NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

this is a draft for a resolution to abolish the death penalty. Any opinions on it are welcome.

Abolishment of the Death Penalty

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saidercray

The United Nations,

KNOWING that due to UN resolution #180, "Fair Sentencing Act", member nations have the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions",

KNOWING that due to UN resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights”, “all human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”,

COMBINING the provisions of UN resolutions #180 and #26 by deciding that member nations have the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions" unless these sentences result into "torture" or into "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

REGARDING the death penalty as a cruel and inhuman punishment,

ACKNOWLEDGING every nation’s right and duty to protect its citizens from crime,

EMPHASIZING that it has never been proven that the death penalty's deterrent effect is stronger than the deterrent effect of life-long custody

FURTHER EMPHASIZING that executions represent and spread the opinion that violence and killings are appropriate means to solve problems, and that this opinion can further crime

TEARING THE CONCLUSION that the death penalty is less qualified for protecting people from crime than other forms of punishment, e. g. life-long custody,

UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECTING the feelings of people close to a criminal’s victim and expressing strong regret and sympathy to both the victim and the people close to him or her,

BEING CERTAIN that in a fair trial as guaranteed to everyone due to UN resolution #21, “Fair Trial”, such feelings must not influence the trial and especially the judgement,

NOTING WITH REGRET that it can never be prevented that also innocent people are taken for guilty and sentenced and that the consequences of such events are most grave and most irreversible if an innocent person has been sentenced to death and executed,

1. CONDEMNS the death penalty

2. OBLIGES all member nations where the death penalty is legal to abolish the death penalty by declaring it illegal

3. URGES all member nations to transform sentences of death for criminals who have been sentenced to death before the enactment of this resolution into other sentences which do not violate the provisions of UN resolution #26

4. ENCOURAGES all member nations to stand up for the abolishment of the death penalty in nations which aren’t members of the UN.

Thank you very much for your co-operation.

It's probably a House of Cards violation. If those resolutions you cite are ever repealed, this loses a lot of its strength.

That being said, we'll support this proposal if it comes to vote, but capital punishment legislation has traditionally been doomed to failure. National sovereignty and all that.

Good first proposal though.

We oppose the death penalty like any sensible nation however we do not believe that this should effect all nations.

Illegal for Contradiction, specifically UNR #180 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179):

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

Illegal for Contradiction, specifically UNR #180 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179).

Yup. The grossly misnamed "Fair Sentencing" Act. Which is why so many of us voted against the bloody thing.

Dr. Sergei V. Telkijski,
Itinerant Ambassador,
PDSRA

St Jello Biafra;11976788']It's probably a House of Cards violation. If those resolutions you cite are ever repealed, this loses a lot of its strength.

That being said, we'll support this proposal if it comes to vote, but capital punishment legislation has traditionally been doomed to failure. National sovereignty and all that.

Good first proposal though.

Technically a House of Cards *should* be an instance when the majority of the justification is dependent upon previously enacted resolutions, but if:

KNOWING that due to UN resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights”, “all human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”,

is changed to something like:

AGREEING with its resolution, The Universal Bill of Rights, which stated that "all human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

Then even if the Universal Bill of Rights is repealed (which is doubtful), then the opinion / justification for this resolution will still remain.

The origin of the House of Cards rule wasn't when proposal authors pointed to previous resolutions, but when their proposals were very dependent on them. I think even left as is, that "KNOWING" should probably fly by.

That said, I'm much more liberal on these sorts of issues than most UN members and certainly more liberal than most UN moderators. Ultimately it is up to the mods.

Illegal for Contradiction, specifically UNR #180 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179):

Thanks for posting the text there as well. I agree that with 180 on the books, it blocks capital punishment issues ... but I still think that the Universal Bill of Rights at least gives room for a weak resolution recommending that nations, while choosing their sentencing regulations adhere to the the "no cruel punishment" provision.

Yup. The grossly misnamed "Fair Sentencing" Act. Which is why so many of us voted against the bloody thing.

Not enough of you, though, thankfully.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thanks for your constructive answers. I'll now draw up a second version by means of which I try to go as far as the FSA allows it.

Hello,

this is a draft for a resolution to abolish the death penalty. Any opinions on it are welcome.

