carrying went flying as her body jerked and she slumped to the ground. Her body twitched a few times before fully bleeding out, the crimson pool gently spreading around her lifeless form.

Charles, a security guard walking by the scene blinked and looked at the ambassador from Cobdenia, "Oy! You! What do you think... oh... wait..." He noticed the badge and nodded, "Ah, so sorry then. Forgot about that diplomatic immunity thing. And the fact that there's no such thing as a law against murder." He sighed dramatically -- melodramatically, even -- "When will the UN do something about this?"

"When will the UN do something about this?"

The gnomes are coming in now with mops and buckets to clean up the blood mess...

The gnomes are coming in now with mops and buckets to clean up the blood mess...
I know I'm short but that doesn't make me a gnome.

Pamela Richards
Janitorial Services
UN Building Management

The secretary let out a brief yelp as the bullet punctured her neck; blood spurting out at regular intervals with her remaining heart beats. The files she was carrying went flying as her body jerked and she slumped to the ground. Her body twitched a few times before fully bleeding out, the crimson pool gently spreading around her lifeless form.

Charles, a security guard walking by the scene blinked and looked at the ambassador from Cobdenia, "Oy! You! What do you think... oh... wait..." He noticed the badge and nodded, "Ah, so sorry then. Forgot about that diplomatic immunity thing. And the fact that there's no such thing as a law against murder." He sighed dramatically -- melodramatically, even -- "When will the UN do something about this?"

OOC:

Of course, Charles the security guard doesn't realize that diplomatic immunity only grants immunity from prosecution under the laws of the host nation. And since murder is a felony in the Ambassador's home nation and the embassy is the sovereign territory of that nation, the ambassador is now in deep doo-doo. That must be why the embassy's regional security officer and that big guy with the Uzi are walking towards the ambassador. Charles can't figure out what the RSO is going to do with those handcuffs.

Are you paying attention to what is being said in here and what you are say here? Most criminal that are given a death penality have murdered thus how do they fit i the above? One life gone forever never to be rehabilitated..

A rape victum never gets over scars of the rape and thus can never fully enjoy life after they are raped thus it even effects their family. Then they face the fact that the animal that raped them may come back..

Again you need to read what folks are saying here. As this keeps criminals around to allow them to make new victums of others after they already have murdered one. How many chances do they get before you figure that it's time to put an end to it. Chance one raped wife Chance two raped mother Chance three raped sister Chance four raped daughter and the count and chances go on..... as only if they kill the victum can we consider murder.... how many strikes does one get before they are out...

As the rehab rates on rapest from what have seen are very poor... add child abusers and others and then how many chances do we give them before we say enough... and end it... but can't because no murder was done so we can't murder them...

As believe what folks fear is this prevents 'capital punishment' as murder... since you use the term 'legal murder' I assume this is your intent and thus a bad idea... and it will not get my support and I will vote against it once it gets to that point and advise those I know to vote against it also..


I've noted what you have said, but I feel that it is just a difference in opinion. If you want to give the death penalty to a murderer, then you can go ahead and do that because my proposal only states minimums or equivalent punishments. Personally, I disagree with the death penalty however, for the fact that you should not act as bad as the murderer did, by killing him.

You've said that rape victims can never fully enjoy life: believe it or not, murder victims can never enjoy life at all, thus making murder a worse crime than rape.

In my nation, I try to rehabilitate these criminals, but if you don't believe in giving them a chance, then you can use the death penalty.

6. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

It means that if there is a killing that is not clearly covered by the first three exceptions, the nation must use their legal systems to determine whether it is murder or manslaughter and if there is a case that isn't clearly covered by all seven exceptions, they can choose whether it is legal or not.

Because the first three are areas where huge amounts of what could be legal murder take place, if there is a case that isn't clearly covered by these written exceptions, the nation could choose whether it is manslaughter or murder. I.e. In a war, a person could kill an ally. This may have actually been murder if there was a motif behind the killing. However, it could purely be an accident, (by being inaccurate with a grenade). We are saying that the nation can use their legal system to determine which. In all the other exceptions including those three, they can determine whether it be legal or illegal because there isn't as much possible abuse of the other exceptions.

