NationStates Jolt Archive

St. Edmund, you rewrote the proposal and they are nit-picking at every little piece of wording: it's like they're just trying to find a reason to not like the proposal. Could you help me and defend the words that you used.:confused:

Ahem...you still have not addressed the issue of plea bargaining.

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.

You can be bothered to override my nation's criminal justice system, but you can't be bothered to defend it?

You didn't bother to respond to some of my most important points.

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.

To a degree this is true, but it requires a re-writing of all of my nation's laws regarding homicide. But to that same degree, your proposal accomplishes next to nothing because I can legislate around it.

The point is that I shouldn't have to scrap my legal system just to accomodate your ignorance.

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.

I have to redefine: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

I have to treat all deaths as a prima facie crime.

And, yes, there is leeway in your proposal. I can, if I wish, get around its intent entirely.

This makes your proposal a huge waste of my nation's time and resources.

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.

No. Clause 5 merely makes those things "illegal." It does not require that they be treated as murder or that they be punished at all.

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.

Not according to your clause 6. According to your clause 6, a euthanasia case would require the "use of [my] legal system" to determine whether the killing was murder or not.

If this is a mere beaucratic formality, then so can the investigation of all murders be frivilous.

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.

:headbang:

OK. You missed the point. Let us assume the victor is from the victim's country. Then he has committed no crime in the nation in which the duel took place, but could still be tried for murder in his original country.

There is no reason why your nation should have jurisdiction over crimes that occur within the jurisdiction of my country. I am not a big advocate of national sovereignty, but your proposal throws the notion entirely out the window.

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.

Actually, no. I can define anyone that commits murder as not being "in their right mind" and comply with the letter of your proposal.

You confuse the intent of your proposal with its actual language. I have explained why both are wrong. And further that your proposal does not carry out its putative intent.

St. Edmund, you rewrote the proposal and they are nit-picking at every little piece of wording: it's like they're just trying to find a reason to not like the proposal. Could you help me and defend the words that you used.:confused:

OCC:

Look. You just don't know what it is you are writing about. St. Edmund helped you considerably, but not enough to save your proposal.

You are messing with definitions of crime, murder, and manslaughter that have refined over centuries. Normal homicide statutes cover many, many pages of detail that you blithely trampel upon.

But the heart of the problem with your proposal is this: any nation that truly does not wish to punish murderers can find loopholes in your proposal, but nations that already seek to punish criminals appropriately have their systems overridden.

You don't even know what plea bargaining is. Are you familiar with the degreees of actus reus and mens rea?

How dare you seek to overwrite every other nations criminal justice statutes.

The Palentine is still wondering, why this is any of the UN's business. Let each nation make its own laws on how to define, murder and manslaughter, and how to punish the perps. This still seems to me useless micro-managing of a problem that does not exist. Furthermore for some unknown reason it offends my very liberty, live free or die, loving cockels of my heart. THe Palentine still says no. Now I'm off to drink me some Wild Turkey(TM) and oogle the Thessadorian Ambassador. She's wearing a real tight t-shirt today.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The Palentine is still wondering, why this is any of the UN's business. Let each nation make its own laws on how to define, murder and manslaughter, and how to punish the perps. This still seems to me useless micro-managing of a problem that does not exist. Furthermore for some unknown reason it offends my very liberty, live free or die, loving cockels of my heart. THe Palentine still says no. Now I'm off to drink me some Wild Turkey(TM) and oogle the Thessadorian Ambassador. She's wearing a real tight t-shirt today.:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Seconded. This is not the United Nations' business.

At least take out the mandatory punishments. It is up to the nation to decide what they shall be. "Locked away from society" can have a number of interperetations, some of which are, to me, highly disturbing.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratain Ambassador to the United Nations

St. Edmund, you rewrote the proposal and they are nit-picking at every little piece of wording: it's like they're just trying to find a reason to not like the proposal. Could you help me and defend the words that you used.:confused:

First, we went after the most disgusting errors in your proposal - things that were faulty, things that were just plain stupid, things that questionably contradicted passed resolutions, things that legislated on stuff that should be legislated on directly rather than sneakily (Death penalty), etc. That's been dealt with. However, that's points 1-20 on a list of 5000 (and it'll only get longer as the draft count increases). Certainly, you can get away with not getting the full 5000 completed, heck - most people don't come close to fixing all the problems and a few issues are brought down to "differences in point of view" (though I note that when they say that, they tend to understand a bit more about the opposing point of view and have reasons why they feel their point of view is better than the opposition's. So far, you have said "I believe this" and "That's great you believe that", but you haven't said "Here's why I think my position is better".

There are few proposals where there isn't a single problem when it heads to vote. Almost all proposals - both passed resolutions and otherwise, are still fighting battles of disagreements on wording, areas of consideration, areas of focus, level of micromanagement, strength, etc through their voting period. There are a few notable exceptions (Meteorlogical cooperation comes to mind), but for the vast majority, this is the case. That is the nature of the UN.

I have yet to see evidence that St Edmund supports your proposal. What he did - and it gives me a very high opinion of him - is he rewrote your proposal regardless of his personal beliefs on the matter to deal with the glaring errors and try and give you a proposal that at least meets the level of expectations this community has for quality of proposal - even if the content and topic are less acceptable (and that would probably be fixed by a complete changing of your beliefs and understanding of the UN). St Edmund accomplished that feat successfully - it is up to you to defend the position you took. We aren't questioning St Edmund's draft because of the wording he took. The problems with his draft are based off the same problems your initial proposal and subsequent drafts had. He can't be faulted for that. That's your position, you must defend it.


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

Seriously, you've never heard of a plea-bargain?

Ok, an example of a plea bargain that is entirely pertinent.

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

IC:

Forgottenlord's brother-in-law, Kane Angel, was previously a terrorist - a Clan leader from the Nolak Clans terrorist group, to be precise. Amongst the many crimes he's committed in the life he was literally born into includes conspiracy to murder 250 citizens from fellow Aberdeen nation and active UN member, Dancing Bananland, and the attempted detonation of 20 potent nerve gas canisters at various locations throughout Aberdeen which could have potentially killed millions. Before those attacks could occur, Kane Angel was confronted and surrendered - now serving the Forgotten Territories and providing extensive information on the Nolak Clans. From this data, we were able to circumvent the further attacks, saving the potential million lives. So tell me, should the Forgotten Territories, which would be required by the UN to prosecute Mr Angel and sentence him to effective life imprisonment (2X250 = 500 years.....just a bit long.....and that's for the single act) if this resolution passes, be permitted to acquit Mr Angel of all charges in light of his reformation?

Perhaps this will help. A decade or so ago, I took some law classes in Michigan, and one of my "textbooks" was the MCLA (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated). Biggest "textbook" I've ever had the pleasure of lugging around. Anyway, have a looksee at how complicated defining murder is, and maybe this will show why trying to do this in a UN Proposal is impossible:

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.316 First degree murder; penalty; definitions.

Sec. 316.

(1) A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life:

(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.

(b) Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, or vulnerable adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n.

(c) A murder of a peace officer or a corrections officer committed while the peace officer or corrections officer is lawfully engaged in the performance of any of his or her duties as a peace officer or corrections officer, knowing that the peace officer or corrections officer is a peace officer or corrections officer engaged in the performance of his or her duty as a peace officer or corrections officer.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Arson” means a felony violation of chapter X.

(b) “Corrections officer” means any of the following:

(i) A prison or jail guard or other prison or jail personnel.

(ii) Any of the personnel of a boot camp, special alternative incarceration unit, or other minimum security correctional facility.

(iii) A parole or probation officer.

(c) “Major controlled substance offense” means any of the following:

(i) A violation of section 7401(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401.

(ii) A violation of section 7403(2)(a)(i) to (iii) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7403.

(iii) A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subparagraph (i) or (ii).

(d) “Peace officer” means any of the following:

(i) A police or conservation officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state.

(ii) A police or conservation officer of the United States.

(iii) A police or conservation officer of another state or a political subdivision of another state.Feel free to poke around (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/) if you want, but try to see how monsterously complicated these matters are just within a single jurisdicition; to say nothing of trying to do this across 30,000 nations with unknown numbers of internal jurisdictions. And take a look at the number of degrees listed in Section B. Criminal law is horribly complicated, and trying to define something as complex as murder with a single "DEFINES" line is absurd.

And don't even get started on Manslaughter. Sections 750.321 through 750.325 (as well as a handful of others) deal specifically with Manslaughter (Manslaughter, Manslaughter; wilful killing of unborn quick child, Manslaughter; death of quick child or mother from use of medicine or instrument, Negligent homicide; penalty, Negligent homicide; manslaughter where due to operation of motor vehicle).

Perhaps this will help. A decade or so ago, I took some law classes in Michigan, and one of my "textbooks" was the MCLA (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated). Biggest "textbook" I've ever had the pleasure of lugging around. Anyway, have a looksee at how complicated defining murder is, and maybe this will show why trying to do this in a UN Proposal is impossible:

Feel free to poke around (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/) if you want, but try to see how monsterously complicated these matters are just within a single jurisdicition; to say nothing of trying to do this across 30,000 nations with unknown numbers of internal jurisdictions. And take a look at the number of degrees listed in Section B. Criminal law is horribly complicated, and trying to define something as complex as murder with a single "DEFINES" line is absurd.

And don't even get started on Manslaughter. Sections 750.321 through 750.325 (as well as a handful of others) deal specifically with Manslaughter (Manslaughter, Manslaughter; wilful killing of unborn quick child, Manslaughter; death of quick child or mother from use of medicine or instrument, Negligent homicide; penalty, Negligent homicide; manslaughter where due to operation of motor vehicle).

That's one of the main reasons (along with National Sovereignty) why I left most of the defining, and setting of sentences, as a matter for the separate nations.

You see, the proposal makes murder illegal and punishable. If the nation so wishes they would be allowed to define first degree murder, second egree murder and different types of manslaughter themselves by giving a stronger punishment to people they consider to have committed first degree murder than people who committed second degree. Also, if the nation wishes they could give a stronger punishment to people who commit voluntary manslaughter than those who commit involuntary manslaughter. As St. Edmund said, the defining is left out because it is too hard to fit all into a UN proposal.

Say it with me: "plea bargaining."

Okay. Look, plea-bargaining does not affect my proposal. If a person who is tried for murder or manslaughter plea-bargains, the nation can decide what to do as long as the minimums for murder still apply and that they still punish manslaughter.

Okay. Look, plea-bargaining does not affect my proposal. If a person who is tried for murder or manslaughter plea-bargains, the nation can decide what to do as long as the minimums for murder still apply and that they still punish manslaughter.

They most certainly do matter. You fail to grasp the whole concept of plea bargaining.

Okay. Look, plea-bargaining does not affect my proposal. If a person who is tried for murder or manslaughter plea-bargains, the nation can decide what to do as long as the minimums for murder still apply and that they still punish manslaughter.

So Kane Angel makes a plea-bargain and STILL is sentenced to a minimum 500 years in prison despite everything he's provided to the Aberdeen intelligence community? Are we now saying that terrorists, many drug traffikers that have had violent encounters, and many, many, many members of various gangs and criminal communities are to have no incentive whatsoever in changing sides, redeeming themselves, and bringing other criminals to justice?

Do you even kind of understand the purpose of plea bargaining?

Again, I have to say that I am not a great fan of rehabilitation without any punishment first. I believe that if someone commits a murder, they must be punished even if they try to plea-bargain. I'm sure that plea-bargaining can be abused, so setting a minimum of 5 years whatsoever can try and stop this.

It is not up to a foreign country to determine the period of confinmement or punishment for a crime. Setting specific time periods for a crime violates our law. With trial by jury, the jury and judge help determine the length of sentencing not a foreign power. Any specific times listed in your legislation would violate our sovereignty. This needs to be changed before we will even consider this legislation. Individual courts determine punishment not foreign powers.