Abolishment of the Death Penalty

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saidercray

The United Nations,

KNOWING that due to UN resolution #180, "Fair Sentencing Act", member nations have the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions",

KNOWING that due to UN resolution #26, “The Universal Bill of Rights”, “all human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”,

COMBINING the provisions of UN resolutions #180 and #26 by deciding that member nations have the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions" unless these sentences result into "torture" or into "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment",

REGARDING the death penalty as a cruel and inhuman punishment,

ACKNOWLEDGING every nation’s right and duty to protect its citizens from crime,

EMPHASIZING that it has never been proven that the death penalty's deterrent effect is stronger than the deterrent effect of life-long custody

FURTHER EMPHASIZING that executions represent and spread the opinion that violence and killings are appropriate means to solve problems, and that this opinion can further crime

TEARING THE CONCLUSION that the death penalty is less qualified for protecting people from crime than other forms of punishment, e. g. life-long custody,

UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECTING the feelings of people close to a criminal’s victim and expressing strong regret and sympathy to both the victim and the people close to him or her,

BEING CERTAIN that in a fair trial as guaranteed to everyone due to UN resolution #21, “Fair Trial”, such feelings must not influence the trial and especially the judgement,

NOTING WITH REGRET that it can never be prevented that also innocent people are taken for guilty and sentenced and that the consequences of such events are most grave and most irreversible if an innocent person has been sentenced to death and executed,

1. CONDEMNS the death penalty

2. OBLIGES all member nations where the death penalty is legal to abolish the death penalty by declaring it illegal

3. URGES all member nations to transform sentences of death for criminals who have been sentenced to death before the enactment of this resolution into other sentences which do not violate the provisions of UN resolution #26

4. ENCOURAGES all member nations to stand up for the abolishment of the death penalty in nations which aren’t members of the UN.

Thank you very much for your co-operation.

I would like to add a few remarks on the content of your proposal.

First, the death penalty, when carried out correctly and efficiently, is far from being either inhumane or cruel. For example, death by firing squad, electric chair, certain kinds of chemicals/poisons, forced drowning, being thrown out of an airlock, being beaten to death, death by torture, and so on are quite cruel. In contrast, death by guillotine, a bullet in the brainstem, instantaneous incineration, poisons that kill painlessly, and other such methods are not cruel. The criminal suffers little if at all.

Second, if anything life-long custody is more cruel than appropriate death penalties. As one who loves liberty, I have difficulty imagining a worse form of cruelty than destroying a person's liberty and allowing him to live on for years, possibly the rest of his life with the knowledge that he cannot have that liberty. If the person imprisoned is a lover of liberty, you do him great cruelty. If the person imprisoned is not a lover of liberty, you are doing him no disservice by keeping him in custody. This is why the Republic objects to imprisonment as being by turns ineffective and immoral.

Third, if your justice system or that of others convicts innocent persons, that is the fault of your justice system or the personnel that operate it. I would appreciate it greatly if you would refrain from penalizing nations such as my own for the failures of others.

Hellar Gray

This legislation makes no distinction between military and civilian death penalties. While we would agree to a possible ban of the death penalty in a civilian setting. Our prisons are run by corporations and the Department of Mental Hygiene so prisoners are not a direct financial burden on the system.

However, in order to maintain tradition and enforce strong discipline in the armed services we would like to maintain the death penalty for military and national security reasons.

We would oppose this legislation as it is, and it may even contradict the FSA, but im not a mod and therefore can make no ruling on the legality of this proposal draft.

However, as I said we would oppose this proposal, we use the death penalty for extreme cases, such as murder, treason and child molestation. Instead we use a prison labor system in order to have the criminal repay his debt to society. Indeed the United Socialist States of Ellelt have not executed anyone, except in the above mentioned circumstances since 2002 when we executed the Tsar for his treason and other crimes against the people, and that instance was before the Supreme Soviet enacted the Elletian Uniform Criminal Code of 2003--admended in 2004.

Furthermore, even if we did not use the death penalty, we would oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty. It is the right of each nation to write its own criminal codes, enforce those codes, and form its judicial system in the manner which it sees fit.

Vlaidimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

This proposal is an affront to the belief that nations should be able to decide for themselves what course of action to take when punishing an offender.

Altanar rarely practices the death penalty, reserving it for offenses such as high treason and mass murder. It's been three years now since we've even executed anyone. Suffice to say, we're anything but a nation that keeps a revolving door on its death row. However, we firmly believe that the basis of any successful and viable society is an agreement between its members to conduct themselves in a certain way. People such as mass murderers, for example, have plainly broken the part of that agreement in which individuals agree not to kill each other. And sometimes, rehabilitation and treatment simply cannot stop whatever drives people to commit such horrific crimes. Should the rest of society be left defenseless because of that, or is there a point where even a progressive and civilized society has to remove a threat to the well-being of others, the only way it can be done?

I don't like the death penalty, at all. But I, and my government, recognize that sometimes it's just necessary, whether we like it or not. Altanar, regretfully, opposes this proposal.

Suggesting the abolishment of the death penalty is a capital offense in Excruciatia...

Third, if your justice system or that of others convicts innocent persons, that is the fault of your justice system or the personnel that operate it. I would appreciate it greatly if you would refrain from penalizing nations such as my own for the failures of others.We congratulate Accelerus on their elevation to godhood. May they bask in their omniscience and perfection forever.