I think this makes sense, but I may have made a mistake in this explanation. If so, don't hold it against me because there is a good intent behind the proposal.

If so, don't hold it against me because there is a good intent behind the proposal.
In Gruenberg, we have a saying: "the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of heretics."

What this means is, good intent is nice. Good intent is great; it's fantastic. It's also completely useless when it comes to law-making. A proposal's intent does not matter in terms of implementation. We don't doubt you wanted to do something good for the nations and people of the UN, and to write a worthwhile proposal, and we welcome your willingness to admit your errors first-time round. None of which lessens the degree to which we will opposing this proposal. Please don't hold it against us: there's good intent behind our opposition too.

As to your argument that murder is a terrible crime because the victim no longer enjoys life, that levels up poorly in comparison with suicide rates among rape victims. If so many feel that death would be better than life, why are those who must live with the pain of their suffering victims of lesser crimes than those who have their suffering ended by death? The UN has already legalised euthanasia (or attempted to), and in doing so it made a policy statement: in certain cases, for certain people, death can be more desirable life. You are abandoning that, with your absurd assertion that there is a "right to life", and that any crime against such is of the highest order.

I accept that there is a difference of opinion here. Incidently, I will try and repeal 'legalise euthanasia' later on for my reasons that I have explained and gruenberg has noted.

You do realize your proposal has to pass the General Assembly, and that there will be an official debate on it? Saying that you "accept there is a difference of opinion" is not a rebuttal, it's an attempt to worm out of facing the issue. You're going to have plenty of people asking why your moral stance should be imposed on us all: what will your response to them be? And if you don't have one, I suggest you get drafting.

Where's the official debate held and when?

The minimum sentence is just to ensure that murder is a punishable crime. I still feel that murder or manslaughter are worse crimes because it is losing a human life, which can't be brought back or rehabilitated. Therefore, it has wider implications on their family and friends etc. With rape or torture, the person lives, so can still be happy along with their family and friends. If the person dies because of rape or torture, then it could be classed as murder or manslaughter, so they would then get punished for it.

And yet, you will acquite unconditionally a case of involuntary manslaughter

How interesting.....

Where's the official debate held and when?

Here, when your resolution hits the floor.

And yet, you will acquite unconditionally a case of involuntary manslaughter

How interesting.....


My new proposal allows the nation to decide what punishment they give to manslaughter.

I suppose I am more lenient with manslaughter because I feel a bit of sympathy for the person who committed manslaughter as it was accidental and could happen to anyone. Human mistakes happen, so we have to punish this negligence, but not that harshly. Therefore, my proposal allows nations the freedom to decide how to punish manslaughter, but sets a minimum for murder.

10. HOWEVER SPECIFIES that the minimum punishment for murder when the criminal is sane shall be a 5 year removal from society or - if the nation concerned wishes to employ effective means for this - full rehabilitation.

Why does this resolution try to prescribe my judges what kind of punishment to deal out? Do you think I have incompetent judges?

My judicial system has a great place reserved for alternative punishments, dealt out based on what's best for the criminal and their later life. You are limiting this, probably causing more crime.

Thanks.

And what about plea bargaining?

Why does this resolution try to prescribe my judges what kind of punishment to deal out? Do you think I have incompetent judges?

My judicial system has a great place reserved for alternative punishments, dealt out based on what's best for the criminal and their later life. You are limiting this, probably causing more crime.

Thanks.


My original proposal had more minimums and as I have stated throughout this thread, I am for minimums to ensure crimes are punished properly. This new proposal only has one minimum, so it is the most lenient that I will go.

My original proposal had more minimums and as I have stated throughout this thread, I am for minimums to ensure crimes are punished properly. This new proposal only has one minimum, so it is the most lenient that I will go.
What you mean by that is, you want to make sure the legal systems of 30,000 UN nations conform to your view of "proper". :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism)

I accept that there is a difference of opinion here. Incidently, I will try and repeal 'legalise euthanasia' later on for my reasons that I have explained and gruenberg has noted.

