NationStates Jolt Archive

Humane Treatment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description: WHEREAS all people, and therefore all governments and justice systems, are fallible,

WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust,

WHEREAS "inhumane treatment" is defined for the purpose of this resolution as any treatment with effects that physically cannot be reversed or revoked, or the requirement of entering a situation where this type of treatment is likely, excluding any treatment banned by past active UN resolutions,

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law or committed a crime or offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

What do other nations think?

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

That it's illegal and stupid.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

OOC: On another note, this is a fucking game. This kind of uberlegalistic pissartistry just destroys any notion that it's for fun. If you want to ban CP, repeal the Fair Sentencing Act; don't waste our fucking time with this kind of headache.

It is certainly an interesting way to accomplish a given goal. I suppose that a nation would be able to set its own sentencing standards, as allowed under a previous resolution - it would just be unable to attain a conviction if the sentence were, say, death. Most interesting.

Jevo Telovar
UN Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

Ridiculous tapdancing around legality and the Fair Centencing Act. I particularly enjoy the entirely subjective arguments about humane and inhumane treatment, which have little to no basis in practicality.

Or, to put it the Gruenberger way: Not a fucking chance

How this is illegal is beyond me. All it does it ban nations from convicting criminals in some cases.

There is no subjectivity in the draft. "Inhumane" is defined, and "unjust" is qualified by "potentially", so it's up to nations to decide whether it's unjust in their circumstance.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

(OOC: If you throw boulders on the dance floor, don't complain when others tap dance around them.)

How this is illegal is beyond me. All it does it ban nations from convicting criminals in some cases.
It contradicts the Fair Sentencing Act.

~Rono Pyandran
bla(OOC: If you throw boulders on the dance floor, don't complain when others tap dance around them.)
See my comment on National Economic Rights.

And seriously, this is so fucking beneath you. having refused to debate capital punishment during the FSA vote, you now try to worm round it? No - grow up. If we're going to ban capital punishment, let's do it properly.

Mr. Thomas' secretary is pretty cute. I'd like to take her out for some dim sum, before she realizes that I'm a fucking serial killer. Then I'll stab her in the eye with my chopstick, watch her keel over and die, get tried in the Federal Republic where such a crime caries the pain of death -- and get off Scott free, regardless of the jury's finding.

Sheer brilliance! :rolleyes:

I should also notice the cack-handed wording is banning a lot more than capital punishment. Can you "physically reverse" imprisonment?

There is no subjectivity in the draft. "Inhumane" is defined, and "unjust" is qualified by "potentially", so it's up to nations to decide whether it's unjust in their circumstance.


Ridiculous.


WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

Operating from specious premises. "Despite the fact that they could be wrong" is code for "I disapprove of things that I cannot talk about because if I do this will lose."

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust

Says who? Here comes that code again, this time it's "There are things that I don't like, but this proposal was blocked by the Fair Sentencing Act, so I can't actually do a goddamn thing!"

Absolutely ridiculous.

Hmm, looks like it'z time to figure out a vay for ze mass production of Phoenix Down. After all, zince it allows for ze reversal of death it renders ze death penalty reversable and therefore humane.

Dr. Conrad Odine
Science Advisor to the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Hmm, looks like it'z time to figure out a vay for ze mass production of Phoenix Down. After all, zince it allows for the reversal of death it renders ze death penalty reversable and therefore humane.

Dr. Conrad Odine
Science Advisor to the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Which is absolutely fine with me, as long as this "Phoenix Down" actually works and can be used if you discover a mistake in judicial proceedings or something.

I should also notice the cack-handed wording is banning a lot more than capital punishment. Can you "physically reverse" imprisonment?

No, but you can revoke it by letting the guy out.

To clarify, there isn't a lot special about capital punishment here. The point is banning punishments that can't be revoked if there's a mistake. Even if FSA was repealed, I'd still want something like this.

Mr. Thomas' secretary is pretty cute. I'd like to take her out for some dim sum, before she realizes that I'm a fucking serial killer. Then I'll stab her in the eye with my chopstick, watch her keel over and die, get tried in the Federal Republic where such a crime caries the pain of death -- and get off Scott free, regardless of the jury's finding.

Why even bother? The Federal Republic could make stabbing someone in the eye with a chopstick not a crime anyway.

And seriously, this is so fucking beneath you. having refused to debate capital punishment during the FSA vote, you now try to worm round it? No - grow up. If we're going to ban capital punishment, let's do it properly.
I refused to debate CP in the FSA vote? I didn't debate it much here, but I don't remember refusing to debate it...?:confused: (OOC: this is sincere)

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

No, but you can revoke it by letting the guy out.

To clarify, there isn't a lot special about capital punishment here. The point is banning punishments that can't be revoked if there's a mistake.
You cannot give someone back ten years of their life. Imprisonment in the abstract can be revoked; the punishment as exacted cannot be.

If, then, imprisonment is not covered, it only highlights the rank hypocrisy: permitting punishments that have crippling emotional and physical burdens on innocent people, and prohibiting the commission of

Yeah I can't be fucked anymore.

~Rono etc.

Why even bother? The Federal Republic could make stabbing someone in the eye with a chopstick not a crime anyway.That's hardly a defense of your proposal.

Easy guys... try to keep it civil in the out of character comments at the very least.

OOC: You can't reverse spending all day in a cell, the time they spent there is lost. So, this resolution would actually ban prisons.

Then I'll stab her in the eye with my chopstick, watch her keel over and die, get tried in the Federal Republic where such a crime caries the pain of death -- and get off Scott free, regardless of the jury's finding.


Actually, no. What it means is that the legal system in the Federal Republic would have to be changed so that such a crime carries another sentence than death.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Love and esterel support this proposal.

You cannot give someone back ten years of their life. Imprisonment in the abstract can be revoked; the punishment as exacted cannot be.

If, then, imprisonment is not covered, it only highlights the rank hypocrisy: permitting punishments that have crippling emotional and physical burdens on innocent people, and prohibiting the commission of

Yeah I can't be fucked anymore.

~Rono etc.

The proposal mention "any treatment with effects that physically cannot be reversed or revoked"

About Imprisonment, the physical effects of the punishment can be stopped, if by exemple several years later, new evidences are released on the matter.

Actually, no. What it means is that the legal system in the Federal Republic would have to be changed so that such a crime carries another sentence than death.And why doesn't the proposal just say that?

... Oh, I know! Because it's pretending to be legal, with sneaky, contrived language.

Christ, all the talk from the anti-sovereigntists during Unconventional Arms Accord about "sneaky little blockers" really does ring hollow now, with a faint after-echo of hypocrisy.

Ellelt is firmly opposed to this draft, and will oppose it should it come to the UN floor.

We use capital punishment rarely, in the extreme cases of murder, treason, and child molsetation...otherwise you are sent to a labor camp. And the effects of working in a labor camp can not be removed or revoked. As The Representative of The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny and The Representative of Gruenberg have pointed out...this would not only go against capital punishment but also any form of prison sentence. Not to mention our common form of juvenile punishment...which is a public flogging

Further, I would like you to know that I am insulted that you would claim that The Elletian Judicial system makes mistakes...we clearly do not. Most times the police can get a confession before there even is a trial, and I cant think of any reason that an innocent person would confess to a crime they didn't commit, knowing they would probably end up in a uranium or coal mine.

Its bad enough we have to trust the dispensation of justice to a jury, and now you are working on removing the rights of our nation to appropriately punish criminal offenders?!

This draft is unnecessary meddling into national affairs, in that it addresses problems handled best on the national level, rather than the international one. I urge all member states to vote down this piece of utter nonsense should it come to the UN floor.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

OK. One change: if you can end it, you're OK.

Humane Treatment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description: WHEREAS all people, and therefore all governments and justice systems, are fallible,

WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust,

WHEREAS "inhumane treatment" is defined for the purpose of this resolution as any treatment with effects that physically cannot be reversed, ended or revoked, or the requirement of entering a situation where this type of treatment is likely, excluding any treatment banned by past active UN resolutions,

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law, committed a crime, or committed an offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

That's hardly a defense of your proposal.
With all respect, your original post was hardly an attack on it.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

With all respect, your original post was hardly an attack on it.With all respect, your "edit" does little to address the fact that your proposal is sneaky, underhanded, illegal and just silly. You wanna ban capital punishment, take Mr. Pyandran's advice and do it the right way.

With all respect, your "edit" does little to address the fact that your proposal is sneaky, underhanded, illegal and just silly. You wanna ban capital punishment, take Mr. Pyandran's advice and do it the right way.
What difference does it make?

Well, let's see ... one way is sneaky, underhanded, illegal and just silly, whereas the other ....

You know what? Screw it. I'm done with this topic.

The proposal mention "any treatment with effects that physically cannot be reversed or revoked"

About Imprisonment, the physical effects of the punishment can be stopped, if by exemple several years later, new evidences are released on the matter.
You've answered your own point. The effects can be stopped: they can't be reversed. I can't give someone back ten years of their life. Further, what if it's a life sentence and they die in prison?

The edit to the proposal does nothing to address this. I don't care if the proposal bans imprisonment or not: my point is that imprisonment has effects on people. That would be why it's used as a punishment. Your premise seems to be: "law enforcement can make mistakes, therefore punishments should be reversible". Let someone out after twenty years in solitary and I really doubt they'll shrug and say it can all just be brushed away. So it's not that this proposal won't work: it's that it's duplicitous.

It also does nothing to deal with the use of nasty bad irreversible penalties in cases of quite assured guilt, but then uptight, self-important moralisers have never had too cosy a relationship with the real world.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

What difference does it make?

The difference is that by using this method you might be able to get a CP ban passed...provided the "feel-goodness" out weighs the arguments of "Logic, and Good Sense".

It is sneaky and underhanded in that rather than proposing a repeal to the FSA you are doing a tap-dance around the FSA in order to achieve your goal of banning capital punishment.

It is my understanding that the FSA acts as a blocker on CP proposals. It is also my understanding that when blockers are passed by this body it is because we, collectively feel that by allowing a category to remain open would be more disastrous/dangerous. Further, it is my opinion that you have chosen this method of achieving your goals because you know an out right repeal of the FSA has a snow-ball's chance in hell of passing.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

Our peoples are strongly opposed to this. Although in our society we are more likely to punish criminals against society with exile, we still retain the use of capital punishment for use against repeated attackers of our people who cannot be reasonably stopped by exile and who would only come back and harm us again. We cannot build prisons; we are nomads, and are forced to travel the land for food and supplies. Therefore, I will have to agree with the majority of comments posted here, and say that this resolution would significantly reduce the security of my people.

Josef Sayle
Onabanestani Ambassador to the U.N.

Ellelt: If people want CP allowed, they will vote this down.

Another edit.
Humane Treatment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description: WHEREAS all people, and therefore all governments and justice systems, are fallible,

WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust,

WHEREAS "inhumane treatment" is defined for the purpose of this resolution as any treatment with physical effects that cannot be reversed, ended or revoked, or the requirement of entering a situation where this type of treatment is likely, excluding any treatment banned by past active UN resolutions,

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law, committed a crime, or committed an offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

With all respect, your "edit" does little to address the fact that your proposal is sneaky, underhanded, illegal and just silly. You wanna ban capital punishment, take Mr. Pyandran's advice and do it the right way.

A repeal and a new draft mean two lesgislative efforts, which means two telegramming campaign. I will support both options, but it's obvious that if one can achieve the same thing with one less telegramming campaign. Furthermore I like the arguments and the concept in Ceorana's draft, I think it's interesting for the issue.

You've answered your own point. The effects can be stopped: they can't be reversed. I can't give someone back ten years of their life. Further, what if it's a life sentence and they die in prison?

The edit to the proposal does nothing to address this. I don't care if the proposal bans imprisonment or not: my point is that imprisonment has effects on people. That would be why it's used as a punishment. Your premise seems to be: "law enforcement can make mistakes, therefore punishments should be reversible".

It seems to me that the "or" in the proposal answer your question.

Ca Juana? Is that you?

Ellelt: If people want CP allowed, they will vote this down.

Another edit.Humane Treatment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description: WHEREAS all people, and therefore all governments and justice systems, are fallible,

WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust,

WHEREAS "inhumane treatment" is defined for the purpose of this resolution as any treatment with physical effects that cannot be reversed, ended or revoked, or the requirement of entering a situation where this type of treatment is likely, excluding any treatment banned by past active UN resolutions,

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law, committed a crime, or committed an offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

I would say that serving 5 years in a labor camp would have physical effects, as well as psychological ones...hence why it is used as punishment. If your nation wants to let your prisoners hone their criminal craft by playing spades, lifting weights, and watching soap operas then by all means do so. However, My nation will extract from these parasites on the law-abiding peoples the debt owed them thru labor.

Indeed any time spent in a prison setting has physical and psychological effects regardless of the amount of time spent. In countries which do not have their prisoners working till exhaustion they sit around eating without doing work, which in the view of Elleltians is morally wrong, and hone their criminal craft. For example a robber who was sent to a prison for say 10 years would be better able to rob people because he has had 10 years to figure out ways of not getting caught. The idea of taking anti-social people and locking them up with other anti-social people in the hopes that somehow they will magically become social people is simply insane. Indeed it has been repeatedly shown that labor is rehabilitating.

And before we get off topic and start discussing human rights, Ellelt feels that prisoners--having been duly found guilty--have lost their rights as they have previously violated the rights of other people. In effect: You commit the crime, you serve the punishment, and also; You infringe upon someone else's rights as a human, you lose your own.

As for the passage of this measure, regardless of the amount of telegramming done...should this dangerous proposal pass, I see a big fat repeal headed straight for it.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

With all respect, your "edit" does little to address the fact that your proposal is sneaky, underhanded, illegal and just silly. You wanna ban capital punishment, take Mr. Pyandran's advice and do it the right way.

I detect a wiff of hypocrisy here... It's not illegal, and as for being "sneaky and underhanded", well, who are the experts in sneaking clauses into proposals made to look like the opposite of what they are?

And don't say they state their effects quite clearly, because so does this, for anyone who can be bothered to read it.

I detect a wiff of hypocrisy here... It's not illegal, and as for being "sneaky and underhanded", well, who are the experts in sneaking clauses into proposals made to look like the opposite of what they are?
I think that's his point: UCAA was criticised for this. For its opponents to do the same thing totally undermines their ability to argue that.

I think that's his point: UCAA was criticised for this. For its opponents to do the same thing totally undermines their ability to argue that.

Fair enough. I've never criticised sneakiness (as far as I can recall), if it's creatively done. I suppose this just means any criticism either way will have undermined itself from now on...

Christ, all the talk from the anti-sovereigntists during Unconventional Arms Accord about "sneaky little blockers" really does ring hollow now, with a faint after-echo of hypocrisy.It's quite different; here, I'll help you see it. The UAA contained three separate subjects, one of which was a blocker that essentially nullified any good from the other two (in a cosmic-scale balance). This proposal is single-purposed. No attempted slight of hand.

Let someone out after twenty years in solitary and I really doubt they'll shrug and say it can all just be brushed away.No, but I bet they jump for joy and say, "Free at last, free at last, I sure the fuck am glad they didn't kill me!"

No, but I bet they jump for joy and say, "Free at last, free at last, I sure the fuck am glad they didn't kill me!"
And I bet they then turn round and sue the everliving fuck out of whoever destroyed their lives - noting that whatever compensation they receive is clearly not going to be anything like getting back those 20 years of their lives.

Still no answer on people who die in prison, but that's to be expected: would be far too much like honesty.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

Dying in prison is irrelevant to this proposal: you didn't die because you were in prison, so it's not an effect.

Dying in prison is irrelevant to this proposal: you didn't die because you were in prison, so it's not an effect.
That's a truly stupid thing to say. Off the top of my head:
- suicide
- disease (particularly in Gruenberg's prisons)
- receiving a life sentence...
- being beaten by other prisoners
- being beaten by guards
- trying to escape and being shot

And I bet they then turn round and sue the everliving fuck out of whoever destroyed their lives - noting that whatever compensation they receive is clearly not going to be anything like getting back those 20 years of their lives.Nothing stops a state from pro-actively compensating said prisoner. In fact, such goodwill on the part of the state would go a long way to address the harm done--more so than waiting for a lawsuit (one which is frequently prohibited via the doctrine of state immunity from tort liability).

Still no answer on people who die in prison, but that's to be expected: would be far too much like honesty.Were nation's judicial systems omniscient and all-wise, there would be no need for this proposal or any need to draw a distinction between tragic miscarriages of justice--to say that one (death) is inhumane because it can't be taken back in any form whatsoever and another (imprisonment) is humane because there is at least the potential to make amends to the wronged. Of course, there will be innocents who die in prison before such a miscarriage can be rectified. Sometimes Fate takes things into her own hands. The ultimate answer, if Gruenbergers are concerned about such things, is to improve both the justice system and the penal system and prevent as many such instances as possible. Otherwise, what's the phrase bandied about? Oh yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.


Leetha Talone
Rubinan UN Mission

That's a truly stupid thing to say. Off the top of my head:...

- receiving a life sentence...

Surely, you're not suggesting someone would live forever were they not imprisoned?

- suicide
Not a result, it was their choice.
- disease (particularly in Gruenberg's prisons)
Probably ought to clean up your prisons then.
- receiving a life sentence...
That can be revoked - let them out.
- being beaten by other prisoners
- being beaten by guards
Get better guards.
- trying to escape and being shot
See my response to suicide.