We congratulate Accelerus on their elevation to godhood. May they bask in their omniscience and perfection forever.

Sarcasm noted. I'd like to congratulate Rubina on their elevation to Unclever and Inane Commentator of the day.

Hellar Gray

I'm fairly sure this proposal is illegal. A legal way to bring about the abolition of the death penalty would be to support this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508426) proposal. But while we wait for a mod ruling:

Should the rest of society be left defenseless because of that, or is there a point where even a progressive and civilized society has to remove a threat to the well-being of others, the only way it can be done?


Two comments.

First, have you considered a life sentence in a maximum security prison? Second, what do you make of the risk of executing an innocent person?

To argue that the death penalty is necessary is ludicrous. Many, many nations get along very well without it.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

have you considered a life sentence in a maximum security prison?
How is that less inhumane than capital punishment. At least with capial punishment you suffer only a little bit. Spending 50+ years in a maximum security prision prolongs the suffering for a long time and can damage the psyche of the criminal.

First, have you considered a life sentence in a maximum security prison? Second, what do you make of the risk of executing an innocent person?

To argue that the death penalty is necessary is ludicrous. Many, many nations get along very well without it.



We don't generally sentence people to life in prison unless the Aushedars are feeling particularly mean. Imperial prisons are a death sentence in and of themselves, and the people are usually relegated to hard labor.

In our case, the death sentence is completely necessary. We ascribe to the belief that the state maintains a monopoly on violence, and in an Empire containing some two-hundred planets, keeping order is a very serious task. Treason, mutiny, and other crimes are punishable by death, usually summary execution.

We consider these policies enlightened, and far from inhumane. In conventional Taam In Phar religious thought, those who are executed are purged of their crimes in the name of the Emperor, and are become blessed in the heavens. It is also much preferable to be executed than to be incarcerated on, say, the industrial world of Wayland, where your chances of being horribly maimed in a forced-labor accident are unusually high.

Our legal system is very efficient and fair. Most judges are outfitted with neural implants which process data instantly, and information and evidence is used as it is, unburdened by ideas such as "improper searches." We rarely sentence innocent people.

Of course, this probably doesn't mean a damn thing to the people who are so rabidly opposed to capital punishment that they refuse to listen to other views.


What is really necessary is... oh, I don't know, maybe a blocker that ensures that individual nations have the right to make the decision themselves...

Third, if your justice system or that of others convicts innocent persons, that is the fault of your justice system or the personnel that operate it. I would appreciate it greatly if you would refrain from penalizing nations such as my own for the failures of others.


Is the honorable representative of Accelerus telling us that his criminal justice system is perfect? Does he claim that no innocent person has ever been convicted of a crime in his nation? Sorry, but we'll believe that right after we believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. People are not perfect, and any system devised and operated by people is necessarily imperfect. To claim otherwise flies in the face of reason.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: I'd advise against paying too much heed to his ridiculous wank. This is the nation that has invented a way of burning fossil fuels without creating carbon emissions, but not condoms. They also have no crimes, because it doesn't occur to any of their citizens to commit them. Some things should just be ignored.

Two comments.

First, have you considered a life sentence in a maximum security prison? Second, what do you make of the risk of executing an innocent person?

To argue that the death penalty is necessary is ludicrous. Many, many nations get along very well without it.

To address the first point, we have considered, and often implement, life sentences in highly secured facilities for the most dangerous criminals. However, no prison can be guaranteed to be escape-proof, no matter how hard you try. We believe that a very few individuals are so dangerous that even the slim possibility that they might escape is an unacceptable risk to expose our civilian populace to.

To address the second point, there is a risk of executing an innocent person, that is true. This is why Altanar is very limited in how often we use the death penalty. As I stated, we haven't executed someone in at least three years. More to the point, we believe our legal system provides sufficient safeguards against executing innocent people, or even punishing innocent people for that matter. We do not believe the entire world should have the option of executing truly dangerous criminals taken away from it because some nations cannot guarantee the same safeguards. Nor do we believe that that right should be taken away simply because some nations may choose to expose their populace to the dangers of keeping dangerous criminals who cannot be rehabilitated around to endanger their populace. We believe encouraging nations to limit their use of the death penalty as much as possible is a safer, and better, choice.

And in regards to imprisonment over execution as a more "humane" choice, I personally do not feel it is very "humane" to lock someone up for their entire lives in a small box. The method of execution we use involves the use of a native plant to Altanar that provides a painless death, even giving the person dying sensations described as "euphoric" and "peaceful". Is that any less humane than treating someone worse than you would a farm animal, by locking them up in a cage forever? We do not believe so.

You can design a legal system that doesn't let anything through the cracks but not prison walls that do the same thing?

