NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not a member of the UN, but I had an interesting idea for a proposal. It came about when the issue was raised in my country over blood donorship, namely on whether blood donorship should be compulsory, and if so, for whom. Thus, here is my proposal:

Title: Absolute Retribution
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

BECAUSE murder is defined as the taking of a life not one's own,

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside (particularly by hanging, a shot to the back of the head, beheading, or some other mode of execution that does not damage any of the donatable organs) at the expense of the condemned's family, and all of his or her organs and blood be donated to the respective State's medical institutions.

This is illegal for contradiction of Resolution #180, "Fair Sentencing Act".

This is illegal for contradiction of Resolution #180, "Fair Sentencing Act".

Could you link to Fair Sentencing Act, or otherwise copy/paste the text of the same?

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

Fair Sentencing Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=don't be so fucking lazy)
2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

Fair Sentencing Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=don't be so fucking lazy)


That's an incredibly good point.

In that case, I also propose:

Title: Repeal Fair Sentencing Act
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS some crimes are so heinous that the crime themselves demand punishment that is intrinsically non-negotiable,

IT IS DECREED that the Fair Sentencing Act is repealed.

The delegation from Krioval is bemused by this attempt of a non-UN state to tell UN states how to sentence criminals. If the proposing nation wishes to participate in UN affairs, especially where such participation affects civil liberties and national sovereignty, the delegation from Krioval strongly suggests that said nation show its dedication by pledging at least some part of its territory to UN jurisdiction, as Krioval has done.

This does nothing to alleviate the monstrosity that is the proposal being offered forth here, but it would at least grant it some degree of legitimacy - the repeal, that is, not the original proposal. Good day.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Republic of Krioval

The delegation from Krioval is bemused by this attempt of a non-UN state to tell UN states how to sentence criminals. If the proposing nation wishes to participate in UN affairs, especially where such participation affects civil liberties and national sovereignty, the delegation from Krioval strongly suggests that said nation show its dedication by pledging at least some part of its territory to UN jurisdiction, as Krioval has done.

This does nothing to alleviate the monstrosity that is the proposal being offered forth here, but it would at least grant it some degree of legitimacy - the repeal, that is, not the original proposal. Good day.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Republic of Krioval

Krioval is a UN member?

OOC: Some of its roleplayed territory is (Neo Tyros, in my case). I was very careful to insert that language into my in-character commentary for just that reason.

OOC: Some of its roleplayed territory is (Neo Tyros, in my case). I was very careful to insert that language into my in-character commentary for just that reason.

OOC: I am something of a newb. Would you mind pming me instructions on the finer parts of game play, such as the ones to which you have alluded?

OOC: I am something of a newb. Would you mind pming me instructions on the finer parts of game play, such as the ones to which you have alluded?
OOC: He means setting up a UN puppet. So make another nation - The Fourth Holy Reich UN Mission or something - and put that in the UN.

OOC: He means setting up a UN puppet. So make another nation - The Fourth Holy Reich UN Mission or something - and put that in the UN.

I can do that?

Edit: Done! I have created the nation "The Reichs UN Mission."

Edit Edit: Anyway, anyone have anything to say about the actual proposal?

Edit Edit: Anyway, anyone have anything to say about the actual proposal?

Hell no.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Edit Edit: Anyway, anyone have anything to say about the actual proposal?
Which one, Absolute Retribution or the repeal of Fair Sentencing Act? I hate both of them.

Which one, Absolute Retribution or the repeal of Fair Sentencing Act? I hate both of them.


Absolute Retribution...and do you mind going a bit deeper than that?

Absolute Retribution
Absolute Retribution is illegal, as has already been pointed out.
...and do you mind going a bit deeper than that?

Who thinks I should respond to this?

A show of hands please.

Absolute Retribution is illegal


Uh...then both the repeal AND Absolute retribution. Gosh dammit, mind actually adressing the proposal itself?

Well, your repeal is also illegal as phrased, since repeals don't have strengths.

Second, the Fair Sentencing Act is a much more carefully-thought-out proposal that spent a great deal of time under discussion and improvement before finally being accepted by all UN nations. It's not the ideal solution for all nations, but it's an acceptable compromise for most.

Third, this one mandates the death penalty only for murders, but fails to define "murderer" adequately. Soldiers routinely take lives not their own. So do doctors. If you want to include passive actions (failure to rescue accident victims, etc.), the list grows exponentially. It also makes no provision for extenuating circumstances, nor for self-defense.