I believe you should withdraw this proposal. It would be an unwarranted usurpation of sovereignty by the United Nations. Besides, it is totally unnecessary. Each nation has its own way to adequately define and appropriately cope with the issue of murder/manslaughter. Our customs may not conform to your myopic view but it conforms nicely to the traditions and mores of each individual nation state. We Qinqeans do not need to have the United Nations impose your ways on us. I believe I speak for my fellow nation states of the Caribbean Region, as well.

I believe you should withdraw this proposal. It would be an unwarranted usurpation of sovereignty by the United Nations. Besides, it is totally unnecessary. Each nation has its own way to adequately define and appropriately cope with the issue of murder/manslaughter. Our customs may not conform to your myopic view but it conforms nicely to the traditions and mores of each individual nation state. We Qinqeans do not need to have the United Nations impose your ways on us. I believe I speak for my fellow nation states of the Caribbean Region, as well.

That's all very well, for nations like ours who have effective laws against murder. However, what about the nation's who allow murder because they thnik it's "funny" or allow murder because it's an old tradition! We have to ensure that these other nations and all nations in the UN have sufficient laws against murder.

Cat-Tribe: That was the original version proposed. Please look through the thread for the latest version.

That's all very well, for nations like ours who have effective laws against murder. However, what about the nation's who allow murder because they thnik it's "funny" or allow murder because it's an old tradition! We have to ensure that these other nations and all nations in the UN have sufficient laws against murder.
Firstly, I do not believe that a society in which murder is unconstrained can persist for long. Thus, there will be a tendency towards laws, or informal policing, or simply social conditions in which people don't want to kill each other. You keep ranting about all these abusive nations with no murder laws: which ones?

And you're not establishing why their tradition is so bad, anyway. The idea that there is a right to life, let alone that life is the most basic right, is a value supposition that is by no means universal. The concept of a "right to life" is not incorporated into The Universal Bill of Rights, for example, and thus its status as this great unifying moral law is somewhat dubious. I'm not so bothered by your wishing to ban murder as your reasons for doing so: they seem to be "this is my belief, and some of you don't share it, so I'm going to force it onto you!" That's not productive, not diplomatic, not even workable as a basis for international law.

Please don't rebut this with "there's a difference of opinion".

Cat-Tribe: That was the original version proposed. Please look through the thread for the latest version.

Thank you. I have now read through the thread and will correct my post.

EDIT: I am working on a detailed response to the latest version of the proposal, but let me make clear in the meantime that is still objectionable.

I am grateful to the author and co-author for withdrawing the original proposal and recognize the intent to make an improvement.

Some quick comments:
1. The proposal as written now results under #6 in a trial (or at least a "use of [the nation's legal system] for any killing that sin't "clearly covered" by legitimate acts of war, the death penalty, or abortion.

2. This resolution wreaks havoc with the definitions of degrees of homicide in The Cat-Tribe and probably in most nations. First-degree murder is defined as murder. Manslaughter includes simple negligence.

3. Why mess with my definitions of murder and manslaughter if all you want to do is see that first-degree murders get at least a 5-year "removal from society"?

4. #5 appears to have no meaning whatsoever.

5. Paragraph 7 gives each nation international jurisdiction!!!

6. #8 creates a huge loophole in that it does not define what it means by "when the criminal is sane." What does "sane" mean?

:headbang: I'll be getting back to you all with more precise comments.

And what about plea bargaining?

Damn good question.

murder victims can never enjoy life at all, thus making murder a worse crime than rape.

In my nation, I try to rehabilitate these criminals, but if you don't believe in giving them a chance, then you can use the death penalty.