So Kane Angel makes a plea-bargain and STILL is sentenced to a minimum 500 years in prison despite everything he's provided to the Aberdeen intelligence community? Are we now saying that terrorists, many drug traffikers that have had violent encounters, and many, many, many members of various gangs and criminal communities are to have no incentive whatsoever in changing sides, redeeming themselves, and bringing other criminals to justice?

Do you even kind of understand the purpose of plea bargaining?

And that's not the only purpose of a plea bargain. Many times a prosecutor will offer a plea bargain because he's not 100% sure he can get the conviction on the higher charge, so he drops it down and gets the accused to plead guilty to the lesser charge. Works for both sides. The prosecutor gets a conviction on a lesser charge, as opposed to risking losing the case altogether, and the accused gets a lesser sentence, rather than risking the higher one should he be convicted.

And that's not the only purpose of a plea bargain. Many times a prosecutor will offer a plea bargain because he's not 100% sure he can get the conviction on the higher charge, so he drops it down and gets the accused to plead guilty to the lesser charge. Works for both sides. The prosecutor gets a conviction on a lesser charge, as opposed to risking losing the case altogether, and the accused gets a lesser sentence, rather than risking the higher one should he be convicted.

Again, this could still occur with my proposal as long as the accused gets a minimum 5 years. They may accept a plea bargain to only get 5 years rather then risking 10.

Once again, commonalitarianism, we have heard the sovereignty argument and I have explained that it is fundamental that the UN interfere with murder and manslaughter because they are obviously the two worst crimes as they take away a person's life so the UN should ensure that every nation has these two as illegal and punishable in the case of murder as there is intent.

Again, this could still occur with my proposal as long as the accused gets a minimum 5 years. They may accept a plea bargain to only get 5 years rather then risking 10.

:headbang:

Once again, commonalitarianism, we have heard the sovereignty argument and I have explained that I believe murder to be the worst crime along with manslaughter and therefore those two are the only two crimes where the UN should make a resolution ensuring that every nation has these two as illegal and punishable in the case of murder as there is intent.

The UN should pass a resolution simply based on your beliefs? Wow...pretty high opinion of yourself there.

The UN should pass a resolution simply based on your beliefs? Wow...pretty high opinion of yourself there.

There you go again - exploiting the wording I used. I will edit that post just so you can't moan about me using the words such as I believe or I think or it is my opinion etc.

I believe that you are.... oh no. <Thinks of another way to say this> <Ah hah>

It is clear that you are running out of things to moan about in my proposal as you are moaning at the wording in my posts.

I don't think it's so much that, as the fact that your continual refusal to respond to criticisms of your proposal leads us to think that you're not simply not going to, so there's no point harping on about them anymore.

Gruenberg, I am trying my best to answer all questions and queries about my proposal. I answered the query about plea bargaining and Cluichstan just replied with :headbang: , so how can I answer any further questions if he isn't telling me why he's banging his head?

You said: "I've briefly looked at Cat tribe's rant...I can't be arsed to answer them all."

I really would appreciate you were arsed to respond to his points, because they seem relevant, and many of them haven't been satisfactorily explained.

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.[/B]

Each nation is left to decide whether or not they want to distinguish between different types of murder and manslaughter. If your nation so wishes, you could punish second-degree murder lighter than you punish first degree murder. The definitions of these terms are left to individual nations. Again, as long as the minimum is 5 years. Again, you could punish what you consider to be voluntary manslaughter stronger than involuntary manslaughter with the minimum being that you at least punish it.

My definitions are enough so that murder must be punished in each UN nation with 5 years and manslaughter must be punished by the nation's own legal system. I understand that this can be wriggled out of by just punishing manslaughter lightly, but that can be decided by the nation itself. It at least ensures that every nation must punish murder.

On to Cat Tribe's next comment.

Okay, I've had enough. You can, henceforth, deal with my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

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?
[/B]

This is a very interesting and rare example. My proposal merely makes manslaughter a crime: it says that manslaughter is a killing due to recklessness or negligence. Since you cannot say that Frank killed himself from drinking as he still had given himself 5 years to live, Frank has not killed himself. Therefore, it must be as you said Fred or Phillip. It cannot be phillip because Frank did not heed Phillips advice to go home and it was Frank's liver, not his kidney that killed him. Phillip is clear. Therefore Fred is to blame for not warning Frank of the slippery surface on the stairs. You could say that because Frank's liver was already in a poor state, it is slightly his own fault, so you wouldn't put all the blame on Fred and would give Fred a mild punishment. This is how my legal system would deal with the case, but since I have not set punishments for manslaughter (just said that it must be punished), the nation can choose who to blame and how to punish them. They must choose who it was to blame using the criteria given: negligence or recklessness. The nation may choose to punish Fred and Phillip, but the choice is up to them.

On to Cat Tribe's next comment

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 (manslaughter) 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.

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.

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.

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.
[/B]

Ok, so: My definitions are not perfect: none are, but the fact is that my definitions are good enough to create a worldwide meaning for each UN nation to abide by. They have the leeway to define different types of murder and manslaughter, so each nation still has a lot of choice to add to the definitions. Mine are basic, but acceptable.

I have explained how nation's can use categories in strengths of murder or manslaughter. I have said that any other killings must come under the category murder or manslaughter. First degree and second degree murder both come under the category murder, just as involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter come under the category manslaughter, so the nation can still choose how to punish these crimes considering how bad that the nation thinks the crime to be.

All the phrases that I have made illegal in clause 5 are illegal even though it does not involve that person actually killing someone. Therefore, I have made them illegal which means that they have to be punishable. The nation can choose how to punish these crimes.

On to Cat Tribes next comment.

Ok, so: My definitions are not perfect: none are, but the fact is that my definitions are good enough to create a worldwide meaning for each UN nation to abide by. They have the leeway to define different types of murder and manslaughter, so each nation still has a lot of choice to add to the definitions. Mine are basic, but acceptable.

I have explained how nation's can use categories in strengths of murder or manslaughter. I have said that any other killings must come under the category murder or manslaughter. First degree and second degree murder both come under the category murder, just as involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter come under the category manslaughter, so the nation can still choose how to punish these crimes considering how bad that the nation thinks the crime to be.

All the phrases that I have made illegal in clause 5 are illegal even though it does not involve that person actually killing someone. Therefore, I have made them illegal which means that they have to be punishable. The nation can choose how to punish these crimes.

On to Cat Tribes next comment.

*sigh*

This appears to be hopeless.

You blithely ignore that your definitions of murder and manslaughter are neither basic nor acceptable. The one is underinclusive and the other is overinclusive. Making all the degrees of homicide fit into one of 2 categories does not allow for common moral distinctions between such degrees. Making all killings either murder or manslaughter is simply absurd.

Why do I have this suspicion you have no idea what I meant by the Model Penal Code? That you have no idea what the common law definitions of murder and manslaughter in the US and England are?

You seem to continually confuse what you intend your resolution to do with what it actually says.

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.

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.

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.



This provision is meaningless.

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

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; duelling is still legal under my proposal from clause 1 and the end of clause 6, where it says if it is not legal under all the exceptions, it can be tried as murder. Same is true for abortion: It is legal.

I have explained before that every nation understands what the word 'sane' means, so a loophole cannot be created here. I haven't got to define every word used in the proposal: only the main ones which are murder and manslaughter.

The aim of the proposal is 1 to ensure that all UN nations have murder as illegal and laws regarding manslaughter and 2 to try and get a standard that all nations can live by for the laws regarding murder and manslaughter, so that there is not any confusion when people go on holiday. This is not perfectly done; but is done acceptably.

The psychological help is a luxury added to the proposal to help out the criminal who may be in distress.


Now, don't say that I have not tried to answer all queries regarding my proposal because I have probably been sitting at my computer for a total of about 10 hours answering questions for the past week. This, alone took an hour. Done.

Again, I have to say that I am not a great fan of rehabilitation without any punishment first. I believe that if someone commits a murder, they must be punished even if they try to plea-bargain. I'm sure that plea-bargaining can be abused, so setting a minimum of 5 years whatsoever can try and stop this.

Each COUNT of murder gets 5 years minimum. 250 dead means you get a minimum of 1,250 years minimum.

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

You changed the minimum to 5 years? Sheesh, talk about a resolution collapsing faster and faster.

And manslaughter is the second worst crime?

You know what, I'm going to let you talk to my sock puppets. If nothing else, you might be able to have more normal conversations with them.

A-B, we do appreciate you taking the time to answer our questions, and we know it can be frustrating. But these laws affect us all, and it's important that they work, and that we understand the reasoning behind them.

One thing you don't seem to be acknowledging is that degrees of murder don't simply differ in the severity of punishment. They differ in that they are different crimes. That is a moral judgment, that your proposal doesn't account for.

snip

I'm tired of this and will not point out the many inadequacies in your responses, except to point out that you skipped a set of objections entirely.

You fail utterly to address the grant of extraterritorial jurisdicition and the problem of conflict of laws regarding such jurisdiction.

Each COUNT of murder gets 5 years minimum. 250 dead means you get a minimum of 1,250 years minimum.

I thought it should be worth pointing out that there is no mention of the type of sentence of the 5 years minimum in his resolution. Multiple offenses could either be consecutive or concurrent, the resolution isn't really clear on that point.

Although in general I am still blah about this resolution at least I am no longer extreemely opposed to it. :(

I thought it should be worth pointing out that there is no mention of the type of sentence of the 5 years minimum in his resolution. Multiple offenses could either be consecutive or concurrent, the resolution isn't really clear on that point.

Although in general I am still blah about this resolution at least I am no longer extreemely opposed to it. :(

Wording loopholes aside and the fact that 10 effectively allows me to throw everyone through my legal system to begin with......

The wording implies that this is what's happening

A-B, we do appreciate you taking the time to answer our questions, and we know it can be frustrating. But these laws affect us all, and it's important that they work, and that we understand the reasoning behind them.

One thing you don't seem to be acknowledging is that degrees of murder don't simply differ in the severity of punishment. They differ in that they are different crimes. That is a moral judgment, that your proposal doesn't account for.

Firstly, I believe that this is your 5000th post Gruenberg. Well done.

So, I understand what you are saying and appreciate some kind comments from everyone for once, but although the written law regarding murder does not have first degree etc. written down, the general idea is that nations punish first degree murder more severely, so the punishment can reflect how bad the nation determines the murder to be within the minimums of course. I understand that there may be a case where the severity of a punishment may be the same for both degrees of murder or where second degree is punished more, but since there isn't enough room in NS proposals, surely we can all accept a law that illegalises murder in general with a minimum punishment because then the nation can choose the severity of the punishment depending on how they want to categorise different types of murder themselves? As long as my propsal simply illegalises murder and sets a minimum, the rest can be left to the nation to decide as to why and how far they go over the minimum as a punishment.

Caratia still demands to know why this is the business of the United Nations.

Should this pass, Caratia will immediately withdraw from the United Nations.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

the general idea is that nations punish first degree murder more severely, so the punishment can reflect how bad the nation determines the murder to be within the minimums of course.And this is the problem with sentencing guidelines. As I linked above, the state of Michigan has 7 different definitions of manslaughter, with different triggers and punishments for each. To simply say "All these have a minimum of five years" is ludicrous.

I understand that there may be a case where the severity of a punishment may be the same for both degrees of murder or where second degree is punished more, but since there isn't enough room in NS proposalsMany would take this as a hint that perhaps this is something that should be left out of the UN.

surely we can all accept a law that illegalises murder in general with a minimum punishment because then the nation can choose the severity of the punishment depending on how they want to categorise different types of murder themselves?Rather obviously, we can't.

