NationStates Jolt Archive

recently submitted:

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #180
Proposed by: Imperfectia

Description: UN Resolution #180: Fair Sentencing Act (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that due to different circumstances different criminals may warrant different sentences for the same crime and such each case should be judged individually, and;

COMMENDING UN#180 in its attempts to encourage member states to provide oversight to their judicial systems to examine trial and sentencing practices, however;

CONCERNED that the second article gives nations the license to use capital punishment too freely;

CONCERNED that individual states may use capital punishment for ANY offense they so choose including, but not limited to shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing, and adultery;

BELIEVING that an internationally recognized standard practice regarding the use of capital punishment is in every member nation’s best interest in order to keep the peace;

HEREBY repeals UN #180, “Fair Sentencing Act”


Considering the other thread started in regards to Ceo's repeal proposal, I want a fresh thread to deal with this one.

CONCERNED that the second article gives nations the license to use capital punishment too freely;

CONCERNED that individual states may use capital punishment for ANY offense they so choose including, but not limited to shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing, and adultery;Which is why Definition of 'Fair Trial' forbids nations from issuing sentences that are not "proportional" to the offense. Additionally, FSA's demands for accountability in sentencing provide another buffer against inappropriate death sentences. These concerns are moot.

BELIEVING that an internationally recognized standard practice regarding the use of capital punishment is in every member nation’s best interest in order to keep the peace;I don't buy this. The entire purpose of FSA was to ensure fair sentencing by empowering those most accountable to the accused to determine their sentences, namely local jurisdictions. An international convention on the use of the death penalty would run contrary to this goal, as international diplomats and bureaucrats are not accountable to the accused. Simply put, this organization is ill-equipped to review the sentencing policies of its 29,000 member states, as national systems of justice vary widely, there can be no single set of rules that would apply to them all, and thus a "standard practice" regime on capital punishment would accomplish very little toward "keeping the peace."

Although I have admit you're the first opponent of the FSA with the nuts to admit that this is about banning/restricting capital punishment. I applaud your honesty.

I applaud the honesty of this proposal as well. Unfortunately, as we feel that capital punishment and its applications are a matter best left to individual nations, Altanar is opposed to any attempt to infringe upon that. We have a great deal more respect for the author, however.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aiserpov/notagain.jpg

I'm beginning to wonder if you lot ever have thought that every time you use the CP argument you get defeated.

Nations have a Sovereign Right to determine what are crimes and what punishment for those crimes are. If you don't like it too bad. It is none of the UN's business what the Elected Representatives of the People, in the Supreme Soviet determine to be a fair punishment provided that it does not violate the other resolutions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and punishments.

Vladimir "keep your filthy hippie hands off my court system" Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Which is why Definition of 'Fair Trial' forbids nations from issuing sentences that are not "proportional" to the offense.

Not that "proportional" is defined or anything like that. Just say that "jaywalking is an affront to our glorious leader's regime, and must therefore by punishable by death," and you're home free.

Additionally, FSA's demands for accountability in sentencing provide another buffer against inappropriate death sentences. These concerns are moot.
In all honesty, I never got much by just demanding it.

I don't buy this. The entire purpose of FSA was to ensure fair sentencing by empowering those most accountable to the accused to determine their sentences, namely local jurisdictions.

But are those jurisdictions really accountable to the accused, or to the majority of gun-owners within the jurisdiction? Sometimes decisions need to be taken to a higher level of governance in order to avoid "mob justice" and the like. Accountability is a good thing, but in criminal trials, you can't give the authority to sentence however you like to a jurisdiction so easily influenced by majority opinion, or emotional feelings about the crime, how much the victim's kid cries at the trial, etc. could easily determine the sentence more than the actual evidence does.

How much are lower-level courts really accountable to the accused? How does the accused exercise this accountability? After he receives the death penalty, he's dead. Before that, he's probably in jail, or else not in a position to influence the government all that much. (How much would you trust someone suspected of a crime?)

That day off didn't help things much, did it? If you're going to take a word like "proportional" and say it means absolutely nothing without a definition, then that's true of everything, and your copyright resolution kills kittens because I'm defining "the" to mean "lead paint".

But are those jurisdictions really accountable to the accused, or to the majority of gun-owners within the jurisdiction? Sometimes decisions need to be taken to a higher level of governance in order to avoid "mob justice" and the like.

*Considers this suggestion, in the light of the low levels of reasoning ability (and even of reading ability) shown by all too many of the UN delegates, and laughs bitterly at its naivety...*

That day off didn't help things much, did it? If you're going to take a word like "proportional" and say it means absolutely nothing without a definition, then that's true of everything, and your copyright resolution kills kittens because I'm defining "the" to mean "lead paint".

It doesn't mean absolutely nothing, it just doesn't actually do anything, because "proportional" is such a subjective term (this is politics, not math), it could be interpreted to mean just about anything.

If you wanted to use a strict definition, all "proportional" really means is that the severity of the punishments goes up as the severity of the crime goes up. So you can say death penalty for jaywalking, death by torture for not voting, death by really really bad torture for killing kittens, etc.

*Considers this suggestion, in the light of the low levels of reasoning ability (and even of reading ability) shown by all too many of the UN delegates, and laughs bitterly at its naivety...*

At least the delegates are just dumb, not affected by emotional details of each case.