The trouble is a VICTIM is not the same as a criminal as criminals have been to court tried and found guilty of murdering. The VICTIM never had a day in court thus is gone forever but we now want to keep a criminal around to make VICTIMS of honest citizens over and over again.. As it's the honest citizens who pay in the end to keep criminals in prison or try to rehabilitate them.

However as you said under this we can still hang crimials and help victims as they need to be heldped..

As to your argument that murder is a terrible crime because the victim no longer enjoys life.


This is true and could never agree more with it and think any person here would... What we see it that here they try to make CRIMINALS who murder VICTIMS now VICTIMS just like those they murdered were.. We forget the differences between executing a criminal and murdering a VICTIM.. thus to say a criminal who murders has the same rights as his victim would be barbaric... probably more so than the manner in which the criminal murdered their VICTIM..

Executuon of a MURDER makes nobody a VICTIM is the legal system worked and they were found guilty by it and sentenced to be EXECUTED not MURDERED.. this is what feel is the problem with this as it moves criminals on equal footing with their VICTIMS in regards to life.. forgetting that the VICTIM lost theirs forever no chance of any rehabillation at all..

As with a raped person they lose something that can't be returned to them through rehabilation thus why should they have to pay a portion for a criminal that made them a VICTIM of rape to be rehabed... thus out on the street free to do it again and again.... in a short time..

Zeldon, if you're going to capitalise words to draw attention, please make sure they're spelt correctly.

Damn good question.

And one that still remains to be answered.

While I'm at it, what about duelling?

It means that if there is a killing that is not clearly covered by the first three exceptions, the nation must use their legal systems to determine whether it is murder or manslaughter

or whether it is, in fact, covered by one or more of the listed exceptions...

and if there is a case that isn't clearly covered by all seven exceptions, they can choose whether it is legal or not.

"all"? I can't envisage any situation in which all seven exceptions would apply simultaneously... *boggles*

My intended meaning was that if a killing isn't clearly covered by any of the listed exceptions then the local legal system has to work out whether or nor it is in fact covered by any of them anyway, whilst if it clearly isn't covered by any of the exceptions then they simply have to determine whether it counts as murder or as manslaughter and can't just choose to legalise it...

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich whistles idly while awaiting answers to his queries.

Why does this resolution try to prescribe my judges what kind of punishment to deal out? Do you think I have incompetent judges?

OOC: Good grief! Is that a National Sovereigntist' argument that I see coming from Groot Gouda?!?

My judicial system has a great place reserved for alternative punishments, dealt out based on what's best for the criminal and their later life. You are limiting this, probably causing more crime.

If your alternative treatement of murderers effectively constitutes "full rehabilitation" then it's an allowed approach under my suggested draft: If it isn't, and doesn't remove them from society for at least five years, then I'd really like to know just what you do consider a suitable way of dealing with them...

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich whistles idly while awaiting answers to his queries.[Shirley Jackson slaps Sheik Nadnerb for whistling "Dixie."]

And what about plea bargaining?


Isn't there still room for that, if it's a part of the relevant nation's legal system, in between the defined minimum sentence for murder and any higher sentence that might locally be considered possible?

The idea that there is a right to life, let alone that life is the most basic right, is a value supposition that is by no means universal.

If you're not alive then how many other rights can you exercise?

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions _Mr. Adolf: Might I enquire as to what impact this provision will have on my nation's shoot-on-sight policy regarding UN Gnomes? Well, OK, I'll answer my own question: absolutely none, as Omigodtheykilledkenny is no longer a UN member.

But let's say we were. What then?

I am grateful to the author and co-author for withdrawing the original proposal and recognize the intent to make an improvement.

OOC: I wasn't co-author of the original version, and was in fact amongst the people who criticised various aspects of it. My involvement in the project only began after that version had been withdrawn...

Some quick comments:

OOC: Which deserve longer answers that I could give them now: I'll hope to see to this later this evening...

While I'm at it, what about duelling?

I specifically listed that as a possible exception, to whatever extent it might be legal under the relevant nation's laws...

, then I'd really like to know just what you do consider a suitable way of dealing with them...