Fourth, setting things up so that organ donatoin is driven by state execution is going to be something many many many nations will not want.

Finally, many nations are opposed to the death penalty in any case. Dozens or hundreds of proposals both pro and con have failed to reach quorum over the past several years, and the only Ban The Death Penalty that made quorum was handily defeated. Any proposal that makes a definitive requirement out of the death penalty is historically doomed to failure.

So in conclusion, the reason that nobody has given you any detailed critique is that it's so self-evidently flawed as to not be worth most peoples time. If I wanted to spend any more time on this, I'm sure I could come up with 'sixth' thorugh 'twentieth', but five solid reason ought to be enough.

Well it is time for Ellelt to chime in on this one as well.

This illegal draft for a proposed resolution is the most disgusting peice of garbage I have ever had the misfortune of reading. If The Reich wishes to punish its criminals that severely they are more than welcome to do so without having to waste the GA's time by being Non-UN.

If they wish to foist this travisty of a proposal on the GA they first must get a repeal of the Fair Sentencing Act passed. But to be quite honest...just from reading the responses already...I think that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

Then how about this?

Title: Repeal Fair Sentencing Act

WHEREAS some crimes are so heinous they intrinsically require certain punishment that is nonnegotiable,

WHEREAS a person is mobiles, and therefore have capax migrare, and therefore those who are not punished in one country may well pose a threat to another country,

THEREFORE, because it is clear that some standard in punishment at least to some extent must be established,

IT IS DECREED that Fair Sentencing Act is repealed.

Coupled with...

Title: Absolute Retribution
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside (particularly by hanging, a shot to the back of the head, beheading, or some other mode of execution that does not damage any of the donatable organs) at the expense of the condemned's family, and all of his or her organs and blood be donated to the respective State's medical institutions.

FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, rather be active or passive, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

FURTHER, what is the unlawful extinguishment of another human life shall be decided upon by the laws of the individual lands.

How's that, then?

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.Heh. Good luck getting people to agree on that.

I think you should drop the whole idea and let individual states decide how to run their justice systems. My nation has the death penalty, but what the nation next door wants to do is up to them.

I am appalled that you are A: forcing the criminals families to pay for the execution. If they aren't involved in the crime, why the hell should they have to, and B: that you are mandating that the body be cut up for organ donation. Once a person is executed in my nation, the body is released to the family for whatever funeral rites they wish to perform. We don't have any intention of changing that. Once the person is dead the debt is paid in full, and further 'punishment' of a corpse is just plain disgusting.

I also think you will have a very uphill battle trying to repeal Fair Sentencing Act. It is a very well written document, only recently passed, and was supported by a good majority of UN members on the floor. Your effort on the other hand is interfering, brutal and in my opinion, offensive. I'd much rather have FSA in place than it.

I think you should drop the whole idea and let individual states decide how to run their justice systems. My nation has the death penalty, but what the nation next door wants to do is up to them.


Look at it this way. Someone from some Anarchial state goes on a killing spree....kills 30 people. This Anarchial state doesn't even give him a slap on the risk, so he is technically innocent in his own land. You want someone like that to stay alive so that he can move to your country?

Likewise, if you just execute a murderer, then what debt has really been paid? What benefit has the murdered gained? Nothin. What has society gained? Nothin. If you dont' make the family pay for the execution, not only does society lose money, but also the executed member of society, and the member(s) of society that he murdered.

The way this works, the offended society reaps some benefit. Life repays life.

I could be wrong but I belive that Repeals and Replacement Resolutions need to be posted separately.

As for the repeal, I think that the FSA is going to one tough nut to crack. It stoped dead the debate on the Death Penalty which has a long long long history, You can read about it in NSWiki

As for the resolution itself is absolute rubish. Plain and simple...And I really am trying to be as nice as I can about this. However If you are serious about writing resolutions for the UN thru your mission you might want to check out Reclamation. Just a suggestion if you are serious about writing resolution though.

I can supply the links by pm if you wish...I'm not sure as to the rules concerning posting them directly in the forum, right now. (I'm still a bit new to this myself)

As for the resolution itself is absolute rubish


Will you at least admit it would be effective?

Will you at least admit it would be effective?

Effective at failing yes. This resolution is not passable by the UN. If your country wants to this outside of the UN fine, but your mission by being a member of the UN would be required to abide by International Law.

Effective at failing yes. This resolution is not passable by the UN. If your country wants to this outside of the UN fine, but your mission by being a member of the UN would be required to abide by International Law.