You can design a legal system that doesn't let anything through the cracks but not prison walls that do the same thing?

I did not say that. I stated that the Altanari government feels we have sufficient safeguards in place to prevent erroneous executions, but I also admitted there is a risk it might not. We have no confirmed cases in our legal records of having executed an innocent person; this does not mean we think our legal system infallible or discount the possibility that it could happen. This is why we heavily limit our use of the death penalty, as I have previously stated. We would support a proposal to limit the use of the death penalty, but to take that option away from nations completely is going too far in our opinion.

God said "Thou Shall not Kill."

Not "Thou shall not kill, unless Society says so."





There is a difference.

God said "Thou Shall not Kill."
Not "Thou shall not kill, unless Society says so."
There is a difference.

Your God may have said that. Not everyone here has the same God...some don't even have one at all. Some may have several. Bear in mind the extreme diversity of this assembly.

You may not have the same God. But you MUST recognize the same basic human rights. And the most important is the right to live, stated that it is the basis and first of all. You cannot pretend eliminating someone is "better" than condemning him to life-long prison or forced work. It's not a matter of suffering, it's a matter of rights.

Freedom is important, but not as important as life. criminals may have killed, but they are still people. And we should respect their life. That's just the difference between the criminals and us: we respect their right to live.

Of course they should be condemned for their acts, but a non-letal policy has proved better through the time. If a person has been condemned to death, no matter if innocent or not, there is no way back. People who are condemned to the deprivation of liberty can regret their acts, and can hope for a revision if they think they are innocent or if they change their attitude. Furthermore, they could be recycled in prison through educational or work programs.

Besides, forced work may produce an extra almost-free cash input for governments. It's not that we like or approve forced work, but we think it's a better solution than plain death. It respects right to live, and can teach the criminal not to reincide; death will not.

That is all why we would approve this legislation and hope it goes forth.

But you MUST recognize the same basic human rights.Says who?

Although Paradica does not use the death sentence except in emergencies, we recognize the right of nations to legalize the death penalty. Really as a person I support the death penalty for murder if it can be proven. Also, my other three nations all use it.

OOC: As long as most of this thread is rhetorical clap-trap anyways...

IC:

There exists in situations such as these a dichotomy of forces that must be considered to arrive at a rational conclusion. How these forces are viewed and how they are balanced will differ greatly from observer to observer. The resulting conclusions reached will obviously differ as well. We, in the government of Kivisto, see it as a balance of freedom vs security. We tend to err on the side of security. There are, obviously, a great many who would prefer to err on the side of freedom. We can respect their views, as they do not impact us. We disagree with them, but feel there is no need to push an internal issue upon them.

Many different conclusions all arrived at through the same method. Could they all be rational answers? Why not? This is a matter of morality, and morality, being a primarily social construct, will vary based on any number of conditions affecting the society in question. Being a union of a multitude of societies, the odds are good that there will be dissension away from any stance taken on this subject. The odds are incredibly poor that any true consensus could be reached regarding either extreme, in this case, either globally allowing or banning the death penalty.

Should our desire to see the global population safe from criminals be put forward in a fashion that would make the death penalty mandatory for certain criminal acts, thereby improving safety for all UN nations' citizens by taking steps to ensure that repeat offences are not possible? Hells no! There are nations that thrive on rehabilitation and re-education of criminals. It works well for them, and there is no particular need to force them to change their ways, even if there are instances where such tactics do not work and murderer or rapist go on to repeat their offences over and over and over again.

Should the desire of others to see the global population safe from wrongful execution be put forward in a fashion that would prohibit nations from utilizing certain proven law enforcement techniques to protect their citizenry, thereby improving freedom for UN nations' citizens by taking steps to ensure that innocent people are never executed in error? Hells no! There are nations that make careful use of such tactics in only the most severe of cases with the most hardened of criminals. They use these very final forms of punishment only in instances where it is guaranteed to be for the greater good by way of ensuring that further lives are not ended or destroyed by the condemned. There is no particular need to force them to change their ways, even if there are instances where such tactics do not work, and an innocent person is erroneously and tragically sent to their death.

There is a third road of thought. There are those that do not even believe prisons to be humane. There is belief that removing someone's freedom is tantamount to killing them, and they refuse to do even that. Should we allow their desire to see all people's free from being condemned to incarceration in a cage like some zoo animal to stop every single UN member nation from ever using their prisons again, except as historical monuments to a less enlightened time when we were actually savage enough to lock up our fellow man? Hells no! Many nations would agree that allowing all of our felons to run free, regardless of what they have done, would be detrimental to public safety on a society crushing level.