Hang them be done with them... and get on with life as best one can.. As those executed here are criminals not victims... who took the life of a victim or could not be rehabilitated so they abused others who became victims.

But I can't speak for others this is just our policy on this...

I specifically listed that as a possible exception, to whatever extent it might be legal under the relevant nation's laws...

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich smacks Shirley Jackson's bum as she walks away.

Ah, right. I missed that. My apologies. As for plea bargaining, though, no. This proposal, by my reading of it, would prohibit it. My line of thinking is as follows:

2. DEFINES any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Murder’, those that were due to negligence and/or recklessness rather than lethal intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Manslaughter’, and any others — whether carried out with lethal intent but no premeditation, committed by people provoked into losing self-control, or due to violence used in the commission of other crimes — to fall into whichever of those two categories the government of the relevant nation considers suitable;

Okay, there we define murder and manslaughter. Fine.

4. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

Now we're determining which a given act is. Okay. But...

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that setting appropriate punishments for these crimes should generally be a matter for nations’ own legal systems, which may vary the punishments (within any limits fixed under earlier UN Resolutions) based on the circumstances of specific cases, but does specify that the minimum penalty for anybody found to have committed murder whilst sane should be either five years removal from society (by whatever means is considered suitable by the relevant authorities) or — if the nation concerned has, and wishes to employ, effective means for this — full rehabilitation;

This forces nations to charge someone with the exact crime they've committed. There is no allowance for, say, pleading guilty to a lesser offense. You see, this is a perfect example of why the UN shouldn't be legislating in this area. It has far too many permutations and minutiae associated with it. Do you really want to get into the intricacies of the criminal legal process?

Oh, and you've sneaked in a minimum sentence (see bold). Nice try. Screw that.

Firstly, I do not believe that a society in which murder is unconstrained can persist for long. Thus, there will be a tendency towards laws, or informal policing, or simply social conditions in which people don't want to kill each other. You keep ranting about all these abusive nations with no murder laws: which ones?

And you're not establishing why their tradition is so bad, anyway. The idea that there is a right to life, let alone that life is the most basic right, is a value supposition that is by no means universal. The concept of a "right to life" is not incorporated into The Universal Bill of Rights, for example, and thus its status as this great unifying moral law is somewhat dubious. I'm not so bothered by your wishing to ban murder as your reasons for doing so: they seem to be "this is my belief, and some of you don't share it, so I'm going to force it onto you!" That's not productive, not diplomatic, not even workable as a basis for international law.

Please don't rebut this with "there's a difference of opinion".

Ok. You're right in saying that that is my belief and because of it, I am wishing to ensure that murder is illegal. Therefore, if you agree with having murder as illegal in all UN nations (for whatever reason) you should be for my proposal. The reasons I have stated are not clauses, just my belief as to why murder should be illegal. I'm sure that everyone else has their own belief as to why it should be illegal. You said that you are for banning murder, so should go along with my proposal. The reason for the proposal does not matter that much as long as you agree with the concept.

Oh, and you've sneaked in a minimum sentence (see bold). Nice try. Screw that.

The minimum sentence is not sneaked in, in the proposal that I actually put forward. People are still talking about the draft that St. Edmund. It has actually been spaced out more in the real proposal, which is here:


Murder and Manslaughter Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Adolf Barham

Description: BELIEVING that protection against arbitrary killing is the most fundamental of the rights that humans and other sapient beings should possess,

RECOGNISING that most nations probably have laws against such killing already,

WISHING to ensure that all nations have laws against such killing,

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions

a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and by the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Use of the death penalty on people who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable punishment under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths during duels, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the legal system of the nation concerned accepts were justifiable because the killers either were acting in self-defence or had no better means obviously available for keeping the people whom they killed from committing other serious crimes;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;

2. DEFINES any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Murder’

3.DEFINES that those that were due to negligence and/or recklessness rather than lethal intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Manslaughter’,