It doesn't mean absolutely nothing, it just doesn't actually do anything, because "proportional" is such a subjective term (this is politics, not math), it could be interpreted to mean just about anything.
Do you realize what you just said. It doesn't mean nothing...but it can mean just about anything. That's the same fucking thing.

If you wanted to use a strict definition, all "proportional" really means is that the severity of the punishments goes up as the severity of the crime goes up. So you can say death penalty for jaywalking, death by torture for not voting, death by really really bad torture for killing kittens, etc.
No, that would be "proportional to other punishments". That's not what the resolution says: it says "proportional to the crime".

At least the delegates are just dumb, not affected by emotional details of each case.
That is beyond ridiculous.

At least the delegates are just dumb ....And I can only assume that would also include those who don't know what "proportional" means.

Which is why Definition of 'Fair Trial' forbids nations from issuing sentences that are not "proportional" to the offense. Additionally, FSA's demands for accountability in sentencing provide another buffer against inappropriate death sentences. These concerns are moot.

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

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

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

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

Really? Where eactly does FSA "forbid" nations from issuing punishments that are not porpotional to the crime? I am also integuied at your claim that FSA "demands" accountability. The words I read are, "requests," "declares," "calls for," and "recommends"

If FSA really DID demand and forbid, I bet you wouldn't supoprt it so much. ;)

I don't buy this. The entire purpose of FSA was to ensure fair sentencing by empowering those most accountable to the accused to determine their sentences, namely local jurisdictions. An international convention on the use of the death penalty would run contrary to this goal, as international diplomats and bureaucrats are not accountable to the accused. Simply put, this organization is ill-equipped to review the sentencing policies of its 29,000 member states, as national systems of justice vary widely, there can be no single set of rules that would apply to them all, and thus a "standard practice" regime on capital punishment would accomplish very little toward "keeping the peace."

I am glad to see that you place such extremely high confidence in the ability of a judicial system run by a possible socio-path to hand down fair and just punishments. I am not so confident. As to your concerns regarding whether or not this body is able to establish certain guidlines that all members should follow, I will simply point out that in UN#26 there is a list of certain "standard practices" of a judicial nature that every member nation is held accountable to. What would the difference be in restricting and naming certain times when the detha penalty is used inhumane and wrong?

Although I have admit you're the first opponent of the FSA with the nuts to admit that this is about banning/restricting capital punishment. I applaud your honesty.

I applaud the honesty of this proposal as well. Unfortunately, as we feel that capital punishment and its applications are a matter best left to individual nations, Altanar is opposed to any attempt to infringe upon that. We have a great deal more respect for the author, however.

I general feel the straight forward and honest approach works best. You may not agree with me, and truly thats fine, I am sure that I do not agree with any other representative to this body 100%. However I want you to know where i stand on the issue.

I have also watche Karmicaria repeal resolution after resolution and have tried to take a page out of her book.

I'm beginning to wonder if you lot ever have thought that every time you use the CP argument you get defeated.

actually, no. From what I have been told, this is the first time that a proposal has come right out and mentioned the use of CP

Nations have a Sovereign Right to determine what are crimes and what punishment for those crimes are. If you don't like it too bad. It is none of the UN's business what the Elected Representatives of the People, in the Supreme Soviet determine to be a fair punishment provided that it does not violate the other resolutions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and punishments.

Within that very paragraph you contradict yourself. Your nation does not have absolute soveriegnty in regards to allowing torture, or not giving the accused a fair trial. You are also required by previously passed UN resolutions to list the crimes that the accused face. Surely you do not object to those impositions as dimishing your soveriegnty?

Really? Where eactly does FSA "forbid" nations from issuing punishments that are not porpotional to the crime?
It doesn't, which is probably why he cited Definition of 'Fair Trial'.

Do you realize what you just said. It doesn't mean nothing...but it can mean just about anything. That's the same fucking thing.
So how do you think it must be interpreted by all member nations?

No, that would be "proportional to other punishments". That's not what the resolution says: it says "proportional to the crime".
And "proportional" doesn't mean being roughly the same size. Proportional means (or can mean, anyway) "at a constant ratio to". Hence, I could say "proportional to the crime" means it must be equal to 3 times the crime, or half the crime, or whatever.

So how do you think it must be interpreted by all member nations?
I think it should be interpreted to mean "proportional", but maybe I'm behind the times.

And "proportional" doesn't mean being roughly the same size. Proportional means (or can mean, anyway) "at a constant ratio to". Hence, I could say "proportional to the crime" means it must be equal to 3 times the crime, or half the crime, or whatever.
Thank you. I really want to thank you. Because you are ensuring that no one is ever going to take the opposition to Fair Sentencing Act seriously. We might have needed to think up some way of painting our opponents as using poor logic, but BAM, one step ahead, you do it for us.

I think it should be interpreted to mean "proportional", but maybe I'm behind the times.

Without a mathematical definition, which really means nothing here, "proportional" is a subjective term. What should the punishment for jaywalking be? The state jaywalking back at them? What should the punishment for a triple murder be? Killing someone three times? "Proportional to the crime" is a great concept, but it's inherently subjective, and therefore essentially unenforceable.

*snip really preachy cultual-imperialist claptrap* Within that very paragraph you contradict yourself. Your nation does not have absolute soveriegnty in regards to allowing torture, or not giving the accused a fair trial. You are also required by previously passed UN resolutions to list the crimes that the accused face. Surely you do not object to those impositions as dimishing your soveriegnty?