So what is the UN to do? How should we deal with such a dilemma? The answer is simple, in concept? Internationally, we do not take any stance at all. We return ourselves to dealing with international matters as might better suit an international organization. If there is strong enough support for some measures in this area, make them in the form of ensuring that judicial systems are as free from corruption and error as possible. Sentencing decisions that work in Kivisto might not work in Ceorana, or Gruenberg, or Arridia, or The Most Glorious Hack, or anywhere else, but they work in Kivisto.

I fail to see how this internal matter should be a concern of the UN, though I am open to arguments to convince me otherwise.

NB: I am not interested in arguments about the morality of capital punishment. Your morality does not interest me. What interests me is the reasoning behind using the UN as a vehicle to hamper a nation's capacity to run its own judicial system.

Besides, forced work may produce an extra almost-free cash input for governments. It's not that we like or approve forced work, but we think it's a better solution than plain death. It respects right to live, and can teach the criminal not to reincide; death will not.


In our nomadic society, forced work pales in comparison to the costs of building prisons (as our main punishment for crimes like murder, rape, and the like is exile), supplies for the prisoners, the institution of guards who would be pulled from other, more important jobs, supplies for the guards, and being forced to stay within a certain distance of the prison we would build so we could continue to supplie it, staff it, and send prisoners there. The last such cost would be impossible for us, as we are continually moving north and south with the seasons to islands with more food and away from islands that are at risk of being hit by hurricanes.

Maybe in your societies you can support prisons; in ours we cannot.

Josef Sayle
Onabanestani Ambassador to the U.N.

Is the honorable representative of Accelerus telling us that his criminal justice system is perfect? Does he claim that no innocent person has ever been convicted of a crime in his nation? Sorry, but we'll believe that right after we believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. People are not perfect, and any system devised and operated by people is necessarily imperfect. To claim otherwise flies in the face of reason.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Oh dear. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. Minister Olembe, there may indeed be nations that have perfect justice systems, but ours is not one of them. That said, through trial and error early in the growth of our nation, we have developed a highly effective justice system. Our justice system is one in which the standard of proof is so high for cases in which the death penalty might be a result that it is simply not possible for an innocent person to be convicted (barring of course the unlikely possibility of more advanced beings deceiving us, in which case it would not be reasonable to hold us responsible for the error).

The Republic generally prefers re-conditioning to punative measures, but sees them as necessary and appropriate in some cases, and will use the most effective method available when, on those rare occasions, it does become necessary.

Hellar Gray

OOC: As Gruen mentioned (though somewhat inaccurately), and I've discussed with Mik...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11775393&postcount=37

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11775469&postcount=38

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11775674&postcount=39

...essentially, the people of Accelerus are culturally conditioned such that crime is minimal anyway.

You may not have the same God. But you MUST recognize the same basic human rights. And the most important is the right to live, stated that it is the basis and first of all.

We totally agree. This is why Altanar executes mass murderers, for example...to protect the right of as many people as possible to live.

You cannot pretend eliminating someone is "better" than condemning him to life-long prison or forced work. It's not a matter of suffering, it's a matter of rights.

Since you seem to find any form of punishment distasteful, then what would you suggest?

Freedom is important, but not as important as life.

I find that to be one of the most revolting thoughts I have ever seen expressed here. You may not value freedom much, but Altanari do. And one of the freedoms we value is the freedom to decide for ourselves how to punish dangerous criminals.

Of course they should be condemned for their acts, but a non-letal policy has proved better through the time.

And you have what evidence to back this claim up?

If a person has been condemned to death, no matter if innocent or not, there is no way back. People who are condemned to the deprivation of liberty can regret their acts, and can hope for a revision if they think they are innocent or if they change their attitude. Furthermore, they could be recycled in prison through educational or work programs.

This statement still doesn't address our contention that there are a very few people who can't, or won't, be rehabilitated despite a society's best efforts to do so. Nor does it address our contention that those individuals pose an unacceptable threat to the greater society.

Besides, forced work may produce an extra almost-free cash input for governments. It's not that we like or approve forced work, but we think it's a better solution than plain death. It respects right to live, and can teach the criminal not to reincide; death will not.

We're glad you find your criminals to be a neat way for your government to score some extra cash off their labor. We, personally, find that sentiment repulsive. And you still don't address our concern about violent or dangerous criminals who can't be rehabilitated.

That is all why we would approve this legislation and hope it goes forth.

And this is why Altanar will oppose such legislation if it does go forth.

I agree with Altanar 100% (as always).

Thanks for the support, Paradica...we owe you a drink in the Strangers' Bar sometime. ;)

Your God may have said that. Not everyone here has the same God...some don't even have one at all. Some may have several. Bear in mind the extreme diversity of this assembly.

Indeed. Our god merely belched and said, "Pass me another beer."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Amen. Now get the fuck out of our morality.

Josef Sayle
Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN

Indeed. Our god merely belched and said, "Pass me another beer."