As long as my propsal simply illegalises murder and sets a minimum, the rest can be left to the nation to decide as to why and how far they go over the minimum as a punishment.While you've still left a gigantic loophole, the problems with this Proposal are still critical. You still haven't fully addressed plea bargining, nor have you addressed mitigating circumstances (temporary insanity, heat of passion/hot blood, mental incompitence, "needed killin'", self defense, defending one's home, other types of justifiable homicide, etc.), nor have you addressed the fact that in many countries (such as the Hack) that duels are legal.

Starting to see why this is simply too complicated to distill down into a good Resolution? To say nothing of the fact that many view this as none of the UN's business.

I also think The Cat-Tribe's point about jurisdiction of place was important. You are effectively removing all national jurisdiction in criminal justice with Clause 7. If someone comes to Gruenberg, they respect Gruenberg's laws, and they do not have to abide by the laws of their home country, which no longer apply to them. If they fight a duel on Gruenberger soil (which would be legal), it is ludicrous to suggest they could still be charged for murder by their home nation.

If they fight a duel on Gruenberger soil (which would be legal), it is ludicrous to suggest they could still be charged for murder by their home nation.Hm. Seems they could normally be charged with something along the lines of "Crossing national lines to commit a felony," couldn't they? In the US it's illegal to cross state lines to commit a crime that is illegal in the "home" state but legal in the destination state.

Hm. Seems they could normally be charged with something along the lines of "Crossing national lines to commit a felony," couldn't they? In the US it's illegal to cross state lines to commit a crime that is illegal in the "home" state but legal in the destination state.
My understanding of this - and this is based solely on rock and roll stars and their various transgressions, so I'm not claiming to be an expert - is that there has to be intent. If you cross a state border, then commit what would be a felony, but the intent of the journey was not solely to commit that felony, then it wouldn't be a charge...

Furthermore, this hasn't been established by UN law. Let's say someone comes to Gruenberg, fights a duel, kills someone. We don't charge them. Their home nation wants to charge them. Until they return home, that nation has no authority to execute a police action on Gruenberger soil, and arrest and charge them. Under this resolution, it would seem they would get that right. Furthermore, if you look at the way that clause is phrased, it's actually just "involving", rather "committed by". That would mean that if the Gruenberger citizen killed the foreigner, in Gruenberg, the host nation would still have the authority to try the person from Gruenberg for murder.

My understanding of this - and this is based solely on rock and roll stars and their various transgressions, so I'm not claiming to be an expert - is that there has to be intent. If you cross a state border, then commit what would be a felony, but the intent of the journey was not solely to commit that felony, then it wouldn't be a charge...Ah yes.

Furthermore, if you look at the way that clause is phrased, it's actually just "involving", rather "committed by". That would mean that if the Gruenberger citizen killed the foreigner, in Gruenberg, the host nation would still have the authority to try the person from Gruenberg for murder.Hm. Yes. Don't much care for that at all. Trying in absentia is one thing, but the UN giving them the right to (try and) waltz on in and pick up a foreign national is just plain wrong.

Unless, of course, you're opposed to even the barest shreds of national sovereignty.

:( Hm. Seems they could normally be charged with something along the lines of "Crossing national lines to commit a felony," couldn't they? In the US it's illegal to cross state lines to commit a crime that is illegal in the "home" state but legal in the destination state.

People cross the state line all the time with the specific to do things in which it is illegal in their home state. They go to gamble, watch horse and dog races, buy alcoholic beverages, purchase fireworks, sunbathe in the nude, etc. They cross international borders to purchase pharmaceuticals, watch bull fights, have an illicit rendezvous, etc. All of which may be illegal in their home jurisdictions. I am unaware of anyone being prosecuted in the home jurisdiction for an activity in another, unless it was something like crossing state borders during a kidnapping or to have carnal knowledge of a child. Possibly these could be used as a precedent but it would be a dangerous precedent.

Hm. Yes. Don't much care for that at all. Trying in absentia is one thing, but the UN giving them the right to (try and) waltz on in and pick up a foreign national is just plain wrong.

Unless, of course, you're opposed to even the barest shreds of national sovereignty.

I'm sure there's someone who would have no problem with trampling on national sovereignty like that, but I've Forgotten his name.

I'm sure there's someone who would have no problem with trampling on national sovereignty like that, but I've Forgotten his name.

I'm sorry, but just because I believe that "National Sovereignty" is a false term doesn't mean I don't think there are things that should be left at the National level.

Should this pass, Caratia will immediately withdraw from the United Nations.

Ah, now I have found a reason to support this reslution! :p

Starting to see why this is simply too complicated to distill down into a good Resolution? To say nothing of the fact that many view this as none of the UN's business.

I disagree, I think that this can be distilled down to a very good resolution. I simply think that Adolf-Barham does not want to take the significant effort to do so as the process would involve having to comprimise or even throw away some pre-conceived notions of what should be in the resolution.

In the end, there is still the question of whether or not this is really an international issue? Is the question of uniform standards important? Does the issue cross national borders? As written, the answer is a resounding NO.

It appears as though this has failed to reach quorum :D

*goes off to make yet another UN card about this proposal depicting glee for a proposal failing to reach quorum*

It appears as though this has failed to reach quorum :D

*goes off to make yet another UN card about this proposal depicting glee for a proposal failing to reach quorum*

Please note that, because the members of the Wardrobe -- who had not been consulted before our ambassador wrote & made public his draft text for this proposal -- were unable to reach a consenus on whether the importance of banning murder over-rode our established policy of upholding national sovereignty, the government of St Edmund instructed Dr Sweynsson to withhold our nation's approval from this proposal.

OOC: Ah well, that gives me some more time in which to consider the matter... I had quite a lengthy reply to some of your questions & remarks about what various clauses of the proposal were supposed to mean that I planned to post here, but this bloody computer's just de-formatted the disc from which I was trying to transfer it... :(

It appears as though this has failed to reach quorum :D

*goes off to make yet another UN card about this proposal depicting glee for a proposal failing to reach quorum*

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4796/party0du.jpg

I also think The Cat-Tribe's point about jurisdiction of place was important. You are effectively removing all national jurisdiction in criminal justice with Clause 7. If someone comes to Gruenberg, they respect Gruenberg's laws, and they do not have to abide by the laws of their home country, which no longer apply to them. If they fight a duel on Gruenberger soil (which would be legal), it is ludicrous to suggest they could still be charged for murder by their home nation.

What that clause (which wasn't really meant to "grant" any new right, as The Cat Tribe suggested was the case, but merely to confirm nations' right to continue with what I believe to be an existing [OOC: and sometimes used in RL...] practice) was supposed to cover -- and would more specifically have done so, had the constraints of time and space that I faced been significantly less -- was cases involving situations such as killings in international waters [or airspace or space], crimes committed by agents of governments who chose not to punish them themselves (e.g. the murder of POWs from UN nations within non-UN nations), and the like... and simply holding inquests to determine causes of death for any of a nation's people who die abroad, as St Edmund does. I didn't envisage many governments bothering to hold full trials in cases where crimes occurred in countries whose own legal systems could & would deal with them... and I didn't intend to imply even an automatic right of extradition, let alone any right to send police into other countries.
I will agree that "involving" was the wrong word to use: “by or against” would have been a better choice…

OOC: I seem to recall that there was actually at least RL precedent for the situation that you described here, involving Britons who went to fight duels in France during the early post-Napoleonic period, but can't remember the details...

In the US it's illegal to cross state lines to commit a crime that is illegal in the "home" state but legal in the destination state.

OOC:

Hack, are you sure about this? Maybe it's because I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet, but I can't recall ever running across such a thing. I'm very familiar with the Federal crime of interstate flight to avoid prosecution, but this rings no bells at all. [Looks at his half-empty cofee cup.] :rolleyes:

Please note that, because the members of the Wardrobe -- who had not been consulted before our ambassador wrote & made public his draft text for this proposal -- were unable to reach a consenus on whether the importance of banning murder over-rode our established policy of upholding national sovereignty, the government of St Edmund instructed Dr Sweynsson to withhold our nation's approval from this proposal.

OOC: Ah well, that gives me some more time in which to consider the matter... I had quite a lengthy reply to some of your questions & remarks about what various clauses of the proposal were supposed to mean that I planned to post here, but this bloody computer's just de-formatted the disc from which I was trying to transfer it... :(

Speaking for myself and the other members of the Ausserland delegation, we are quite pleased at this development. It bothered us greatly that the name of the nation which put forward the very excellent "Meteorological Cooperation" resolution would be associated, even as co-author, with this extremely poor and ill-advised proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC:

Hack, are you sure about this? Maybe it's because I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet, but I can't recall ever running across such a thing. I'm very familiar with the Federal crime of interstate flight to avoid prosecution, but this rings no bells at all. [Looks at his half-empty cofee cup.] :rolleyes:
OOC: I'm wondering the same thing. I know I've never heard of someone going to Nevada to sleep with a prostitute and then getting arrested for doing so when they return to their home state.

OoC: There are some laws that exist on crimes that may happen abroad. In the UK, it is illegal for a British citizen to attempt to bribe an official abroad (and this has been enforced). Another example is that it is against the law for a Brit to abuse a child abroad (brought in due to fears of pedophile sex tourism to Cambodia)

OOC: I'm wondering the same thing. I know I've never heard of someone going to Nevada to sleep with a prostitute and then getting arrested for doing so when they return to their home state.


OOC: actually its only illegal if you take her across state lines for immoral purposes.

OOC: actually its only illegal if you take her across state lines for immoral purposes.
OOC: I'm not sure I want to know how you know this.

Hm. Okay, I don't know what the Hell I was thinking. Maybe it was that whole "immoral purposes" bit and I applied it too broadly. Or maybe I was thinking felonies... I dunno.

Hm. Okay, I don't know what the Hell I was thinking. Maybe it was that whole "immoral purposes" bit and I applied it too broadly. Or maybe I was thinking felonies... I dunno.

OOC:

Whew! Thank goodness! I thought senility was getting to me even faster than I thought. :D

There are few proposals where there isn't a single problem when it heads to vote. Almost all proposals - both passed resolutions and otherwise, are still fighting battles of disagreements on wording, areas of consideration, areas of focus, level of micromanagement, strength, etc through their voting period. There are a few notable exceptions (Meteorlogical cooperation comes to mind), but for the vast majority, this is the case.

And even 'Meteorological Cooperation' was opposed by various socialist nations who claimed that it would only benefit "the rich", capitalist nations who thought that the matter should be left solely to private enterprise, and paranoid nations who thought that it would create a UN-controlled network of spy-satellites...

I have yet to see evidence that St Edmund supports your proposal.

St Edmund supports the general principle that murder is wrong, and should be prevented, although our government remains undecided about whether even such a fundamental right as protection from arbitrary killing should override national sovereignty. The draft provided by Dr Sweynsson was one that we could have lived with, if the UN had insisted on passing some version of the idea, and considered -- despite the admitted falws left in it due to the haste with which it was produced -- definitely preferable to Adolf Barham's own second draft...

What he did - and it gives me a very high opinion of him
OOC:Awww... :fluffle:
- is he rewrote your proposal regardless of his personal beliefs on the matter to deal with the glaring errors and try and give you a proposal that at least meets the level of expectations this community has for quality of proposal - even if the content and topic are less acceptable (and that would probably be fixed by a complete changing of your beliefs and understanding of the UN). St Edmund accomplished that feat successfully - it is up to you to defend the position you took. We aren't questioning St Edmund's draft because of the wording he took. The problems with his draft are based off the same problems your initial proposal and subsequent drafts had. He can't be faulted for that.

Thank you...

Ok, an example of a plea bargain that is entirely pertinent.