The solution, that is. Will you admit that the solution would at least be effective A) in adressing the immigration of high risk ex convicts and B) in solving organ and blood donorship problems?

Look at it this way. Someone from some Anarchial state goes on a killing spree....kills 30 people. This Anarchial state doesn't even give him a slap on the risk, so he is technically innocent in his own land. You want someone like that to stay alive so that he can move to your country?

Likewise, if you just execute a murderer, then what debt has really been paid? What benefit has the murdered gained? Nothin. What has society gained? Nothin. If you dont' make the family pay for the execution, not only does society lose money, but also the executed member of society, and the member(s) of society that he murdered.

The way this works, the offended society reaps some benefit. Life repays life.

Someone who murders 30 people would not be allowed to enter our nation. We have border control and any foreigner with a criminal record would never be allowed a visa.

Again, why the hell should the family be punished for a crime they had nothing to do with. How is it their fault? That is what I find so brutal and offensive about this very idea. You want multiple punishments for one crime. The criminal get punished by execution for the crime as he/she should, but then it keeps going and the family gets punished only for having the same dna, and then the corpse gets punished for being a corpse I guess.

Why not punish the criminals neighbourhood while you are at it, or round up all their old school chums and flog them in public. After all, if the family can be punished for nothing why not anyone else the criminal has ever interacted with. Who knows, maybe the teasing little jimmy gave the crim in the 5th grade is what set him/her on the path to crime in the first place :rolleyes:.

This whole idea of yours is vengence, not justice based. Justice says do the crime, do the time. Once the person who committed the crime has paid their debt, that is it. Further punishment of others, or even the crim's corpse, is just outright vengence that achieves nothing, and that has no place in UN legislation I feel.

B) in solving organ and blood donorship problems?We solved that by allowing people to sell organs.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

You enjoy shooting yourself in the foot, do you? That should be enough to ensure this disgusting piece of legislation never passes.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Descendant of neither Adam nor Eve (although her ex-boyfriend's great-grandmother was called Eve, as she recalls...),
PDSRA

The solution, that is. Will you admit that the solution would at least be effective A) in adressing the immigration of high risk ex convicts and B) in solving organ and blood donorship problems?


On the first issue: No it would not. Ellelt, Witchcliff's nation, and most others have some sort of boarder security of their own. Any person with a false visa is to be arrested by customs the Ministry of Immigration, Naturalization, and Immigrant Services upon entering the U.S.S.E. Second According to Elleltian Law, any person applying for an Elleltian visa must pass a background check conducted by the Elleltian People's Internal Security Service. Dont pass the background check...dont get the visa, dont come to Ellelt...you will be tried, convicted and sentenced to 10 Years Hard Labor. Plain and simple. The only exeption to this is an appeal of asylum, which is hard to get and the person would be detained by the EPISS for a background check, and also be debreifed by the Special Commission for Extraodianary Affairs, which directly answers to the Secretary General of the Communist Party, and President of the Council of Ministers, Comrade Alexander I. Serpov.

So thats the long answer...the short answer is no, it will not.

As for the second issue, that is maybe debateable internationally, but not relevent to the United Socialist States of Ellelt, where citizens can designate their organs to be donated upon their death, or donate them while living for organs that one has a spare for, or bone marrow for instance.

And besides you would have to take into consideration the method of execution. Lethal injection would poison the organs, electrocution would cook them, and quite frankly i think crucification is considered barbaric--therefore not practiced, stoning would bruse the organs making them unusable, Shooting anywhere besides the head would also damage the organs, so that leaves beheading, and hanging.

With that in mind we must look at the list of countries that still use those forms of execution...and well quite frankly that list is small.

The answer to your second point is NO.

Now my question to you is...would these organs be sold for a profit on the market considering you feel that there is a debt to be repaid to society?

The delegate of the Honourable nation of Complex-Reality does hereby express it's utter Disgust with this proposal to mandate the introduction of a Cruel and Unusual punishment into the legislation of all members of the UN.

Niar-Eci
Ambassador from
Complex-Reality

This proposal is laughable to the point where I thought it was some kind of joke. Its seriousness having been established, however, I am glad that this utterly revolting proposal has absolutely no chance of ever passing.

- Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

(I sincerely hope this is just something you believe within this game and not in real life.)

Again, why the hell should the family be punished for a crime they had nothing to do with.

You could ask the same about the offended society. Why should the offended society's innocent tax payers have to pay?

The criminal get punished by execution for the crime as he/she should, but then it keeps going and the family gets punished only for having the same dna, and then the corpse gets punished for being a corpse I guess.