How is what I said a contradiction? Here I will quote myself, hoping you might actually read it this time.

originally posted by: Ellelt Nations have a Sovereign Right to determine what are crimes and what punishment for those crimes are. If you don't like it too bad. It is none of the UN's business what the Elected Representatives of the People, in the Supreme Soviet determine to be a fair punishment provided that it does not violate the other resolutions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and punishments.


As anyone who can read English can see, I said Determine CRIMES and PUNISHMENTS.

I said nothing about torture, which we do not practice, either during interrogation or as a punishment--unless you consider working to pay back one's debt to society torture (Which is beyond ridiculous). I said nothing about "unfair" or "charge-less" trials which we also do not practice.

Those other resolutions are not being used by some to cram their morality down our throats. However, the Repeal of the FSA will as the IntFed movement will no doubt produce some sort of rubbish telling nations some shit along these lines.

Daddy UN says you shall not execute ax murderers and traitors, nor shall you make felons work in mines for the economic benefit of the People (as a whole) who you owe due to heinous nature of your crime. Instead Daddy UN says you shall give criminals cable television and hookers for their enjoyment during their time attending Crime University (prison) where they will eat at tax payer expense and hone their criminal craft.

I just don't buy that garbage.

I further question your judgment and logic.

As for this to be the first proposal to actually say in the resolution that is a red herring. CP comes up in every single debate on the FSA, Including the one where the FSA was approved by this body.

I really wish I were my region's delegate so I could endorse this piece of shit, to vote against it. It would put the repeal attempts off for a while considering that there are already TWO threads in this forum dealing with this issue!

Vladimir "keep your filthy hippie hands off my court system" Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I've said all I have to say on this subject in the other discussion and see no reason to rehash my remarks here. Needless to say I have instructed Felix to approve the repeal.

I'm really about inclined though to just shrug my shoulders and admit that the shining example of judicial fairness that is FSA will remain on the books in perpetuity. I'm also considering asking UN Building Management if we could possibly have the text of article 2 carved above the entrance to the building.

Without a mathematical definition, which really means nothing here, "proportional" is a subjective term. What should the punishment for jaywalking be? The state jaywalking back at them? What should the punishment for a triple murder be? Killing someone three times?

Now you're just being ridiculous. Although, one could argue this is nothing new as far as this debate goes.

"Proportional to the crime" is a great concept, but it's inherently subjective, and therefore essentially unenforceable.

I am really curious to hear what you would consider to be a better alternative, bearing in mind such an alternative would have to be acceptable to all UN member states.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

How is what I said a contradiction?
Because you are saying nations have the exclusive sovereign right to whatever, but equally that they must obey existing UN law. If the latter is true, then the former isn't.

But maybe I just can't read English.

Those other resolutions are not being used by some to cram their morality down our throats. However, the Repeal of the FSA will as the IntFed movement will no doubt produce some sort of rubbish telling nations some shit along these lines.
Just as the Ceoranan representative's arguments are doing his side no favours right now, nor are yours ours. Maybe if you eased down off that high horse, you might sound a little less like a jumped-up, lecturing buffoon and more like someone interested in debating the merits of UN legislation.

I know I can't take any moral high ground on this front, but you need to check your attitude already.

As for this to be the first proposal to actually say in the resolution that is a red herring. CP comes up in every single debate on the FSA, Including the one where the FSA was approved by this body.
No, his point was that opponents of FSA - including in that original debate - seemed incredibly reluctant to admit that part of the reason they opposed it was that they wanted capital punishment to be banned. It's not a "red herring": it's true. And given it was made by someone who is actually defending the resolution, contesting the point seems akin to cocking a shotgun at your own foot.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

My thanks to the ambassador from Gruenberg for writing my rebuttal to the ambassador from Ellelt for me.

Gruen, my apologies for not actually helping to defend the FSA with my rhetoric. I'm just tired of debating this already.

As I said there are two threads on this subject already hence why I used my card at the very beginning.

VK.

I'm just tired of debating this already.
Then don't. You are under no obligation to.

I'm also considering asking UN Building Management if we could possibly have the text of article 2 carved above the entrance to the building.
How passé. All UN signage can be ordered directly in multiple translations to be displayed electronically on our fabulous Portal Plasma Projectors. Just go to the Building Services website on your GA terminal and place your request.

Here's the announcement of the recent failure of Environment Protection Act, including the reverse translation, just as it displays over the doorway:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~ejt216/Tokyo/2sunday/caution_sony.jpg

the top bit is UN Gnomish, I think.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~ejt216/Tokyo/2sunday/caution_sony.jpg



Good God! I read what that is supposed to be, and I can read the words, but what the hell is that supposed to MEAN?

[Lorelei Ahlmann scratches her head.]

"Beats me. It musta been written by Homophobic Warriors."

;)

I'll come out and say: I think this repeal is illegal.
CONCERNED that individual states may use capital punishment for ANY offense they so choose including, but not limited to shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing, and adultery;
Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'", explicitly states that punishments must be proportional to the crime.

Therefore, I think this repeal contains false arguments, and should be removed.

Therefore, I think this repeal contains false arguments, and should be removed.
And perhaps the author should be punished in some way, lest he have the temerity to submit it again.

In other developments, Yeldan Foreign Minister Quynn Olver has been summoned to return to Yelda for some important matter or other. Or a party. Or divorce proceedings. Or something.

OOC: I give up.