Nothing stops a state from pro-actively compensating said prisoner. In fact, such goodwill on the part of the state would go a long way to address the harm done--more so than waiting for a lawsuit (one which is frequently prohibited via the doctrine of state immunity from tort liability).
If you truly believe that a paycheck is adequate recompense for spending two decades in prison for a crime one didn't commit, then you exceed even me as a truly twisted, irredeemably sick fuck. I applaud your dedication to inhumanity.

Were nation's judicial systems omniscient and all-wise, there would be no need for this proposal or any need to draw a distinction between tragic miscarriages of justice--to say that one (death) is inhumane because it can't be taken back in any form whatsoever and another (imprisonment) is humane because there is at least the potential to make amends to the wronged. Of course, there will be innocents who die in prison before such a miscarriage can be rectified. Sometimes Fate takes things into her own hands. The ultimate answer, if Gruenbergers are concerned about such things, is to improve both the justice system and the penal system and prevent as many such instances as possible. Otherwise, what's the phrase bandied about? Oh yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Well it's reassuring to see the supporters of this proposal note that "of course" people will continue to unjustly die in prison, and that they don't really a shit about them. Your repeated blatherings doesn't answer why it is somehow blithely acceptable to lock someone away for the duration of their life, with an "oops" when it turns out they were innocent, but unacceptable to execute someone whose guilt has been proven.

Not a result, it was their choice.
So let me get this straight. Someone is arrested and convicted for a crime they didn't commit. They are sent to an abhorrent cesspit of a prison, where they are subjected to abuse and humiliation. They are confined against their will, have most of their civil rights removed, and finally decide to try to escape, whether to the outside or to the beyond.

And this is their fault?

Easy with that crown, Leetha, we have a new winner...

Probably ought to clean up your prisons then.
Your proposal makes no acknowledgement that this is a problem: prison is light fluffy beds and warm cocoa before lights out in your eyes.

That can be revoked - let them out.
Once-a-fucking-gain: what if they die?

And still, I'm incredulous at the "progressives" saying that false imprisonment is something that's simply resolved by shrugging your shoulders and saying "whoops".

Get better guards.
Again...

Still won't debate the issue really, will you? Sad, really.

~Rono Pyandran

So let me get this straight. Someone is arrested and convicted for a crime they didn't commit. They are sent to an abhorrent cesspit of a prison, where they are subjected to abuse and humiliation. They are confined against their will, have most of their civil rights removed, and finally decide to try to escape, whether to the outside or to the beyond.

And this is their fault?
Sorry. It's not their fault. But it was their decision, so it's not covered by this proposal.

Your proposal makes no acknowledgement that this is a problem: prison is light fluffy beds and warm cocoa before lights out in your eyes.
And Resolution #180 makes no acknowledgment that licking a 9-volt battery can or can't kill you - it's beyond the scope of this proposal.

Once-a-fucking-gain: what if they die?
That wasn't the result of being in prison. They just happened to die.

And still, I'm incredulous at the "progressives" saying that false imprisonment is something that's simply resolved by shrugging your shoulders and saying "whoops".
That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that it satisfies this proposal so you're still allowed to incarcerate people. If you want to write a proposal about false imprisonment, go right ahead. I'm not doing it in this one.

By presenting this proposal, do you want to give criminals a criminal spree pass?

Will you please give me examples and clearly explain what you mean by this:
"WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust"

Remember that this proposal can go both ways - it can go against what you intended it to be and I will agree with Ellelt on:

"Indeed any time spent in a prison setting has physical and psychological effects regardless of the amount of time spent. In countries which do not have their prisoners working till exhaustion they sit around eating without doing work, which in the view of Elleltians is morally wrong, and hone their criminal craft. For example a robber who was sent to a prison for say 10 years would be better able to rob people because he has had 10 years to figure out ways of not getting caught. The idea of taking anti-social people and locking them up with other anti-social people in the hopes that somehow they will magically become social people is simply insane."

Any harsh punishment is a strong prohibitive force (for the most part) against commiting the SAME crime: example, chopping off your hand for stealing, you'll think twice about stealing.

You dont want to create a international law that will allow criminals to go unpunished, just like the previous example of a serial killer getting a slap on the wrist.

What about those who carry out gross international law violations, human rights and humanitarian violations - such as the recruitment and use of child soldiers, the trafficking of humans into either the sex trade or forced labor, genocide, ethnicide, hate crimes, etc?

Do they get a free be?
I see a lot of ways that this proposal can be abused, there are a lot of gaps and uncertainties, and like you said, governments are fallable, and all judicial decisions rely on fallible human judgement and wisdom, what you want is to minimize errors, and your proposal is only increasing them

with that said, i would automatically vote no against it

if you want to bring in a resolution on human rights, bring one on child soldiers which the ILO (int. labor org.) has deemed as one of the worst form of child labor, a resolution banning the recruitment or use of children (under-18s) in war.

OOC: A couple of points.

1. I support this, but I don't have a clue how to go about supporting it IC with Felix. It will probably necessitate the return of the Yeldan Foreign Ministry delegation.
2. This shows signs of turning into an OOC rantfest. We should all make an effort to remain IC here, for the sake of public order if nothing else.
3. Hypocrisy is null if both sides are guilty of similar behavior. "Sneekiness" and "underhandedness" are accusations intended for public consumption, PR, etc.. They have no meaning in the political realm as all is fair in politics.
4. Gruen is probably right, the "proper" way to go about this would be to repeal FSA and then outlaw CP. If this effort fails then that would be the next course of action.

Sorry. It's not their fault. But it was their decision, so it's not covered by this proposal.
It's a decision that this proposal could induce, though. I honestly feel a long stretch in a Gruenberger prison would be worse than death: this is probably borne out by our suicide rates. Were this proposal to pass, you would be saying such was not only preferable but required, instead of the swift mercy of execution.

And Resolution #180 makes no acknowledgment that licking a 9-volt battery can or can't kill you - it's beyond the scope of this proposal.
It's squarely within the scope of this proposal. The proposal is saying that one form of punishment is preferable to another. When doubts are raised about that punishment, you refuse to acknowledge there could be any problem.

That wasn't the result of being in prison. They just happened to die.
A life sentence is a sentence to die in prison - albeit of natural causes. That is irreversable.

That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that it satisfies this proposal so you're still allowed to incarcerate people. If you want to write a proposal about false imprisonment, go right ahead. I'm not doing it in this one.
No: you're writing a proposal that says that false imprisonment is desirable, but just execution is not. Yet you do so based on the principle of judicial fallibility. That's why your logic appears so supremely twisted.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

Mr. Pyandran,

Do you intentionally misconstrue what others say or is it a language barrier?

If you truly believe that a paycheck is adequate recompense for spending two decades in prison for a crime one didn't commit, then you exceed even me as a truly twisted, irredeemably sick fuck. I applaud your dedication to inhumanity.Of course it's not adequate recompense. But it is something. And it would beat the hell out of being unjustly executed. I suspect you get to retain the title of "twisted, irredeemably sick fuck."
Well it's reassuring to see the supporters of this proposal note that "of course" people will continue to unjustly die in prison, and that they don't really a shit about them. Your repeated blatherings doesn't answer why it is somehow blithely acceptable to lock someone away for the duration of their life, with an "oops" when it turns out they were innocent, but unacceptable to execute someone whose guilt has been proven.A truly masterful twisting of what is being said.

If systems of justice continue to be fallible, then innocent people will continue to be convicted; if the convicted are imprisoned, then innocent people will go to prison. If people die while in prison, then some fraction of the innocent people who have been wrongly convicted will tragically die while in prison. I use the word tragically, perhaps you're unfamiliar with it. It indicates that such a thing is lamentable and should happen as little as possible. It is not something to be treated lightly, nor did I. I patiently and somberly await your proposal on ending all injustice and curing all judicial ills.

As for it being unacceptable to execute someone whose guilt has been proven, aye there's the rub. Are you willing to vouch that every single UN member's judicial system is 100% infallible with respect to death penalty cases? No? Thus the need for this or a similar resolution.

And still, I'm incredulous at the "progressives" saying that false imprisonment is something that's simply resolved by shrugging your shoulders and saying "whoops".Really? Where in the world was that said? Because it wasn't here.

--L.T.

It's a decision that this proposal could induce, though. I honestly feel a long stretch in a Gruenberger prison would be worse than death: this is probably borne out by our suicide rates. Were this proposal to pass, you would be saying such was not only preferable but required, instead of the swift mercy of execution.

It's squarely within the scope of this proposal. The proposal is saying that one form of punishment is preferable to another. When doubts are raised about that punishment, you refuse to acknowledge there could be any problem.

Nothing is perfect, and it seems to me that this proposal is doing something to avoid the worst scenario. I'm sad to say that, but if someone really prefer to die, one can do it his/herselves. As you seem to say that for any punishment, some doubts can be raised, then if someone prefer a prison sentence as the life sentence he/she get, why not let him/her to choose also?;)

A life sentence is a sentence to die in prison - albeit of natural causes. That is irreversable.

A life sentence can be ended.


you're writing a proposal that says that false imprisonment is desirable

Where, did i miss something reading this proposal?


~Rono Pyandran
etc.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's not adequate recompense. But it is something.
In which it can't be revoked.

If systems of justice continue to be fallible, then innocent people will continue to be convicted; if the convicted are imprisoned, then innocent people will go to prison. If people die while in prison, then some fraction of the innocent people who have been wrongly convicted will tragically die while in prison. I use the word tragically, perhaps you're unfamiliar with it. It indicates that such a thing is lamentable and should happen as little as possible. It is not something to be treated lightly, nor did I. I patiently and somberly await your proposal on ending all injustice and curing all judicial ills.
I already passed it actually: I let the people who know best about their justice decisions make them - nations. Also, your continual apathy towards the plight of the falsely convicted is profoundly disturbing.

As for it being unacceptable to execute someone whose guilt has been proven, aye there's the rub. Are you willing to vouch that every single UN member's judicial system is 100% infallible with respect to death penalty cases? No? Thus the need for this or a similar resolution.
Just admit it, then: you are not willing to discuss cases of proven guilt.

That's fine: I hold plenty of stupid, irrational beliefs that I don't have the courage of conviction to attempt to defend. We just need an admission that you are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~Rono Pyandran

It's a decision that this proposal could induce, though. I honestly feel a long stretch in a Gruenberger prison would be worse than death: this is probably borne out by our suicide rates. Were this proposal to pass, you would be saying such was not only preferable but required, instead of the swift mercy of execution.
If your prisoners feel the same way, let them commit suicide. You could even assist them in doing it.

It's squarely within the scope of this proposal. The proposal is saying that one form of punishment is preferable to another. When doubts are raised about that punishment, you refuse to acknowledge there could be any problem.
Why do you keep twisting what I say. There is a problem! But it's beyond the scope of this resolution! There's nothing keeping anyone from writing a resolution about prison safety. Hey, there's nothing keeping nations from doing something about it.

A life sentence is a sentence to die in prison - albeit of natural causes. That is irreversable.
Really? In Ceorana, a life sentence is a sentence to stay in prison until you die. That can be ended.

No: you're writing a proposal that says that false imprisonment is desirable, but just execution is not. Yet you do so based on the principle of judicial fallibility. That's why your logic appears so supremely twisted.
Imprisonment is desirable compared to execution - because both could be false. What's twisted about that?

If your prisoners feel the same way, let them commit suicide. You could even assist them in doing it.
Are you trying to lose this or something? Question for supporters of this proposal: how willing are you to endorse the above sentiment?

Why do you keep twisting what I say. There is a problem! But it's beyond the scope of this resolution! There's nothing keeping anyone from writing a resolution about prison safety. Hey, there's nothing keeping nations from doing something about it.
It's not beyond the scope of this proposal: this proposal actually plays to this fault. It means executions will have to be commuted to prison sentences - but it does nothing to ensure the humaneness of that latter punishment.

Really? In Ceorana, a life sentence is a sentence to stay in prison until you die. That can be ended.
Walk me through reversing death?

Unless you meant, it can be reversed before the person dies. In which case, so can an execution.

Imprisonment is desirable compared to execution - because both could be false. What's twisted about that?
What's twisted is that you continually omit to answer the main point: execution where, and because maybe you're not reading it, I'll say it big and bright, guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Your proposal states the problem with the death penalty is it could be mistakenly applied. Ok. But then you'll be willing to make a concession to occasions when it is undeniably not mistakenly applied?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

In which it can't be revoked.But a life sentence can be ended; death is, in most nations, permanent. You have noticed the changes in the draft? I let the people who know best about their justice decisions make them - nations. Also, your continual apathy towards the plight of the falsely convicted is profoundly disturbing. If the Gruenberger judicial system is so poor that it takes 20 years to right judicial wrongs, who indeed is apathetic about false imprisonment? Just admit it, then: you are not willing to discuss cases of proven guilt.What, indeed, requires discussion? Are you so hardened that you would support executing the innocent in order to exact revenge on the guilty?That's fine: I hold plenty of stupid, irrational beliefs...I'm so glad you realize your limitations. ;)
Thinking on your concern about the unjustly imprisoned, perhaps what is needed is a proposal mandating repetitive review and appeals of all prisoners. I would think every five years would save imprisoned innocent Gruenbergers from at least some of their inhuman treatment. It should certainly cut down on suicides and escapes if a prisoner knew that every five years his case would be reviewed.

--L.T.

Are you willing to discuss the death penalty in cases where guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Walk me through reversing death?

Unless you meant, it can be reversed before the person dies. In which case, so can an execution.I think I see where one of the differences of interpretation is occurring.

If the sentence is execution, then administration of the sentence occurs when the person is dead.

If the sentence is life imprisonment, you seem to be stating administration of the sentence as the completion of the full life term.

In my view, for I can't speak for Ceorana, administration of the sentence occurs at the imprisonment, the duration of which could be 1 year, 5 years, life, whatever. Therefore, you can have the comparison: Death by execution, once administered, can not be reversed in any way. Imprisonment can be reversed, i.e., one can be freed at any point of duration of sentence, the sooner, the better. (Given a falsely convicted person.)

Are you willing to discuss the death penalty in cases where guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?And I ask again, what is there to discuss?

--L.T.

And I ask again, what is there to discuss?
Why you are willing to prohibit execution in case of proven guilt, when this proposal is ostensibly about preventing irreversable sentences in cases where there is doubt over the conviction.

Are you trying to lose this or something? Question for supporters of this proposal: how willing are you to endorse the above sentiment?
You are an expert at taking things out of context, Mr. Pyandran. You said prisoners would rather die than go into your prisons, and that this proposal denies them that. I'm saying it doesn't.

It's not beyond the scope of this proposal: this proposal actually plays to this fault. It means executions will have to be commuted to prison sentences - but it does nothing to ensure the humaneness of that latter punishment.
There's only so much you can do in one proposal. And I assume Gruenberg would oppose anything guaranteeing prison standards anyway.

Walk me through reversing death?

Unless you meant, it can be reversed before the person dies. In which case, so can an execution.
The people are not being treated with death. They are dying of natural causes. Death is not the treatment. Imprisonment is.

In the case of execution, execution directly causes death, so it is the treatment.


What's twisted is that you continually omit to answer the main point: execution where, and because maybe you're not reading it, I'll say it big and bright, guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Your proposal states the problem with the death penalty is it could be mistakenly applied. Ok. But then you'll be willing to make a concession to occasions when it is undeniably not mistakenly applied?
I wouldn't, and Ceorana wouldn't, but we won't force that on you. The thing we will do is say that there's always an unreasonable doubt out there, and there is no way to be perfectly certain that a person is guilty before executing them. Ceorana's predecessor thought they had proven the guilt of these men beyond a reasonable doubt, too (http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list).

Why you are willing to prohibit execution in case of proven guilt, when this proposal is ostensibly about preventing irreversable sentences in cases where there is doubt over the conviction.
No justice system is infallible. Your "guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is too frequently "proven guilty in error". Even if it were one case in a million, that would be one innocent person too many put to death.

Would you make exception for those pleading guilty and thus define those as "beyond reasonable doubt"? Could you then guaranty that none were compelled to confess or forced to plead guilty? Would you make exception for those convicted by direct, scientific evidence? Would you then be able to foresee no advancements in the science of forensics, no evolution of the techniques of advocacy? Would you make exception for those who wished to die? And yet you cringed at the suggestion of letting prisoners commit suicide if they wished.

At the core, state sponsored revenge is still revenge.

--L.T.

ooc: noticed I posted after you left. When come back, you bring pie, yes? Oh snap, that's what I need to go and do.

--continual reference to fallibility snipped and ignored--
If I pulled out a gun and shot you in the face, there'd be about 30,000 witnesses within this General Assembly alone. I fail to see what doubt could enter the equation regarding my guilt.
At the core, state sponsored revenge is still revenge.
Ah, finally: we're allowed to discuss capital punishment now?

The line is cute, but it's not really you'd be consistent in the application of. After all, you're not banning all criminal penalties. If someone is locked up, that's still revenge being exacted; similarly for a fine, or other penalty. What you mean is "state sponsored revenge is still revenge, but is allowed sometimes and other times not".

~Rono Pyandran

OOC: Shut up.

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law or committed a crime or offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

Let's see here....

3. Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;

Easily arguable that "appropriately tough" would involve irrevocable physical punishment. Doesn't make it illegal, just a closee scrape.

1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;

That oughta cover the concerns about railroading innocents through the courts and convicting them unfairly.

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

So nothing in HTA directly affects the way that we can sentence our criminals. Awfully close, though. Wouldn't call it illegal for that, though it barely dodges that bullet.

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

An extra hand in ensuring that innocents do not get sent off improperly.