----------------------------
IC:
Forgottenlord's brother-in-law, Kane Angel, was previously a terrorist - a Clan leader from the Nolak Clans terrorist group, to be precise. Amongst the many crimes he's committed in the life he was literally born into includes conspiracy to murder 250 citizens from fellow Aberdeen nation and active UN member, Dancing Bananland, and the attempted detonation of 20 potent nerve gas canisters at various locations throughout Aberdeen which could have potentially killed millions. Before those attacks could occur, Kane Angel was confronted and surrendered - now serving the Forgotten Territories and providing extensive information on the Nolak Clans. From this data, we were able to circumvent the further attacks, saving the potential million lives. So tell me, should the Forgotten Territories, which would be required by the UN to prosecute Mr Angel and sentence him to effective life imprisonment (2X250 = 500 years.....just a bit long.....and that's for the single act) if this resolution passes, be permitted to acquit Mr Angel of all charges in light of his reformation?

You're reading my version of the proposal rather differently from how I did so: I though that an [admittedly accidental] loophole meant that although it defined some crimes, and set a minimum penalty for one of them, it didn't actually insist that anybody be tried for any of them...
Under my interpetation of that version you could have refrained from charging him at all, charged him with just a single offence rather than 250 of them (especially if that conspiracy was actually to commit one mass-murder rather than 250 indivdiual ones) and perhaps held the other charges unless & until he misbehaved again, convicted him on one or more counts but (as Tzorsland suggested) made the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive, delayed the start of any sentences that were imposed indefinitely, or sentenced him to less than five years per count anyway (because that minimum was only set for 'murder' itself rather than the 'conspiracy to murder' that you say he committed).

Wait a minute! Weren't you the nation that boasted of its ability to rehabilitate murderers, sometimes in just a few months, instead of punishing them? I specifically included that option in the proposal, as an allowed alternative to the minimum sentence for murder, so if he's as reformed as you say then you wouldn't be required to punish him anyway...

This should be a matter for a national government to decide.

I mean, we probably already have a resolution to protect human life.

This should be a matter for a national government to decide.

I mean, we probably already have a resolution to protect human life.

There's only one against genocide, not against smaller-scale killing...

That both surprises and disturbs me.

Ok, how about a mild strength proposal that defines all types of murder and manslaughter in more detail and then urges nations to punish them in certain ways without mandating anything. I've found that dictionary.com has some clearly explained brief definitions. This way we could include more types of murder and manslaughter, e.g. felony murder or passion crimes. I may work on a draft and post it here later or tomorrow.

Ok, how about a mild strength proposal that defines all types of murder and manslaughter in more detail and then urges nations to punish them in certain ways without mandating anything. I've found that dictionary.com has some clearly explained brief definitions. This way we could include more types of murder and manslaughter, e.g. felony murder or passion crimes. I may work on a draft and post it here later or tomorrow.

Why define murder if you're only going to urge? Just urge nations to make a distinction with intentional and accidental killings

That both surprises and disturbs me.

Why? Because we stayed out of an area that you felt should be left to the national level? Because we went after areas where we felt justice wasn't being done first before considering areas that are near-universally addressed without UN mandate? When you, yourself, have no justice system to play with, you tend to not worry about the "little things". Not to say murder is little, but that the effect of a murder resolution would be.....negligable in the direction of promoting .....well.....anything.

You're reading my version of the proposal rather differently from how I did so: I though that an [admittedly accidental] loophole meant that although it defined some crimes, and set a minimum penalty for one of them, it didn't actually insist that anybody be tried for any of them...

1) I tend to ignore loopholes when debating. Reason is that loopholes are merely the way we get around laws to keep our system, but if we have to use them, then there's a problem with the resolution.
2) It is declared illegal. It would be an irresponsible and corrupt system that doesn't actually charge and try people for committing crimes. Yes it is a loophole, but it is a loophole that leaves a black mark on your nation to abuse

Under my interpetation of that version you could have refrained from charging him at all, charged him with just a single offence rather than 250 of them (especially if that conspiracy was actually to commit one mass-murder rather than 250 indivdiual ones) and perhaps held the other charges unless & until he misbehaved again, convicted him on one or more counts but (as Tzorsland suggested) made the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive, delayed the start of any sentences that were imposed indefinitely, or sentenced him to less than five years per count anyway (because that minimum was only set for 'murder' itself rather than the 'conspiracy to murder' that you say he committed).

Point taken on all but the last one - since that works for this specific example but rolling the dice a bit and changing the situation would result in a different situation (What if it was the guy that actually planted a bomb that converted?)

Wait a minute! Weren't you the nation that boasted of its ability to rehabilitate murderers, sometimes in just a few months, instead of punishing them? I specifically included that option in the proposal, as an allowed alternative to the minimum sentence for murder, so if he's as reformed as you say then you wouldn't be required to punish him anyway...

Um.....

Admittedly, I didn't quite get a chance to read your proposal by the time I had written that. Chalk it up to frustrating week.

Ok, I'll mandate that the definitions I give for the different types must be punished and possibly give a minimum for first degree murder as it is the worst type and crime. For the other definitions, I'll say that these must be addressed by the nation and that a law must be made against them.

I'll start working on it now.

I'll start working on it now.
First:

why should there be a UN resolution on this?

To ensure that murder is illegal in all UN nations because as of yet there is no UN resolution regarding it.

I've finished the proposal, but I'm not sure about the letter count. I think I may need to trim it down.

Yay, the character count with spaces is 3, 466. Here is my proposal. There's something that even I don't quite like about this proposal, but I'm not quite sure what. Any suggestions? I shall edit this post from now on if I change it.


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.DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. Murder as the unlawful killing of another human being usually with premeditated intent or malice..

b. First-Degree murder as murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony such as kidnapping or rape or because of extreme cruelty.

c. Second-Degree murder as a murder that is committed without premeditation, but with some intent or other circumstances not covered by the first degree statute.

d. Third-Degree murder as a murder that is not covered by the first or second degree murder statute such as a murder committed in the perpetration of a felony that is not considered serious or in the case of depraved heart murder.

e. Depraved heart murder as a murder that occurs during an act which is dangerous to others and shows that the perpetrator has a depraved mind and has no regard for human life.

f. Felony murder as a murder that occurs during a felony and does not require intent to kill. Murder during what the nation deems to be a serious felony shall be first-degree murder and a non-serious felony shall be third-degree murder.

g. Manslaughter as the killing of another human being with no premeditated intent and is normally due to recklessness or negligence.

h. Voluntary Manslaughter as an intentional act without premeditation or intent or malice, but done in the heat of the moment or on sudden provocation or with intent to harm

i. Involuntary Manslaughter as manslaughter due to negligence of not performing a duty that could endanger people’s lives with no intent to even harm the victim.

j. Heat of Passion as an agitated state of mind (anger or terror) prompted by provocation, so that they are unable to control his or her actions

2. MANDATES that any person found to have committed first degree murder shall be punished in one of the most severe ways that the judicial system offers.

3. MANDATES that second and third degree murder must also be punished in a severe way by the judicial system.

4. URGES nations to further punish felony murder for committing the original crime.

5. MANDATES that both forms of manslaughter must be punished in an effective way and that voluntary manslaughter is punished more severely than involuntary manslaughter.

6. ENCOURAGES nations to punish heat of passion killings or to deal with them in an effective way.

7. FURTHER URGES nations to offer rehabilitation and/or psychological help to the perpetrators

8. STATES that the following are neither made legal or illegal by this resolution:

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. Accidents that could not have been avoided if the people involved had taken a reasonable degree of care;

HEREBY CREATES laws regarding murder and manslaughter.

To ensure that murder is illegal in all UN nations because as of yet there is no UN resolution regarding it.
But, again, why is this necessary? You still haven't furnished one example of a society not set for complete social collapse where murder is not illegal (or where introducing a law would make any difference to murder rates). Nor does your assertion that "not being murdered" is a right stand up. If you wanted to do something about that, boost police spending, increase social welfare programs, combat drug crime, and so on. Simply making something illegal doesn't stop it happening.

I understand what you say, but the purpose of making it illegal is to ensure that people get punished for doing it, so over time, less people would commit murder, as long as the punishment is suitable. I have received telegrams saying that they enjoy watching their people murder each other, so have it as legal and encourage it, so I do have proof that some nations legalise murder. This is what this rpoposal stops. For countries where murder is already illegal, the UN backs up this nation's thinking and murder rates may decrease because people think that murder is now illegally worldwide (within the UN anyway), so they would try not to murder as it is an international crime. For nation's who have murder as legal, this proposal changes it. Also, if there are nations who have murder as illegal, but haven't defined murder, so people can slip out the system with excuses, this proposal defines different types of murder for the nation.

Even in the most backwards or anarchic society, people don't get away with murder unpunished - whether it be an extensive legal system or the prevelence of vigilantism, it just doesn't happen.

Now, why is this necessary?

I understand what you say, but the purpose of making it illegal is to ensure that people get punished for doing it, so over time, less people would commit murder, as long as the punishment is suitable.
Do you have any evidence for this? People don't generally not murder someone, just because it's illegal. "YOU KILLED MY FATHER NOW YOU...oh wait, I could get arrested. Carry on." Are you honestly suggesting that by simply making murder illegal, you will eradicate it? Yeah, because that's worked for guns, drugs, prostitution, and so on...

Furthermore, you say you want "to ensure that people get punished for doing it", but last time I checked, you're allowing for states whose criminal justice is solely aimed at rehabilitation. That doesn't seem like you're doing anything about suitable punishment, to me.

I have received telegrams saying that they enjoy watching their people murder each other, so have it as legal and encourage it, so I do have proof that some nations legalise murder. This is what this rpoposal stops.
We haven't received those telegrams, though, so you still haven't provided any evidence. Furthermore, can you then demonstrate that in these societies murder rates are higher than in states where murder is illegal? Murder is illegal in Gruenberg, and punished by a variety of painful and hilarious punishments, but we have one of the highest crime rates in the world.

For countries where murder is already illegal, the UN backs up this nation's thinking and murder rates may decrease because people think that murder is now illegally worldwide (within the UN anyway), so they would try not to murder as it is an international crime.
I'm sorry, but this is laughable. People do not commit murders because they happen to be legal. People commit murders because they are mentally or emotionally disturbed; they do so for profit, or for vengeance; they do so in the heat of the moment, without rational thought. I would be hard-pushed to believe there are many people who would, in a state in which murder suddenly became illegal, not kill their wife's lover, or their debtor, or whoever, just because now it's an international crime.

For nation's who have murder as legal, this proposal changes it. Also, if there are nations who have murder as illegal, but have defined murder, so people can slip out the system with excuses, this proposal defines different types of murder for the nation.
That last one is the one worthwhile thing I could see this proposal accomplishing: it's why I'm so wary of it.

I have taken into account your comments Gruenberg and have this to say:

You agreed that you see the one worthwhile thing from my proposal. Therefore, if my proposal passed, this worthwhile thing would help and there is no harm done to any other nation

Basically, if my proposal was not around, there would be all the problems that have been mentioned, if my proposal was added, one problem could be solved.

As you said yourself, there is no way to stop people murdering: legal or illegal, so no proposal can be made to prevent murder. However, a proposal can be made to help out nations who haven't defined murder and to ensure all nations have murder as punishable - murder deserves to be punished even if it doesn't lower murder rates. My proposal can at least achieve this, so is worthwhile.

I have taken into account your comments Gruenberg and have this to say:

You agreed that you see the one worthwhile thing from my proposal. Therefore, if my proposal passed, this worthwhile thing would help and there is no harm done to any other nation

Basically, if my proposal was not around, there would be all the problems that have been mentioned, if my proposal was added, one problem could be solved.

As you said yourself, there is no way to stop people murdering: legal or illegal, so no proposal can be made to prevent murder. However, a proposal can be made to help out nations who haven't defined murder and to ensure all nations have murder as punishable - murder deserves to be punished even if it doesn't lower murder rates. My proposal can at least achieve this, so is worthwhile.
I disagree, because I think your proposal shits on existing, working legal systems. You have already acknowledged that you're not acknowledging differencing between degrees of murder. That is not merely a judicial matter: there is a moral distinction between the degrees that you would be erasing. As I've said before: that is grossly insensitive.