Dude, this is the idea. If Guy A takes guy B's life. Guy B is dead. Therefore, fi Guy A dies too, then the offended society just lost more people. But if Guy A, who killed guy B, is used to give life to someone else...?

See? That really repays the debt to society whereas simple execution doesn't.

Further punishment of others, or even the crim's corpse, is just outright vengence that achieves nothing,

Donating an offendor's heart to a hard working citizen who needs it doesn't achieve anything?

Groovy! The proposal for the repeal has been made.

On your proposal: No. Just no.WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,Your opinion, not mine.

Law is promulgated for the protection of society; “repaying debts” has nothing to do with it. Weregeld went out with the Dark Ages; enough said.BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,And you come to this conclusion how?

Even if we were to assume that the law is about “repaying debts”, there are many ways to do so. We could, for instance, require the criminal to assume all financial and societal obligations of the victim; wouldn't that be a form of repayment?

But again, this assumes your (false) premise: that law is about “repaying debts”.IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside (particularly by hanging, a shot to the back of the head, beheading, or some other mode of execution that does not damage any of the donatable organs) at the expense of the condemned's family, and all of his or her organs and blood be donated to the respective State's medical institutions.So when someone kills, we become killers, too?

I recall a philospher warning us that in fighting monsters, we must be careful not to become monsters.FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, rather be active or passive, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.So you define manslaughter as murder?

On the “human being” bit, we need to go fetch the Special Envoy from the Rogue Pod of Bloodthirsty Dolphins. He'll be interested in wondering why it's O.K. for a someone to murder sentient dolphins.

You do realize that there are non-human nations here in NationStates, don't you? Evidently not.FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.So descendants of Archie and Edith aren't human?

Oh, wait - you're talking about your peculiar religion. Why should we care what you believe?

(Not to mention the fact that the holy men of your religion oppose retribution; after all, it's blasphemy to take a life - since only G_d is entitled to do that. Get thee away from me, Satan...)FURTHER, what is the unlawful extinguishment of another human life shall be decided upon by the laws of the individual lands.You just contradicted yourself, two paragraphs back.

We generally ignore statements by nations that they'd quit the U.N. if a particular resolution passed, but we'd quit if this one passed - not in protest, but because, in all good conscience, we could not stay; continued membership in any organization so immoral as to impose such charnel-house concepts of “justice” would be a crime against humanity of the highest order.

To repeal a resolution you have to use the repeal function.

Groovy! The proposal for the repeal has been made.
... and removed.
To repeal a resolution you have to use the repeal function.
You've been told this before in this thread, The Fourth Holy Reich. In fact, I was one of the ones who told you. Perhaps you could take a moment to realize that all the people in this thread aren't just telling you that they don't like your proposal out of spiteful reasons, but maybe have some actual insight into how things actually work around here.

... and removed.

Ok, an actual repeal has been proposed. (C'mon, it's an honest mistake. I was initially unaware the the repeal function was seperate from the ordinary proposal)

Well before this travisty of a proposal could get passed one would have to repeal the FSA. And quite frankly, Politics and other B.S. asside, thats not going to happen.

Ive said to him time and time again...the FSA is a tough nut to crack, and its well supported. Indeed its a credit to the Representive from Greunberg that it exists, as it ended much pointless debate about punisments which are the province of individual nations.

On your proposal: No. Just no.Your opinion, not mine.

I recall one Catholic political commentator who once said that "the law is entirely the legislation of morality."

It may not be yours, but it certainly is someone's.

Even if we were to assume that the law is about “repaying debts”, there are many ways to do so. We could, for instance, require the criminal to assume all financial and societal obligations of the victim; wouldn't that be a form of repayment?

That would put a price on someone's life. How is that just? The only fair repayment for a life is another life.

But again, this assumes your (false) premise: that law is about “repaying debts”.So when someone kills, we become killers, too?

Not according to the definition set forth in the possible proposal. Execution of a death penalty is a lawful extinguishment of another person's life.

On the “human being” bit, we need to go fetch the Special Envoy from the Rogue Pod of Bloodthirsty Dolphins. He'll be interested in wondering why it's O.K. for a someone to murder sentient dolphins.

The Reich's UN delegation wishes it be known that Der Fuhrer does not consider sentient dolphins any different from non sentient dolphins, except that they are capable of giving suggestions as to how they should be prepared for dinner.

You do realize that there are non-human nations here in NationStates, don't you? Evidently not.So descendants of Archie and Edith aren't human?