Needless to say I have instructed Felix to approve the repeal.
And I have now withdrawn my approval. Ha!

We absolutely oppose this. We feel the right to sentence people in a fair manner is a sovereignty issue. We will not eliminate capital punishment and we see it as more just in many cases than long term hard labor, or confinement in isolation for the rest of the individuals lifetime. Your morality is not ours.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

We absolutely oppose this. We feel the right to sentence people in a fair manner is a sovereignty issue. We will not eliminate capital punishment and we see it as more just in many cases than long term hard labor, or confinement in isolation for the rest of the individuals lifetime. Your morality is not ours.

Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative
We applaud the statement of our esteemed colleagues from Commonalitarianism.

As this thread has already seen, "proportional to the crime" can be understood in differnet ways, even by "reasonable nations." In my nation we do not consider CP as proportional to any crime, but more as a "final solution" that is to be rejected.

Yes, I will recognize that my "morality" is not everyones. However, we can not be silent while what we consider to be human rights violations are being perputrated by othe rmember states

However, we can not be silent while what we consider to be human rights violations are being perputrated by othe rmember states

But that's just the point...you may consider it a human rights abuse to allow capital punishment. Not every nation feels that way. Altanar, for one, feels it would be abusing the human rights of the law-abiding, non-dangerous 99% or so of our population to be endangered by the 1% of our population who are extremely dangerous. We rarely exercise capital punishment, but with apologies to the more soft-hearted delegations, sometimes it is a necessary, if regrettable, act taken to protect the greater good. In addition, we do not see why nations such as ours (who rarely execute anyone, and who do so in as painless and non-torturous a manner as possible) should be forced to conform to the desires of nations whose own approach to protecting their citizens, while admirable, is noticeably lacking in pragmatism.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It should be noted that I have never once called for the outright banning of CP. I would also like to point out that so far, every nation that has opposed this repeal and has stated officially they use CP, have stessed their use of Cp is minimal, rarely used, or used for crimes that in most nation's moral judgments are deserving. I do not see any change of that practice. Instead, I woudl like to see CP defined and allowed to be used in cases such as the one described by the representative of Altanar. It would only be in cases where the opposition has already made clear they do practice CP that would be afffected.

In effect, nothing would change for your nation, nor for that matter any nation that seems to be opposed to this repeal.

And yet, if this resolution is repealed, then the UN could pass a ban on the death penalty. So even if there won't be any change in our laws, why should we take the risk?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And yet, if this resolution is repealed, then the UN could pass a ban on the death penalty. So even if there won't be any change in our laws, why should we take the risk?

yeah, there is that chance. I can understand the opposition to this repeal. I simply don't agree with it.

And yet, if this resolution is repealed, then the UN could pass a ban on the death penalty. So even if there won't be any change in our laws, why should we take the risk?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*gasp* What a tragedy. I'll be sure to look at my vote based upon whether there is a risk that the UN who has rejected Death Penalty bans.....how many times....might actually have to read another failed attempt to pass a Death Penalty Ban.

Somehow, I don't think that's worth the effort to bitch about.

*gasp* What a tragedy. I'll be sure to look at my vote based upon whether there is a risk that the UN who has rejected Death Penalty bans.....how many times....might actually have to read another failed attempt to pass a Death Penalty Ban.

Just because something has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future. One cannot underestimate the possibilities that occur when sentiment, gullibility and good intentions collide. Having an actual guarantee in place that protects the right of nations to decide their own laws in regards to CP is a lot more valuable, in our opinion, than relying on the law of averages.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Just because something has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future. One cannot underestimate the possibilities that occur when sentiment, gullibility and good intentions collide. Having an actual guarantee in place that protects the right of nations to decide their own laws in regards to CP is a lot more valuable, in our opinion, than relying on the law of averages.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It is one thing to oppose repealing a resolution "just cause" because you like the protection it holds. Its another thing to oppose repealing a resolution that has unfair or poorly thought out clauses just because you like the protection it holds. Such resolutions need to be replaced with better resolutions and using the excuse "but it protects me from an unlikely occurance" as your one argument against repeal is ludicrous. There are better debates to be had than that one.

If that is your only argument, than this resolution should be blasted to kingdom come.

NEXT!

And the arrogance level of this body just shot back up some 500%...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It is one thing to oppose repealing a resolution "just cause" because you like the protection it holds. Its another thing to oppose repealing a resolution that has unfair or poorly thought out clauses just because you like the protection it holds. Such resolutions need to be replaced with better resolutions and using the excuse "but it protects me from an unlikely occurance" as your one argument against repeal is ludicrous. There are better debates to be had than that one.

We don't dispute that, but in our relatively short time in this assembly, we have been at the forefront of nations supporting attempts to repeal flawed legislation. We also find it telling that our previous statements in regards to this issue have been ignored, in the effort to make a facile "point" with your response.

In addition to our desire to maintain the desirable protection of national rights contained in FSA, we do not agree with the argument that the FSA is flawed or unfair, and therefore, oppose repealing it. We are hardly opposed to this repeal "just because". We also dispute your contention that the occurrence that we desire to be protected from is "unlikely", as attempts to foist undesirable legislation upon this assembly occur with great frequency.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

We don't dispute that, but in our relatively short time in this assembly, we have been at the forefront of nations supporting attempts to repeal flawed legislation. We also find it telling that our previous statements in regards to this issue have been ignored, in the effort to make a facile "point" with your response.