4. Recommends that nations devolve sentencing powers to the level most capable of taking into account all relevant considerations.

Seems to me that that would not be the UN.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law,

The fullest extent of the law would readily include acts that would not end, revoke, or remove themselves very easily. Again, not illegal, just mighty tight up to the side of it.

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics,
...
§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics,
...
§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, ... ceremonies & technologies

An indigenous people that held their own tribunals as part of their culture would have their right to "inhumane punishment" protected as long as it was part of their traditions. This would create a contradiction.

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

Inhumane treatment has already been covered. Not really strong enough for duplication issues, but, again, skirting the edges.

That's coming awfully close to a great many precipices all at once. It's the inverse HoC. I'd be incredibly careful with the entirety of the text. One adjective out of place and the whole thing will fall into a pit of illegalities.

On another note, I will oppose any UN legislation either mandating or banning capital punishment. I know it is already claimed that that is not the primary function of this bill, but it would accomplish that in effect. Forcing a single morality of this kind across the UN would be an incredibly oppressive act of this legislative body. I cannot support this.

If I pulled out a gun and shot you in the face, there'd be about 30,000 witnesses within this General Assembly alone. I fail to see what doubt could enter the equation regarding my guilt.
If I pulled out a gun and didn't shoot you in the face, and yet 30,000 witnesses said they saw me do it, would there by any doubt in that equation?

Ah, finally: we're allowed to discuss capital punishment now?

The line is cute, but it's not really you'd be consistent in the application of. After all, you're not banning all criminal penalties. If someone is locked up, that's still revenge being exacted; similarly for a fine, or other penalty. What you mean is "state sponsored revenge is still revenge, but is allowed sometimes and other times not".
The line has to be drawn somewhere.

OOC: Shut up.
OOC: He hasn't been any more obnoxious than any of the rest of us.

An indigenous people that held their own tribunals as part of their culture would have their right to "inhumane punishment" protected as long as it was part of their traditions. This would create a contradiction.
No it wouldn't. Indigenous peoples are defined as people living when a state took over, not as a state in themselves, so this wouldn't apply to them.

If I pulled out a gun and didn't shoot you in the face, and yet 30,000 witnesses said they saw me do it, would there by any doubt in that equation?
:rolleyes:

Answer the original question.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

No shit! I don't suppose it'd occurred that I might be...disagreeing?...on where that line would be drawn.

~Rono Pyandran

:rolleyes:

Answer the original question.

I did answer it, by using a slightly less convenient but - to the courts - same scenario. The answer is no.

No shit! I don't suppose it'd occurred that I might be...disagreeing?...on where that line would be drawn.

OK. But that's not what I was responding to.

~K.T.

If I pulled out a gun and shot you in the face, there'd be about 30,000 witnesses within this General Assembly alone. I fail to see what doubt could enter the equation regarding my guilt.Then you fail. Eye witnesses (yes even, or especially, 30,000 of them) are notoriously unreliable at giving evidence.

Ah, finally: we're allowed to discuss capital punishment now?It's been discussed throughout. My apologies if you haven't approved of how it's been discussed.

If someone is locked up, that's still revenge being exactedPerhaps in Gruenberg. Other nations incorporate things like rehabilitation and education in their prisons.

OOC: Shut up.
ooc: Learn some manners. And now I really have to leave.

--L.T.

We are compelled to ask whether those national representatives who are lambasting this proposal because, supposedly, imprisonment cannot be terminated and the prisoner cannot be compensated if later found innocent are representing nations whose criminal justice codes could stand to be updated? The Republic of Krioval compensates those found to have been falsely convicted to the fullest extent that the law provides, and resources available to promote reintegration into society, including assistance in procuring housing and employment are granted. Thus, imprisonment in our land can be both ended, and to a great deal, reversed.

To the representative from Ellelt, whose name escapes me at present, Krioval also has a system of prison labor, in which the prisoner earns a small wage for work done. Most eagerly volunteer for such tasks as we provide, given that the alternative is to remain in a small cell for the entire day. Those who refuse are typically maladjusted to both free and prison life, and while regrettable, there is little to be done with those unfortunates.

Finally, we do not necessarily condone the political methods undertaken by this proposal to achieve its ends, but at the same time, we are not in a position to condemn this proposal specifically. The culture of the United Nations is such that certain tactics often emerge as more successful than others. If more straightforward approaches worked better, there would not be such a surge to telegram regional delegates, either in support or opposition to a proposal, to use confusing or contradictory language within a proposal, or to attempt to place a blocking resolution in the proposal queue ahead of one that has a clear legislative function.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

What about a society like ours, where we have no prisons? We are nomadic people in an archipelago, how the hell are we supposed to build prisons? Tell me, when we get the people who come back after we exile them, and they start killing stuff, what are we supposed to do? What the hell are we supposed to do if we can't kill them?

Josef Sayle
The Nomadic Peoples of Onabanestan

By respecting the fullest rights of indigenous people to maintain their internal culture and traditions, a national government could allow them a certain level of self government. Their government could still allow capital or severe corporal punishment as part of their cultural heritage. This national government (as a government over the peoples within a nation), which is a part of the UN, would still have their right to perform these punishments through the rights of indigenous peoples. There is an apparent contradiction.

It's a skewed scenario, and not a strong one, but there it is. There are other issues in which the indigenous people of a nation run the national government in totality, but we'll cross that bridge later.

ta

Onabanestan: Portable prisons? Stick them on an island that's farther away?

Indigenous thingy fixed.
Humane Treatment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description: WHEREAS all people, and therefore all governments and justice systems, are fallible,

WHEREAS some governments still decide to take irrevocable action against another person, despite the fact that they could be wrong,

WHEREAS many forms of punishment that are allowed internationally are inhumane and potentially unjust,

WHEREAS "inhumane treatment" is defined for the purpose of this resolution as any treatment with physical effects that cannot be reversed, ended or revoked, or the requirement of entering a situation where this type of treatment is likely, excluding any treatment banned by past active UN resolutions,

The United Nations hereby resolves that no government that is bound by UN mandates shall determine that a person has violated a law, committed a crime, or committed an offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

We are compelled to ask whether those national representatives who are lambasting this proposal because, supposedly, imprisonment cannot be terminated and the prisoner cannot be compensated if later found innocent are representing nations whose criminal justice codes could stand to be updated? The Republic of Krioval compensates those found to have been falsely convicted to the fullest extent that the law provides, and resources available to promote reintegration into society, including assistance in procuring housing and employment are granted. Thus, imprisonment in our land can be both ended, and to a great deal, reversed.

To the representative from Ellelt, whose name escapes me at present, Krioval also has a system of prison labor, in which the prisoner earns a small wage for work done. Most eagerly volunteer for such tasks as we provide, given that the alternative is to remain in a small cell for the entire day. Those who refuse are typically maladjusted to both free and prison life, and while regrettable, there is little to be done with those unfortunates.


To answer the Lord's question, Ellelt does indeed pay its convict laborers...they receive 2500 calories a day in food, medical care, and 3 rubles a week to buy such luxuries as cigarettes, nasal snuff (our most common form of taking tobacco), and also receive a 100 milliliters of vodka per day.

As for it being voluntary...It is voluntary in that you may choose to not work, in which case you would not receive any food at all, nor any of the other benefits of working...so yes most of our convicts do volunteer to work in the gulags.

As for updating our criminal codes, we have the best court system in the socialist world! We use advanced forensics, top-notch police work, etc.

Rehabilitating criminals happens all the time in Ellelt as well. However, after spending say 10 years in Kruskya coal mine (where a lot of non-violent criminals are sent) there are health problems associated with coal mining to consider, but they are eligible for the social welfare, education programs and economic readjustment programs offered by the State. Psychological consequences of imprisonment are covered under the National Health Service Act of 2005.

The fact remains that this proposal, is unnecessary interfering of the rights of member states, and further is detrimental to the law and order of the member states.

We Oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty and we are in-fact International Confederationists! Should the author wish to repeal the FSA then she should do so openly...of course we would oppose the repeal as well, but that would be a more honest approach.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

Onabanestan: Portable prisons? Stick them on an island that's farther away?

We make most of our journeys on rafts, which the sick, elderly, and young ride on, while the fit among our society swim. A restrained man, I would think, would have a problem with swimming. I wouldn't have a problem with them being brought from island to island on rafts (obviously not on rafts being used by the sick, elderly, and young). But, we would have to reserve the right to use them for harsh manual labour/furniture, as otherwise they would be terrible burdens on our society. It would take rafts, more food, chains, and guards who could be more productive elsewhere.

Putting them on an island would work as long as we would set up a secure infrastructure with guards and supplies (even though building this would take years, which conflicts with our traveling schedules), and we would be perpetually obligated to stay close to that island to provide more supplies, more guards, and more prisoners. Our journeys can span many islands and go many miles, as we travel with the seasons. If we were to go about our normal schedule which ensures that we all have food and aren't killed by hurricanes, the prison would be long starved by the time we got back. That would be kind of cruel, more cruel than a bullet in the back of the head.

As long as that's okay, then we're all right.

Josef Sayle
Onabanestani Ambassador to the U.N.

OOC: I should have just posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11998691&postcount=30) here, being the more likely of the two candidates to go anywhere. Please ignore the OOC at the top of the post, it isn't really relevant to this discussion. Most of the rest is pertinent, though.


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.

I support the statement of Kivisto; to each their own.

Josef Sayle
Onabanestani Ambassador to the U.N.

To the ambassador from Kivisto:

From where does a nation get its right to run judicial systems in the first place?

To answer the Lord's question, Ellelt does indeed pay its convict laborers...they receive 2500 calories a day in food, medical care, and 3 rubles a week to buy such luxuries as cigarettes, nasal snuff (our most common form of taking tobacco), and also receive a 100 milliliters of vodka per day.

As for it being voluntary...It is voluntary in that you may choose to not work, in which case you would not receive any food at all, nor any of the other benefits of working...so yes most of our convicts do volunteer to work in the gulags.

As for updating our criminal codes, we have the best court system in the socialist world! We use advanced forensics, top-notch police work, etc.

Rehabilitating criminals happens all the time in Ellelt as well. However, after spending say 10 years in Kruskya coal mine (where a lot of non-violent criminals are sent) there are health problems associated with coal mining to consider, but they are eligible for the social welfare, education programs and economic readjustment programs offered by the State. Psychological consequences of imprisonment are covered under the National Health Service Act of 2005.

The fact remains that this proposal, is unnecessary interfering of the rights of member states, and further is detrimental to the law and order of the member states.

We Oppose this on the grounds of national sovereignty and we are in-fact International Confederationists! Should the author wish to repeal the FSA then she should do so openly...of course we would oppose the repeal as well, but that would be a more honest approach.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

It is our position that depriving incarcerated individuals of food is terribly inhumane; our system does not grant or deny basic necessities based on behavior. Instead, other privileges are given or revoked. Perhaps it is a cultural difference, Your Excellency, but we feel that it is uncivilized to starve people to death. We also oppose forced labor for nonviolent criminals, especially where said labor compromises their health, and likely makes them more burdensome to themselves, their families, and the State.

National sovereignty arguments fail to impress us, however, regardless of the debater's position on national sovereignty in general. Your Excellency may very well represent an International Federationalist government, but that is ultimately irrelevant in this particular instance. Most United Nations mandates involve some restriction on national sovereignty, as is likely with any international body. Finally, we reiterate our disdain for arguments as to the politics involved. The United Nations is a political body. Few have been fully honest about their methods when pushing hard for a proposal, and it is Krioval's position that the author has been moreso than a few in recent memory.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

To the ambassador from Kivisto:

From where does a nation get its right to run judicial systems in the first place?

A hush falls over the room as music (http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/sony/ps1/ff8crdts.mid) begins to play over speakers hidden in the walls. And Brandon Flibble, Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites enters the room.

I know that this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. You want to know where a nation gets it's right to run their judicial system. That right is intrinsic in the fact that we created our own judicial system, we didn't wait around for the UN to create one for us and therefore we should be free to sentence criminals as we see fit including the death penalty.

I'd also like to point out that my science advisor's idea of mass producing Phoenix Down is nothing more than a pipe dream. As it's primary component is the down of a phoenix which is hard to come by, since even though phoenixes live practally forever, they don't reproduce often so there aren't a lot of baby phoenixes to get down from.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I know that this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. You want to know where a nation gets it's right to run their judicial system. That right is intrinsic in the fact that we created our own judicial system, we didn't wait around for the UN to create one for us and therefore we should be free to sentence criminals as we see fit including the death penalty.

But where did the nation get the right to impose its justice system on its citizens?

(this is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I need to know your answer in order to respond to the full statement of the ambassador from Kivisto)

But where did the nation get the right to impose its justice system on its citizens?
Because they're its citizens...

No state has an obligation to grant citizenship to anyone. When it does so, it is bestowing a privilege of legal recognition upon people: in exchange, the citizens subject themselves to the laws of the land.

I mean, the right to exclusive exercise of jurisdiction of place is pretty much the definition of national sovereignty. If you're not going to admit the national right to impose a code of law, nothing else follows, and you may as well throw the entire concept of statehood out.

And before, because it's you, the reply "so why not", probably accompanied by an excruciating smilie, comes - that counts for a response to this, too - because it's stupid.

To the ambassador from Kivisto:

From where does a nation get its right to run judicial systems in the first place?

Irrelevant. The questions is: Why does the world get to tell the nation how to run its own internal matters?

However, in the interest of furthering discourse...

The national government, being made of the citizens of that nation, is, essentially, governing itself, making decisions about itself.

But I'm not looking to defend my view that the citizens of a nation should have the right to self govern. I'm asking if you can convince me why the UN should be allowed to dictate internal judicial terms to member nations.

So since a nation derives power from its citizens, and the UN derives power from it's constituent nations, then, by exsention, doesn't the UN derive power from its citizens? And hence, if we pass a resolution doing something, how is that different than if a nation passes a law doing something? In both cases, citizens, through their representatives, are saying they want something done. How are the two different, both being made up of the same thing and both having mostly the same powers? Why should one have the right to regulate justice systems and the other not?

So since a nation derives power from its citizens, and the UN derives power from it's constituent nations, then, by exsention, doesn't the UN derive power from its citizens? And hence, if we pass a resolution doing something, how is that different than if a nation passes a law doing something? In both cases, citizens, through their representatives, are saying they want something done. How are the two different, both being made up of the same thing and both having mostly the same powers? Why should one have the right to regulate justice systems and the other not?

While not speaking for the illustrious representative from Kivisto, I would venture to state that it is not appropriate for the United Nations to regulate national justice systems for the same reason it is not appropriate for nations to regulate individual moral systems.

Sadly, both nations and the United Nations choose to act inappropriately at times.

Hellar Gray

So since a nation derives power from its citizens, and the UN derives power from it's constituent nations, then, by exsention, doesn't the UN derive power from its citizens?
The UN has no citizens.

In both cases, citizens, through their representatives, are saying they want something done.
Nope. The UN is not representative.

Irrelevant. The questions is: Why does the world get to tell the nation how to run its own internal matters?

However, in the interest of furthering discourse...

The national government, being made of the citizens of that nation, is, essentially, governing itself, making decisions about itself.

But I'm not looking to defend my view that the citizens of a nation should have the right to self govern. I'm asking if you can convince me why the UN should be allowed to dictate internal judicial terms to member nations.

I will assume that Your Excellency is fully aware of the restrictions placed upon a nation choosing membership within the United Nations and is therefore asking more of a moral question than, say, a procedural one. After all, the United Nations is vested with authority to impose its collective will upon its member states.

To delve into philosophical matters a bit more, then, I would say that whether a national government values its sovereignty less than or more than international federationalism is an issue of national taste. Also of concern is whether a resolution from the United Nations is of benefit to the nation considering that resolution - national sovereignty will usually be invoked against one that restricts a nation's powers. That is hardly surprising.

The idea that "the world" should not impose upon "the nation", however, is one whose merits are severely diminished by the existence of an international body that requires national compliance with its decisions. I see no reason why judicial proceedings should automatically be exempted from consideration by this body, especially those around which the fate of an individual's life hangs in the balance.

This said, the Republic continues to watch this proposal with interest, and has not officially adopted a position regarding its content.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

The UN has no citizens.
Irrelevant. Substitute "citizens of UN nations" for "UN citizens" if you want.


Nope. The UN is not representative.

It may not be proportionally representative, but it's definitely representative as much as nations are representative.

While not speaking for the illustrious representative from Kivisto, I would venture to state that it is not appropriate for the United Nations to regulate national justice systems for the same reason it is not appropriate for nations to regulate individual moral systems.

And, specifically, that is...?

Irrelevant. Substitute "citizens of UN nations" for "UN citizens" if you want.
What? Do you even know what citizenship is?

It may not be proportionally representative, but it's definitely representative as much as nations are representative.
I'm not talking about degrees: it's a question of government. The UN is a union of nations, and its rules apply to nations. Think about it: what is a UN member? A nation. Not a citizen of that nation.

What? Do you even know what citizenship is?
Yes. But I have a nasty habit of using "citizen" to mean "person".

I'm not talking about degrees: it's a question of government. The UN is a union of nations, and its rules apply to nations. Think about it: what is a UN member? A nation. Not a citizen of that nation.

You're right. But, as I said in my post challenging Kivisto, a government derives its power from its citizens. Hence, UN nations are essentially the way citizens exercise their power. So the UN is a union of citizens' collective powers, arbitrarily broken into groups: nations.

As another way of thinking about it, the world is nothing without its people. Therefore, all political units in existence must derive their power from people, since without people you have nothing.