That is a good point. How about this version, then:

Title: Absolute Retribution
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside (particularly by hanging, a shot to the back of the head, beheading, or some other mode of execution that does not damage any of the donatable organs) at the expense of the condemned's family, and all of his or her organs and blood be donated to the respective State's medical institutions.

FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, rather be active or passive, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

FURTHER, Adam and Eve shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the two first parents of the entirety of humanity formed from dust by Almighty God in His image and likeness.

FURTHER, Almighty God shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the Diety of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and all variants thereof.

Are there any other holes in it?

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

FURTHER, Adam and Eve shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the two first parents of the entirety of humanity formed from dust by Almighty God in His image and likeness.

FURTHER, Almighty God shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the Diety of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and all variants thereof.

Not all member states have an official religion. Amongst those which do, not all are monotheistic. Amongst those which are, not all (far from it) are Creationist.

How exactly is this supposed to work in countries where there is seperation of Church and State, for example?

Not that I'm suggesting you should remove it. I'll be quite happy to see the GA toss out this barbaric proposal due to that definition.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You must really like shooting yourself in the foot. :headbang: just keep banging that head against that wall. :headbang: :headbang:

Maybe eventually you will get the message. The resolution is not passible. By placing reglious language into this travisty of a proposal you have summarly offended every atheist nation (Like my own---not that we would have voted for this dung anyway) but also offended those nations which are not controled by the speicies Homo Sapiens.

Keep banging your head against that wall brother :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: Maybe you will eventually get that this resolution, and your pathetic attempt to repeal against the Repealmeister are getting you no where.

This resolution is not passable in any form what so ever.:rolleyes:

Maybe eventually you will get the message. The resolution is not passible. By placing reglious language into this travisty of a proposal you have summarly offended every atheist nation (Like my own---not that we would have voted for this dung anyway) but also offended those nations which are not controled by the speicies Homo Sapiens.

Der Fuhrer is banking on the presumption there are more humans than non humans states, and likewise more theist than non theistic states.

Der Fuhrer doesn't care about the infidels anyway.

Delegation of the Fourth Holy Reich,
Seigmund Von Heilsing.

Der Pretend Nazi should therefore get used to an utter lack of respect and response from the readers here. We've pretty much had our fill of 15-year-old wanna-be Nazis who think Hitler was pretty cool. Your case is not helping your cause.

Der Pretend Nazi should therefore get used to an utter lack of respect and response from the readers here. We've pretty much had our fill of 15-year-old wanna-be Nazis who think Hitler was pretty cool. Your case is not helping your cause.

OOC:

I am 18, not 15.

With all due respect, I thought that ideaological equality was part of the UN? Correct me if I am wrong. So as long as I follow the rules, shouldn't I be treated the same as anyone else? I honestly think the proposal is a good idea. Granted, I am sure that many don't agree, but isn't that the beauty of a democracy?

You could ask the same about the offended society. Why should the offended society's innocent tax payers have to pay?

Because if the state wants to kill its criminals, then the state pays for it. What society gets back is seeing justice done, and knowing the state has protected them from any possible further crimes from the executed individual.

To go further on the family paying, I have another question for you. A lot of murders are within families. Under this, a grieving family would not only have the loss of one member, the victim, to deal with, but then be state punished by being forced to accept financial responsibility for the execution of another member.

How does that 'give them something back'. In that scenario the people you feel deserve to 'get something back' are the same ones you expect to give it. Do you really think a father killed by his wife would want his children punished, and be forced to pay for the execution of their mother?

Actually your argument would be based upon false pretenses then. To my knowlege most states here separate regligion and state. As for Human V. Non-Human...its a moot point.

(OOC: In RL all of the nations are controled by humans reguardless of how they RP. If you want to write proposals quit wasting your time on this one and write a real one. I'm Even offering to help you, but this thing is dead...it wont pass, reguardless of what "Der F__ker" thinks. As an aside note to the rest of the membership I apologise for my use of language, but being a decendent of a holocaust servivor i have very very very little respect for nazis--including wanna-bes. /OOC)

And finally...it is in contradiction to the FSA, which was passed as a blocker by Greunberg. It is an illegal proposal without first repealing the FSA...Which simply isnt going to happen.

Give it up already...this proposal is trash reguardless of how well written you think it is.

And in my sort time in the NSUN I can safely say that I have noticed a pattern...For every 1 well written, sane, and beneficial proposal there are 5 that are utter nonsense, dangerous, or just plain stupid.