In addition to our desire to maintain the desirable protection of national rights contained in FSA, we do not agree with the argument that the FSA is flawed or unfair, and therefore, oppose repealing it. We are hardly opposed to this repeal "just because". We also dispute your contention that the occurrence that we desire to be protected from is "unlikely", as attempts to foist undesirable legislation upon this assembly occur with great frequency.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Perhaps I should be more clear.

Ambassador Fibble has made his sole objection over the question of the possibility such a resolution would be passed. Nothing more concrete or substantial than that. When I struck down the argument as a poor argument in the grander scheme of things - considering the arguments for and against this proposal thus far - you defended him. I was clarifying why I thought it to be a poor argument.

Undesirable legislation gets foisted upon this assembly all the time, yes. However, it has this amazing tendency to be defeated - either in the endorsement stage or the general vote. Nuclear Weapons bans were sent through to general vote twice and defeated both times before UNR #109 was brought to the fore. Similarly, Capital Punishment bans have failed to achieve quarom nearly every time. Claiming that a Capital Punishment ban is going to be successful right off the bat is a no greater tactic than fear mongering, and I think its hilarious that there are many within the NatSov crowd who use it to spread fear within both the NatSovs (they could pass this) and IntFeds (we will pass this). There are better debates to be had, better arguments to be made, and in the interest of not dragging myself out of retirement just yet, I'm only looking at just this one, because I think it is total crap. I was tired of it before, I am tired of it still.

The New Cultural Revolution fully supports repeal in the hope that the despicable act of state murder will one day be illegalised in all UN nations.

Benedictions,

Perhaps I should be more clear.

Ambassador Fibble has made his sole objection over the question of the possibility such a resolution would be passed. Nothing more concrete or substantial than that. When I struck down the argument as a poor argument in the grander scheme of things - considering the arguments for and against this proposal thus far - you defended him. I was clarifying why I thought it to be a poor argument.

Undesirable legislation gets foisted upon this assembly all the time, yes. However, it has this amazing tendency to be defeated - either in the endorsement stage or the general vote. Nuclear Weapons bans were sent through to general vote twice and defeated both times before UNR #109 was brought to the fore. Similarly, Capital Punishment bans have failed to achieve quarom nearly every time. Claiming that a Capital Punishment ban is going to be successful right off the bat is a no greater tactic than fear mongering, and I think its hilarious that there are many within the NatSov crowd who use it to spread fear within both the NatSovs (they could pass this) and IntFeds (we will pass this). There are better debates to be had, better arguments to be made, and in the interest of not dragging myself out of retirement just yet, I'm only looking at just this one, because I think it is total crap. I was tired of it before, I am tired of it still.

I appreciate the clarification, and I am certainly no fan of fearmongering. I do feel that the possibility of a CP ban is a legitimate concern, but it is definitely not the only concern here. Perhaps we should turn this to a different angle, then - do you actually think the FSA is unfair, and if so, why?

I am not going to go into details 'cause as I said, I'm not interested in leaving retirement just yet, but I would like to point to what has been noted in the original repeal text:

CONCERNED that the second article gives nations the license to use capital punishment too freely;

CONCERNED that individual states may use capital punishment for ANY offense they so choose including, but not limited to shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing, and adultery;

BELIEVING that an internationally recognized standard practice regarding the use of capital punishment is in every member nation’s best interest in order to keep the peace;

Now, if you're going to tell me that a nation sentencing a person stealing a chocolate bar to death is fair, please do explain to this body your reasoning, because UNR #180 certainly grants any nation the right to do so.

Now, if you're going to tell me that a nation sentencing a person stealing a chocolate bar to death is fair, please do explain to this body your reasoning, because UNR #180 certainly grants any nation the right to do so.

I do not think that is fair. I also do not think the UN has the right to impose the concept of what certain members deem to be a "fair" legal system upon its members. And I do think that your "chocolate bar of death" example is an unrealistically extreme one, akin to the fearmongering you mentioned earlier in your objection to Ambassador Fibble's remarks. I also strongly believe that UN resolutions #21, #103 and #180 provide an acceptable degree of protection against such extreme examples.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I do not think that is fair. I also do not think the UN has the right to impose the concept of what certain members deem to be a "fair" legal system upon its members. And I do think that your "chocolate bar of death" example is an unrealistically extreme one, akin to the fearmongering you mentioned earlier in your objection to Ambassador Fibble's remarks. I also strongly believe that UN resolutions #21, #103 and #180 provide an acceptable degree of protection against such extreme examples.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

How long have you been here? Have you met the crazy nations yet?

The difference between Ambassador Fibble's claims and my own is Ambassador Fibble is trying to make a claim about a democratic body such as the UN - a body that has many reasonable nations and is, overall, reasonably predictable. My claims are about the individual nations and how they act - a concept that should we take averages, would be a very poor representation of what nations actually do. The average nation does not execute very many people (and may not even execute anyone), but the extreme case certainly does. An extreme case resolution will not pass through this body, but an extreme case nation certainly does exist.

EDIT: And I do believe the UN not only has the right but possibly even the responsibility to ensure that citizens of UN nations are not being unfairly treated by their governments. I believe the UN is a body that should set the example to the world of what is considered acceptable and what is not. It is a belief that the UN can be better and promote a better world.