Furthermore, you're increasingly unclear on what the proposal actually aims to accomplish. Just now, you were suggesting this would stop murders: now you admit it won't make a difference in this matter. So I am going to ask you again to demonstrate a link between the criminality of murder (preferably under your system) and murder rates. If you can't do so, then it will become clear that this is solely a moralistic, and not a practical, proposal.

Equally you suggest murder deserves to be punished at any rate. So you're going to renege on your promise to rehabilitatory states to allow them to practice criminal justice in their own way, and enforce a new moral code on them?

I disagree, because I think your proposal shits on existing, working legal systems. You have already acknowledged that you're not acknowledging differencing between degrees of murder. That is not merely a judicial matter: there is a moral distinction between the degrees that you would be erasing. As I've said before: that is grossly insensitive.

Furthermore, you're increasingly unclear on what the proposal actually aims to accomplish. Just now, you were suggesting this would stop murders: now you admit it won't make a difference in this matter. So I am going to ask you again to demonstrate a link between the criminality of murder (preferably under your system) and murder rates. If you can't do so, then it will become clear that this is solely a moralistic, and not a practical, proposal.

Equally you suggest murder deserves to be punished at any rate. So you're going to renege on your promise to rehabilitatory states to allow them to practice criminal justice in their own way, and enforce a new moral code on them?

My proposal states that murder must be punished by one of the most severe punishments that the judicial system offers and that rehabilitation could be used in addition to the punishment.

Yes, I have to admit that my proposal would make the few nations who actually have bothered to create detailed laws about murder have to change their system. However, any working system should basically say what I have said in my proposal. My definitions are accurate and I have mandated that murder and manslaughter must be punished. They are the only things that I am forcing nation's to do, but any successful system would already have this in place. Obviously, any nation that has not got detailed laws or has got no laws regarding murder and Manslaughter would be sorted out .

I did not say that my proposal would not lower murder rates. I said that no proposal can completely prevent murder, but a proposal can be made to ensure that nations that have no laws regarding this topic will be sorted out.

To explain how my proposal lowers murder rates:

In nations where murder is currently legal, people who are not mentally right, so murder for the sake of it (murderers) would murder more because they enjoy murder and know that they can get away with it. If they were punished (say put in prison for life) after committing one inexcusable murder, it would lower the murder rate in the nation because that person would be locked up. Also, you could try and rehabilitate him/her, so that they don't feel the need to murder.

If there is a person who is sane, but feels a surge of anger towards someone, they may think about it twice if they know that their punishment would be humiliating or very severe. Because they are in their right mind, they know that they are not a killer and could have the self-control to prevent themselves. Again, if there were no laws, I'm sure that this person wouldn't care.

As I have said, any decent system would have the basic ideas in my proposal, so my proposal would not change murder rates in nation's with decent systems. They would stay the same.

However, as I have explained how my proposal lowers murder rates in nations where there are currently no laws or not very detailed laws, my proposal lowers the average murder rate of the world.

Thankyou, are you convinced yet or are their any more questions? Has anyone else got views on my new proposal other than Gruenberg? If you agree with it, please just say that. If you have questions, ask, but I'm sure that you will find the answer somewhere in this thread as I must have nearly answered all possible questions in these 22 pages.:)

My proposal states that murder must be punished by one of the most severe punishments that the judicial system offers and that rehabilitation could be used in addition to the punishment.

So nations that have no prisons are now required to build some because murder must be punished in such a way. You force all nations to treat murderers in a different way than people who have committed greater crimes.

How interesting that you choose punishment over rehabilitation when our nations have proven that rehabilitation works better than jail time (Angel Fire vs Forgottenlands).

Yes, I have to admit that my proposal would make the few nations who actually have bothered to create detailed laws about murder have to change their system.

Why do you want that?

However, any working system should basically say what I have said in my proposal.

No. Any system should have the intent of your proposal there, but not the actual "letter" that yours does. The reason is that legal systems are much more complex than that. Unfortunately, the UN enforces the letter rather than the intent of any resolution passed, so you are overriding the letter of our laws which makes exceptions to extreme cases or various conditions or finding alternative, suitable punishments. Further, you force us to punish manslaughter, but depraved heart murder you don't require anything of.

My definitions are accurate and I have mandated that murder and manslaughter must be punished.

No.

Your definitions are accurate to CERTAIN real world systems. As a universal status, there is no such thing as "accurate" definitions.

Nations may have further distinguished between various forms of murders, or recategorized certain situations that murders could occur under. Some may have completely overhauled the system.

They are the only things that I am forcing nation's to do, but any successful system would already have this in place.

Define successful.

You already admitted that you would be changing any nation's system if a system already exists. Funny how this seems to contradict your previous statement

Obviously, any nation that has not got detailed laws or has got no laws regarding murder and Manslaughter would be sorted out .

Define "sorted out"

I did not say that my proposal would not lower murder rates. I said that no proposal can completely prevent murder, but a proposal can be made to ensure that nations that have no laws regarding this topic will be sorted out.

Define "sorted out"

Question: if you have no police force, no courts, no judges, no lawyers and, well, no government.....how would there be an impact on murder rates?

To explain how my proposal lowers murder rates:

*sighs*

In nations where murder is currently legal, people who are not mentally right, so murder for the sake of it (murderers) would murder more because they enjoy murder and know that they can get away with it.

And society frowns upon it and vigilantism takes over and address the concern of such people. I note that in the wild west, you didn't have issues of people like that being prevelent. Sure, there might be the occasional issue, but then someone else came along and shot that person and it was all good and dealt with.

The problem with saying that "legalizing murder means murderers go unpunished" is that it fails to recognize that society punishes its own members. The legal system exists BECAUSE of that. So if you murder my brother and it's legal to do so, than it's also legal to murder you in return - or to hire a gunman instead.

Do I support such a system, no. But if we're going to start saying it lowers murders through, ahem, detterence....I think having a witchhunt for you is a pretty fucking big detterent.

If they were punished (say put in prison for life) after committing one inexcusable murder, it would lower the murder rate in the nation because that person would be locked up.

And if they were punished (say....shot) after committing one inexcusable muder, it would lower the murder rate in the nation because that person would be dead.

Also, you could try and rehabilitate him/her, so that they don't feel the need to murder.

Indeed you could - and yet you continue to try and squash the rehabilitation efforts in favor of your crazy concept of detterrence and they "must be locked away since they committed the worst crime" bullshit.

If there is a person who is sane, but feels a surge of anger towards someone, they may think about it twice if they know that their punishment would be humiliating or very severe.

If there is a person who is sane, getting locked in a mental institute for a few months is pretty good at making them think twice.

If there is a person who is sane, knowing he might get shot by someone else for committing this crime is pretty good at making them think twice.

Because they are in their right mind, they know that they are not a killer and could have the self-control to prevent themselves.

Another reason why, if they stand to potentially get shot, they won't do it. It would be much harder for them to kill anyone coming at them in rage.

Again, if there were no laws, I'm sure that this person wouldn't care.

Oh....he'd care.

As I have said, any decent system would have the basic ideas in my proposal, so my proposal would not change murder rates in nation's with decent systems.

Murder rates have not shown any improvement by choosing to lock them up over rehabilitation so I fail to see evidence.

They would stay the same.

Analysts in Forgottenlands actually think they'll increase.

However, as I have explained how my proposal lowers murder rates in nations where there are currently no laws or not very detailed laws, my proposal lowers the average murder rate of the world.

Maybe, though they might also increase - there's plenty of arguments for that.

Thankyou, are you convinced yet or are their any more questions?

Of your blindness to the issue? Yes I'm more convinced of that. Convinced this needs to be done - I'm more convinced that you need to spend a lot more time thinking things through before you even touch pen to paper (well....fingers to keyboard) again.

Has anyone else got views on my new proposal other than Gruenberg?

Yes

If you agree with it, please just say that. If you have questions, ask, but I'm sure that you will find the answer somewhere in this thread as I must have nearly answered all possible questions in these 22 pages.:)

You really haven't.

EDIT: Listen, it took you 22 pages to finally answer a question we first asked you on page 6 (when you entered into the debate). You'll recall it was the FIRST question people asked you when you got to the forums. To claim that you've answered all the questions would be one heck of a bad folly.

We had hoped we had seen the last of this misguided and misbegotten project. How long does the representative from Adolf Barham intend to keep beating this mercifully dead horse?

We will say it again. There is no need or reasonable justification for the NSUN to legislate on this matter. If there were, we would hope that the proposal would be written by someone with at least a basic knowledge of criminal law and criminal justice systems. We're sure the representative of Adolf Barham has knowledge in some field that would allow him to make a valuable contribution to the NSUN. Why he insists on dealing with a subject on which he is completely clueless is beyond us.

By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is just like that stupid right to teach evolution thing.

I see the floodgates opening, and eagerly await the day that bored members start writing more proposals that just duplicate normal law. I'm thinking rape would be next, probably followed by drunk driving. Then maybe breaking and entering? Or perhaps assault?

Personally, I'm waiting for the UN to finally start making sure that littering is illegal in all member nations. Slap it as environmental, and I bet it would pass.

This is exactly what has annoyed me about this. I had a rape proposal in the drafting stage - and, I felt, justification for writing such - but because of this, there's little chance of it seeing light of day.

Personally, I'm waiting for the UN to finally start making sure that littering is illegal in all member nations. Slap it as environmental, and I bet it would pass.
Personally, every day I check the proposal list and continue to be amazed that no one has tried that yet.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You should check out this thread, read all of it, Forced Banishment Ban (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458815).

I wrote that mess and got it to the floor, then it was defeated by the largest margin in UN history (I think). I suspect if this goes to the vote, Banishment Ban will lose that infamous distinction because this one will be slammed harder and faster. I had some nat sovers onside, I don't think I've seen one support this, I had some fluffies onside, you will be scratching to draw them in because of the forced punishments and the fact this proposal is about revenge, not justice.

Most proposals pass on the floor by appealing to at least one "group" of UN members. This one seems to not be aimed at any, and alienate most.

I think you should rethink the whole idea and attack it from another angle. That could achieve your objective, but not be so intrusive and overbearing. This is one of those subjects where I feel the UN only needs to set guidelines and urge members to follow them.

Nah. This would pass with a huge margin. A lot of people will do little more than read the title and support it.

Nah. This would pass with a huge margin. A lot of people will do little more than read the title and support it.

Structure probably would turn off a good portion of the fluffies. Fair chance of passing, but you'd also possibly see some of the biggest TG campaigns ever conceptualized running. PoSP had some pretty organized TG campaigns and it had full opposition from regulars with a few, notable exceptions.

This one has got not just full opposition from both sides of the IntFed/NatSov bench, but people from both sides are discussing departure.

Structure probably would turn off a good portion of the fluffies. Fair chance of passing, but you'd also possibly see some of the biggest TG campaigns ever conceptualized running. PoSP had some pretty organized TG campaigns and it had full opposition from regulars with a few, notable exceptions.

This one has got not just full opposition from both sides of the IntFed/NatSov bench, but people from both sides are discussing departure.
And the problem with all of that is that it's exactly the same as with PoSP. Everyone on the forum against it, plenty of people threatening departure, a very organized and widespread TG campaign.

It still passed.

BELIEVING that murder is amongst the worst crimes that can be committed by an individual

ACKNOWLEDGING various cases that result in the death of an individual or group of individuals may be justified, societally acceptable or accidental

CONCERNED that many nations are not prosecuting murderers

BELIEVING that a decreasing murder rates is something all nations should strive for

DEFINING murder an act by a person which results in the death of another person

DECLARES that it is the duty of all nations to work at lowering the murder rates within their nations

MANDATES that member nations treat intentional and premeditated murders as some of the most severe crimes within their justice systems

ACCEPTS that some cases of murder may result in the perpetrator being freed due to circumstances pertaining to their individual case.