4. DEFINES that any other killings — whether carried out with lethal intent but no premeditation, committed by people provoked into losing self-control, or due to violence used in the commission of other crimes — to fall into whichever of those two categories the government of the relevant nation considers suitable;

5. DECLARES that attempting to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, soliciting murder, and knowingly providing resources for any organisation that practices murder, are all also illegal;

6. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

7. ACCEPTS that nations may also use their legal systems to determine whether any killings involving any of their subjects that occurred outside of their own territories were murder, manslaughter or legal;

8. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishments for these crimes should be a matter for nation's own legal systems

9. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishment may vary under different circumstances of specific cases (following previous UN resolutions)

10. HOWEVER SPECIFIES that the minimum punishment for murder when the criminal is sane shall be a 5 year removal from society or - if the nation concerned wishes to employ effective means for this - full rehabilitation.

11. URGES nations to include psychiatric therapy in their treatment of anybody whom they convict of murder or manslaughter but plan on freeing sooner or later.

Co-Authored by St. Edmund

No, euthanasia doesn't. You're a UN member, that means you follow its laws. "Legalise Euthanasia" is one of them.

Oh
Argh!
I hate that stupid resolution. It passed by less than 800 votes. I think I may draft a repeal.

--Rooty

I'd be willing to help you harem. I tried a proposal to repeal it when I first joined the game. I didn't tg anyone and it got about 30 approvals. Also, me and New kLemon tried to repeal it together. I have some statements that could be useful. I will work on that later though and I would certainly agree with repealing it.

That's all very well, for nations like ours who have effective laws against murder. However, what about the nation's who allow murder because they thnik it's "funny" or allow murder because it's an old tradition! We have to ensure that these other nations and all nations in the UN have sufficient laws against murder.
The answer to your question was answered by a member state of the Caribbean Region, The Armed Empire of The Guarded: "Honestly, if murder was legal in a nation then the ruling government body doesn't have nearly enough motivation for self-preservation. Although, I suppose, a mercenary company could be used to enforce the safety of the ruling body... but, that seems like finding the answer for a problem which shouldn't exist."
I repeat, you should withdraw this proposal. It is an unwarranted and unnecessary attempt to usurp thesovereignty of individual nation states.

No nation should be allowed to have murder as illegal. To prove that there are nations who have murder as illegal, here is a telegram that I received regarding my proposal:

Sometimes murder is the only choice for the people when diplomacy fails.

So you see we have to sort out these nations who have murder as legal because as you imply, these nations are probably corrupt. We must sort them out before the murder problem gets out of hand.

You continue to ignore my point about plea bargaining.

This may sound stupid, but I am new to the game. What exactly is plea-bargaining?

This may sound stupid, but I am new to the game. What exactly is plea-bargaining?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (and often allocute) in exchange for some concession from the prosecutor. This concession can include reducing the original charge or charges, dismissing some of the charges against the defendant or limiting the punishment a court can impose on the defendant. Generally, a plea bargain allows the parties to agree on the outcome and settle the pending charge. In colloquial terms this is known as "copping a plea".

Since I haven't thought about an occurence where the defendant would plea-bargain, the nation can still be allowed to have whatever laws they like on this matter as long as the minimum punishment for murder is 5 years in prison or an equivalent punishment.

Since I haven't thought about an occurence where the defendant would plea-bargain, the nation can still be allowed to have whatever laws they like on this matter as long as the minimum punishment for murder is 5 years in prison or an equivalent punishment.

You just don't get it. And just because you didn't think of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And that minimum mandatory sentence still has to go.

BELIEVING that protection against arbitrary killing is the most fundamental of the rights that humans and other sapient beings should possess,

RECOGNISING that most nations probably have laws against such killing already,

WISHING to ensure that all nations have laws against such killing,

This is all very nice BUT (1) Your proposal will not keep nations that wish to avoid punishing murder and/or manslaughter from continuing to avoid doing so and (2) Your proposal screws up the carefully considered schema of penal laws of all of the states that already seek to punish murder and/or manslaughter in good faith.