As this thread has already seen, "proportional to the crime" can be understood in differnet ways, even by "reasonable nations."Right. This is the same sort of pedantic nonsense we saw in the last discussion on this issue. How, pray tell, can any nation deigning to call itself "reasonable" possibly consider death sentences for jaywalking "proportionate"? As far as I've seen, the only nations advocating loose definitions for things like "proportionate" and "cruel and unusual punishments" are the ones desiring to outlaw such practices, and nothing of the sort from all these phantom human-rights violators who supposedly snuff their peeps for spitting gum on the sidewalk. "Proportionate" is not some term of ambiguous meaning that aspiring dictators can easily redefine to mean "giant fuzzy spiders" or whatever in order to secure their harsh, unyielding, rape-a-girl-for-stealing-produce sentencing laws. "Proportionate" means "proportionate." So long as nations have control over their sentencing laws, subject to previous protective restrictions of this body, we are satisfied.

[OOC: And I agree with Gruen. That fourth clause is rather obnoxious; enough of a false argument to make this illegal, though I doubt the mods will delete it.]

The New Cultural Revolution fully supports repeal in the hope that the despicable act of state murder will one day be illegalised in all UN nations.And the arrogance level of this body just keeps increasing! Wipe that smug off your chin after you speak, boy; we're all civilized adults here.

Now, if you're going to tell me that a nation sentencing a person stealing a chocolate bar to death is fair, please do explain to this body your reasoning, because UNR #180 certainly grants any nation the right to do so.Have you not been listening, old man? Disproportionate sentences have already been outlawed by the UN.

[OOC: And it's Amb. Flibble, dammit.]

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

How long have you been here? Have you met the crazy nations yet?

Huh? Somebody call for me? Crazy? We're not crazy, it's a simple matter of being differently moralled. Ethically impaired, if you will.

EDIT: And I do believe the UN not only has the right but possibly even the responsibility to ensure that citizens of UN nations are not being unfairly treated by their governments. I believe the UN is a body that should set the example to the world of what is considered acceptable and what is not. It is a belief that the UN can be better and promote a better world.

I missed you. Nobody can attempt to rationalize an international invasion of a single hive-morality quite like you can. In all fairness to that point, however, there are moral schisms that appear amongst NSO members, as I'm sure there are within the UIC. Even these low-level ethical differences can easily demonstrate how vastly different morality can be from nation to nation. We are, of course, dealing with grander issues in this case. Matters of life and death, quite literally. While I agree that all of the protective resolutions in place, specifically those referenced in this debate, can be interpretted in unusual fashions such that nations can do what they want if their legal team is creative enough, it must be realized that drafting law to cover all of the possible "unreasonable nation" scenarios would be nigh-impossible. Short of a one line resolution that says "nobody gets to kill anybody ever, for any reason, or lack thereof" and then proceeds to define every single word in iron-clad terms, then there will be those who will skew the interpretation to mean that they can execute someone for looking at their sister. That sort of ban won't fly, and we both know that.

The shining example of morality that the UN can readily put forward is in the laws that we do pass. No, "proportionate" is not defined. Neither are a thousand other relevant terms contained within the various resolutions currently on the books. Though we will nit-pick drafts to try to remove most of the rationally exploitable loopholes, there comes a point where intent must suffice. There is very clear intent in such resolutions as Definition of 'Fair Trial', End Barbaric Punishments, and Fair Sentencing Act. Don't railroad people through the courts, don't torture them, be fair, be just, allow nations to figure out the best way of working all of these requirements together within their system.

There is always room for past resolutions to be improved upon where some unanticipated or unwanted loophole is realized, or a better path can be laid out, but I find it hard to accept some of the arguments offered by the author of this resolution. If there is no desire to ban the death penalty, merely put limitations upon it to ensure that it is not abused by nations, then go over my previous statement again. If you do wish to ban the death penalty....the Kennyites and many others don't take well to being made to look the fool. If he is forced to retract his statement about respecting your honesty, be will not be pleased.

We should not have to draft law to cover everything the "unreasonable nations" will come up with. Once we start doing that, then we might as well just let them call all of the shots, because we will be spending all of our time chasing around after the psychoses that they are capable of, trying to clean up their messes. Once you start worrying about the thousand and one ways that every word can be misinterpretted, Mr. MacDougall...you will find yourself unable to speak for fear of ordering someone's demise.

Kivisto is not what one would consider a friendly, compassionate, or fully sane nation, but we do consider ourselves reasonable. I can unserstand the sentiments of some that wish to prevent potential human rights abuses within every individual nations. I can grasp that there is fear that CP will be overused or abused. I can't quite fathom how reasonable nations, such as yourselves, don't seem to see how there is already law on the books to help prevent these abuses. The bottom line of FSA is that nations can choose punishment for themselves, with the unwritten understanding that previous legislation still holds sway. Trials must be fair and just. Punishments must be proportionate to the crime. Interrogations cannot involve beatings. There are, I'm sure, dozens of other little stipulations that keep nations from judicial abuse.

There was mention of accountability within the justice systems. If such is a concern, would it not make more sense to draft law requiring judicial accountability somehow? FSA deals with sentencing, the final step in any legal proceeding, barring appeals. That leaves probably 95% of the judicial process that you can tamper with in various ways that will accomplish your goals. Why choose this one?

Or is your actual goal to ban the death penalty? If such is the case, save yourself the time. While possible, it is ridiculously unlikely.

That's my philibuster for the evening.