Upon hearing that, Jaris Krytellin whispers to his deputy, Jinella Agaranth, "We oughta convert to the Cluichstan religion, whatever it is."

"Don't say that too loud," Jinella replies mock-warningly. "The Church of Altanar elders might get wind of that."

"The Church of Altanar could stand to serve beer at their sermons. It would probably boost attendance a lot more," Jaris grins in reply. Jinella merely giggles in response.

OOC: I'd advise against paying too much heed to his ridiculous wank. This is the nation that has invented a way of burning fossil fuels without creating carbon emissions, but not condoms. They also have no crimes, because it doesn't occur to any of their citizens to commit them. Some things should just be ignored.Heh, have you seen the nation profile? "Crippling" crime rates. :p

I have found that with the properly trained, and funded police forces- combined with the proper social policies- applied with the required authority, my country has managed to cut down on crime quite well... now if I could only get the bloody Unions to toe the line.

*scowls, and jots a note about looking into the slow elimination of Unions...*

We have also found that over the years, there will be a criminal element that you can not deal with in the "normal" way. For some reason, they simply do not wish to abide by the strictures of Socially Acceptable Behaviour. For each offense that a person makes, the punishment is increased in the hopes that they will recognized the corelation between their actons (and repeitition of them), and the resulting increase of punishment.

We use our Authority to punish such cases without causing harm... however, when it comes to Treason (including Mutiny in the Military), Murder, and Rape, we feel no regrets in putting the condemned to Death after a fair and equitable Trial.

For lesser crimes, as I have stated, we increase the punishment for each repetition of the offence... we have had only one case where this increase went to the point where the Offender had to be put to death. I shall miss my brother's Mother-in-Law greatly, but Family is not above the law...

In general, as much as I may believe that Life is sacred, I also believe that Government must do what it can to ensure that criminals are not allowed to become a long standing part of Society... even if it does mean ultilizing the Death Penalty to set the example. For us, it is a last resort... and is at the end of several chances for the person on that path.

Thank you.

Indeed. Our god merely belched and said, "Pass me another beer."



OOC: ROTFL!

IC: * Simon gasps at the Sheik's blasphemy, but decides to ignore it *

Sirat must oppose any attempt to abolish the death penalty. In our experience, some crimes require the ultimate penalty. Though it should be used sparingly, it should not be outlawed.

You raise an interesting point with the term "sparingly".

What do you classify as sparingly?

You raise an interesting point with the term "sparingly".

What do you classify as sparingly?

Leaving just enough people alive to work in the fields and factories.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

To the Great and Honorable Member Nations of the United Nations,

It is with great honor that The Oppressed People's of USA NA have this opportunity to reply to such an important international issue. As a representative for my national council, I am grateful for this experience and look forward to USA NA's future participation in world affairs. We would also like to extend our thanks to all of the member nations for keeping this international council alive and active. With that said, let me now move on to my reason for replying to this draft proposal.

Kivisto asks an important question that has yet to be answered:



I fail to see how this internal matter should be a concern of the UN, though I am open to arguments to convince me otherwise.

NB: I am not interested in arguments about the morality of capital punishment. Your morality does not interest me. What interests me is the reasoning behind using the UN as a vehicle to hamper a nation's capacity to run its own judicial system.

Even though The Oppressed People's of USA NA do not disassociate our actions from our morality, we do see the importance of first justifying the importance of this issue as an international one, versus simply an issue that each nation must address and deal with alone. In this discussion, so far, two previous UN Resolutions have been mentioned: #180 and #26.

Resolution #26 seems to have passed and was implemented on Friday, August 8, 2003. Resolution #180, on the other hand, seems to have passed and was implemented on Tuesday, October 10, 2006. As we know, the language in #26 appears to limit the actions provided for in #180: "Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences..." Obviously, nations do not have this right if their judicial determination violates #26. So in some sense, the death penalty is already illegal by #26:

"Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state."

Wouldn't the death penalty prevent one from choosing to worship a faith? Killing someone prevents them from doing anything!

"Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

Again, if someone is killed, they no longer have the right to express themselves.

"Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."

Even though the method of death may be quick and painless, this does not excuse the fact that taking away another human's life is technically 'cruel or inhuman' by all accounts.

As you can see, it appears that #180 is already limited in many ways, one of them being the right for a nation to implement the death penalty. It further appears that this contradiction must be resolved in the UN, for it is the UN that has created this contradiction. I'm sure many more contradictions exist between #180 and previous resolutions, although I am still conducting research on this and will notify you all if I find anything of importance.

In #180 it states:

"3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;"

Any international body that oversees a death penalty decision would be required to bring this decision to the world's attention, for this decision would be illegal under resolution #26.