The Cat-Tribe has a sophisticated penal code. It defines criminal actions in terms of volition and multiple degrees of mens rea. Your ill-thought definitions wreck havoc with my system by redefining "murder" and "manslaughter" in ways that are different than the common understaning of those terms.

Every nation may have slightly different ways to define murder and distinguish between degrees of murder. That they may differ does not make them all wrong. Moreover your definitions trample on the most common distinctions made for criminal liability.

1. DECLARES that all killing of any humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings shall be illegal, with the following exceptions

a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and by the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Use of the death penalty on people who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable punishment under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths during duels, within whatever limits are set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the legal system of the nation concerned accepts were justifiable because the killers either were acting in self-defence or had no better means obviously available for keeping the people whom they killed from committing other serious crimes;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;

What degree of causation is required in order for a party to be held responsible for murder? If due to the butterfly effect, I "cause" a death -- am I liable?

Let me give you one example

Crofton Hospital is a NHS Trust Hospital. It finds that it has insufficient funds to keep open a full accident and emergency service. It does, however, retain a scaled down service staffed by one junior doctor, Philip.

Frank, who is 25, is brought to the hospital after having been carelessly injured in a pub by Jim. Philip examines him and believes that his injuries are merely external. In fact Frank has serious internal injuries to his kidney and liver. Philip attends to the external injuries and advises Frank to return home and rest. In fact Frank goes to a different pub where he slips down some stairs as a result of the carelessness of Fred, the landlord. His liver, but not his kidney, is injured more seriously in this second incident and Frank dies as a result. Frank’s liver was, however, already in a poor state due to his excessive drinking, and there is a strong possibility that he would not have lived beyond thirty.

Who killed Frank? Is Phillip guilty of a crime? Is Fred?

2. DEFINES any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Murder’

This is very close to how The Cat-Tribe defines first-degree murder, but not how we define murder. Your definition is underinclusive and only applies in those cases where there is premeditation.

OCC: This definition does not match that of any state of the United States, the common law of England, or the Model Penal Code. I know of no nation where this is the definition of murder.

3.DEFINES that those that were due to negligence and/or recklessness rather than lethal intent to be cases of the crime of ‘Manslaughter’,

The Cat-Tribe finds it morally reprehensible to hold those who have committed no more than mere negligence guilty of manslaughter. So nations may wish to punish criminally negligent homicide, but that does not make it the equivalent of manslaughter.

OCC: This definition does not match that of any state of the United States, the common law of England, or the Model Penal Code. I know of no nation where this is the definition of manslaughter.

4. DEFINES that any other killings — whether carried out with lethal intent but no premeditation, committed by people provoked into losing self-control, or due to violence used in the commission of other crimes — to fall into whichever of those two categories the government of the relevant nation considers suitable;

This catch-all tries to save the holes in the earlier two definitions and to bridge the many disctinctions over degrees of homicide.

It fails.

Read correctly it defines that "any other killings" must fall into either the category of manslaughter or murder. There are no other categories allowed -- which eliminates distinctions between first and second degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

5. DECLARES that attempting to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, soliciting murder, and knowingly providing resources for any organisation that practices murder, are all also illegal;

This paragraph is meaningless. It makes things "illegal" but (a) it doesn't define them and (b) the resolution takes no further action regarding them.

6. REQUIRES that nations use their legal systems to determine whether any killings of humans or other sapient beings that occur within their territories and were not clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1 were murder, manslaughter, or legal under any of the exceptions listed in clause #1;

Any nation that seeks to implement this provision in good faith will end up having trials over every death that occurs in that nation. Someone could have caused -- however remotely -- the death. Unless that person's actions were "clearly covered by any of the first three exceptions listed in clause #1," formal judicial proceedings appear to be required.

For example, if the resolution is taken at face value, even though euthanasia is legal under UN law, every euthanasia case must be tried as a murder.

Of course, if I am one of those rogue nations that does not wish to really punish murder, I still have significant wiggle room here to excuse it by simply not convicting anyone.