Citizens establish their power through nations, and they use this establishment to establish power in the United Nations.

Yes. But I have a nasty habit of using "citizen" to mean "person".
If by that you are acknowledging the invalidity of your previous comments, then good.

If you're trying to make a joke, it's not funny. And no, that's not a subjective judgment: it's scientifically unfunny.

If you think the difference is material, you're wrong.

And if you mean something else, then we're back to National Economic Rights.

* ooc: shining example of quality UN debate, this... *

On behalf of the New Cultural Revolution, I implore the Ceoranan delegation to remain resolute in the face of these unpleasant attacks. This is a fine proposal that I would dearly love to see succeed.

Benedictions,

Look, I've heard it before, and I will reopst it here for you defenders of this draft.

WHAT WORKS FOR YOUR COUNTRY MAY NOT WORK FOR OTHER COUNTRIES.

Sure, in a society that is able to build and maintain prisons, why not outlaw capital punishment, right? I mean, it would prevent innocent people from being executed, right?

Well, yes. But what about a society like ours, where we cannot build and maintain prisons, as we are constantly moving thousands of miles? We have exile, and for the most extreme cases, capital punishment. I'm talking about military enemies and criminals who return after being exiled.

Building a prison would force us to radically change our culture and our lives, as we would be forced to stay close to said prison. Unless you want to give us billions of dollars of aid so that we can build permanent, reinforced housing to protect us from hurricanes and flooding in bad seasons, and start farming lots of food to deal with our staying in one place, instead of roaming around and taking only what we need.

And just so you don't forget after this message:

WHAT WORKS FOR YOUR COUNTRY MAY NOT WORK FOR OTHER COUNTRIES.

The national government, being made of the citizens of that nation, is, essentially, governing itself, making decisions about itself.

I suppose you mean:
The national government, being made of the citizens of that nation, is, essentially, governing the citizens of that nation, making decisions about the citizens of that nation, trying hopefully to satisfy the best interest of its citizens, with both a globally and an individually balanced approach.

If a government make decisions only about itself, who need that?

I'm asking if you can convince me why the UN should be allowed to dictate internal judicial terms to member nations.

I'm suprise you use the word "dictate".
Every nation can opt out easily the UN, UN votes are democratic.
Every members joined freely, and I suppose, are fully aware that by joigning a international body with not only a mild but also a "significant legislative power" they agreed to give up a part of their national sovereignty to this democratic UN legislative body.


I would venture to state that it is not appropriate for the United Nations to regulate national justice systems for the same reason it is not appropriate for nations to regulate individual moral systems.

Accelerus, Gruenberg: did you voted against:
Child Pornography Prohibition
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=168
because it regulate national justice.
Or does "Child Pornography Prohibition" only apply to government?

Accelerus...did you voted against:
Child Pornography Prohibition
Yes, he did.

Oh, sure, start bringing up child porn. Don't try to respond to the assertion that banning capital punishment might work for you, but not for me. Real classy.

Dominik Sayle
Assisstant to Josef Sayle, Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN

Oh, sure, start bringing up child porn. Don't try to respond to the assertion that banning capital punishment might work for you, but not for me. Real classy.

Dominik Sayle
Assisstant to Josef Sayle, Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN
Possibly, dear sir, because he considered your decibel-heavy rantings unworthy of a response? Do also consider that the ambassador was not in fact addressing your point, rather another member's*.

Benedictions,

* sorry, but I've just slipped into a world of innuendo unworthy of even this forum

Oh, sure, start bringing up child porn. Don't try to respond to the assertion that banning capital punishment might work for you, but not for me. Real classy.

Dominik Sayle
Assisstant to Josef Sayle, Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN


May I invite the Assisstant of Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN to read the following argument I was debating!


I would venture to state that it is not appropriate for the United Nations to regulate national justice systems for the same reason it is not appropriate for nations to regulate individual moral systems.

#94
Right to Self-Protection
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders (=Accelerus)
1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93

The nation of Love and esterel didn't exist at that time, but we agree with #94

The UN is a union of nations, and its rules apply to nations. Think about it: what is a UN member? A nation. Not a citizen of that nation.

#169
Child Pornography Prohibition
Proposed by: Gruenberg
2. Requires member nations to prohibit:
- the possession, production, distribution and trade of child pornography;
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=168

For the record Love and esterel supported and voted for #169.

Your Excellency, the Representative of Kivisto, while you may find the withholding of food barbaric and uncivilized, and we disagree with you we can respect that opinion. You are not an Elletian and therefore have not been taught the Ideological Program of the Communist Party of Ellelt as was laid out by Comrade Alexander Serpov, Our Great Leader and Teacher. We hold that: he who does not work, does not eat; with the notable exceptions of children, the ill, and the very old. To us it is not barbaric, but rather moral.

This again brings the point up that has been repeatedly said by the opponents of this proposal. What works in one nation may not work in other nations.

In this case it is very much true. I highly doubt that anyone else here would want to be forced by UN decree to implement public execution as happens when we do execute in Ellelt. Just last weekend I was summoned to New Stalingrad, our capitol, to witness the execution of Boyar (that is a title of nobility) Edvard Shvernassi, for treason and other crimes against the People of the United Socialist States of Ellelt.

Further, I highly doubt that any other nation would wish to be forced to create an industry of souvenir taking from the execute-es, as was the case when we executed the Tsar, and his court for treason. The dress of the Tsarina was ripped to shreds by the mass of people in Revolution Square to have a souvenir of witnessing the execution of one of the most horrible criminals in Elleltian history.

It is on these grounds, which just happen coincide with the interests of national sovereignty, that I oppose this proposal. Ellelt does not wish to force its Morality on other nations and we should not have foreign moralities forced upon us.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

I apologise for my comment, I've had a few drinks and I am still a bit tense. I notice, however, that I have gotten your attention with one line of text, whereas my brother failed with big red letters. :D

Anyway, I just find it frustrating when an argument that could bring something like this to a conclusion, possibly, is not responded to. I should think before I type. I can't find my ass with both hands. I have broccoli in my socks.

Anyway, I agree with the Elleltian Ambassador's comment.

Dominik Sayle
Assisstant to Josef Sayle, Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93
It's pretty wank to pin the actions of a puppet on the player nation: just because they're the same player, doesn't mean both nations have the same philosophy.

This would fit in well with that "learning to separate NS and RL" course you're desperately in need of.

It's pretty wank to pin the actions of a puppet on the player nation: just because they're the same player, doesn't mean both nations have the same philosophy.

This would fit in well with that "learning to separate NS and RL" course you're desperately in need of.

You answer concern only Texan Hotrodders/Accelerus's statement about nations and citizen, but not yours.

About Texan Hotrodders/Accelerus and his/her supposed new philosophy, do I have to suppose that Accelerus disagree with "#94 Right to Self-Protection" and "#169 Child Pornography Prohibition" on the ground that "it is not appropriate for the United Nations to regulate national justice systems"

Texan Hotrodders/Accelerus's...Texan Hotrodders/Accelerus
They. Are. Not. The. Same. Nation.

And as I've said, yes, Accelerus did vote against Child Pornography Prohibition, on grounds of national sovereignty; Right to Self-Protection is mild (indeed, you always trumpet your own mild proposals as sovereignty friendly) so is of little consequence.

If by that you are acknowledging the invalidity of your previous comments, then good.

If you're trying to make a joke, it's not funny. And no, that's not a subjective judgment: it's scientifically unfunny.

If you think the difference is material, you're wrong.

And if you mean something else, then we're back to National Economic Rights.

I'm simply stating a fact. I stand by what I said previously, but I'm stating that sometimes I misuse the word, and that could be the source of your confusion about what I said. Calm down.

They. Are. Not. The. Same. Nation.

And as I've said, yes, Accelerus did vote against Child Pornography Prohibition, on grounds of national sovereignty; Right to Self-Protection is mild (indeed, you always trumpet your own mild proposals as sovereignty friendly) so is of little consequence.

Inded you right about #94 being mild. Nice to hear that "mild" proposal doesn't violate national sovereignty. Thanks

But I'm sorry to remind you that #169, written by Gruenberg, not by one of his/her puppet is a strong-strength resolution applying to citizen. (and once again LAE agree with #169)

I'm simply stating a fact. I stand by what I said previously, but I'm stating that sometimes I misuse the word, and that could be the source of your confusion about what I said. Calm down.
What? You mistook two entirely separate words, and that makes my arguments wrong?

I'm not confused about what you said: it's crystal clear - that it's complete bullshit. The UN does not have citizens.

But I'm sorry to remind you that #169, written by Gruenberg, not by one of his/puppet is a Strong-Strength resolution applying to citizen.
It places obligations on nations, not citizens...but I don't really follow what point you're trying to make.

Oh, sory if I was not clear. I Will try to express it another way:

You stated:
The UN is a union of nations, and its rules apply to nations. Think about it: what is a UN member? A nation. Not a citizen of that nation

I was just very confused as one of your "strong" proposal states:


Proposed by: Gruenberg
2. Requires member nations to prohibit:
- the possession, production, distribution and trade of child pornography;

It seems to me that #169 was prohibiting citizens to do those things ( and I agree with), it's why I was completely lost about your "philosophy"

So now you say, about #169, I suppose:

It places obligations on nations, not citizens...but I don't really follow what point you're trying to make.

I'm even more lost, as if we follow your argument, then "Humane Treatment Act" also places obligations on nations, not citizens.

You stated:
You, though probably on account of my being unclear, for which I apologise, are confusing "rules" and "laws". The rules of the UN are the rules of procedure: these apply to nations. Individual resolutions are laws, and take whatever form the drafting nation wants.

I am not saying "the UN should not be able to affect the lives of the citizens of its member nations"; I'm saying "the citizens of its member nations are that alone, and are not members of the UN, which is a club for nations".

What? You mistook two entirely separate words, and that makes my arguments wrong?

I'm not confused about what you said: it's crystal clear - that it's complete bullshit. The UN does not have citizens.

OK. So the UN does not have citizens. That's not the meat of my argument. Read it again.

OK. So the UN does not have citizens. That's not the meat of my argument. Read it again.
Yeah, I'm going to pass. Probably time for us to consult the mods on the legality of this proposal, before we waste too much more time debating whether "sandwich" and "computational linguistics" are essentially interchangeable terms.

The UN does not have citizens.Oddly enough, the UN could well be considered to have "citizens"; they just happen to be member nations.. 3 : a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state. ...
CITIZEN is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those peopleSubstitute the word nation for people and it's a good description of the NSUN.

It's specious reasoning to maintain that the impact of UN resolutions is not born by individuals. The nation may be the administrator/actor, but it is the individual whose rights are either limited or protected, regardless of the topic of the resolution. (I do realize you sneer at the concept of the UN as state, but luckily you're not the sole arbiter of interpretation for what we do here.)
I'm asking if you can convince me why the UN should be allowed to dictate internal judicial terms to member nations.Tell me exactly again why the UN should be able to tell me what I as an individual may read, view or possess.
I apologise for my comment, I've had a few drinks and I am still a bit tense. I notice, however, that I have gotten your attention with one line of text, whereas my brother failed with big red letters.

Anyway, I just find it frustrating when an argument that could bring something like this to a conclusion, possibly, is not responded to. I should think before I type. I can't find my ass with both hands. I have broccoli in my socks.That's all right, Onabanestan, more experienced delegates than yourself haven't seemed to learn that big letters don't impress, regardless the color (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11995360&postcount=50).

I empathize with your frustration. Unfortunately, or fortunately, membership in such a body as the UN involves concessions for all nations. There are many of the adopted resolutions that are uncomfortable fits for Rubina. Yet we believe wholeheartedly that the impossibility of legislating for every possible national situation should not in any way prevent legislation from being written. Otherwise, there would be no reason for this body to exist. And honestly, we suspect that elimination of this body is the ultimate goal of a large fraction of the legislation submitted by certain delegates.

For the time being, Rubina has decided that the benefits of membership outweigh the hindrances, and hope that Onabanestan continues so as well. Your inability to develop prisons is indeed a difficult hurdle, but one that creativity may yet solve. We do, however, object to your use of exile, as it merely transfers responsibility for your criminals to other nations. We will be examining our prisoner population for Onabanestan natives and submitting a bill for their care and keeping for the duration of their imprisonment in our system.

As for the broccoli, may we suggest a bit of hollandaise in place of toe jam. ;)

Leetha Talone

Thank you, Leetha, you have put things in terms that I can understand, and now I'm much less frustrated. Perhaps there is a way that we could set up prisons, or at least rent nearby ones. I'd rather not have to deal with it, but we don't want to leave the UN before the first resolution. That'd be a damn shame.

As for exile, I might as well just put those guys in the new prisons I'd have to build. Although, to be fair, our crime rates are very low, so it's not like we're sending huge streams of criminals into other countries. Still, though, we understand your concern. We'll try to find a way to deal with that too.

Anyway, we still oppose this, and we still support the use of capital punishment, but I'm not as pissed off now. Anger leads to bad things, and that's the last thing I need.

Dominik Sayle
Assisstant to Josef Sayle, Onabanestani Ambassador to the UN

Oddly enough, the UN could well be considered to have "citizens"; they just happen to be member nations.Or a resolution could be passed which makes every individual a UN citizen. Legal or not legal? No idea, probably not important either.

I kinda agree with the rest of what you've said Rubina - the UN is to governments what governments are to individuals (with variation on scale) - I think I said it before :) I'm not going to get into that discussion again for a while though, just check my sig - there is a link in there about my thoughts.

Tell me exactly again why the UN should be able to tell me what I as an individual may read, view or possess.Best reason I can think of is because more than 50% of voting member states said the UN could. That's a pretty good reason. If you don't agree with it, get more than 50% of voting member states to repeal it :)

Just so this post is not totally off topic - Hirota supports this proposal in it's current form.

I don't think there's any challenge to the proposal's legality - it doesn't contradict FSA, because that only deals with sentencing, not conviction. Is there anything else it might contradict?

You, though probably on account of my being unclear, for which I apologise, are confusing "rules" and "laws". The rules of the UN are the rules of procedure: these apply to nations. Individual resolutions are laws, and take whatever form the drafting nation wants.

I am not saying "the UN should not be able to affect the lives of the citizens of its member nations";

Ok, my fault, sorry if I misunderstand you.. So we agree that that the UN rules of procedure apply to nations and that UN laws (resolutions) are not unappropriate in the regulation of national justice systems (related to either government and/or citizens).

Ok, my fault, sorry if I misunderstand you.. So we agree that that the UN rules of procedure apply to nations and that UN laws (resolutions) are not unappropriate in the regulation of national justice systems (related to either government and/or citizens).
I see no reason to comment on such abstractions. Some resolutions might be appropriate - hell, I wrote FSA - and some might not be - I'm acting like an utter fucking baby about this one - so I don't think I could draw any hard and fast rules.
it doesn't contradict FSA
Yes it does. It prevents nations from determining sentences, which is their right under FSA. By stopping them getting a conviction, it's still stopping them exacting that sentence.

But I will repeat: this kind of weaselling, hyperlegal bull is beneath you. Act like your sig, when it wasn't a silly poo-poo that we didn't laugh at your funny joke: play the fucking game.

Accelerus, Gruenberg: did you voted against:
Child Pornography Prohibition
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=168
because it regulate national justice.
Or does "Child Pornography Prohibition" only apply to government?

My nation's vote was cast AGAINST the CPP, yes. As to the resolution "Right to Self-Protection", had my nation been in existence at the time, it would have likely supported such a sovereignty-friendly resolution.

Hellar Gray

But I will repeat: this kind of weaselling, hyperlegal bull is beneath you. Act like your sig, when it wasn't a silly poo-poo that we didn't laugh at your funny joke: play the fucking game.
OOC: Enlighten me: how is this any different to the many sovereignty-friendly blockers that you (and others) have passed? Why is it ever-so-clever game-playing when it written by you or Kenny, but hyper-legal game-spoiling when written by Ceo?

Seems to me that a loophole has been found and exploited. Same ol', same ol'.

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

It seems to me that #180 declare the right of nations to determine what sentences are, but don't deal with the right or not of nations to determine what crimes are or what violations of laws are.

My nation's vote was cast AGAINST the CPP, yes.

Ok:(

As to the resolution "Right to Self-Protection", had my nation been in existence at the time, it would have likely supported such a sovereignty-friendly resolution.

Great, it seems we agreed at least about what sovereignty is.

OOC: Enlighten me: how is this any different to the many sovereignty-friendly blockers that you (and others) have passed? Why is it ever-so-clever game-playing when it written by you or Kenny, but hyper-legal game-spoiling when written by Ceo?

Seems to me that a loophole has been found and exploited. Same ol', same ol'.OOC: I dare say there is a distinct difference between legislation that contains clauses to protect national rights and doesn't contradict anything, and desperate attempts to deliberately contradict a passed resolution with ridiculous wank, when the bloody repeal link is right there, beneath "Fair Sentencing Act."

My objection is mainly that people refused to debate capital punishment during the FSA vote - even when I raised the subject - and even now are too scared to just say "the death penalty" instead of the ridiculous bungling definition in the proposal. If we're going to ban the death penalty, then we should at least do it properly.

My objection is mainly that people refused to debate capital punishment during the FSA vote - even when I raised the subject - and even now are too scared to just say "the death penalty" instead of the ridiculous bungling definition in the proposal. If we're going to ban the death penalty, then we should at least do it properly.

If this body ever bans the death penalty, our UN mission will be gone faster than a marriage to Britney Spears.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Cluich: IC response to OOC statement?