How, pray tell, can any nation deigning to call itself "reasonable" possibly consider death sentences for jaywalking "proportionate"?
I would never prescribe the death penalty for jaywalking, no sane government would. The death penalty is reserved for crimes against the people, such as counter-revolutionary activities, religious proselytizing, gambling, drug trafficing and other forms of general mayhem.

The proper sentence for jaywalking is 5 years at hard labor in one of my manufacturing or mining facilities. Repeat offenders may, of course, be declared habitual criminals and shot.

*Grits her teeth* You just had to get involved, just absolutely had to. You could've been relaxing on the beaches of Forgottenlands eating Yeldan Cheese but no, you just had to get involved in a debate in an organization you have no seat, no nation to represent, and yet here I am, blabbering in another debate that I'm too deep into already. God dammit.

First of all, do I need to get breast implants or something? That's the second time today and fifth time in my career that someone's addressed me as Mr MacDougall.

Anyways, I am curious how, in your infinite wisdom, you proclaim that an ammendment of some form could be passed that would allow us to limit capital punishment from being used against many crimes when there is a CLEAR clause within UNR #180 that states as follows:

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

Please, in your infinite wisdom, bless us with such an answer.

But ok, let us work through some case studies, shall we.

There is a well known concept as the "three strikes rule". This concept or similar forms are used in many nations and there are varying degrees - from universal 3-strikes to 3-strikes against serious crimes to 3-strikes for drug users. (Also, count does vary). Regardless, it is notable that the Universal form pretty much goes along the lines of

"If you have been charged and convicted 3 times, you get X punishment" - often, life in jail. Now, if you stole 3 packs of bubble gum and each one carried a small sentence of some sort, you have just locked up for life a person who stole $4.50 worth of goods.

Ludicrous? It might seem that way, but the concept is an accepted form of approaching the judicial system.

If we consider that repeat attempts are indeed accepted as being such high-scale actions as to deserve such strong punishments and are to be considered proportional to the crime, then it is equally forseeable that a nation could reasonably claim that a repeat offender deserves the death penalty. In fact, Iron Felix was kind enough to make this point, already, for us with his Jaywalking example - an example that normally would have no more serious repricusions than a ticket in most nations. So perhaps my claim that someone stealing a chocolate bar is not as invalid as the NatSovers would like to proclaim.

If we are not to make this assumption, then I'm absolutely surprised the NatSovs haven't made an attempt to repeal UNR #47

On a side note, how does UNR #41, End Barbaric Punishments, have anything to do when Capital Punishment is used?

And the arrogance level of this body just keeps increasing! Wipe that smug off your chin after you speak, boy; we're all civilized adults here.
Arrogance, Cmdr. Chiang? Smug? I fail to see how.

Benedictions,

IC: *scowls* I have been ordered to re-approve this thing.

OOC: Fuck it. I can't do this anymore. The whole "Yelda, good/Felix, bad" exercise has grown tiresome. After the holidays it will be all Yelda, all the time.

Congratulations to the delegate from Imperfectia for getting this to quorum.

James Washington,
Paradican Ambassador to the UN
Worrying that his term will soon come to an end.

Yay! Time for a bloody, friendship-destroying floor debate!

Just in time for the holidays!

James Washington,
Paradican Ambassador to the UN

Congratulations on getting this to quorum. I'll help all I can with the debate, but I'm afraid most of us (the regulars) have said all we have to say on this, so it'll be a lot of repeating ourselves. And fighting!

I hope you won't take it as poor form that, probably, I won't participate a great deal in the debate. Given past utterances of this kind, that could still mean, in fact, participating your pants off, but we'll see.

*Grits her teeth* You just had to get involved, just absolutely had to. You could've been relaxing on the beaches of Forgottenlands eating Yeldan Cheese but no, you just had to get involved in a debate in an organization you have no seat, no nation to represent, and yet here I am, blabbering in another debate that I'm too deep into already. God dammit.

Admit it, you missed us ;)

First of all, do I need to get breast implants or something? That's the second time today and fifth time in my career that someone's addressed me as Mr MacDougall.

OOC: Sorry. My bad. It's been a while and I plum forgot.

Anyways, I am curious how, in your infinite wisdom, you proclaim that an ammendment of some form could be passed that would allow us to limit capital punishment from being used against many crimes when there is a CLEAR clause within UNR #180 that states as follows:

Please, in your infinite wisdom, bless us with such an answer.

You could not directly attack the sentence. You could have a look at the legal proceedings leading up to that point. Along the lines of other resolutions that demand that a court be fair, there is the option of mandating accountability within the courts (which was one of the author's arguments). Alternatively, the UN could put a mandate in place which obliged countries to allow a certain amount of time for appeals for prisoners sentenced at certain levels, or a certain number of appeals. Or allow for an independant body to review sentencing decisions that has real authority to overturn them if they are inproportionate to the crime(s). None of these actually affect a nation's capacity to sentence as they see fit.

For the three strikes rule, I agree that there is room for abuse on that count. See my above suggestions that might rectify such worries. It would require an incredibly spiteful court to have a person executed over a chocolate bar, but I won't claim that such courts don't exist.

If we are not to make this assumption, then I'm absolutely surprised the NatSovs haven't made an attempt to repeal UNR #47

I imagine it will happen eventually. Personally, the Kivistan gov't is in no rush for that as DFT doesn't get in the way of our legal system. Yes, that is somewhat selfish to not charge out to remove such infringement right away, but we have other things on the go, and such things are better argued by those that feel the personal need to remove such things. Kivisto has no such personal need. I cannot speak for the rest of the sovereignty crowd, obviously.