MANDATES nations find appropriate punishments for convicted murderers that fit the severity of the crime.

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

I dislike the first mandates clause and the accepts clause practically nullifies it anyways

You want to write a UN resolution on this that badly, try this draft.

There is a huge difference between protecting the environment, and interfearing in a nations justice system though. As I found out with FBB.

My proposal was aimed at the international impact, and I still had a huge negative reaction from those who didn't want the UN meddling in their justice system at all. This proposal does that better than mine could ever have hoped to. It does it with a vengence and, unlike mine, this one doesn't address anything that crosses borders, just a nations own internal business. If FBB was so hated by a lot of members for telling them how to punish and deal with their criminals, even when that punishment directly affected other nations, then I suspect this one will cop an even harder time at vote.

And the problem with all of that is that it's exactly the same as with PoSP. Everyone on the forum against it, plenty of people threatening departure, a very organized and widespread TG campaign.

It still passed.

Telidia carried the campaign herself, and she carried most of it on day 3 and got the regions to restart debate with only two days left to vote. We didn't have much in terms of secondary campaigns (a handful hitting the pacifics). We could've hit the guys on the forums harder, we could've done a bunch of things. In this case, we're already organizing this stuff before the bloody thing hits quarom. Telidia tossed it together halfway through day 1 of the vote.

There is a huge difference between protecting the cute little dolphins, and interfearing in a nations justice system though. As I found out with FBB.

My proposal was aimed at the international impact, and I still had a huge negative reaction from those who didn't want the UN meddling in their justice system at all. This proposal does that better than mine could ever have hoped to. It does it with a vengence and, unlike mine, this one doesn't address anything that crosses borders, just a nations own internal business. If FBB was so hated by a lot of members for telling them how to punish and deal with their criminals, even when that punishment directly affected other nations, then I suspect this one will cop an even harder time at vote.

The NatSovs clearly opposed it so you were probably looking at the moderate to extreme IntFeds for support in that case. You didn't have the fluffy aspect down which this one, unfortunately, has very much of (not that you could have with an issue such as banishment - fluffies would have to actually think for a second about that subject) and we KNOW fluffies dominate the UN.

Telidia carried the campaign herself, and she carried most of it on day 3 and got the regions to restart debate with only two days left to vote. We didn't have much in terms of secondary campaigns (a handful hitting the pacifics). We could've hit the guys on the forums harder, we could've done a bunch of things. In this case, we're already organizing this stuff before the bloody thing hits quarom. Telidia tossed it together halfway through day 1 of the vote.
I thought Telidia was a guy.

And TG campaigns once resolutions are at vote don't work. I know the Gameplayers would reel at this if they read it, but the Feeders are too democratic now. They're also fairly apathetic. I don't think, if this went to vote, I would bet five pence on a TG campaign.

The NatSovs clearly opposed it so you were probably looking at the moderate to extreme IntFeds for support in that case. You didn't have the fluffy aspect down which this one, unfortunately, has very much of (not that you could have with an issue such as banishment - fluffies would have to actually think for a second about that subject) and we KNOW fluffies dominate the UN.
Flib and I both voted and argued for the FBB. And I didn't see many NSO members arguing that vehemently against it in the thread - indeed, several more said they would have voted for it, if it had allowed for nations who volunteered to receive exiles. I wouldn't try to analyse it too much, because bull-shit did anyone bet NERA would pass by the margin it did, or the ALC.

The pattern of UN voting behaviour is: there is no pattern of UN voting behaviour.

Actually, I had a fair bit of nat sov support because of the "keep them to yourself and don't inflict your criminals on my nation" aspect of the proposal.

A fair few of the nat sovers against were the type who believe their nat sov is sacrosanct, and bugger everyone else's. Of course other nat sovers were against for other reasons though. It just plain wasn't a populour proposal, and I think the knee jerk reaction to the UN interfering in their justice system was one of the biggest problems. I can see this propsal suffering the same fate.

I thought Telidia was a guy.

Never asked.....and about 30% of the guys I think are girls (and half the girls I think are guys)

And TG campaigns once resolutions are at vote don't work. I know the Gameplayers would reel at this if they read it, but the Feeders are too democratic now. They're also fairly apathetic. I don't think, if this went to vote, I would bet five pence on a TG campaign.

Exactly. The feeders are actually pretty freaking good at reading resolutions so far as we can predict their work fairly well if we actually focus on it. The democratic ones, if you get in early with a comment, you might be able to affect the decision (heck, send them a message in the time between the previous resolution being done and the next one going to vote and ask them to post it on their forum polls), but after day 2, they're done.

I had more to say, but then I realized I didn't want to drop it out here so.....yeah

I don't see what is so wrong about defining the types of murder and manslaughter in an acceptable way with leeway and then mandating that they at least be punished. The mandates aren't really very specific, so leeway is allowed for the nation to do what they want to a certain degree.

Also, I understand that the some of my approvals are just because the person reads the title, but others have telegrammed me saying that they really liked the proposal because it was extremely well written and, for once, they actually understood what it said. I know that I have support for my proposal even if you 8 or 9 guys here disagree with it. I may try to get this to become a resolution again. I know people who will help me in a telegram campaign, so I know that I can get most of the delegates to hear about it. If you TG against it, I still reckon that I can get it to the floor.

If not, I'll try again in about a year when you least expect it.:)

AB, I know what you are saying about getting delegate support, but that isn't a reliable indicator of support on the floor, and that is what counts. Believe me, I know that better than most ;).

I got FBB to the floor on its second run through the list without much trouble, and had plenty of TGs back as well telling me it was a good idea ect. Because of that I felt quite confident when it hit the floor, so you can imagine how shocked I was to see it so roundly pounded into the ground right from day 1 of voting. I didn't hear of anyone TGing against FBB, so it was just members reading the proposal, and not liking what they saw.

I was quite surprised at the very strong opposition from a lot of members to anyone, especially the UN, meddling in their nations justice systems. I think you will probably hit that same brick wall with this one too.

Why? Because we stayed out of an area that you felt should be left to the national level? Because we went after areas where we felt justice wasn't being done first before considering areas that are near-universally addressed without UN mandate? When you, yourself, have no justice system to play with, you tend to not worry about the "little things". Not to say murder is little, but that the effect of a murder resolution would be.....negligable in the direction of promoting .....well.....anything.

It surprised and disturbed me that we have a 'Microcredit Bazaar' legislating some bureaucratic trash while there is nothing internationally banning murder.

It surprised and disturbed me that we have a 'Microcredit Bazaar' legislating some bureaucratic trash while there is nothing internationally banning murder.
Aren't you a Gatesville type? You do realize your region voted FOR that resolution, because it respected national sovereignty?

Aren't you a Gatesville type? You do realize your region voted FOR that resolution, because it respected national sovereignty?

I am just surprised that people thought the 'microcredits' more important than murder.

I am just surprised that people thought the 'microcredits' more important than murder.
Maybe they didn't? They just thought microcredit was an international matter, and murder a national matter?

Maybe they didn't? They just thought microcredit was an international matter, and murder a national matter?

Perhaps you're right...

I am just surprised that people thought the 'microcredits' more important than murder.


We aern't saying that murder isn't important. We're simply saying that this resolution would need a great deal of work to be accepted by the general populace of the UN. That's putting it nicely.

Bluntly: this tells us how we should punish our criminals. There are some sovereignty issues here. Many Kivistan criminals are executed shortly after trial. With this legislation, there would be grounds for appeals and motions and tonnes of legal claptrap (that would bog down our systems of jurisprudence needlessly) based on the argument that "the UN says that the minimum should only be X, why is my client being sentenced to X times ten?"

The proposal has some very definite good points that should be encouraged and developed, however. Keep at it good luck to the author.

AB, I know what you are saying about getting delegate support, but that isn't a reliable indicator of support on the floor, and that is what counts. Believe me, I know that better than most ;).

I got FBB to the floor on its second run through the list without much trouble, and had plenty of TGs back as well telling me it was a good idea ect. Because of that I felt quite confident when it hit the floor, so you can imagine how shocked I was to see it so roundly pounded into the ground right from day 1 of voting. I didn't hear of anyone TGing against FBB, so it was just members reading the proposal, and not liking what they saw.

I was quite surprised at the very strong opposition from a lot of members to anyone, especially the UN, meddling in their nations justice systems. I think you will probably hit that same brick wall with this one too.


At least give it a chance though. If you truly believe that it will fail, then why not allow it to reach quorum and go to the floor.

Thing is I don't want it to fail, and those posts of mine weren't posted to crow at you that it will fail, but to warn you of what you could be up against. As the old saying goes, I've been there, done that :).

I think the general idea does have merit, and does have potential as a UN proposal, but just not in this form. It is hard for me to put my thoughts about that into words, especially at 11pm. I'll have a go at explaining it tomorrow.

I don't see what is so wrong about defining the types of murder and manslaughter in an acceptable way with leeway and then mandating that they at least be punished.

You are overriding national definitions on murders - especially nations that may have much more complex categorizations. Add on that fluffies HATE definitions, making 2/3 of your proposal definitions is just plain stupid.

The mandates aren't really very specific, so leeway is allowed for the nation to do what they want to a certain degree.

What leeway is there in categorization? Care to explain this further. Punishment, yes there is leeway and we've fought over that ground before. But where is it in categorization?

Also, I understand that the some of my approvals are just because the person reads the title, but others have telegrammed me saying that they really liked the proposal because it was extremely well written and, for once, they actually understood what it said. I know that I have support for my proposal even if you 8 or 9 guys here disagree with it.

8 or 9 speaking up plus another 30-40 in the background who we're discussing this with accounting for.....pretty much.....the entirity of the UN regulars. Some of us like the concept of looking at outlawing murder (myself included) but have severe issues with how you handle it - even moreso that you're going "they should be punished" when many of those that support the outlawing of murder don't necessarily believe that punishment is the best way to deal with criminals.

I may try to get this to become a resolution again. I know people who will help me in a telegram campaign, so I know that I can get most of the delegates to hear about it. If you TG against it, I still reckon that I can get it to the floor.

We didn't TG against it last time and it failed to reach quarom. I wonder how it'll do if we actually try this time.

If not, I'll try again in about a year when you least expect it.:)

With people like Flibs monitoring the proposal list every day for the last two years (and you can add the likes of Gruenberg, Ecopoeia, and many others) along with moderators such as Hack which are required to and also dislike the proposal, it would be amazingly hard to sneak it under our nose.

I think someone did TG against it last time, actually, but I don't know who. I saw it lose 8 endorsements in several hours while I was TGing for my proposal.

We aern't saying that murder isn't important. We're simply saying that this resolution would need a great deal of work to be accepted by the general populace of the UN. That's putting it nicely.

Bluntly: this tells us how we should punish our criminals. There are some sovereignty issues here. Many Kivistan criminals are executed shortly after trial.

There was a good article on NSWiki that was started concerning capital punishment. Unfortunately NSWiki seems to be having loading problems, so you'll have to keep at it several times (maybe for as long as an half-hour).

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/International_death_penalty_statistics

The article contains a list of countries and summaries their positions on this subject.

While for the most part, Mikitivity does not practice capital punishment, we are forced to agree with the ambassador from Kivisto in that an international proposal on this subject should avoid making specific recommendations, but should remain general.