The UN must clear this up by either repealing #26 or repealing #180 and then writing new legislation that either gives humans rights with the death penalty allowed or gives humans rights with the death penalty not allowed. Currently, #26 gives humans rights that prevent them from being killed or otherwise prevented from expressing their rights. The author of this proposal for the Abolishment of the Death Penalty is simply pointing out the contradiction between #180 and #26 and is acting to resolve this contradiction in the most appropriate place, the UN.

The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA thank you all for your time and look forward to a resolution of this issue.

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

The people of Greebo Matlock acknowledge the concerns of those individuals who have been wrongfully convicted.

However as a people we are agreed that individuals like Hermann Göring, Martin Bormann, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Julius Streicher, Charles Ng, Leonard Lake, etc, ETC!
are inherently beyond rehabilitation and serve no positive or worthy contribution to society.

These individuals can only represent a danger if they are allowed to live and gather followers and devotees. Propagating their evil even from within a secure prison environment. Also no prison can ever be perfectly secure and the potential risk to innocent citizens outweighs the concerns of a government too politically correct to take decisive action against those who have proven themselves deadly and insidious.


oh yeah and we would have hung Albert Speer too!

I fail to see how this internal matter should be a concern of the UN, though I am open to arguments to convince me otherwise.

NB: I am not interested in arguments about the morality of capital punishment. Your morality does not interest me. What interests me is the reasoning behind using the UN as a vehicle to hamper a nation's capacity to run its own judicial system.

The members of the UN that have brought fort this proposal have used the Human Rights Issue, I do believe- specificly the right for an individual to live, as the reason for it.

Of course, they could be simply trying to bring this legislation into effect to cut down on their rampagin citiizens may wind up in a situation where they commit a crime in a country that advocates the act of disembowelment as the punishment for laughing at a shorn sheep.

"Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state."

Wouldn't the death penalty prevent one from choosing to worship a faith? Killing someone prevents them from doing anything!

"Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

Again, if someone is killed, they no longer have the right to express themselves.

The logic in this argument is somewhat fuzzy, I'm afraid. the particular resolution this is in ref to is basically stating that a person can not be punished for their choice of Religious/Spiritual belief, nor can they be punsished for the things they say about their beliefs and opinions.

Saying that the the Death Penalty takes away this freedom of choice is rather silly... unless you wish to put forward a proposal to Abolish Death itself... as Death takes this same freedom from Innocent and Guilty alike.

Nice rhetoric on it though.

Enlightened nations, like ourselves, feel strongly that state-sanctioned murder is abhorrent on a basic level of principle and that, quite apart from any arguments as to the efficacy of its use or otherwise, simply belongs in previous, less civilised eras. We therefore feel that it is entirely a matter on which the UN should legislate as it pertains to a fundamental aspect of the existential condition. Thus the moral basis of our position justifies, nay requires, legislation by this body. National Sovereignty is not a relevant argument in the face of essential moral principles.

The Singularly Queer Wasteland wholeheartedly supports any proposal that requires members of this body to act in a civilised manner; this one included.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

How's the view from up on that horse?


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

*looks down*

I see no horse...

*uncertain look...*

*looks down*

I see no horse...

*uncertain look...*

I believe Doctor Leary is talking to the rep. from Tharkent.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Was wondering...

The members of the UN that have brought fort this proposal have used the Human Rights Issue, I do believe- specificly the right for an individual to live, as the reason for it.

The logic in this argument is somewhat fuzzy, I'm afraid.Perhaps that's because you appear to have misunderstood the argument.

Exercise of capital punishment isn't opposed because it prevents an individual from enjoying their other guaranteed rights, as you indicated. Opposition to capital punishment is both practical and idealistic. Practical in that no matter how well-designed their justice system is, no nation can guarantee that no errors occur in the administration of justice. Thus all sentences meted out must be reversible in some form. The right being protected is the right of the individual for redress due to error on the part of the government. One cannot obtain redress from the grave.

Of course, they could be simply trying to bring this legislation into effect to cut down on their rampagin citiizens may wind up in a situation where they commit a crime in a country that advocates the act of disembowelment as the punishment for laughing at a shorn sheep.Rubinan citizens traveling in foreign nations are advised that they will be held accountable to all laws of the visited nation and they should thus make themselves aware of the laws and their consequences. You do, however, raise an interesting point. Execution of one nation's citizens for what would be considered a trifle in their homeland would certainly and unnecessarily lead to heightened tensions between the two countries and could easily lead to war. In the interest of continued peace, perhaps the best thing for all would be to abandon the barbaric practice.

Leetha Talone

Is executing a man for attempting to blow up a world leader (specifically- me) any more barbaric than that man trying to blow up the world leader?

Is executing a man for attempting to blow up a world leader (specifically- me) any more barbaric than that man trying to blow up the world leader?Indeed it is, for the world leader is presumed to be able to view the situation rationally, to realize that state-sanctioned violence plays into the hands of the saboteurs and assassins.