On a side note, how does UNR #41, End Barbaric Punishments, have anything to do when Capital Punishment is used?

That was more in reference to some of the other comments that have been previously made about what else FSA would allow a nation to do. Doesn't really have much to do with capital punishment at all, except as being another act that many believe is unnecessary.

Yay! Time for a bloody, friendship-destroying floor debate!

Bloody? Maybe. Any friendships lost over this were not true to begin with. Myself and Mr Pyandran have had some hideous disagreements over legislation in the past, and we are still quite capable of friendly discourse. For that matter, there have been points in the past where myself and Amb. McDougall were probably just about reaady to launch ballista across the floor at each other. I think such intense debate has created greater respect for one another's capabilities, and a more understanding environment between the two of us. Of course, I could be completely off my rocker on that one.

I look forward to the debate. I don't know how vocal I'll be, considering how I imagine there will be a great many who will deign it necessary to take part with comments such as "zOMFG! PPLZ SHUDNT GET KILDED!" I have been wring about such things before, but it could be fairly amusing.

Thanks to those who have expressed congratulatory sentiments. And yes, the debate should be interesting.

Interesting would be one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be "expect your ass to get owned".

Ah, now the arrogance level is sufficiently high.

It obviously looks like this poor law has been talked to death already, but I have to add the two reasons I voted against:

I am normally pro-drug legalization, but this law has too wide of a definition of 'drug'. According to their definition, placing your nose to a petrol tank vent and inhaling is a legitimate drug. Nope, sorry.

Second, it allows too much leeway for private growth and cultivation of drugs. This opens up far too much possibility for tainted goods or inconsistent drugs. It would be far better for these to be produced by licensed dealers or, better, industries.

Anyway, it was done with good intentions, but the net was spread too wide and it wasn't considered well. Try again and I may vote for it.

OOC: I'm pretty sure this is the wrong thread.

Bloody? Maybe. Any friendships lost over this were not true to begin with.
True. I can count on one hand (well, maybe two) the times that I've gotten OOC mad over something that happened here or posted something in anger because I really was pissed. It helps too that a lot of us now interact on offsite forums, so we can separate what goes on here IC from our relationships elsewhere.

Interesting would be one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be "expect your ass to get owned".

Ah, now the arrogance level is sufficiently high.
Actually, this reached quorum without difficulty and since we've been discussing it non-stop for a couple of weeks the topic is fresh in people's minds. I'll wager that two weeks ago there were a lot of people out there who didn't even know what FSA really does. Now they do. This repeal will pass easily and you can expect to have your hat handed to you.

Now the arrogance level is sufficiently high.
:D

True. I can count on one hand (well, maybe two) the times that I've gotten OOC mad over something that happened here or posted something in anger because I really was pissed. It helps too that a lot of us now interact on offsite forums, so we can separate what goes on here IC from our relationships elsewhere.

OOC: I was meaning in IC terms. Maybe we can get Sheik Nadnerb to knock somebody off instead!


Actually, this reached quorum without difficulty and since we've been discussing it non-stop for a couple of weeks the topic is fresh in people's minds. I'll wager that two weeks ago there were a lot of people out there who didn't even know what FSA really does. Now they do. This repeal will pass easily and you can expect to have your hat handed to you.

Now the arrogance level is sufficiently high.
:D

Oh, it is on!

Most courteously,

First of all, do I need to get breast implants or something? That's the second time today and fifth time in my career that someone's addressed me as Mr MacDougall.

What are you complaining about, at least they're getting your name right.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

To be fair, "Jamie" is a gender-neutral name.

Anyway, Imperfectia, are you planning a new thread for when this comes to vote?

Anyway, Imperfectia, are you planning a new thread for when this comes to vote?

Yes, I want a new thread when this comes to vote. Which is Tomorrow or Tuesday?

One of those days. Regardless, feel free to start it any time.

To be fair, "Jamie" is a gender-neutral name.

Anyway, Imperfectia, are you planning a new thread for when this comes to vote?

Oh - OOC I don't care. IC, you can theoretically see someone so it becomes a side thing to bitch about

Admit it, you missed us

Shhhhhhhh

You could not directly attack the sentence.

Your assistance has been most useful

You could have a look at the legal proceedings leading up to that point. Along the lines of other resolutions that demand that a court be fair, there is the option of mandating accountability within the courts (which was one of the author's arguments). Alternatively, the UN could put a mandate in place which obliged countries to allow a certain amount of time for appeals for prisoners sentenced at certain levels, or a certain number of appeals.

None of these actually deal with nations being overzealous with Capital Punishment.

Or allow for an independant body to review sentencing decisions that has real authority to overturn them if they are inproportionate to the crime(s).

If it's a national body, then it does nothing if the GOVERNMENT is the one that said it was a capital crime.

If it's an international body, then it is illegal because you remove the ability for the National Government being the sole authority on punishment.

None of these actually affect a nation's capacity to sentence as they see fit.

And none of them actually deal with overzealous use of Capital Punishment

For the three strikes rule, I agree that there is room for abuse on that count. See my above suggestions that might rectify such worries. It would require an incredibly spiteful court to have a person executed over a chocolate bar, but I won't claim that such courts don't exist.

Thank you.

Since we have an Official Topic thread for this now, let's just close this one down and use that one.