Because if the state wants to kill its criminals, then the state pays for it. What society gets back is seeing justice done, and knowing the state has protected them from any possible further crimes from the executed individual.

"Then the state pays for it." That is essentially the point that I am making. Where is the money with which the state is paying it coming from? Tax payers. So, in essence, you are saying that the offended society should pay to execute the criminal.

To go further on the family paying, I have another question for you. A lot of murders are within families.

A good point. Now that I think of it, the family being forced to pay is kind of lame. I just got the idea from Communist China. Here is my revised proposal, then:

Title: Absolute Retribution
Strength: Strong

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside.

FURTHER, the executed murderer shall be executed in such a manner that does not damage any of the vital organs below the neck, nor wastes an unreasonable amount of blood.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's blood and organs shall be donated to the medical institutions of the respective state in which he commited the crime.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's property and assets shall be seized to pay for the execution. If the funds are insufficient, then the cost shall be paid by the State, and the seized funds shall be invested until such a time as they cover the costs.

FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, rather be active or passive, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

FURTHER, Adam and Eve shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the two first parents of the entirety of humanity formed from dust by Almighty God in His image and likeness.

FURTHER, Almighty God shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the Diety of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and all variants thereof.

Does that fix things?

What are you, CP on Jesus Juice? You don't need all those definitions.

What are you, CP on Jesus Juice? You don't need all those definitions.

Read the previous parts of the thread. Most of the definitions did in fact come up. "What is a human being? What about dolphins?" "Adam and eve? What about edith and archie?"

OOC:

I am 18, not 15.

With all due respect, I thought that ideaological equality was part of the UN? Correct me if I am wrong. So as long as I follow the rules, shouldn't I be treated the same as anyone else? I honestly think the proposal is a good idea. Granted, I am sure that many don't agree, but isn't that the beauty of a democracy?
OOC: You're free to come here and RP a Nazi nation if that's what you want to do. I, along with the others, am free to ridicule you and any asinine proposals you might happen to submit.

Look at it this way. Someone from some Anarchial state goes on a killing spree....kills 30 people. This Anarchial state doesn't even give him a slap on the risk, so he is technically innocent in his own land. You want someone like that to stay alive so that he can move to your country?First off, we don't let just anyone enter The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, and since we're an airlocked archepelago it's quite difficult to sneak across our borders, but for the sake of arguement let's say that John Doe from Whogivesafuckistan murdered 30 people and came to The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites. As long as Mr. Doe refrained from killing anyone, we couldn't care less about his past, but if he kills someone while in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, we will kill him back, that's our policy.

Likewise, if you just execute a murderer, then what debt has really been paid? What benefit has the murdered gained? Nothin. What has society gained? Nothin. If you dont' make the family pay for the execution, not only does society lose money, but also the executed member of society, and the member(s) of society that he murdered.First off, a bullet to the brain is not that expensive. Secondly, if you're really worried about the cost of executing someone do what we do, the next time you have a criminal who made big headlines who's being executed, broadcast the execution live on pay-per-view. From what I hear, the last time we did that our buy rates were through the roof.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

OOC:

I am 18, not 15.

With all due respect, I thought that ideaological equality was part of the UN? Correct me if I am wrong. So as long as I follow the rules, shouldn't I be treated the same as anyone else? I honestly think the proposal is a good idea. Granted, I am sure that many don't agree, but isn't that the beauty of a democracy?
OOC: Trust me, you are being treated the same as anyone else who comes up with a crappy idea like this.

Not really :p.

I'll be honest here, no sarcasam, I mean it. I do admire the fact that dispite all the criticism your idea has received, from me and everyone else in this thread, you keep trying. That tenacity merits a pat on the back. The fact you've taken all the crap we have thrown at you, wiped it off, and kept going, deserves one

But you must try to accept that this idea is one that has only the smallest of small chances of ever being accepted by the majority of UN members. We have had more than a few people try to put forward proposals that force all nations to have set punishments for certain crimes, and every one has been shot down. A famous effort is this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478281), which tried to make murder illegal in all nations, and dictate punishments for it. Read the whole thread, and you'll get an idea of what most of us feel about anyone messing in our justice systems.

Give it up already...this proposal is trash reguardless of how well written you think it is.