Honestly? I see zero difference between this and Unconventional Weapons. FSA is a little more up-front, granted, but the reaction to this strikes me as more than a little excessive. Why is it now not in the spirit of the game to draft legislation in this manner? I didn't vote for Unconventional etc, but I admired it. Likewise FSA and many other blockers. I'm frankly baffled by your responses.

Oh, and though this probably need not be said: please don't take this personally. I disagree on how a game is being played. That's all.

Yes it does. It prevents nations from determining sentences, which is their right under FSA. By stopping them getting a conviction, it's still stopping them exacting that sentence.
But FSA doesn't give nations the right to exact sentences it gives them the right to determine them. You can determine that the sentence for jaywalking is loss of your left knee if you want, but this proposal would mean you couldn't carry it out.

But I will repeat: this kind of weaselling, hyperlegal bull is beneath you. Act like your sig, when it wasn't a silly poo-poo that we didn't laugh at your funny joke: play the fucking game.

If you looked at the context of Fris's post there, it was saying that players should expand on the game and not just play it simply the way it is. Which is what I'm doing. (OOC: it wasn't intended to be funny; it was intended to develop my ambassador's chaacter, which is of an older guy who's a bit long-winded, but I removed it because it seemed to offend you)

My objection is mainly that people refused to debate capital punishment during the FSA vote - even when I raised the subject - and even now are too scared to just say "the death penalty" instead of the ridiculous bungling definition in the proposal. If we're going to ban the death penalty, then we should at least do it properly.
I might not mind putting "including but not limited to...death" in the definition clause, if that would make you feel better about it.

OOC: I dare say there is a distinct difference between legislation that contains clauses to protect national rights and doesn't contradict anything, and desperate attempts to deliberately contradict a passed resolution with ridiculous wank, when the bloody repeal link is right there, beneath "Fair Sentencing Act."

There's an AGAINST button right there under any weapons ban that comes up to vote, too.

I have no qualms about saying "Death Penalty", for Death is the Penalty for certain criminal acts within my Nation... I do no see a reason to shy away from the truth.

As far as my Government (that Government actually being me), is concerned, within a Nation's borders, the Nation should have the right to conduct their Judicial Proceedings as they deem fit- providing that such proceeding do not go against the concept of humane treatment, by which I mean, punishment that is to be unnecessarily demeaning or cruel physically or emotionally.

Regarding International Offenses, the UN should have the right to perform as the Court of Law, and be allowed to determine and execute it's punishments within the dictates of UN Policy- with Member Nations abiding by such rulings.

Cluich: IC response to OOC statement?Auss does it all the time. :p

Oh, and though this probably need not be said: please don't take this personally.I'm not.

There's an AGAINST button right there under any weapons ban that comes up to vote, too.IC: You're so adorable when you think you're being clever. ~Cmdr. Chiang

IC: You're so adorable when you think you're being clever. ~Cmdr. Chiang

Glad you think so, but would you care to comment on the substance rather than the style?

I'd ask the same of you. You're offering up a proposal that can only be described as CSA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency) on crack, and all you've done so far is make cute little remarks about everything. Why don't you actually try to defend these absurd tactics? You didn't have a free ride when you proposed UNPL and UNCC; someone had to clean up the mess first. Why can't you do the same here: just be honest with people about what you want to do, and repeal FSA before moving forward with your own proposal, just like anyone else playing this game has to do before submitting replacement legislation?

Isn't a fair bit of Diplomacy about Style rather than Content?

Isn't a fair bit of Diplomacy about Style rather than Content?

I don't think so.

That said, I also don't think this line of discussion regarding the author's tactics is particularly productive.

As far as I can tell, Ceo has edited the proposal such that it's legal now, and my primary concern is its legal implications if passed. And by legal implications, I mean "fucking fluffy right-to-life for even the most heinous criminals bullshit being on the books".

At the very least, I'd like to see a clause aknowledging that there are cases in which inhumane treatment is unfortunately necessary.

While we agree with the Texas Hotrodders, we don't see how such a clause could be added without nullifying the scope of this proposal. However IF such a clause could be added in a satisfactory manner, we would perhaps then consider voting FOR the proposal. As it stands, since this would force us to discontinue our rare use of the death penalty, we would vote AGAINST.

I'd ask the same of you. You're offering up a proposal that can only be described as CSA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency) on crack, and all you've done so far is make cute little remarks about everything. Why don't you actually try to defend these absurd tactics? You didn't have a free ride when you proposed UNPL and UNCC; someone had to clean up the mess first. Why can't you do the same here: just be honest with people about what you want to do, and repeal FSA before moving forward with your own proposal, just like anyone else playing this game has to do before submitting replacement legislation?

You're acting under the assumption that FSA has some inherent "right" to block this. It doesn't. FSA allows nations to determine sentences. This proposal lets nations determine their sentences, but recognizes that no standard of proof will suffice to convict a person where they will face permanent treatment, and hence bans nations from making that determination, since it's impossible.

That's one way of thinking about the premise of the proposal. You may not agree with the basic premise (that no standard of proof will suffice to convict someone when the punishment will be irrevocable), but it answers your objection to the tactics used.

As our Ambassador stated previously, perhaps a proposal where the use of the death penalty is limited to certain offenses might be a better way to go, rather than eliminating it entirely. Our delegation does not feel that even that type of proposal would pass muster with the GA, but it would stand a better chance than this one would.

And to reiterate, no matter how it's written up, Altanar still opposes an outright ban on capital punishment.

---
Cmdr. Delren Meleketh
Assistant Deputy Ambassador for Security and Military Concerns
Security Chief, Altanari UN Mission

Ridiculous twisting. My predecessor warned me about this proposal, and frankly I'm not surprised why.

All I have seen is repeated tap-dancing by the resolution's author to explain what exactly it will do. Of course, I can gather the impact myself, but I'd prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth.

What are you trying to accomplish, other than a disingenous two-step around legislation you don't like?

As our Ambassador stated previously, perhaps a proposal where the use of the death penalty is limited to certain offenses might be a better way to go, rather than eliminating it entirely. Our delegation does not feel that even that type of proposal would pass muster with the GA, but it would stand a better chance than this one would.

And to reiterate, no matter how it's written up, Altanar still opposes an outright ban on capital punishment.

---
Cmdr. Delren Meleketh
Assistant Deputy Ambassador for Security and Military Concerns
Security Chief, Altanari UN Mission


My Government will not approve the abolishment of Capital Punishment either.

I must concede that some delegations have raised valid points regarding the possible cruelty of alternatives to the death penalty. However, we feel that these should not be an excuse not to abolish an equally cruel practice - especially bearing in mind the dreadful possibility of executing an innocent person.

If there is such concern about the traumatic effects and cruelty of long prison sentences, I would advise those countries concerned to reform their penal systems. Perhaps UN legislation could tackle this issue; I would be willing to participate in drawing up a proposal. None of this alters the fact that the death penalty is, in our eyes, unjustifiable.

My delegation used to oppose any attempt to abolish the death penalty, on the grounds of national sovereignty. We still acknowledge that this is a complex issue, but we now believe that the right to life is fundamental enough to warrant UN legislation.

My government has been in communication with its West Ariddian counterpart, and several privatised prison companies in West Ariddia would be willing to 'welcome' former death row inmates from UN member States, and persons who, in future, would normally have received the death penalty, on a case by case basis. West Ariddian prisons, unlike our own, are an enterprise aiming at profit, and are in essence high security factories, wealthy enough to ensure decent living conditions for inmates.

We recognise that, if we're going to force countries to throw out the death penalty, we should help them deal with any ensuing difficulties.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I have always felt that on a National Level, meaning Criminal Acts by a Nation's Citizens against another Citizen of that Nation, the judicial proceedings should remain up to them.

On a Global Level, however- meaning Country A commits a wholesale slaughter of civilians of Country B for instance, the judicial proceedings should be up to the UN.

It has been mentioned that there is a risk of executing an innocent person. Yes, there is... but there is an equal risk of a dangerous criminal escaping punishment- and continuing to commit crimes... possibly take another Life.

It has been mentioned that there is a risk of executing an innocent person. Yes, there is... but there is an equal risk of a dangerous criminal escaping punishment- and continuing to commit crimes... possibly take another Life.

False dichotomy. The alternative is not between sentencing a person to death and releasing him or her back into the community.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

My delegation used to oppose any attempt to abolish the death penalty, on the grounds of national sovereignty. We still acknowledge that this is a complex issue, but we now believe that the right to life is fundamental enough to warrant UN legislation.

And I remain curious as to why you consider existence a political construct and, if it is indeed a political construct, why you would not allow that this right could be voided by violations of the laws set forth by the body politic of the nation in which the person resides.

My government has been in communication with its West Ariddian counterpart, and several privatised prison companies in West Ariddia would be willing to 'welcome' former death row inmates from UN member States, and persons who, in future, would normally have received the death penalty, on a case by case basis. West Ariddian prisons, unlike our own, are an enterprise aiming at profit, and are in essence high security factories, wealthy enough to ensure decent living conditions for inmates.

We recognise that, if we're going to force countries to throw out the death penalty, we should help them deal with any ensuing difficulties.

Your responsibility and generosity are quite commendable.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

That may be... but the risk begins as soon as judicial proceedings begin. That is where you're likely to either convict or not convict an individual, correct? You risk convicting and sentancing an innocent person... and your risk not convicting and sentancing a guilty person.

Rather than abolish the Death Penatly, Nations need to find ways to improve their judicial systems so that the risk of wrongful conviction (and wrongful release) is cut down to as minimal a chance as possible. They also need to ensure that the risk of the judicial proceedings being corrupted by personal agendas, and inefficient gathering of eviences (both for and against a person's guilt) is minimalized as much as possible. A Death Penalty should be a last resort- and only for the most extreme of offenses... once guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt has been established.

It is not the ability to sentance a person to Death that is at fault... it is the system that gets the person to that point... as well as the fault of a Society that does not take the proper steps to ensure that there is no need for Criminal Activity within their borders.

And I remain curious as to why you consider existence a political construct and, if it is indeed a political construct, why you would not allow that this right could be voided by violations of the laws set forth by the body politic of the nation in which the person resides.


This is a question of ethics. All ethics are of course subjective, and the result of social constructs, but if we reject the possibility of any valid legislation based on ethics, then what are we doing here? Those who would argue for the international and inalianable right to property also refer to a certain conception of ethics. Very few proposals don't.

With that in mind, we believe that the right to life is so fundamental that violation of a nation's laws, however grieviously, can't revoke it. Especially when the risk of executing an innocent person is added into the balance.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

False dichotomy. The alternative is not between sentencing a person to death and releasing him or her back into the community.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Oversimplification.

We have a variety of alternatives, the limitations of which are far more problematic than can be solved by simply outlawing the death penalty.

Rehabilitation: Expensive, not effective for some people.
Incarceration: Cruel, destroys liberty.
Death: Sometimes cruel, destroys liberty.
None: Not effective for most nations.

Given that it is unlikely that the United Nations can fairly and practically address this issue and the problems within it by a resolution, and given that the Humane Treatment Act does not even come close to an attempt to do so, I see no reason to support it.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

You risk convicting and sentancing an innocent person... and your risk not convicting and sentancing a guilty person.

That second point is irrelevant to the death penalty debate. As for the first, the crucial difference is that, awful as it is for an innocent person to spend many years in jail, he or she can still be released if later found innocent. A dead person, executed due to an error of justice, cannot be revived.


Rather than abolish the Death Penatly, Nations need to find ways to improve their judicial systems so that the risk of wrongful conviction (and wrongful release) is cut down to as minimal a chance as possible. They also need to ensure that the risk of the judicial proceedings being corrupted by personal agendas, and inefficient gathering of eviences (both for and against a person's guilt) is minimalized as much as possible. A Death Penalty should be a last resort- and only for the most extreme of offenses... once guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt has been established.


Very nice in theory, but it is exceedingly rare to be able to prove guilt "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And many countries may still execute a person when that "shadow" remains.

Secondly, how can you guarentee that, if the death penalty remains legal, it will not be abused by many nations willing to find suspects guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt" even when such doubt is actually very strong?


It is not the ability to sentance a person to Death that is at fault... it is the system that gets the person to that point... as well as the fault of a Society that does not take the proper steps to ensure that there is no need for Criminal Activity within their borders.

We'd be happy to assist nations in adressing the root causes of crime, since crime is virtually non-existant in my country.


We have a variety of alternatives, the limitations of which are far more problematic than can be solved by simply outlawing the death penalty.

Rehabilitation: Expensive, not effective for some people.
Incarceration: Cruel, destroys liberty.
Death: Sometimes cruel, destroys liberty.
None: Not effective for most nations.

Given that it is unlikely that the United Nations can fairly and practically address this issue and the problems within it by a resolution, and given that the Humane Treatment Act does not even come close to an attempt to do so, I see no reason to support it.


Of course rehabilitation does not always work (leaving aside the ethics of executing someone because it's cheaper than rehabilitating him or her, which I find disgusting). As for the cruelty of incarceration... I take it you don't wish to argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, then, since incarceration would be a more effective one?

The cruelty of incarceration can be reduced, as I've suggested. Prisoners sent to West Ariddia would not be treated cruelly. And this brings us back to the issue I mentioned earlier. What kind of logic impels us to say that, because of the cruelty of prisons, the death penalty is justifiable? The cruelty of prisons is not an unsolvable issue. At the very least, we can reduce it, and, as I said, I'd be happy to contribute to UN legislation on conditions in prisons.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Of course rehabilitation does not always work (leaving aside the ethics of executing someone because it's cheaper than rehabilitating him or her, which I find disgusting). As for the cruelty of incarceration... I take it you don't wish to argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, then, since incarceration would be a more effective one?

The cruelty of incarceration can be reduced, as I've suggested. Prisoners sent to West Ariddia would not be treated cruelly. And this brings us back to the issue I mentioned earlier. What kind of logic impels us to say that, because of the cruelty of prisons, the death penalty is justifiable? The cruelty of prisons is not an unsolvable issue. At the very least, we can reduce it, and, as I said, I'd be happy to contribute to UN legislation on conditions in prisons.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Of course I would not wish to argue that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent, though it may deter those who are not as strongly intent on committing a crime. Killing a criminal is simply preventing them (in the most effective way possible) from committing further crimes.

But do keep in mind that if we're leaving aside the possibility of executing someone because it's cheaper, we are still not obliged to ignore that some nations simply do not have the funds to conduct rehabilitative programs, or to improve the conditions of their prisons to a more "humane" level.

Also, the death penalty is justified in cases where it is necessary. It has nothing to do with the conditions in prisons. The elaboration on the nature of imprisonment was simply used to counter the point that death is somehow an ultimate cruelty, as I recall.

The real problem is not within the logic of the opponents of the proposal, but within the "thought" of those who propose the abolition of the death penalty as a means of addressing the far more complex problem of injustice and false convictions.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

But do keep in mind that if we're leaving aside the possibility of executing someone because it's cheaper, we are still not obliged to ignore that some nations simply do not have the funds to conduct rehabilitative programs, or to improve the conditions of their prisons to a more "humane" level.

True. But hence the idea of international cooperation, and nations volunteering to relieve poorer nations of death row inmates.


Also, the death penalty is justified in cases where it is necessary.

But in the overwhelming majority of societies it is never necessary. If it were, there would be no abolitionist nations.


The real problem is not within the logic of the opponents of the proposal, but within the "thought" of those who propose the abolition of the death penalty as a means of addressing the far more complex problem of injustice and false convictions.


Those are also important issues, which we can also attempt to adress through international legislation.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

True. But hence the idea of international cooperation, and nations volunteering to relieve poorer nations of death row inmates.

But in the overwhelming majority of societies it is never necessary. If it were, there would be no abolitionist nations.

Those are also important issues, which we can also attempt to adress through international legislation.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Admirable sentiments... but how many death row inmates are you willing to import and house, and feed, and clothes, medical/dental care, etc for, or are capable of?

In some cases it is better to have than not to have... in case a situation comes up that requires it... I have already been required to execute two assassins that have tried to kill me.

Admirable sentiments... but how many death row inmates are you willing to import and house, and feed, and clothes, medical/dental care, etc for, or are capable of?
[quote]

The offer comes from private companies from our West Ariddian neighbours. I understand they're expanding their penal business. They're willing to "recruit" considerable numbers of inmates. They're making huge profits, so they can more than afford it.

[quote]
In some cases it is better to have than not to have... in case a situation comes up that requires it... I have already been required to execute two assassins that have tried to kill me.

*puzzled frown*

Excuse me, but... What are we talking about here? If it was self-defence, it wasn't an execution. If it wasn't self-defence, then how on earth was it "required"?

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ah- So the Nation exporting their Criminals to these "Corporate Prisons" Pay for the use of the space? I'm afraid that many countries would see that as just as big a drain on their budgets as keeping them.

Well, the one with the bomb could be considered an "execution" as his device failed to go off and I dispatched him with my sword then and there.

The other... it was required because he had repeatedly vowed that he would not stop until I was dead- even going so far as to escape prison twice, and appearing on my doorstep. Even then, before we granted him the Death Penalty, we gave him a fair and equitable trial.

Ah- So the Nation exporting their Criminals to these "Corporate Prisons" Pay for the use of the space?

No, of course not.


The other... it was required because he had repeatedly vowed that he would not stop until I was dead- even going so far as to escape prison twice, and appearing on my doorstep. Even then, before we granted him the Death Penalty, we gave him a fair and equitable trial.