--L.T.

No, they're both equally barbaric. Unless the person was innocent of trying to blow up a world leader, in which case the former example is infinitely more barbaric. Or you believe that killing people for killing people is just twice as much killing than there really needed to be and therefore should be avoided altogether.

Indeed it is, for the world leader is presumed to be able to view the situation rationally, to realize that state-sanctioned violence plays into the hands of the saboteurs and assassins.



Meaningless fluffy cack. If the known outcome for attempting to kill a world leader is death, then the impetus should be on the would-be treasoner to not actually commit treason

No, they're both equally barbaric. Unless the person was innocent of trying to blow up a world leader, in which case the former example is infinitely more barbaric. Or you believe that killing people for killing people is just twice as much killing than there really needed to be and therefore should be avoided altogether.

False. The death penalty serves, in this case, as an assurance of order. If the entire government of Ceorana was killed by a band of treasonous anarchists, what would be the outcome? In the Empire, death by firing squad. What would you do? Slap them on the wrists and say "no more killing, now!"

And before someone quotes that ridiculous parable about "an eye for an eye," stop, and quote something relevant.

Indeed it is, for the world leader is presumed to be able to view the situation rationally, to realize that state-sanctioned violence plays into the hands of the saboteurs and assassins.

--L.T.

Please tell me that when you're standing face to face with a man with a bomb strapped to his chest. It was my good fortunate... and his misfortune, that his bomb did not work. Also my good fortune... and his misfortune, my sword worked.

Please tell me that when you're standing face to face with a man with a bomb strapped to his chest. It was my good fortunate... and his misfortune, that his bomb did not work. Also my good fortune... and his misfortune, my sword worked.I would not define such as administration of a death penalty. The situation you describe has the hallmarks of self-defense. Did you personally dispense with the assassin?

Meaningless fluffy cack. Versus the barbaric eye-for-an-eye drivel you're oozing? Honestly. :rolleyes:If the known outcome for attempting to kill a world leader is death, then the impetus should be on the would-be treasoner to not actually commit treasonI believe traitor is the word you seek. And when have you known traitors, sabetours, assassins, or terrorists to think rationally and conform to societal modes of thought and behavior? Most are socio- and psychopaths whose behavior is not controlled by any threat of death.

I would not define such as administration of a death penalty. The situation you describe has the hallmarks of self-defense. Did you personally dispense with the assassin?

Yes, I did... on the spot. He looked at me, begging for his life- though he would've shown me no mercy. I declared the sentance- and took his head.

Since I declared the sentance of death as the Sovereign Ruler, it was an execution, would you not agree.

*looks around uneasily... seein some rather shocked look...*

Ummmmm... Did I say something wrong?

Versus the barbaric eye-for-an-eye drivel you're oozing? Honestly. :rolleyes:I believe traitor is the word you seek. And when have you known traitors, sabetours, assassins, or terrorists to think rationally and conform to societal modes of thought and behavior? Most are socio- and psychopaths whose behavior is not controlled by any threat of death.

All the more reason for there to be a death penalty.

Indeed just a few days ago a would be traitor attempted to murder Comrade Serpov in New Stalingrad. He failed; however, the Checka forces who protect our General Secretary stabbed him repeatedly with bayonets before he could fire a shot. However, should he have not been killed but rather captured, he would have had to been tried and sentenced. That sentence according to the Elleltian Criminal Code 2003 (as amended) would mean death had he managed to murder Comrade Serpov, and Life Sentence to a Hard Labor facility (gulag) had he not [although he probably would have been killed by the convicts as most of them are really just criminals rather than traitors, and happen to not care much for anyone who would try to harm the Great Leader and Teacher of the Elleltian Peoples].

Ellelt is in a not so unique, but uncommon condition, of being a revolutionary government at the current time and most of our would be traitors happen to be class traitors and elements of the previous aristocratic and bourgeois ruling class.

As that stands each nation must retain the right to liquidate its enemies, and we stand opposed to any attempt to abolish it internationally.

The argument that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it prevents the convicted from exercising freedom of speech/religion/etc is ridiculous--death itself prevents persons from exercising those rights and death comes to innocent and guilty alike, man, woman and child alike.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Yes, I did... on the spot. He looked at me, begging for his life- though he would've shown me no mercy. I declared the sentance- and took his head.

Since I declared the sentance of death as the Sovereign Ruler, it was an execution, would you not agree.

We concur with the Representative of Steweystan...although we advise him to get bodyguards for the chief executive rather than having to dispatch traitors himself. Blood on one's uniform is not exactly desirable when one is on their way to the national parliament (or Supreme Soviet in our case) to make a speech or whatnot.

Comrade Serpov as an example wears as part of his Generalissimo uniform a white jacket...imagine trying to get blood out of that!:p