Der Fuhrer will not be happy! Not happy at all! Embassador of Ellelt, the delegation of the Reich advises your country to watch your borders. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11939014#post11939014)

Delegation of the Fourth Holy Reich
Seigmund Van Heilsing

Are you just trolling, or angling to get nuked?That would put a price on someone's life. How is that just? The only fair repayment for a life is another life.Repeating your assertion is not an argument. You've stated that there is only one way to “repay” a life. We pointed out another. So at this point, all you're doing is asserting that your premises are fact, which is nonsense.That would put a price on someone's life. How is that just? The only fair repayment for a life is another life.But again, this assumes your (false) premise: that law is about “repaying debts”.So when someone kills, we become killers, too?Not according to the definition set forth in the possible proposal. Execution of a death penalty is a lawful extinguishment of another person's life.Killing is killing, whether legal or not. You kill a killer, you become a killer, legal or not. You kill when you have the ability to show mercy, then you're a monster. What part of that do you fail to understand?FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

FURTHER, Adam and Eve shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the two first parents of the entirety of humanity formed from dust by Almighty God in His image and likeness.

FURTHER, Almighty God shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the Diety of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and all variants thereof. We hope you leave that language in the bill. It'll guarantee your defeat.

Also, we find any mention of Christianity by a Nazi regime laughable. Supporting capital punishment while nodding toward Jesus is as inconsistent as it ever gets.What are you, CP on Jesus Juice? You don't need all those definitions.Don't be catty.Der Fuhrer will not be happy! Not happy at all! Embassador of Ellelt, the delegation of the Reich advises your country to watch your borders. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread....4#post11939014)

Delegation of the Fourth Holy Reich
Seigmund Van HeilsingAiming to get nuked, then.

Actually I believe that he is looking to see his little crapistan nuked....We Just unveiled our shiny new Lenin 3 Nuclear warhead tiped rockets. Guaranteed to deliver a 25 megaton blast to a Fourth Reich City near you.

I am offering The Fourth Reich a chance to back down...We Have Nukes, and We wont hesitate to use them against you if we have to. Also I have alerted my in-region allies of the danger to us all should The Fourth Reich contenue in this silly campaign against Ellelt.

Finally, I think this little boy also mistook me for a liberal...let me make this clear....I am not a Liberal, Liberals are wimps. Im a Communist and Communists are not wimps. I am highly offended by that.

Further, I recomend that the Ambassador from The Fourth Reich inform Der F__ker that Ellelt will defend Herself, and Her Peace Loving Workers and Peasents to the last battle.

(OOC: Also the Communist Soviet Union in RL Beat the everloving fucking shit out of Nazi Germany...thru brute force. So fascism doesnt have a very good record about wining the wars it starts./OOC)

Blah blah blah blah blah

Yeah, this is not the time nor place for your antics. This is the UN.

Don't feed the troll.

Are you just trolling, or angling to get nuked?

Hey pot. This is the kettle. Are you aware of your African heritage?

Now then....the proposed bill.


Strength: Strong

Category??

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

Arguable. Some would say that the purpose is to rehabilitate criminals into productive members of society. I personally angle at punishment, but it could be argued otherwise.

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

Or to save lives. Or create lives. Or any number of other things that would be as monumental as saving lives.

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which they reside.

Why? If an individual sneaks into Kivisto and kills people, we won't be overly concerned with where they reside. They will be punished as any other person, resident or not, who commits a crime in Kivisto.

FURTHER, the executed murderer shall be executed in such a manner that does not damage any of the vital organs below the neck, nor wastes an unreasonable amount of blood.

We actually prefer more inhumane methods, but those are not necessarily exclusive to what you suggest.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's blood and organs shall be donated to the medical institutions of the respective state in which he commited the crime.

No real issue here, but it's fairly extraneous.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's property and assets shall be seized to pay for the execution. If the funds are insufficient, then the cost shall be paid by the State, and the seized funds shall be invested until such a time as they cover the costs.

And if the murderer happened to have a family? Even if they were the ones that turned them in? Now we are to deprive them of all that they owned because one member of the family did a really stupid thing without their consultation or knowledge? Why?

FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, rather be active or passive, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.

But not by an act of force? Willful is what I think you were aiming for. A knowledgeable and willfull act. And it should be "Whether it be active or passive" instead of rather be.

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as any living descendent of Adam and Eve.

RL reference? And offensive to non-creationists.

FURTHER, Adam and Eve shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the two first parents of the entirety of humanity formed from dust by Almighty God in His image and likeness.

RL reference? Further offence against non-creationists, as well as any who have differing creation theologies.

FURTHER, Almighty God shall for the purposes of this document be defined as the Diety of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and all variants thereof.