7. ACCEPTS that nations may also use their legal systems to determine whether any killings involving any of their subjects that occurred outside of their own territories were murder, manslaughter or legal;

This is highly objectionable. The Cat-Tribe does not recognize the jurisdiction of other nations to try cases that occur within the jurisdiction of The Cat-Tribe.

What happens if a duel to the death occurs in a country (A) where dueling is legal but the loser comes from a country (B) where dueling is illegal. Under this provision, country B could try the victor for murder even though he/she committed no crime in the country where the duel occurred.

This same problem exists with other exceptions, such as abortion. If a woman moves to a country to have a legal abortion, she could still be tried for murder if her original country does not allow abortion.

8. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishments for these crimes should be a matter for nation's own legal systems

9. ACKNOWLEDGES that the punishment may vary under different circumstances of specific cases (following previous UN resolutions)

10. HOWEVER SPECIFIES that the minimum punishment for murder when the criminal is sane shall be a 5 year removal from society or - if the nation concerned wishes to employ effective means for this - full rehabilitation.

The effect of these three clauses is to make the entire proposal meaningless (but still harmful).

Although the resolution makes a wide variety of acts or ommissions illegal, it only prescribes anything concrete for premeditated murder "when the criminal is sane."

Again, any nation not wishing to comply with the spirit of this resolution in good faith may use the "not sane" loophole to excuse any murder.

On the other hand, the resolution evidences utter contempt for the legal systems of the vast, vast majority of nations that already treat murder appropriately.

11. URGES nations to include psychiatric therapy in their treatment of anybody whom they convict of murder or manslaughter but plan on freeing sooner or later.

This provision is meaningless.

I have thought myself a stauch InterFed, but this resolution is simply untenable. I strongly recommend that it be rejected.

That is precisely the rant that I wanted to make but couldn't be arsed. Thanks to the representative of the Cat-Tribe.

Since I haven't thought about an occurence where the defendant would plea-bargain, the nation can still be allowed to have whatever laws they like on this matter as long as the minimum punishment for murder is 5 years in prison or an equivalent punishment.

May I suggest that your ignorance about how the criminal justice system of other nations usually work should advise you against intermeddling with those systems.

If you simply wanted a resolution that provided that nations must act in good faith to protect the lives of their citizens, you could have something much simpler that doesn't shit all over well thought out legal systems.

This may sound stupid, but I am new to the game. What exactly is plea-bargaining?This is madness. Someone who doesn't even know what a plea-bargain is assumes authority to rewrite criminal statutes in all member nations? Mark my words, honorable associates, should this legislation go anywhere in this assembly, it is highly unlikely the Federal Republic will ever return as a full member.

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

I've briefly looked at Cat tribe's rant, but as Cluichstan said, I can't be arsed to answer them all. However, very briefly.

A nation can still choose between first-degree murder/ second degree murder etc. if they wish to because they can still choose how to punish the crime at least above the minimum punishment set.

This proposal can not screw up nation's well thought out laws as it only mandates one minimum and determines what constitutes the crime. There is lee way allowed in my proposal.

The definitions in clause 5 are quite self explanatory and it makes those things punishable crimes that must be punished by the nation. Obviously, there is a minimum for murder later in the proposal.

For what you said about euthanasia, as long as the euthansia is done legally then the legal system will know that it was legal euthanasia. It would only be investigated as murder if the euthanasia was done illegally, which is quite right.

For what you said about duelling; the country who the person belongs to could only try their own subjects (people) for murder. Therefore, because the victor was not from their victim's country, he could not be tried for murder.

Sane means in their right mind. If you are going to say that I haven't defined every word in the proposal, it is stupid because you may be able to make a loophole by saying that I haven't defined what a punishment is! Please stop acting unintelligent and acknowledge that you know what the word sane means and that my proposal uses this word when talking about the criminal. Therefore, it is urging nations to check if they are sane. If you let people off murder by saying that they are insane when they aren't, you are breaking the rules of the proposal.