The efficiency of your prisons sounds disastrous.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

He is the only prisoner that has escaped from a prison in about 70 years. The one he escaped from was a recently built one, whom he was the Security Advisor for during construction.

So, how do these "Corporate Prisons" make their profit? Who pays them, if not the Nation sending their Criminals to them?

Ambassador Zyranov, while I understand that your nation has a firm stance against capital punishment, and that you take in inmates from nations who do face the death penalty, am I to understand that you do so for profit, as opposed to an abhorrence, on a moral basis, of the death penalty?

You state that your West Ariddian penal colonies "make huge profits" from the growth of their penal businesses. Is your objection to this proposal then profit based?

Valid point Ambassador Langdon, and I am curious about the method of aquiring this profit, if not from the Nation exporting the Criminals to them...

True. But hence the idea of international cooperation, and nations volunteering to relieve poorer nations of death row inmates.

We'll need a lot more volunteers than your nation.

But in the overwhelming majority of societies it is never necessary. If it were, there would be no abolitionist nations.

Non sequitur, m'lady.

Those are also important issues, which we can also attempt to adress through international legislation.

Then if you feel the need to commit yourself to an exercise in futility by trying to draft legislation that can address those issues fairly and practically, please do so. Supporting the inane legislation currently under discussion will not help you acheive those aims.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

He is the only prisoner that has escaped from a prison in about 70 years. The one he escaped from was a recently built one, whom he was the Security Advisor for during construction.


You put him in a prison that he had helped design? And you were surprised when he escaped?


So, how do these "Corporate Prisons" make their profit? Who pays them, if not the Nation sending their Criminals to them?

They are, as I said, essentially factories. Prisoners work to earn their lodgings there. They are well treated and housed in comfortable cells, but the cost of their labour is negligeable, enabling the prisons to make significant profit from their work.


Ambassador Zyranov, while I understand that your nation has a firm stance against capital punishment, and that you take in inmates from nations who do face the death penalty, am I to understand that you do so for profit, as opposed to an abhorrence, on a moral basis, of the death penalty?


No, Ambassador Langdon, you misunderstand. West Ariddia is a sovereign nation, entirely seperate from Ariddia, with its own government and laws. They're a capitalist country. My government has talked to West Ariddian prison corporations to offer you this suggestion. Our own objection to the death penalty is an ethical one, but we wanted to bring forward practical solutions for those who feel they still "need" capital punishment.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Non sequitur, m'lady.

Would you kindly explain that for the benefit of this Assembly?


Then if you feel the need to commit yourself to an exercise in futility by trying to draft legislation that can address those issues fairly and practically, please do so. Supporting the inane legislation currently under discussion will not help you acheive those aims.


But abolishing the death penalty is not only a matter of dealing with the convicting of innocent people - although I would be curious to know how an executed innocent person can have his or her sentence annulled. It is also an ethical question, an objection to the taking of a sentient life when there is no justifiable reason to do so.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As you have pointed out- the judicial system is imperfect... Besides, as part of a Security Adisor in our prisons, they must be aware of ALL the security measures of our prisons- old, new, minimum security, maximum security.

At least, we tried to be equitable and "humane" before being forced to execute him..

*shrugs*

Originally posted by Ariddia
Our own objection to the death penalty is an ethical one, but we wanted to bring forward practical solutions for those who feel they still "need" capital punishment.

So you are stating that regardless of the crime, and regardless of an inmates possible desire to commit the same crime again, you see the alternative of life imprisonment as a preferable alternative to the death penalty?

If I am reading this proposal correctly, as others have stated, wouldn't life imprisonment also be considered inhumane?

Life imprisonment would be legal; it can be revoked, and the person just *happens* to die.

In any case, imprisonment for [average life span of your nation] + 50 bazillion years is certainly allowed, so there shouldn't be a problem.

As you have pointed out- the judicial system is imperfect... Besides, as part of a Security Adisor in our prisons, they must be aware of ALL the security measures of our prisons- old, new, minimum security, maximum security.


So you acknowledge that this was an extremely unusual situation. In fact, a unique one. Which could very easily be adressed by adapting your policies - such as altering your security measures in one specific prison when you imprison the person who helped come up with them in the first place. That strikes me as a basic precaution.


So you are stating that regardless of the crime, and regardless of an inmates possible desire to commit the same crime again, you see the alternative of life imprisonment as a preferable alternative to the death penalty?


Yes. There is never any necessity to execute a prisoner. It is both unethical and unecessary - hence unjustifiable.


If I am reading this proposal correctly, as others have stated, wouldn't life imprisonment also be considered inhumane?

Life imprisonment can be made less inhumane through prison reforms. The West Ariddian prisons operated by the companies we've talked to are extremely humane.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


(OOC: Going offline now. I'll be back tomorrow.)

If people could come up with successful methods of rehabilitating the Criminal Element, then I would be more likely to do away with the Death Penalty in my country.

Until that time, I feel that there will be a requirement for it.

I'm sorry, Ceorana, but I cannot justify a yes vote on this. Let's really look at those words...inhumane treatment. If someone in my country murders someone, not in time of war, not in self defense, just murders them, in anger, or for spite, the victim has just suffered "inhumane treatment", by your definition. It's not reversible. My government cannot, and will not accept that this act go unpunished, or that the perpetrator of this act should have benefits not accorded to their victim; in this case, life. What you call inhumane, we call fairrness, under the circumstances listed above.

Our legal process is extensive and thorough, and unless we can prove without a doubt, that the alleged perpetrator did not commit the crime, or that it was committed under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.

Ms. Zyranov, while I once again applaud your nation's dedication to the preservation of human life, my nation does not see that as a right of those who have taken the lives of others.

Would you kindly explain that for the benefit of this Assembly?

Very well. This is the statement you made.

But in the overwhelming majority of societies it is never necessary. If it were, there would be no abolitionist nations.

The presence of abolitionist nations does not imply that in the overwhelming majority of societies the death penalty is never necessary. It's an invalid inference, just as would be my saying that in the overwhelming majority of societies abortion is never necessary because, if it were, there would be no anti-abortion societies.

But abolishing the death penalty is not only a matter of dealing with the convicting of innocent people - although I would be curious to know how an executed innocent person can have his or her sentence annulled. It is also an ethical question, an objection to the taking of a sentient life when there is no justifiable reason to do so.

M'lady, there is no ethical question for you. Your base assumption is that there is no justifiable reason for doing so, when this has not been demonstrated and despite the counter-examples provided. You have already answered the question to your satisfaction, more's the pity.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

The United Nations hereby resolves that no UN nation shall determine that a person has violated a law or committed a crime or offense if a possible punishment for the violation or direct result of the determination is inhumane treatment as defined by this resolution.

Illegal, contradicts Fair Sentencing Act.

You're acting under the assumption that FSA has some inherent "right" to block this. It doesn't.It's not that FSA has the "right" to block this proposal; it just blocks it. This proposal is designed to prevent certain sentences from being issued, whereas FSA gives nations the sole authority to determine sentencing for crimes in their nation, which is why HTA runs afoul of FSA. Are you following this? Do you realize that simply stating "It never mentions convictions! Haha!" will not allow you to ban certain convictions, since the overall effect of the proposal is to contradict a standing resolution, which is illegal??

FSA allows nations to determine sentences. This proposal lets nations determine their sentences, but recognizes that no standard of proof will suffice to convict a person where they will face permanent treatment, and hence bans nations from making that determination, since it's impossible.

That's one way of thinking about the premise of the proposal. You may not agree with the basic premise (that no standard of proof will suffice to convict someone when the punishment will be irrevocable), but it answers your objection to the tactics used.Yeah, I got that part. Now:

Why do you think you need to write a proposal to twist your way around an existing mandate? Why can't you just go straight to the source, repeal FSA, then try to pass an honest death-penalty abolition? Is it because you don't think the Assembly will pass a repeal of something called the Fair Sentencing Act? Is it because you don't think you can come up with any good arguments for repeal, save "I just don't like blockers. Hrumph!"? Is it because if you clearly stated in a (legal) proposal (following FSA's repeal) that you wanted to abolish the death penalty the Assembly wouldn't go along with it?

You demonstrated the convoluted logic behind this legislation already. Now demonstrate why this is necessary, and why a more legal approach is not preferred.

It's not that FSA has the "right" to block this proposal; it just blocks it. This proposal is designed to prevent certain sentences from being issued, whereas FSA gives nations the sole authority to determine sentencing for crimes in their nation, which is why HTA runs afoul of FSA. Are you following this? Do you realize that simply stating "It never mentions convictions! Haha!" will not allow you to ban certain convictions, since the overall effect of the proposal is to contradict a standing resolution, which is illegal??

FSA does not give nations to determine sentencing for crimes in their nations. It gives them the right to determine the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions. This means that they can determine sentences for each law violated, but they don't have complete sovereignty over criminal sentencing. The law means what the law says. Nations can set the sentences for criminal violations; FSA says nothing about being able to use those sentences, being able to carry them out, or being used to convict criminals.

Why do you think you need to write a proposal to twist your way around an existing mandate? Why can't you just go straight to the source, repeal FSA, then try to pass an honest death-penalty abolition? Is it because you don't think the Assembly will pass a repeal of something called the Fair Sentencing Act? Is it because you don't think you can come up with any good arguments for repeal, save "I just don't like blockers. Hrumph!"? Is it because if you clearly stated in a (legal) proposal (following FSA's repeal) that you wanted to abolish the death penalty the Assembly wouldn't go along with it?

You demonstrated the convoluted logic behind this legislation already. Now demonstrate why this is necessary, and why a more legal approach is not preferred.

Something can't be "more legal". It's either legal or it isn't. I actually like FSA with the exception of clause 2. Why is repealing FSA necessary? Given the time needed to vote on each piece of legislation, not to mention the time and energy needed to draft, submit and campaign for two pieces of legislation, I would think it would be preferable to minimize the number of resolutions needed to achieve a given goal.

FSA does not give nations to determine sentencing for crimes in their nations. It gives them the right to determine the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions.

Fucking hell! Could you be any more pedantic?

This means that they can determine sentences for each law violated, but they don't have complete sovereignty over criminal sentencing. The law means what the law says. Nations can set the sentences for criminal violations; FSA says nothing about being able to use those sentences, being able to carry them out, or being used to convict criminals.

Absolutely disgusting. I had expected more than this ridiculous legalistic tapdance from you, Mr. Kingsley. Instead, we get pedantic arguing that only you seem to be able to percieve. Ridiculous. Fucking ridiculous.

Why is repealing FSA necessary? Given the time needed to vote on each piece of legislation, not to mention the time and energy needed to draft, submit and campaign for two pieces of legislation, I would think it would be preferable to minimize the number of resolutions needed to achieve a given goal.

So what you're saying is: "I'm too lazy to write a repeal that I know won't get passed, so I'm instead going to waste this body's time with a hyperlegalistic rag of a resolution that is probably illegal."

Rang Erman
Advisor
Allech-Atreus

FSA does not give nations to determine sentencing for crimes in their nations. It gives them the right to determine the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions. This means that they can determine sentences for each law violated, but they don't have complete sovereignty over criminal sentencing. The law means what the law says. Nations can set the sentences for criminal violations; FSA says nothing about being able to use those sentences, being able to carry them out, or being used to convict criminals.Alright, I get that part. How many times do I have to say "I get it" before you believe that I actually get it? My point is that the General Assembly is not the Creative Solutions Agency; it can't wank its way around proposals it doesn't like. Contradiction is contradiction, no matter how good you think your legislative wanking powers are.

Something can't be "more legal". It's either legal or it isn't. I actually like FSA with the exception of clause 2. Why is repealing FSA necessary? Given the time needed to vote on each piece of legislation, not to mention the time and energy needed to draft, submit and campaign for two pieces of legislation, I would think it would be preferable to minimize the number of resolutions needed to achieve a given goal.There is nothing in the queue, so go on, repeal Fair Sentencing Act. We have all the time in the world. Or is it that you would rather not have to tell the Assembly up front that you are effectively trying to repeal FSA and ban the death penalty in one fell swoop, without so much as having to utter "repeal Fair Sentencing Act" and "ban the death penalty"? This has nothing to do with "time" or efficiency. This is merely a disingenuous, bad-faith attempt to repeal a resolution the GA overwhelmingly approved, and force a disagreeable death-penalty ban down an unwilling body's throat.

Do you see now how this is illegal?

You want to ban the death penalty, Grandpa, I say do it; only grow a fucking pair and do it right. Don't play games with us.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

*nervous looks...*

Duelling is not allowed... correct?

FSA does not give nations to determine sentencing for crimes in their nations. It gives them the right to determine the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions. This means that they can determine sentences for each law violated, but they don't have complete sovereignty over criminal sentencing. The law means what the law says. Nations can set the sentences for criminal violations; FSA says nothing about being able to use those sentences, being able to carry them out, or being used to convict criminals.Community Property? Is that you?

Let me see if I've got this straight by using an real-world analogy.

A handful of years ago, former Governor of Illinois George Ryan issued a moratorium on the death penalty. It temporarily banned execution in Illinois. However, prosecutors could still seek the death penalty, and courts could still sentence people to death. They simply couldn't be executed. Thus they sat on death row (until, in a desperate bid for leaniancy in the trials he knew he'd soon be a defendant for, he commuted everyone's sentence to life). Still, new people are being put on death row, where they sit in legal limbo.

So, what you're arguing here is something quite similar, no? FSA allows people to be sentenced to death, but since it doesn't say anything about actually carrying out said sentence, you're allowed to legislate the actual execution (no pun intended) of the sentence?

I'm sorry, but this is striking me as exceptionally pedantic. Under this logic, a Proposal could be written that bans all prisons and the execution of all penalties. Judges could still sentence people, but they wouldn't be allowed to carry out even the most minor of fines or imprisonment. The logical extension of your claim is terribly twisted.

Community Property? Is that you?

Let me see if I've got this straight by using an real-world analogy.

A handful of years ago, former Governor of Illinois George Ryan issued a moratorium on the death penalty. It temporarily banned execution in Illinois. However, prosecutors could still seek the death penalty, and courts could still sentence people to death. They simply couldn't be executed. Thus they sat on death row (until, in a desperate bid for leaniancy in the trials he knew he'd soon be a defendant for, he commuted everyone's sentence to life). Still, new people are being put on death row, where they sit in legal limbo.

So, what you're arguing here is something quite similar, no? FSA allows people to be sentenced to death, but since it doesn't say anything about actually carrying out said sentence, you're allowed to legislate the actual execution (no pun intended) of the sentence?

I'm sorry, but this is striking me as exceptionally pedantic. Under this logic, a Proposal could be written that bans all prisons and the execution of all penalties. Judges could still sentence people, but they wouldn't be allowed to carry out even the most minor of fines or imprisonment. The logical extension of your claim is terribly twisted.

Not quite. This says they can't be convicted if the death penalty would be used, so they wouldn't be sentenced anyway, since they weren't convicted. I'm saying that nations would still have the right to determine sentences for violations of laws committed in their jurisdiction (which is what FSA guarantees), but they wouldn't actually be able to sentence any person to death in practice at the judicial level, because they couldn't convict them.

In other words, they can make the sentencing laws, but they can't put themselves in a position where enforcing the sentencing laws would actually do anything. In my understanding, they still have the rights guaranteed to them under FSA.

Well then, Ceorana, that cements my nation's position regarding this proposal. It is an emphatic NO, and if by some miracle it does pass, we will be resigning from the UN.

Sounds like double-talk to me.

Why grant the right to sentance a person to Death... then say, if you do, you can't convict them?

Sounds like double-talk to me.

Why grant the right to sentance a person to Death... then say, if you do, you can't convict them?

Well, you wouldn't, which is what this proposal is trying to do.

But I'm saying it's still legal, even if it gives nations a Hobson's choice.

Rather than abolish the Death Penatly, Nations need to find ways to improve their judicial systems so that the risk of wrongful conviction (and wrongful release) is cut down to as minimal a chance as possible.What level of risk of wrongful conviction does the government of Steweystan find acceptable? Five percent? Ten? Twinty? More to the point, were it the mother or father or brother of the Grand Utoy convicted and slated for execution, would that risk be acceptable?

Sounds like double-talk to me.

Why grant the right to sentance a person to Death... then say, if you do, you can't convict them?It is not unusual in law to separate functions of what appears to be a single process. For example, legislative bodies frequently establish agencies and mandate their function, but fail to fund said agency making it's "existence" moot.

--L.T.

What level of risk of wrongful conviction does the government of Steweystan find acceptable? Five percent? Ten? Twinty? More to the point, were it the mother or father or brother of the Grand Utoy convicted and slated for execution, would that risk be acceptable?

Argumentum ad hominem.

The law means what the law says. If the Director of State kills a man, and that murder fullfills the requirement for the death penalty, then the Director of State is going to be executed according to the laws of the Empire.

This chatter about wrongful convictions is grasping at straws. We do not tolerate malfeasance and corruption of the judicial system in the Empire. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. But, as was illustrated earlier in the exchange with the representative from Accelerus, it is patently impossible to ensure that errors are completely eradicated. Something will always go wrong; the only solution is to minimize that chance.

It is not unusual in law to separate functions of what appears to be a single process. For example, legislative bodies frequently establish agencies and mandate their function, but fail to fund said agency making it's "existence" moot.

It is not the purpose of this body to create unnecessary byzantine legal byways that compound an already huge body of UN law. Your example is irrelevant, because this proposal does not deal with agencies or legal powers- it is very directly contradicting existing UN leglisalation, despite the laughable arguments from Ambassador Thomas.