RL reference. One could possibly slide. Two might be pushing it. Three is over the line. RL=/=NS. There are grand differences between the religions in this game and in the real world. Aside from that, this would be discriminatory towards the beliefs of many nations. For example, the Gruenbergers. The Holy Wenaist Gruenbergers worship Wena as their "Almighty", not any of the aforementioned deities, whoever they might happen to be. Nor are any of those religions recognized within Kivisto, so this would imply that we are not humans, and that, my friend, is an excessively offensive statement to make about any nation.

In light of Kivisto's points:

Title: Absolute Retribution
Strength: Strong
Category: Moral Decency

WHEREAS the purpose of criminal law is to repay a debt to society and to the victim(s) to which crime(s) is(are) aimed,

BEARING IN MIND the only way to repay the taking of a life is to give life,

IT IS DECREED that all murderers must be executed by the respective States in which the murderer commited the crime.

FURTHER, the executed murderer shall be executed in such a manner that does not damage any of the vital organs below the neck, nor wastes an unreasonable amount of blood.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's blood and organs shall be donated to the medical institutions of the respective state in which he commited the crime.

FURTHER, the executed murderer's property and assets shall be seized to pay for the execution. If the funds are insufficient, then the cost shall be paid by the State, and the seized funds shall be invested until such a time as they cover the costs. If the person was married, then half of his assets shall be taken only.

FURTHER, a murderer shall be defined as any person who, by a knowledgeable act of the will, whether actively or passively, unlawfully extinguishes the life of another human being.

FURTHER, a human being shall be defined as a being of the highest order of primate, and normally possessing opposal thumbs, and normally capable of speech.

Also, Kivisto, check your telegrams.

I have a suggestion:

If you think TFHR is trolling, don't post in his thread.
If you don't, have at it.

I can do that?

Edit: Done! I have created the nation "The Reichs UN Mission."

Edit Edit: Anyway, anyone have anything to say about the actual proposal?

Yes, I will. Your proposal is essentially an attempt to interfere with the sovereign sentencing systems of UN member nations. Instead of abolishing capital punishment, you are essentially mandating it. I suspect that you'll have two sets of governments opposed to this proposal: those that feel that capital punishment is wrong and those that are opposed to international micromanagement. Typically these two groups are opposed, thus giving some proposals a shot at passing. With both groups likely to be opposed to your idea, it would be lucky to collect 100 UN Delegate approvals.

Cassandra Thonberger
Deputy Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

I am offering The Fourth Reich a chance to back down...We Have Nukes, and We wont hesitate to use them against you if we have to. Also I have alerted my in-region allies of the danger to us all should The Fourth Reich contenue in this silly campaign against Ellelt.And We Have KillSats. And We Like Capital Letters As Much As You Do. W_ _ls_ L_k_e _s_ng V_w_ls. Quit antagonizing the little backwater, and try to stick to debating proposals.

Seriously... it's like watching two five-year-olds having a slap fight.


- Mikhael Aronofsky
Director of Section 3
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I apologize for this behaviour...it is below the level I usually expect for myself. I did not realize until i recieved a tg from Iron Felix that this person was a troll...

I have no further use for this thing.

I did not realize until i recieved a tg from Iron Felix that this person was a troll...
Well now that's a ringing endorsement if ever I've heard one.

"Eat your vegetables and always listen to Felix."

Look at it this way. Someone from some Anarchial state goes on a killing spree....kills 30 people. This Anarchial state doesn't even give him a slap on the risk, so he is technically innocent in his own land. You want someone like that to stay alive so that he can move to your country?

Those horrible "anarchial" states. I'm tellin' ya, an irresponsible lot they are.

Those horrible "anarchial" states. I'm tellin' ya, an irresponsible lot they are.Agreed. They should be banned like asbestos.

http://www.revenews.com/jimkukral/trolls.gif

http://www.revenews.com/jimkukral/trolls.gif

Just a reminder, the appeal is currently up for voting.

Just a reminder, the appeal is currently up for voting.

The fact that you posted a legally constructed REpeal does not mitigate the fact that you're a troll.

Just as advice, I'd suggest you take your ideas back to the roleplay forums before one of us mods has to officially call you on it.

The fact that you posted a legally constructed REpeal does not mitigate the fact that you're a troll.

Just as advice, I'd suggest you take your ideas back to the roleplay forums before one of us mods has to officially call you on it.

With all due respect, my idea wasn't illegal.

With pretty much no respect, you were trolling it. Proposal legality is not the issue. Forum rules are what we're discussing now, and those rules prohibit trolling. The One-Stop Rules Shop has a definition, in case you hadn't looked at the rules.