NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human rights
Strength: Strong

The United Nations...

RECOGNIZING the precedent set by Resolution #41, "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" as a mandate for the UN to take steps to limit punishments in the name of humanitarianism,

BELIEVING that the execution of minors is against the very essence of humanitarianism as it is the taking of life of an individual with a questionable capacity to comprehend the gravity of their actions,

DEFINES "minor" for the purposes of this resolution as a person under the legal age of full responsibility within a given nation

and

hereby BANS member nations from executing minors.

I figured I'd try to keep it simple for once. Any suggestions?

Yeah, time to bring out Gruenberg's Fair Sentencing Act again.

I'm a bit worried about the first two clauses... it is very dangerous to pass laws based on mental retardation or mental illness without attaching whole sections of the DSM IV. I see most nations getting around this legislation by simply passing laws stating that "mental retardation doesn't exist" or "mental illness is hereby defined as a left-handed person who can stand on their head while whistling dixie out of their ear."

You'll run into huge troubles when defining those two things, and for that reason I don't think this legislation can succeed.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samd
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

This is an affair to work within article one, "fair and just" legal systems, and should be perfectly legal even if Gruenberg's proposal passes. Can you see a potential showdown, or do you think the two are compatible?

I'm actually writing this as a seriously beefed-up version of Technocratifica's proposal (along with someone else's), where nations cannot execute minors, but can define minors however they want.

Mental retardation is actually a medical term established by international organizations, as is "medical illness." I understand your point, so this will be edited to define mental retardation and mental illnesses.

I see what you mean. Perhaps, instead of inserting a definition into the text, you could simply let those international medical groups define it.

Okay, but are the definitions in there at the moment acceptable? It might be alright to just go without definitions (if nations could define things as they want, then a nation can simply state that minorities, women and gay people don't exist, along with war crimes or pollution to avoid the UN), but I'd rather keep the definitions that are in there right now.

OOC: Ripped straight from dictionary.com. I like them.

This is an affair to work within article one, "fair and just" legal systems, and should be perfectly legal even if Gruenberg's proposal passes. Can you see a potential showdown, or do you think the two are compatible?Try to blast yourself through this brick wall:

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;What's more, this resolution does not justify its existence in any way, shape or form. You hate executing retards. So what? Is there some sort of case you can make for why the international community ought to illegalize it in all nations?

First, Gruenberg's proposal isn't even law yet. Second, yes, nations can set their own punishments. This isn't dictating any punishment for any crimes. It is following in the tradition of banning torture and barbaric punishments (see Resolution #41, "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS"). This is simply specifying that certain executions certainly fall under the umbrella of barbaric punishments.

Why is it barbaric? People who have mental disabilities, along with minors, are not capable of making a clear distinction between right and wrong in the way that mentally-capable adults are. The crimes they commit cannot be attributed entirely to them. I know that humanitarians understand where I am coming from in stating that death is simply not an acceptable punishment for people with mental disabilities and for minors. It is barbaric and inhumane.

That argument IS good enough for most of the world community. Most nations sincerely believe in furthering human rights.

Also, check resolution #44, "Fair Treatment of the Mentally-Ill" as a polite suggestion/enforced resolution that people with mental disabilities (please do not use the slur "retard") are not sub-standard animals, and that they do deserve life.

What's more, this resolution does not justify its existence in any way, shape or form. You hate executing retards. So what? Is there some sort of case you can make for why the international community ought to illegalize it in all nations?

Yah, and how many resolutions do? Hows about this justification, if this resolution isn't worth passing, then the VOTERS WON'T PASS IT.

While we applaud the good intentions of the distinguished representative of Tarmsden, we could not support this proposal. We believe that the question of capacity to understand the nature and consequences of one's acts, and to distinguish right from wrong, is a matter that is properly decided by a court of law in weighing guilt or innocence. The proposal seems to assume that, just because someone suffers from a mental illness or retardation, they are incapable of such understanding and distinction. This is patently not so.

Incapacity to distinguish right from wrong and understand the nature and consequences of one's actions should be exculpatory circumstances under the law. This must be determined in each particular case, not by some broad, sweeping generalization.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well said, Mr. Olembe. Have a Klondike.

RECOGNIZING the precedent set by Resolution #41, "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" as a mandate for the UN to take steps to limit punishments in the name of humanitarianism,

It could be argued that the intent of that bill was to protect the living. Once they're executed, such is no longer a problem. As for psychological trauma to the doomed...a speedy execution would alleviate that greatly.

BELIEVING that the execution of minors, people with mental disabilities and people with mental illnesses, who have questionable levels of responsibility for their actions and may not have a clear concept of right and wrong, is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of humanitarianism,

It makes me cringe to do it, but I can agree with this in principle.

defines "mental retardation" for the purposes of this resolution as subaverage intellectual ability that is equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70

This could include entire nations. I could mention one or two, but I think they might take offense.

,is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment,

Computer nerds of the world are now protected by this?

defines "mental illnesses" for the purposes of this resolution as any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma

This could easily include any number of individuals whose capacity to discern right from wrong is completely unimpaired. Higher functioning autists are emotionally and behaviourally impaired, but still know that stabbing 35 people in the eye with a broken off wooden spoon is wrong.

hereby BANS member nations from executing people who…

....

3) are under 18 years of age.

Completely removing a nation's right to try, convict, and sentence a minor as an adult if there is suitable evidence to convince the courts that it is warranted. Also, and I hesitate to bring this up, there are nations populated by non-humans who mature at the age of 3 and are considered elderly by 12. This would remove the capacity of those nations to execute any of their convicted felons.

All in all, it is a workable idea that needs intense reworking.

Mother, tell your children not to walk my way.
Tell your chilren not to hear my words, what they mean, what they say...

How can this be made workable? I understand the concern about the age issue. What is an acceptable alternative? There have been proposals recently that want to let every nation define age as they see fit, but then a nation could simply determine that a 3 year-old human is fair game for execution.

As far as the definitions go, they are recognized medical definitions. Can anyone think of another way to differentiate between people who have mental disabilities/illnesses and those who do not?

Also, I'm open to suggestions on the intro. It didn't even exist until the issue was raised here.

I recognize that this needs help. I need help from you to make this workable, if anyone out there believes in this.

As far as the definitions go, they are recognized medical definitions. Can anyone think of another way to differentiate between people who have mental disabilities/illnesses and those who do not?


Perhaps our concern was misconstrued. We have no problem with the definitions. They seem quite competently done. Our problem is with their application.

There is simply no basis for the assumption that everyone with low intelligence or suffering from a mental disorder is incapable of understanding his or her responsibilities under the law and fulfilling them. Low intelligence or psychological disorders do not automatically mean that a person should not be held accountable for his or her misdeeds under the law. This, we feel, is stereotyping of the worst order. The intentions of the author are good ones; the proposal is an insult to all those suffering from retardation and mental disorders who live their lives in full and understanding compliance with the law.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

If, somehow, it could be tightened such that only disorders, impairments, and incapacities that affect the individuals conceptualization of right and wrong were applicable.

As for the age issue, that's a tough one..... Realistically, I don't see too many nations causing a huge fuss over it, though some will. Somehow, it would have to be done so that the people over the age limit are allowed to do everything that all adults in that nation can do, like vote, drink, drive (but not at the same time), get married, or whatever else. Some of those aren't the best examples, but I hope you get the idea. That's right, voting and driving causes accidents;) .

I'd personally like to see an exception or two for extenuating circumstances involving especially heinous acts like mass murder or serial rape. I fear that including such exceptions will perturb some of the liberal left, but not having them will upset the more button happy executors - like me.

I think you need to define mental ilness, etc, as related to domestic laws from member states. We comrades from Keating Australis support this motion, but would like to see a greater definition in the areas of mental illness.

Regards,
Comrade Keating,
Head of the Keating Australis Politburo

First, Gruenberg's proposal isn't even law yet.Yeah, give that about two weeks. These efforts at meddling in our judicial systems will cease to be legal.

How can this be made workable? I understand the concern about the age issue. What is an acceptable alternative? There have been proposals recently that want to let every nation define age as they see fit, but then a nation could simply determine that a 3 year-old human is fair game for execution.The legal term "minor" exists for a reason...

Category: Human rights
Strength: Strong

The United Nations...

RECOGNIZING the precedent set by Resolution #41, "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" as a mandate for the UN to take steps to limit punishments in the name of humanitarianism,

BELIEVING that the execution of minors, people with mental disabilities and people with mental illnesses, who have questionable levels of responsibility for their actions and may not have a clear concept of right and wrong, is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of humanitarianism,

defines "mental retardation" for the purposes of this resolution as subaverage intellectual ability that is equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment,

defines "mental illnesses" for the purposes of this resolution as any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma

and

hereby BANS member nations from executing people who…

1) have mental illnesses,

2) have mental retardation

or

3) are under 18 years of age.

I see point in the third, but not in the first two.

Why should one execute a sane terrorist, because he's useless for society and dangerous, but keep an insane one, despite he's even more useless and dangerous?

Mental retardation is actually a medical term established by international organizations, as is "medical illness."

OOC: NS, or just RL?

Yah, and how many resolutions do? Hows about this justification, if this resolution isn't worth passing, then the VOTERS WON'T PASS IT.

Solar panels...

This seems remarkably anthrocentric. Should FSA pass, it would also be remarkably illegal.

Full support for denying nations the ability to execute minors. I would suggest simply leaving 'minors' as the definition of who can escape execution; any nation choosing to redefine the term in order to get around the ban on execution will find themselves suffering from the redesignation in other areas of policy.

Mental capacity is a more difficult issue to address in a proposal like this. I am struggling for ways to provide advice on this, sadly.

The Dashanzi consensus holds that capital punishment is an abomination but also recognises that the UN is unlikely to be able to bring about its complete cessation any time soon. Restrictive proposals such as this are therefore most welcome.

Benedictions,

Since there is considerable argument on the definition of mental retardation and mental illness, as well as strong conflict over whether or not executions should be permitted for individuals falling into those categories, I have narrowed this resolution to include only minors.

What do you think now?

Since there is considerable argument on the definition of mental retardation and mental illness, as well as strong conflict over whether or not executions should be permitted for individuals falling into those categories, I have narrowed this resolution to include only minors.

What do you think now?

The new draft is better, but still very anti-sovereignty. It will certainly have my opposition.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

After communicating with His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty and the Director of Foreign Affairs on this issue, the Great Star Empire has decided not to support this resolution.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

This has been submitted as a proposal. It can be found at http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=minor

We generally wouldn't execute minors (although in some cases involving particularly vile crimes we might just wait until they attained the age of majority before executing them) ourselves, but believe that any UN-imposed restriction on nations' rights to do so would be an excessive intrusion on national sovereignty. We hold that this is not a matter in which any government's actions are likely to have direct 'international' effects, and therefore should be none of the UN's business...

This has been submitted as a proposal. It can be found at http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=minorHow many times do I have to tell you you're wasting your time until you believe me that you're wasting your time? In a week this will be illegal. And you can bet I'll be filing that GHR within minutes of FSA's passage.

How many times do I have to tell you you're wasting your time until you believe me that you're wasting your time? In a week this will be illegal. And you can bet I'll be filing that GHR within minutes of FSA's passage.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch... ;)

* ooc: It's simple, really: Fair Sentencing Act needs to be shot down, then Tarmsden has no problem. *

I respectfully dissent. "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" will remain valid after the passage of the FSA, correct? Thus, if the UN can ban torture on the grounds that it is NOT, as FSA puts it, "fair and just," then it can similarly ban the execution of minors.

If this argument is fundamentally-flawed, please clarify. Until a compelling argument is made that it is not a tenable position that the execution of minors is unfair and unjust, I reserve my approval of FSA and my efforts to ban the executions of minors. I understand that whether the execution of minors is acceptable or not is deeply controversial. That is why I believe this is a perfectly legal proposal in the same fashion as banning torture.

*Buzz.* Wrong!

When legislation like End Barbaric Punishments was created, there was no protected right of nations to determine their own sentences for criminals on the books. If and when FSA passes, there will be, meaning the United Nations absent repeal will no longer be able to modify member states' sentencing rights. It is as simple as that. Also, I don't need to tell you that under FSA, "fair and just" is merely a "request," not a requirement.

Back to Square One, I suppose, unless FSA is defeated. If I were you, I'd be focusing my efforts on preventing its passage, not trying to construct loophole schemes to get around it.

If your thought process is correct, then the UN cannot ban any forms of punishment under FSA. Therefore, this is in direct contradiction to "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS," as new UN resolutions are granted equal weight as old ones. Therefore, since these two resolutions contradict each other, according to your logic, one must be nullified. Since no repeal has happened, and FSA is still considered legal, I do not agree with your logic.

Imagine it this way. I pass a resolution mandating that all goods have a 10% tariff placed on them. Illegal, because tariffs are removed from food, medicine and other goods by UN legislation, right? However, I could still pass legislation RECOMMENDING that all nations set tariffs. Both are still legal.

So why not pass FSA, then take the automatic loophole granted by the very existence of "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" as permission to limit other punishments under humanitarianism?

I rest my case.

"Rest" from what? You haven't made a case yet.

The UN has legislated on education before too, yet it's pretty much established that UNEA negates the legality of most future educational proposals. You do understand "before and after," don't you? Most of us learned that little concept in preschool.

And as I already told you, your efforts to loophole-wank your proposal's "legality" are misplaced. Defeat FSA, and we'll talk.

Before and after works, but both older resolutions and newer ones have equal weight in the UN. Either this cancels out "END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS" (which it doesn't- it isn't a repeal) or it leaves room for the UN to pass other legislation in the future that extends upon the idea of banning unjust and unfair punishments. We can call in the moderators if you would like, but let's wait until the FSA vote is done so it actually means something.

LOL. You're fucking kidding me, right?

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you completely foreign to the basic concept that when the rules change, you follow the new rules? UN Resolutions are not case law; you can't use them to establish precedent -- especially when you consider that at least half of them are illegal under current rules. ... Or are you suggesting we can submit proposals that break Hackian guidelines now? By your logic, we should be able to, considering there are dozens of past resolutions that also violate Hack, right?

And I do believe that awaiting FSA's fate was my point to begin with.

Under my logic, a new resolution does not take precedence over older resolutions unless they have been repealed. I don't argue with Hackian rules- I argue with the logic that FSA's banning the UN from establishing sentences for crimes also prohibits the UN from banning inhumane punishments.