Family is not above the Law in Steweystan. We aim for a close to uncontestable proof as possible in our trials... if there is ANY doubt at all, we do not give them a Death Sentance... and depending on the reasons for the doubts, may even instigate further investigations. In addition, we do have an Appeals system. A person in Steweystan has three Appeal trials in which to create doubt as to their guilt... if they are unable to by the end of the third Appeal trial, the original sentance stands.

I'm saying that nations would still have the right to determine sentences for violations of laws committed in their jurisdiction (which is what FSA guarantees), but they wouldn't actually be able to sentence any person to death in practice at the judicial level, because they couldn't convict them.Smells like a contradiction to me. "You have the absolute right to create any sentences you want. Well, except the death pentalty. That's different."

Argumentum ad hominem.You err, I believe. My argument was not that his character or position invalidated his point. I merely noted that acceptable risk frequently differs when different groups are the recipients of that risk.
The law means what the law says.If that were true then Alice wouldn't have spent so much time behind the glass. There is not a resolution on the books that is clear enough to make your statement true, for the law means whatever it is interpreted to mean.We do not tolerate malfeasance and corruption of the judicial system in the Empire. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. But, as was illustrated earlier in the exchange with the representative from Accelerus, it is patently impossible to ensure that errors are completely eradicated. Something will always go wrongYou make my case for me. It is not the purpose of this body to create unnecessary byzantine legal bywaysAnd yet it does so well. ...this proposal does not deal with agencies or legal powers- it is very directly contradicting existing UN leglisalation, despite the laughable arguments from Ambassador Thomas.,.That is patently obtuse. If the proposal is not concerned with legal powers, one wonders how you define judicial administrations. Delegate Thomas' "laughable" arguments seem to be quite up to the task to your "laughable" opinion about the proposal's legality. Civility is a two-way street, ne c'est pas?

--L.T.

Smells like a contradiction to me. "You have the absolute right to create any sentences you want. Well, except the death pentalty. That's different."It doesn't specifically eliminate the death penalty. If a nation is able to reverse that penalty it would not be considered inhumane per the definition of the proposal. I believe there are at least some nation members who are capable of doing so--vampires and future tech (with cryo capabilities) come to mind.

Family is not above the Law in Steweystan. We aim for a close to uncontestable proof as possible in our trials... if there is ANY doubt at all, we do not give them a Death Sentance... and depending on the reasons for the doubts, may even instigate further investigations. In addition, we do have an Appeals system. A person in Steweystan has three Appeal trials in which to create doubt as to their guilt... if they are unable to by the end of the third Appeal trial, the original sentance stands.I thank you for your answer Grand Utoy. Steweystan's efforts in the administration of justice sound commendable. And yet with all of these measures, you agree that there is still the possibility of wrongful conviction and thus wrongful execution. One would think your measures would make use of the death penalty so rare that it's administration would be more trouble than life imprisonment in a secure facility.

You make it sound as if the Death Penalty is being used for every crime commited. That is not the case... Most countries, I believe have the Death Penalty for the most serious of offenses.

As for Administration, there isn't not that much Administration involved. For the duration of a Condemned's stay on what most call Death Row, the cost of feeding, clothing, etc is no more than what it costs for a "mainstream" prisoner- why should it. There is ultimately less paper work as well, as you don't need to endlessly fill out the same form over and over and over each year.

We do use it as a last resort, and only as a first resort for what we consider the most serious of offenses.

It doesn't specifically eliminate the death penalty.Utterly irrelevent. It's splitting hairs by claiming that FSA only protects the right to decide sentences, but not the right to actually create or impliment said sentences. Or even issue them.

Utterly irrelevent. It's splitting hairs by claiming that FSA only protects the right to decide sentences, but not the right to actually create or impliment said sentences. Or even issue them.

We must agree with Hack on this. The FSA not only protects national rights to determine sentences but also carry them out. For what would be the point of even having sentences if they could not be carried out? Elementary logic would dictate that the FSA not only protects the determination of sentences, but also the execution of said sentences. The draft proposal under discussion is utter rubbish to be quite frank, and should it make it to the proposals list I will submit it to a MOD ruling as to legality.

I have said before, we emphatically DO NOT support this draft resolution, nor will we support a repeal of the FSA. Convoluted argument, legalistic tap-dancing aside, the death penalty is a necessary right to those nations that wish to use it, if your nation wishes to not use it...then prohibit it nationally in your nation and leave Ellelt and the other nations who have capital punishment well the hell alone. You might thrive in chaos but the Socialist Peoples of Ellelt do not and demand from their Dictatorship of the Proletariat Law, Order, and Justice.

On the matter of UN citizenship...The UN does not, can not, and never will have citizens. Citizens are what a nation has, the UN is not a nation, but rather a club/federation/confederation/grouping (whatever term you want) of nations...not citizens of nations. A nation has a UN Ambassador, not a UN Citizen; as such that ambassador remains a citizen of his/her nation, not of the UN as a whole. Nation and Citizen are not interchangeable words, never have been and never will be.

As far a judicial systems go that also is up to the nations. Argument was raised as to where the nations get the right to pass sentences...That is simple enough to answer...from their constitution/fundamental laws/charter/etc. In Ellelt we have the Constitution of The United Socialist States of Ellelt--27th October 2002, as amended 15th November 2006 as our constitution/fundamental law. It clearly states in Chapter 3 Article 127 that the nation retains the right to pass criminal sentences for crimes committed against the people as defined by the Elleltian Criminal Code 2003 (as amended), and that punishments shall include fines, hard labor in a penile institution (gulag), corporal punishments (juvenile offenses) and capital punishment.

This document was drafted by the Elleltian Supreme Soviet and was Ratified in a general referendum by 78% of the eligible voters of the nation...Are you some how saying that the citizens of the nation can not determine for themselves what is a crime and what is not a crime; furthermore, are you saying that a nation is not responsible enough to determine how to construct an equitable judicial system that uses the appropriate national/local laws/statutes/constitutions? It seems to me that this proposal is doing just that. And to the mind of the Elleltian delegation that is extremely insulting.

I will not go into the results that would occur if this piece of rubbish were passed, in-fact it seems that that has already been discussed at length. What distresses the Elleltian Delegation is that after discussing the problems with this draft proposal both in the UIC, and Reclamation, that this has been pushed forward anyway.

Statements Made by:
Alexander I. Serpov
President of the Council of Ministers, U.S.S.E.
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt,
Generalissimo of the Elleltian People's Defense Forces.

Co-signed by
Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN,
Member Elleltian Delegation.

Dimitri Petrovich
Secretary to Elleltian Ambassador Khernynko,
Member Elleltian Delegation.

I disagree with your understanding of "citizen" - I see citizen's as membership within a political community - the UN is a political community.

Secondly, the closest RL example that can be drawn is the EU (i've made the point several times in the past). The RL EU does have citizens - defined as someone who holds nationality of a member state.

The RL EU is a club/federation/confederation/grouping and it's inhabitants enjoy citizenship because the EU said they do - What is to stop the NS UN doing the same?

Smells like a contradiction to me. "You have the absolute right to create any sentences you want. Well, except the death pentalty. That's different."

That's because it is a contradiction and, thus, illegal. Can we please just get that ruling stated officially so we can stop this unnecessary bickering?

If people could come up with successful methods of rehabilitating the Criminal Element, then I would be more likely to do away with the Death Penalty in my country.

Until that time, I feel that there will be a requirement for it.

You've avoided the point I raised. The question isn't one of rehabilitation, although that issue is an important one. The heart of the matter is that you invoking one man escaping prison through security measures of his own design is not sufficient to make the death penalty a "requirement".


If someone in my country murders someone, not in time of war, not in self defense, just murders them, in anger, or for spite, the victim has just suffered "inhumane treatment", by your definition. It's not reversible. My government cannot, and will not accept that this act go unpunished, or that the perpetrator of this act should have benefits not accorded to their victim; in this case, life. What you call inhumane, we call fairrness, under the circumstances listed above.


Are you saying that murder, whatever the circumstances, carries an automatic penalty of death in your nation? That, for example, a woman who has suffered decades of abuse and violence from her husband, and who one day, out of fear, anger and desperation, snaps and kills him, will be executed, with no regard as to the circumstances?


Our legal process is extensive and thorough, and unless we can prove without a doubt, that the alleged perpetrator did not commit the crime, or that it was committed under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.


Guilty until proven innocent? "We can't prove she didn't do it, so off with her head?" I do hope you misspoke here, Ambassador. If not, then there is nothing even remotely ressembling fairness in your judicial system.


The presence of abolitionist nations does not imply that in the overwhelming majority of societies the death penalty is never necessary. It's an invalid inference, just as would be my saying that in the overwhelming majority of societies abortion is never necessary because, if it were, there would be no anti-abortion societies.


Faulty comparison. It would be absurd to say that, in any nation, abortion is never necessary nor justifiable. The same isn't true of the death penalty. I have yet to hear a reason why the death penalty could be considered "necessary" in a large number of societies. Even in what few counter-examples we have had - a nomadic society for example - solutions to avoid the death penalty are possible.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

--whole legalistic mess--
You know how this could be resolved? By just repealing FSA.

I actually like FSA with the exception of clause 2.
The other clauses are all mild; 1 is covered in greater depth by other resolutions, and 3 and 4 could easily be replaced - after all, if a repeal did pass, you would then want to pass a resolution, so could include lines like that in it. Your weak attempt at rationalisation fails.

So since a nation derives power from its citizens, and the UN derives power from it's constituent nations, then, by exsention, doesn't the UN derive power from its citizens? And hence, if we pass a resolution doing something, how is that different than if a nation passes a law doing something? In both cases, citizens, through their representatives, are saying they want something done. How are the two different, both being made up of the same thing and both having mostly the same powers? Why should one have the right to regulate justice systems and the other not?

Not quite what I said. A government is made up of its citizens. These citizens are then legislating upon themselves, usually on matters where one citizen has interacted with or against another citizen in a fashion that the government (or the rest of the citizenry) feels it must interfere in. The UN is made up of many nations. When the UN legislates upon its "citizens" (the member nations), one would expect that it would follow the same formula and do so on matters where the actions of one nation have some international impact.

Fo myself, it is a matter of scope. I understand that there have been exceptions to this in areas of human rights, moral decency, and a few others. With every one of those exceptions, I have looked for, or asked for, convincing reason as to why the international community should be delving into something that can be easily dealt with on a smaller level of government.

For example, someone mentioned getting fined for speeding or something. In those cases, our national government doesn't even get involved unless the speeder crosses provincial boundaries within the nation, or somehow makes it a national concern. There are more local governments available that can more easily and more appropriately deal with the matter.

I will assume that Your Excellency is fully aware of the restrictions placed upon a nation choosing membership within the United Nations and is therefore asking more of a moral question than, say, a procedural one. After all, the United Nations is vested with authority to impose its collective will upon its member states.

While I have no qualms about discussing morality, this is apparently an area where there is more than simply the moral question of inhumane treatment to be dealt with.

I see no reason why judicial proceedings should automatically be exempted from consideration by this body, especially those around which the fate of an individual's life hangs in the balance.

FSA. It got passed. The UN democratically voted upon and approved of a nation's right to set their own judicial sentences. There are also a number of other resolutions that this body has passed that deal specifically with a nation's judicial proceedings, limitting and restricting what can be done and how. For example End Barbaric Punishments, Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Due Process, Common Sense Act II, Habeus Corpus, and a few others that aren't springing to mind at the moment. Almost every single one of those is geared towards ensuring that any judicial proceeding is as fair, impartial, and equitable as possible, giving the accused the best possible chance at having the fairest of trials and minimizing errors in the court.

Your Excellency, the Representative of Kivisto, while you may find the withholding of food barbaric and uncivilized, and we disagree with you we can respect that opinion. You are not an Elletian and therefore have not been taught the Ideological Program of the Communist Party of Ellelt as was laid out by Comrade Alexander Serpov, Our Great Leader and Teacher. We hold that: he who does not work, does not eat; with the notable exceptions of children, the ill, and the very old. To us it is not barbaric, but rather moral.

I'm confused. I don't recall saying anything to which this would be a response.

This again brings the point up that has been repeatedly said by the opponents of this proposal. What works in one nation may not work in other nations.

Y-e-e-e-s. I'm one of the ones that have made that statement.

I believe you may have me confused with someone else....:rolleyes:

Community Property? Is that you?

Ouch. Burn.

I'd ask the same of you. You're offering up a proposal that can only be described as CSA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency) on crack,

Actually, for CSA on crack, here's how Kivisto currently deals with certain situations, and how HWA won't really make a difference:

The Dominion of Kivisto is the Capital Nation over a number of smaller protectorates. They handle their own affairs very adequately with some minor financial assistance from the Dominion. They rely on Kivisto for military protection should it ever be necessary, heaven forbid. In exchange, they trade with us of their exports at discounted rates. Nothing that would deprive them of profit for their labours, but a bit less than normal market rate. One of the other aspects of the relationship is the sharing of legal systems and judicial capacity such that we can try cases with the most appropriate specialists easily on hand.

For example, naval offences of any nature are dealt with in and by the courts of Carman Sanpueblo, which is actually a small fleet of decomissioned and unarmed aircraft carriers that meander about the seas at the whim of their pilots, Nearly their entire populace is fully trained sailors, most of whom have at least a basic grounding in maritime law. Naval offences are sent to them to be tried and sentenced as they see fit. Incarcerations, or public service, will occur in the nation where the offence occured.

International affairs and crimes are dealt with by the Kivistan UN Bordello, which is a small nation situated just outside of the territory that this building lies in, for ease of travel for our ambassadors. Any individual in the Kivistan protectorates being tried for international crimes will be sent to the UN Bordello for trial and sentencing.

Matters of Organized Crime are dealt with in Maserrati, agricultural matters are handled in Carrots, as are spiritual matters, and those who foment civil unrest are simply sent to Of Governments where they are more free to express their political views freely without causing strife for the law-abiding citizens.

The Dominion of Kivisto, itself, while making efforts to conform to UN law, is not under UN sway. As the Capital Nation of the protectorates, that is also where capital crimes are tried and sentenced. Only the most heinous crimes, such are multiple or serial murder or rape, or high treason, or domestic terrorism, is handled by the Capital Courts in The Dominion.

Naturally, minor matters are handled by the local courts as is most appropriate. We have also found that, by changing locales for trials, it is much easier to put together a more impartial judicial setting. Judge, jury, and attorneys will be aware of the facts of the case and have access to any and all evidence and investigative reports, including crime scenes, but will not be hampered by personal bias towards the individuals involved.

However, as such, The Dominion itself will not be removing the death penalty from its list of potential sentences that can be utilized quite yet.

Alternately, within our UN Bordello, we will ensure that court officials are not members of the government in any way, shape, or form. We'll privatize the courts. Court sessions and all related activities, including arrival at and execution of sentencing, will occur within the judges bedroom, thereby nullifying any say that the government might have on what occurs within the court and the sentencing of the accused. Why? Sexual Freedom. The government isn't allowed to do anything about things done in the privacy of the home. The bedroom would just further ensure that.

You know how this could be resolved? By just repealing FSA.

You do that.
We must agree with Hack on this. The FSA not only protects national rights to determine sentences but also carry them out. For what would be the point of even having sentences if they could not be carried out? Elementary logic would dictate that the FSA not only protects the determination of sentences, but also the execution of said sentences.

But your argument here is that "FSA does what makes sense". It's been ruled in the past that "FSA does what it says it does".

Smells like a contradiction to me. "You have the absolute right to create any sentences you want. Well, except the death pentalty. That's different."

Well, that's not my argument. I'm saying "You have the absolute right to determine what the sentences are for crimes in your nation. But you can't convict anyone who would receive certain sentences." How does that contradict FSA?

Utterly irrelevent. It's splitting hairs by claiming that FSA only protects the right to decide sentences, but not the right to actually create or impliment said sentences. Or even issue them.Having returned from consultations back home (OOC: i.e., an extended Thanksgiving holiday), we have viewed this debate with mixed emotions. The People's Democratic Republic of Community Property has neither prisons nor the death penalty, having completely eliminated crime (Metagaming: Our national write-up says that “crime is totally unknown”) through egalitarian social policy and extensive positive socialization efforts, extensive funding for our community watch program - in which all citizens serve as members of our constabulary - and a highly humanitarian policy of intense counseling and ethical guidance. We believe both the death penalty and incarceration to be inhumane; consequently we would certainly support efforts to eliminate the former and replace the latter with reform.

That said, we must admit this resolution to be illegal. The FSA clearly reserves the right of nations to legislate sentences; to say that they can establish capital punishment but never apply it is about as Orwellian as it gets.

On the other hand...

It would be perfectly legal compel nations to employ the “two trial” method some nations use to separate conviction from sentencing in capital cases; this would lessen the emotional impulse to apply the death penalty that we see in many cases. In the first trial, attempts to inflame the jury could be suppressed by requiring strict focus on the question of guilt or innocence; in the second, strict attention to the question of recidivism could be mandated. We could also mandate other procedures designed to minimize the use of what many of its opponents decry as an irreversible punishment.

In other words, we could compel nations that seek to maintain the death penalty on the books to be as narrow as possible in its application without completely ruling out the use of the penalty altogether. That would be legal.Community Property? Is that you?Ouch. Burn.We love you, too.

And no, it obviously wasn't us.

Well, that's not my argument. I'm saying "You have the absolute right to determine what the sentences are for crimes in your nation. But you can't convict anyone who would receive certain sentences." How does that contradict FSA?Seems to me if a mod is telling you your wank sniffs of illegality you better have a better defense than simply re-explaining the wank.