*Due to a hangover, Sen Sulla cannot be here tonight, however as a special treat, the Emperor of the Palentine, The Esteemed Emperor Captain Spaulding I, beloved by children everywhere, he whose name must be obeyed, long may he reign, excedery excedery, is here to give the Palentine Responce.*

AB, you get an "A" for persistance. I think some colleagues here may agree with me that you might even surpass one of our most persistant gadflies. Unfortunately you also get an "A" for wanting to create a proposal so bogged down with details, bureaucracy,and useless micromanagement of national affairs, that I see no possible way for this to pass. The Nat-Sovers, like myself see this as another attemp for the UN to control an aspect of our government that is no concern of the UN. Conservative will oppose it for mostly the same reasons. The Classic liberals and Fluffies will oppose it mostly because of the idea of punishment over rehabilitation. Finally the greens will oppose this because I imagine Kivisto is about ready to kill more puppies and shove them down the throats of white rhinos and choke them to death.(Good Gravy Man! Think about the Puppies and Rhinos). Even if you get this bad boy to quorum, I predict it will be stomped down so hard, all that will be left is a greasy stain for the gnomes to clean up.(Good gravy Man! Think about the gnomes!)
Excelsior,
Emperor Captain Sapulding I

*Due to a hangover, Sen Sulla cannot be here tonight, however as a special treat, the Emperor of the Palentine, The Esteemed Emperor Captain Spaulding I, beloved by children everywhere, he whose name must be obeyed, long may he reign, excedery excedery, is here to give the Palentine Responce.*

AB, you get an "A" for persistance. I think some colleagues here may agree with me that you might even surpass one of our most persistant gadflies. Unfortunately you also get an "A" for wanting to create a proposal so bogged down with details, bureaucracy,and useless micromanagement of national affairs, that I see no possible way for this to pass. The Nat-Sovers, like myself see this as another attemp for the UN to conrol an aspect of our government that is no concern of the UN. Conservative will oppose it for mostly the same reasons. The Classic liberals and Fluffies will oppose it mostly because of the idea of punishment over rehabilitation. Finally the greens will oppsose this because I imagine Kivisto is about ready to kill more puppies and shove them down the throats of white rhinos and choke them to death.(Good Gravy Man! Think about the Puppies and Rhinos). Even if you get this bad boy to quorum, I predict it will be stomped down so hard, all that will be left is a greasy stain for the gnomes to clean up.(Good gravy Man! Think about the gnomes!)
Excelsior,
Emperor Captain Sapulding I

I totally agree. Shame it's taken 24 pages to get to it though...

At least give it a chance though. If you truly believe that it will fail, then why not allow it to reach quorum and go to the floor.
I believe this is a reasonable alternative.

RESOLUTION SAFEGUARDING HUMAN LIFE

BELIEVING that life is the most essential right that humans possess,

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. Human: A member of the genus Homo and the species Sapiens.
b. Life: The characteristic state or condition of living manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment.
c. Safeguard: to protect and defend
d. Lawful: Compliant with laws and/or customs
e. Unlawful: Contrary to laws and/or customs
f. Enforcement Procedure: The formation of organizational structures to compel observance or obedience of statute, decrees, customs and societal mores.

DECLARES that it is the duty of all nations to safeguard human life within their control and jurisdiction.

ACKNOWLEDGES that most nations already have laws, customs and enforcement procedures safeguarding human life,

RECOGNISES that the diversity of nations within the United Nations use differing enforcement procedures in order to safeguard human life,

NOTES that a few nations may not have laws, customs or enforcement procedures to safeguard human life,

STATES that the following are neither made lawful or unlawful by this resolution:
a. Ending of human life through legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and applicable national and international law;
b. Ending the life of individual humans who have been appropriately convicted of crimes for which the ending of human life is considered a suitable punishment as defined by the laws and/or customs within the jurisdiction of the nation in which the act is performed;
c. Ending of human life via abortion, as permitted by the laws and/or customs within the jurisdiction of the nation in which the act is performed;
d. Ending of human life through euthanasia, as permitted by the laws and/or customs within the jurisdiction of the nation in which the act is performed;
e. Ending of human life during duels, as permitted by the laws and/or customs within the jurisdiction of the nation in which the act is performed;
f. Ending of human life by accidents that cannot be avoided given that a reasonable degree of care has been taken.

MANDATES that all nations who have yet to establish enforcement procedures safeguarding human life, to do so.

RESOLUTION SAFEGUARDING HUMAN LIFE

NOTING that human life is good and fluffy,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the NSO doesn't fully appreciate that fact,

BELIEVING that it is the duty of the UN to change everyone's criminal laws to make the world more fluffy,

The UN,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "require" as call for as obligatory;
b. "nation" as a geopolitical/cultural entity;
c. "to" as a weird auxillary verb;
d. "pass" as approve;
e. "law" as something violating IndSov;
f. "make" as another one of those weird verbs;
g. "sure" as certain;
h. "human" as any member of the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, order Primates, family Hominidae, genus Homo, species sapiens, and subspecies sapiens;
i. "life" as the state of being alive and having fluffy emotions;
j. "is" as yet another weird verb;
k. "not" as a negative adverb;
l. "destroy" as to make unfluffy or to get rid of completely;

2. REQUIRES nations to pass laws making sure human life is not destroyed.

OOC:
Add on that fluffies HATE definitionsYes, but let's not forget that a good chunk of the voting demographic do little more than read the title and (maybe) the category. "Ban murder? Sounds good to me!" Guess you could call them the Brain-Dead Block.

along with moderators such as Hack which are required to and also dislike the proposal, it would be amazingly hard to sneak it under our nose.Well, yes, I do scan the list, and I do dislike this Proposal, but it is legal.

IC:
DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

a. Human: A member of the genus Homo and the species Sapiens.Bah! Speciest pap. Bloody bigots.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/elijah.jpg

Elijah
Borrowing the Hack's Network
The Federated Mercurial Demesne of The Caloris Basin

Well, yes, I do scan the list, and I do dislike this Proposal, but it is legal.

Somehow I see it showing up in silly proposals.....

I believe this is a reasonable alternative.

RESOLUTION SAFEGUARDING HUMAN LIFE

BELIEVING that life is the most essential right that humans possess,

STATES that the following are not made unlawful by this resolution:

c. Ending of human life via abortion, as permitted by the laws and/or customs within the jurisdiction of the nation in which the act is performed;


Though my government believes that at present that abortion is effectively legalized in UN nations (I'll ask my staff to double check tomorrow), my government does not condone the practice of using abortion as a gender selection tool, and thus the people of Mikitivity have some reservations about the above clause. We understand why your government is suggesting it be included, and in the interest of brevity, also appreciate that this clause shouldn't be the primary focus of the debate or Qinqe amendments to the proposal itself, but I would like it entered in the official records that my government firmly believes it should at least be stated that abortion as a gender selection tool promotes discrimination and inequality ... and the people of Mikitivity would like to hope that at some point in time that other governments might share our opinion on this matter.

Howie Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Check Abortion Legality Convention

It merely prevents the UN from ruling on the matter while giving a handful of recommendations

To ensure that murder is illegal in all UN nations because as of yet there is no UN resolution regarding it.

Just because there's no legislation on a particular topic doesn't mean there should be. There's no resolution preventing people from urinating in public. Is that going to be next on your agenda?

Though my government believes that at present that abortion is effectively legalized in UN nations (I'll ask my staff to double check tomorrow), my government does not condone the practice of using abortion as a gender selection tool, and thus the people of Mikitivity have some reservations about the above clause. We understand why your government is suggesting it be included, and in the interest of brevity, also appreciate that this clause shouldn't be the primary focus of the debate or Qinqe amendments to the proposal itself, but I would like it entered in the official records that my government firmly believes it should at least be stated that abortion as a gender selection tool promotes discrimination and inequality ... and the people of Mikitivity would like to hope that at some point in time that other governments might share our opinion on this matter.

Howie Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity
I will change the relevant sentence to read "STATES that the following are neither made lawful or unlawful by this resolution:"

I don't see what is so wrong about defining the types of murder and manslaughter in an acceptable way with leeway and then mandating that they at least be punished. The mandates aren't really very specific, so leeway is allowed for the nation to do what they want to a certain degree.

Not specific? A minimum sentence of five years is pretty specific to me. And your definitions of murder and manslaughter are most certainly NOT acceptable. They are overly simplistic, which, given the lack of understanding of criminal justice systems that you have demonstrated, doesn't surprise me.

Also, I understand that the some of my approvals are just because the person reads the title, but others have telegrammed me saying that they really liked the proposal because it was extremely well written and, for once, they actually understood what it said.

Wow, so you managed to appeal to people who get confused by many of the truly well-written proposals? Congratualtions. Chalk it up to your proposal being horribly simplistic.

I know that I have support for my proposal even if you 8 or 9 guys here disagree with it.

As has already been pointed out, there are far more opposing this proposal than just the handful of representatives who've blasted it here.

I may try to get this to become a resolution again.

Don't.

I know people who will help me in a telegram campaign, so I know that I can get most of the delegates to hear about it. If you TG against it, I still reckon that I can get it to the floor.

I guarantee I'll TG against it, and I'm sure I will get a great deal of assistance. Remember, you tried getting it to the floor once before. Did it completely escape you that delegates were withdrawing their support? Hmmm...

If not, I'll try again in about a year when you least expect it.:)

Yeah, good luck with that. It won't matter when you try. In addition to the many regulars here who scour the proposal list at least once a day, we also have CPESL -- I mean, the Cluichstani Intelligence Service -- to alert us regarding any such activity.

With the barest minimum of cordiality,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambasasador to the UN

NOTING that human life is good and fluffy,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the NSO doesn't fully appreciate that fact, ...Gah?

RESOLUTION SAFEGUARDING HUMAN LIFE

NOTING that human life is good and fluffy,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the NSO doesn't fully appreciate that fact,

BELIEVING that it is the duty of the UN to change everyone's criminal laws to make the world more fluffy,

The UN,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "require" as call for as obligatory;
b. "nation" as a geopolitical/cultural entity;
c. "to" as a weird auxillary verb;
d. "pass" as approve;
e. "law" as something violating IndSov;
f. "make" as another one of those weird verbs;
g. "sure" as certain;
h. "human" as any member of the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, order Primates, family Hominidae, genus Homo, species sapiens, and subspecies sapiens;
i. "life" as the state of being alive and having fluffy emotions;
j. "is" as yet another weird verb;
k. "not" as a negative adverb;
l. "destroy" as to make unfluffy or to get rid of completely;

2. REQUIRES nations to pass laws making sure human life is not destroyed.
We take exception to the claim that because we're a member of the NSO we don't respect human life. It's because of our respect for human life that abortion only occurs when it's the only way to save the mother's life.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Quite obviously, this is my first attempt at writing and posting of a proposal. I thought I would be able to edit the proposal before it went before the body of delegates. Unfortunately I was incorrect. I copied and pasted the proposal (including the formatting commands ) straight from this forum but the formatting did not take but instead the formatting commands are displayed. To make matters far worse, I made a committment that I am unable to keep because there does not seem to be a way to edit. How can I either edit the proposal or have it deleted?

Go to the getting help page

http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=help

And submit a request for it to be deleted explaining your mistake.

Not specific? A minimum sentence of five years is pretty specific to me. And your definitions of murder and manslaughter are most certainly NOT acceptable. They are overly simplistic, which, given the lack of understanding of criminal justice systems that you have demonstrated, doesn't surprise me.

Cluichstan, you're a bit behind the times. That reply was to a different proposal that had no minimums, you may find it somewhere in this long thread.
However, that is unimportant because the most recent proposal is Qinqe's. That is the one that you should be talking aboutn not mine from 3 weeks ago.

Cluichstan, you're a bit behind the times. That reply was to a different proposal that had no minimums, you may find it somewhere in this long thread.
However, that is unimportant because the most recent proposal is Qinqe's. That is the one that you should be talking aboutn not mine from 3 weeks ago.


Bah. Tell it to my assistant, Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg

Go to the getting help page

http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=help

And submit a request for it to be deleted explaining your mistake.

Thank you for the kindness of your reply. It worked just as you indicated.

OOC:

I was curious about the link in Qinqe's post, so I clicked it. It's a really well done micronation site. Lots to explore. If you have some time to kill, give it a look. :)

http://www.qinqe.com

I will change the relevant sentence to read "STATES that the following are neither made lawful or unlawful by this resolution:"

Oh, I just want it entered in the record ... the original wording or this amendement are both fine, though I must admit this new version is more agreeable to my government.

OOC:
I'm just roleplaying here and nitpicking a bit. Before you change things too much, make sure with some of the more active UN players and Hack that it is OK for a resolution to use the language you've suggested above ... because in some cases many sorts of things have been made lawful under previous UN resolutions ... an alternative might be to say,

"ACKNOWLEDGES that the following have been addressed by various previous UN proposals or resolutions, and that this resolution does not change the legality of current resolutions:"

Even that language could use some work, but the idea I thought you were trying to convey is that we've dealt with this subject piecemeal in various resolutions and you wanted to remind us of that. This seems like a way to do that.

And Ambassador Katzman is *always* gonna remind the UN that some societies *might* practice abortion for gender selection, though in reality Mikitivity has no documentation that a single NationStates player has roleplayed that situtation. If you get tired of Katzman playing that card, as him to name some specific nations, and I can promise you he'll tone it down for a month or two. ;)

At some point in time I think it too might make an interesting NSWiki survey, but work has been busy as of late. I feel like C-3PO from Return of the Jedi, they assign me something HIGH priority, I start to work on it, they come back, assign me something else HIGHER priority, I change gears and work on it, they then assign me something the HIGHEST priority, I start on that, and then they ask me what is taking me so long to finish my projects. (It isn't middle management, they are being driven by upper management and likely feel the same way amplified ... too bad my office has a high turkey factor ... turkey as in guvmit workers that really should be fired, 'cause that means I'm honestly working twice as hard. Fortunately I also get the perks of the turkeys, when trips come up, low and behold they are given to a group on a per capita basis, but some people we don't allow in public view. I know it sounds horrible, but it happens.)

Okay, although I’m still not entirely convinced that this is a matter upon which the UN should be making any decisions but see that it might be doing do anyway (and would therefore like some input into the process… and also because I simply don’t like giving up on things…), I’ve had one more go (which will probably be my last one) at drafting another revised version of the original proposal. This time around, I’ve taken as many of people’s complaints in this thread into account as seemed possible…
The argument that even so basic a right as this is a matter which the UN should leave to the individual nations, with which (as I’ve already said) quite a few members of St Edmund’s own government are in sympathy, could not be satisfied without scrapping this proposal altogether or at least turning it into such a mild expression of general principles that many non-Sovereigntist nations would probably reject it as useless. (If we get no further with this proposal then the government of St Edmund would be willing to get one along those lines instead drafted & submitted instead…)
The opposing argument, that this proposal leaves too many details (such as what terms such as ‘legal systems’, ‘justifiable homicide’, ‘reasonable care’ and ‘sane’ mean) for the separate nations to define could not be satisfied within the limited number of characters available, even if my own generally-Sovereigntist principles would allow me to submit a proposal containing so much micromanagement by the UN.
Ergo, there’s no way in which a proposal that would please everybody could be drafted.
The main complaints to which I’ve responded are_
Clarifying the perceived and real problems with the definitions of crimes.
Making it a bit clearer about if & when nations are expected to bring people to trial, and clarifying that ‘plea bargaining’ is allowed.
Dropping the proposed minimum sentence for murder, which was apparently unacceptable even to some [i]‘IntFed’ supporters — despite the fact that I specifically mentioned ‘rehabilitation’ (which one of them claimed to use very effectively) as an allowed alternative to this — as well as to Sovereigntists: I’ve replaced it with a guarantee of nations’ rights to determine the penalties for these crimes (and for all other crimes too, while I was about it), subject only to any limits set in previous Resolutions, instead… Maybe that might win over a few more of the NSO’s members into accepting this draft?
Dropping the clause about the UN accepting that nations might have their legal systems look at foreign cases involving their people.

Murder and Manslaughter Laws

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Author: Adolf Barham

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that freedom from 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 killings of humans or other sapient beings by any other humans or sapient beings are illegal, unless they are _
a. Legitimate acts of war, as defined by UN Resolutions and the relevant nation’s laws;
b. Official executions of criminals who have been properly convicted of crimes for which this is considered a suitable penalty under the relevant nation’s laws;
c. Abortion, within any limits set by the relevant nation’s laws;
d. Euthanasia, within any limits set by the relevant nation’s laws;
e. Deaths in duels, within any limits set by the relevant nation’s laws;
f. Any cases which the relevant nation’s legal system accepts as justified because the deceased were trying to commit serious crimes and their killers had no better means obviously available for stopping them;
g. Accidents that could not have been avoided if people had taken reasonable care;

2. DEFINES the crime of ‘Murder’ as including any illegal killings that were carried out with premeditated intent, and accepts that nations’ laws may also place any illegal killings that involved lethal intent but not premeditation, ones committed by people provoked into losing self-control, ones committed by the insane, and/or ones due to violence used in the commission of other crimes, within this general category;

3. DEFINES the crime of ‘Manslaughter’ as including all illegal killings of the types listed in clause 2 which the relevant nation’s laws do not class as murder;

4. LEAVES it to the separate nations to decide whether their laws class any illegal killings of other kinds as one or the other of ‘Murder’ or ‘Manslaughter’ too or count them as different and lesser offences instead;

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. ACCEPTS that nations’ laws may subdivide these types of crimes still further into more specific offences;

7. REQUIRES that nations use some part of their legal systems to determine (as far as possible) whether any killings of sapient beings by sapient beings that occur within their territories and are not clearly covered by any of exceptions ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ from clause 1 are in fact legal under those or any others of the exceptions listed there, which crimes any killings determined to be illegal involved, and (if possible) who was responsible for those crimes;

9. ACCEPTS that nations may allow the process of ‘plea bargaining’ and therefore try some people on lesser charges than might otherwise be thought right;

10. ACKNOWLEDGES that setting penalties for all crimes is a matter that should be handled by the individual nations, which may allow their legal systems to vary those penalties (within any limits set by previous UN Resolutions) due to details of specific cases, but strongly urges that any penalties set should be both proportionate to the severity of the crimes and intended to reduce significantly the likelihood of re-offending.

Co-authored by St Edmund

I’d have liked to include the following three clauses too, but had to drop them in order to keep this draft within the maximum length allowed as well as (in the first two cases) to remove points about whose inclusion in the previous version some of you had complained...

11. ACCEPTS that some nations also use parts of their legal systems to determine whether any killings by and/or of any of their subjects that might occur outside their own territories were legal or illegal under their own laws and to try any crimes involved, especially in cases where whatever legal systems might exist wherever those crimes occurred have not acted, but does not therefore grant them any automatic rights to take actions within other nations’ territories or to demand assistance from those nations;

12. URGES nations to provide psychiatric therapy for anybody whom they convict of illegal killing but intend to set free;

[i]13. STRONGLY URGES nations to use common sense when interpreting this resolution’s terms.

Clause 11 was meant to recognise an existing practice rather than to grant any new rights, as I’ve already said slightly earlier in this debate, so that dropping it (as several of you have requested) wouldn’t actually force nations to cease that practice. (I actually regard this — at least in its clarified form — as arguably a pro-sovereignty detail, by the way: It accepts an existing practice of some nations instead of trying to abolish this, it doesn’t [at least in its clarified form] allow nations to force actions on each other as some of you were previously concerned it might, and it confirms nations’ sovereign right to judge their own subjects — or anybody who’s harmed their subjects — wherever the offences involved might have occurred although enforcing any such judgements is obviously only possible if they can actually lay their hands on the culprits…)
Clause 12 was included in my earlier draft because using therapy had been specified in Adolf Barham’s original proposal and leaving it in — although only in an ‘URGES’ clause rather than (as he had it) a mandatory one — seemed harmless: It’s probably redundant now, under the rewritten clause on penalties’ line about trying to reduce the likelihood of re-offending, anyway.
Clause 13 was aimed partly at defusing criticism about the number of points left to the individual nations’ discretion and partly at the suggestion by ‘The Cat-Tribe’ that the previous draft required treating every death as prima facie murder because human agency might be involved which I felt went far beyond a reasonable interpretation of my words: I suppose that dropping it probably won’t make nations any less willing to use common sense than they’d be if it was included…

To: Adolf Barham: If you submit anything more on this topic apart from the exact text of this draft, with no changes that I don't specifically agree to in this thread, then please don’t mention me as a co-author...
Or maybe I could submit this, listing you as co-author instead, now that I've made so many changes from your original draft?

Please don't submit any proposal on this subject.

Please don't submit any proposal on this subject.


Hear! Hear! I agree with the Sheik. This is no business of the UN.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

OOC: 26 bloody pages of this, and counting...:headbang:

St. Edmund: I have a major objection to Adolf Barham's principle reason for this resolution - the notion that there exists nations in the UN that do not have murder illegal and that this must be rectified for such nations. (The fact that the UN cannot affect non UN nations and that a nation can leave the UN at any time of course makes this argument practically moot.)

Given that, I believe that this resolution is doomed to fail because of micro-management. Clearly there needs to be things defined at the national level. There also needs to be things defined at the UN level through the impacts of other resolutions. Given that, I think a resolution needs to be somewhat in the following format:

1) VERY SHORT FLUFF - Keep the resons short and simple.
2) Define Murder, bearing in mind that nations can subdivie it into degrees and that it does not include justifiable homicide.
3) Define manslaughter, bearing in mind that nations can subdivide it into types and that it too does not include justifiable homicide.
4) Mention justifiable homicide, perhaps providing some basic examples, but leaving it up to the nations or other UN resolutions to define all the possible cases.


OK this is the first part of the resolution and probably the easiest to condense, assuming you want to give some authority of definition to nations (or UN Gnomes ... your choice). There are two other parts to this resolution if we really want it to do something. Enforcement, and the International Thingy.

Frankly 7-9 - what I'm calling enforcement - needs a major rewrite. (Perhaps several, I'm all in favor of "waterfall" development.) Can't we just assume that nations have a vested interest in enforcing their own laws? Traditionaly it is better to be more worried about punishing the innocent than not punishing the guilty. Once again I think this is a major point of disagreement between me and A.B. on the matter. We need to assume that the nations can punish the guilty.

Finally there is the "international thingy." Consider the U.S. were there are cases where murder becomes a "Federal" offense as well as a state one. If you want votes you need a third section. International murders (citizen A, kills citizen B in country C) general extradition agreements for murder/manslaughter and that sort of thing. If you can have a section that answers "Why is this a UN issue?" then you might get an important block of votes.

Given all that, this could be an interesting exercise in trying to get something really law like in the small size of UN resolutions that can actually get passed.

Good luck.

OOC:

I was curious about the link in Qinqe's post, so I clicked it. It's a really well done micronation site. Lots to explore. If you have some time to kill, give it a look. :)

http://www.qinqe.com

Thank you for those kind words.

Hmmmmmmmmm. It would be nice to get a resolution that at least half the people in this thread agree with because then we can have a balanced argument, for once.

Tzorsland's suggestions seem to be what is needed. Unfortunately, it looks as if Qinqe's proposal will fail (even though I've now tg'd about 200 delegates and he has as well). Therefore, I feel that it would be good to get a resolution running that more nation's agree with. So I will try to make one just how Tzorsland has said, but being an inexperienced writer, there will most likely be mistakes and things left out. So please, instead of just criticising them, could you help rectify them. I may have it ready some time tonight.

Actually come to think of it, I haven't really got the time now, so maybe someone else could write a proposal following what Tzorsland said if they wish. If not, I'll write one in the next few days. St. Edmund, if you want you could submit that proposal with me as co-author as long as others have no strong objections to it. You may as well give it a try.

Actually come to think of it, I haven't really got the time now, so maybe someone else could write a proposal following what Tzorsland said if they wish. If not, I'll write one in the next few days. St. Edmund, if you want you could submit that proposal with me as co-author as long as others have no strong objections to it. You may as well give it a try.

Sorry, I have too many other things to bother with at the moment too...