Originally posted by Ariddia
Are you saying that murder, whatever the circumstances, carries an automatic penalty of death in your nation? That, for example, a woman who has suffered decades of abuse and violence from her husband, and who one day, out of fear, anger and desperation, snaps and kills him, will be executed, with no regard as to the circumstances?

Not at all, see the highlighted portion of my own quote below:

Quote:
Our legal process is extensive and thorough, and unless we can prove without a doubt, that the alleged perpetrator did not commit the crime, or that it was committed under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.

Originally posted by Ariddia
Guilty until proven innocent? "We can't prove she didn't do it, so off with her head?" I do hope you misspoke here, Ambassador. If not, then there is nothing even remotely ressembling fairness in your judicial system.

Again, Ambassador Zyranov, please refer to my original quote:

Quote:
Our legal process is extensive and thorough, and unless we can prove without a doubt, that the alleged perpetrator did not commit the crime, or that it was committed under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.

I will admit that my statement was poorly worded, however, so I will modify it for better understanding.

If we can prove without a doubt, that the accused did in fact commit the crime, knowingly and willfully, and did so of their own free will and not under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.

Please note I said that we reserve the right. This is not meant to imply that we do so regularly, or that the decision is undertaken lightly.

Nor do we dispatch Criminals on a regular basis. As I have said before, Prisoners have three Appeal attempts after the first Sentance is given if they are found guilty to create doubt as to guilt. Also, as regards to punishment, we have an "Escalation Scale" of punishment... if a person commits the same crime (or multiple crimes) repeatedly, the punishment gets heavier and heavier.

In Steweystan, the Death Penalty is reserved for what we classify as the most severe of crimes- Pre-Meditated or Serial Murder, Treason, Mutiny During Times of War, Desertion in the Heat of Battle, and Espiognage.

The Death Penalty isn't guaranteed in these situations either. They are a last resort... and option that is available to a Nation in their attempts to maintain Law and Order.

Just because a Sovereign Nation has the Death Penalty does not mean that they are going to begin killing wholesale...

Faulty comparison. It would be absurd to say that, in any nation, abortion is never necessary nor justifiable. The same isn't true of the death penalty. I have yet to hear a reason why the death penalty could be considered "necessary" in a large number of societies. Even in what few counter-examples we have had - a nomadic society for example - solutions to avoid the death penalty are possible.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Are there not solutions to avoid abortion? Of course, those solutions raise the problems of practical and ethical consequences, but that is no different from the case of the death penalty.

Truly, m'lady, the fault lies not in the comparison, but in your dogmatic insistence on there being no justification for the death penalty in any case. Any scenarios presented in the death penalty is either necessary or appropriate will either be disregarded as a contrivance or as the fault of the state, not because either of these rationalizations are accurate, but because of your inability to accept that your dogma is wrong.

People die, Ambassador. That is a fact of life. And sometimes, it is better that those who pose a serious danger to the well-being of others die than to let them live. I highly recommend that you grow out of your extreme idealism and join the rest of us in seeking practical and equitable solutions to complex international problems rather than continuing to engage in simplistic ideological imperialism out of a false sense of ethical obligation.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Wolfgang stands. "Hmm... I have little knowledge of such systems, as we've virtually no crime in the Commonwealth, and no prisons... but I must agree that execution would sometimes be necessary. While the stance of the Commonwealth is to rehabilitate what few criminals we have, there are those few individuals that simply cannot be rehabilitated. Does this mean that that person should have a free ticket to sit about in prison on the State's dime for the rest of their life? What purpose does that serve? If we could not rehabilitate them, we'd have to remove them entirely, and I'm sure we'd use the most humane means possible. Thus, the purpose of execution in the Commonwealth would not be revenge or anything like that. It would simply be the removal of someone who is more destructive than constructive from our society."

Not at all, see the highlighted portion of my own quote below:

Quote:
Our legal process is extensive and thorough, and unless we can prove without a doubt, that the alleged perpetrator did not commit the crime, or that it was committed under duress, we reserve the right to utilize the death penalty, at our discretion.


But the case I suggested wouldn't qualify as "duress" in a strict sense.


I will admit that my statement was poorly worded, however, so I will modify it for better understanding.


Actually, Ambassador, your statement said the opposite of what you intended it to say. But I'm relieved that you don't place the burden of proof on the defendent, and that you don't consider him guilty until proven innocent.

But I'm sure you'll concede that many countries do execute suspects even in cases where significant - or even slim - doubt remains. Not to mention countries in which the death penalty is used in a casual and callous manner. And leaving aside the issue of taking a person's life out of sheer revenge, when it is by no means necessary.


In Steweystan, the Death Penalty is reserved for what we classify as the most severe of crimes- Pre-Meditated or Serial Murder, Treason, Mutiny During Times of War, Desertion in the Heat of Battle, and Espiognage.

The Death Penalty isn't guaranteed in these situations either. They are a last resort... and option that is available to a Nation in their attempts to maintain Law and Order.


But, again, it is not necessary. How can you justify putting a person to death when there is no necessity to do so?


Just because a Sovereign Nation has the Death Penalty does not mean that they are going to begin killing wholesale...

No, but some undeniably do. And this is yet another issue.


Are there not solutions to avoid abortion?

In cases where a woman is pregnant, and the pregnancy is endangering her life?


Any scenarios presented in the death penalty is either necessary or appropriate will either be disregarded as a contrivance or as the fault of the state, not because either of these rationalizations are accurate, but because of your inability to accept that your dogma is wrong.


It is hardly some fanatical dogma when it is shared by so many. And I'm not closed to the possibility of being convinced that there may be exceptions, if I see a clear case where the death penalty might be deemed necessary. At present, I can see none.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The bottom line for us in this argument is really quite simple. We believe each individual nation deserves the right to choose for themselves, whether or not they will employ the death penalty.

If Ariddia chooses not to, that is their choice. If Ambassador Zyranov personally disagrees with the death penalty, that is her choice. Given her statements in each of the scenarios offered, we feel it's unlikely that we could provide any additional scenarios in which she would find the death penalty "necessary".

However, it matters not to us whether we could find a scenario that she would deem as being deserving of the death penalty. Our people have already faced those scenarios, and have determined for ourselves, that there are indeed cases in which the death penalty is necessary, based on our beliefs, and our formation of law.

Ambassador Zyryanov,

On the topic of necessity, why is it necessary to have any laws at all? Why is it necessary to stop people or nations from doing whatever they want? Why is it necessary to do anything at all to protect our societies from internal and external harm? Why is it necessary to do anything at all?

My point? Nothing is necessary. Nothing at all. In any situation. Ever. There is always an alternative to any course of action. It is sometimes a question of pragmatism.

Ambassador Zyryanov,

On the topic of necessity, why is it necessary to have any laws at all? Why is it necessary to stop people or nations from doing whatever they want? Why is it necessary to do anything at all to protect our societies from internal and external harm? Why is it necessary to do anything at all?

My point? Nothing is necessary. Nothing at all. In any situation. Ever. There is always an alternative to any course of action. It is sometimes a question of pragmatism.

That is quite correct, but somewhat beside the point. If we consider - as we must - that, as representatives of our respective governments, we are committed to preserving the functioning of societies, the necessity of laws becomes obvious. But there is no necessity to kill those who fail to respect those laws, when other methods exist to remove them (temporarily or permanently) from society.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

That is quite correct, but somewhat beside the point. If we consider - as we must - that, as representatives of our respective governments, we are committed to preserving the functioning of societies, the necessity of laws becomes obvious.

Justify the necessity, then. There are plenty of nations who manage to function perfectly fine with a near absolute absense of any form of law. Why is it necessary that we create these laws for our peoples.

But there is no necessity to kill those who fail to respect those laws, when other methods exist to remove them (temporarily or permanently) from society.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not claiming necessity. I'm claiming pragmatism. It is possible to have cases where there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt or chance of repeat offence. They have done horrific deeds that have destroyed the lives of thousands. They are proud of this fact and gleefully declare that they will do it over and over again at every opportunity. If locked up, they will incite riot and make every effort to cripple, maim, rape, and kill fellow inmates as well as correctional officers. Rehabilitation is no longer an option.

There are options. Permanent isolation in a small cell with no opportunity to interact with anyone in any way whatsoever ever again. Excommunicate them - that is, either physically or chemically sever all of their sensory receptors, leaving them unable to see, hear, or feel anything - especially useful when coupled with severing the vocal chords. Either of these first two options strike even us in the Dominion as being inhumane, and unnecessarily expensive to the Kivistan taxpayers. And risky to boot. The first option always bears the risk of an escape attempt, however unlikely, during which more people may become his victims. The second choice bears a heavy risk of the criminal suffering from a long, drawn out, and excessively painful death.

There is another option. Capital Punishment. They, the stain upon a civilized society, the threat that would ruin hundreds more lives if given half a chance, self-confessed and unrepentant towards past deeds, would be removed in such a way that they could never harm anyone ever again.

Allow me to reiterate. Necessary? No. Useful? Sometimes. Moral? There is yet to be a consesus on this floor on that matter. We, you and I, obviously disagree on the matter, and I can respect that.

So why is it necessary to insist that everyone agree that certain types of punishment, that have proven themselves effective, be banned?

There are always options. HTA is definitely one of them. It is one I would not choose, and will backdoor my way out of were a gun put to my head over it.

In cases where a woman is pregnant, and the pregnancy is endangering her life?

Certainly. As I said, there are practical and ethical consequences; in this extreme case, probable death for the mother so that another entity may grow and become a sentient being.

And in cases where the death penalty is outlawed and a mass murderer who has a knack for getting out of prisons exists, there is the ethical consequence that a lot of folks will probably die as a result of the mass murderer's continued existence.

Amazing how those rare cases in which an unfortunate thing is necessary tend to be ethical dilemmas that cannot be resolved without loss, is it not?

Actually, no, it really isn't amazing. That's the nature of an ethical dilemma. And the impracticality and arrogance of resolving the ethical dilemma of abortion via national legislation is why the Federation does not make laws regulating a woman's medical choices in that fashion. Similarly, the Federation is opposed to impractical and arrogant legislation regulating a nation's sentencing decisions, particularly with regard to cases of such ethical dilemmas.

It is hardly some fanatical dogma when it is shared by so many. And I'm not closed to the possibility of being convinced that there may be exceptions, if I see a clear case where the death penalty might be deemed necessary. At present, I can see none.

Ambassador, now you have truly amused me. Not only do you make a ridiculous appeal to the masses in suggesting that because there are many who share your belief it is somehow not dogmatic (as if there are not many cases of large groups of dogmatists, which we usually call religions), you still fail to see that the ethical dilemma put forth is more substantial than can be solved with your standards of "necessity" and the "right to life".

You still fail to see that the West Ariddian offer (and posible similar offers) to house these prisoners is inadequate to address a widespread international problem and creates problems of its own, that imprisonment itself is ethically objectionable and that there is little to suggest that the death penalty is any more ethically objectionable than said imprisonment (even under "humane" conditions), that there are indeed cases where a reasonable nation would find the death penalty more appropriate than other options, that not all nations are sufficiently developed to afford effective rehabilitation or prison programs, and that...

In short, m'lady, you fail to see that this is an ethical issue that cannot be resolved effectively either by your ethical standards or by international legislation. As a result, I have to conclude that you do not recognize these things because you are either an idiot or blinded by dogmatism. And since I think the evidence suggests that you are not an idiot, and that your base a priori assumption is that the death penalty is never justified, I'll accept the more charitable option and conclude that you are blinded by dogmatism.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Can we please just get that ruling stated officially so we can stop this unnecessary bickering?I'm just trying, desperately, to understand why there's thought that it's legal.

I'm just trying, desperately, to understand why there's thought that it's legal.

Because the guy from Ceorana realizes that there's no chance in hell of repealing FSA?

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I'm just trying, desperately, to understand why there's thought that it's legal.

I'll see if I can make the reasoning simpler and clearer than my predecessor, who had a thing with run-on sentences...

The proposal is legal because it doesn't ban determining sentences for crimes. It just says you can't convict criminals where the crime may carry a sentence of inhumane treatment.

FSA only says nations are allowed to decide the sentences for crimes, but it doesn't say anything about determining the sentences of actual criminals. So you can decide what the sentence is for murder, and it may be death, or loss of your right arm, or whatever. You've exercised your rights under FSA. But you won't be able to convict anyone for murder now: that's not a right given under FSA.

For an analogy, it's like saying to your kid: "You can scream now, but I will keep you from getting what you want to achieve by screaming." The kid still has the ability ("right") to scream, but they won't get anything from it. The same thing goes here. Nations can say the punishment for murder is death, that's their right under FSA. But they'll won't achieve anything (any convictions) by doing so. Convicting criminals isn't a right guaranteed with FSA.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

Swing and a miss...

I'll see if I can make the reasoning simpler and clearer than my predecessor, who had a thing with run-on sentences...Cut the IC playing. This is a legal challenge, completely out of character.

FSA only says nations are allowed to decide the sentences for crimes, but it doesn't say anything about determining the sentences of actual criminals. So you can decide what the sentence is for murder, and it may be death, or loss of your right arm, or whatever. You've exercised your rights under FSA. But you won't be able to convict anyone for murder now: that's not a right given under FSA.This has got to be the most pedantic, ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard in my life.

Swing and a miss...

And by my count that's strike 3 and the ball game is over.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

OOC: I... er... I have to say, Ceorana, that's a really terrible argument. Really awful. So awful, it's as though it came from the mouth of our own President of the United States. You're not G.W. on his spare time, are you? *runs away from the destroyer of the Constitution and all the freedoms my glorious nation holds dear*

The Wolf Guardians]OOC: I... er... I have to say, Ceorana, that's a really terrible argument. Really awful. So awful, it's as though it came from the mouth of our own President of the United States. You're not G.W. on his spare time, are you? *runs away from the destroyer of the Constitution and all the freedoms my glorious nation holds dear*No, W. would be even less coherent, with unintentional Orwellianisms.

On the other hand, Ceorana could be Bill Clinton.

True, Ceorana can at least orchestrate thoughts in a cohesive manner. Bush can't even read the bloody teleprompter accurately. It's my personal opinion that direct relatives shouldn't be allowed to be President. This would prevent us from getting this political inbreeding causing us to become, in this case, the Kingdom of Bush. And it would also keep Hillary out of office. Do you think Bush realizes what a total idiot he bloody sounds like? And that's without considering what he's saying. Then you take that into account, and he's essentially pissed off both the opposition and his own party. In the past midterm election thingy, a bunch of Republican candidates were saying that they had to work hard to get past the peoples' distrust of Bush. I really just don't get it. And he doesn't seem to realize that the President has limits, as set by Congress and the Constitution, for a reason. If we don't reverse the course he has set for us, I have a very real fear of an actual revolution occuring. Here. In the US. In the modern day.


... I hope Rudy Giuliani runs. We need someone who isn't a psychopath.


There, I'm done. *sighs*

The Wolf Guardians']We need someone who isn't a psychopath.Ah, so someone from outside politics, then ...

Enough already.

Enough already.

So we're done here then? It's illegal, and we can move on?

Let's pray so... Going in circles like a hamster in a wheel is giving me a headache...

It seems to me that all the arguments are getting no where. I await the MOD ruling on the legality of this draft proposal.

I have to agree...

So we're done here then? It's illegal, and we can move on?

I'm just trying, desperately, to understand why there's thought that it's legal.

While it is remotely possible that the draft could be edited into a legal format, I must admit I can't imagine how that could be done without discarding everything that the author was trying to say. I'm going to state, for the record, that the author has not provided adequate explanation for this proposal's legality. In its current form, it's not legal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

So, it the Author has the choice... either redraft it, or let it disappear a nice quiet death...

I'm hoping for the latter...

Cut the IC playing. This is a legal challenge, completely out of character.

This has got to be the most pedantic, ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard in my life.

Unfortunately, pedantic and ridiculous nonsense is not necessarily illegal.

That said, after reviewing it a third time, and comparing the relevant clause from the FSA side-by-side with the final clause of the HTA, it really does look like a contradiction violation.

It is an indirect contradiction, to be sure, but a contradiction nonetheless, and from what precedents I can recall, plenty of indirect contradictions have caused various proposals to be ruled illegal.

I initially thought it was legal, but after further analysis I have to say it's not.

While it is remotely possible that the draft could be edited into a legal format, I must admit I can't imagine how that could be done without discarding everything that the author was trying to say. I'm going to state, for the record, that the author has not provided adequate explanation for this proposal's legality. In its current form, it's not legal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

Unfortunately, pedantic and ridiculous nonsense is not necessarily illegal.

That said, after reviewing it a third time, and comparing the relevant clause from the FSA side-by-side with the final clause of the HTA, it really does look like a contradiction violation.

It is an indirect contradiction, to be sure, but a contradiction nonetheless, and from what precedents I can recall, plenty of indirect contradictions have caused various proposals to be ruled illegal.

I initially thought it was legal, but after further analysis I have to say it's not.

Thanks, guys.

Thanks, guys.

Just to be clear, that post you quoted is my opinion as a player, not a Mod ruling.

And so the circle of screams, and agony will continue?

Just to be clear, that post you quoted is my opinion as a player, not a Mod ruling.

Gotcha, boss. Am I to take it, though, that Herr Fris' ruling is the final word? He did sign his post as a mod (just realised myself that you hadn't).

And so the circle of screams, and agony will continue?

Not in this thread. Looks like we're done here.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia