NationStates Jolt Archive

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”

Ok, so here is the "official" thread for when this resolution hits the assembly floor for a vote.

So I assume the replacement will be along the lines of
The United Nations,

Prohibits member states from using capital punishment as a judicial sentence for shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing or adultery, or other misdemeanour offences,

Otherwise recognises the right of member states to employ any and all non-proscribed means of punishment as sentences for crimes committed within their jurisdictions as they see fit.

So I assume the replacement will be along the lines of The United Nations,

Prohibits member states from using capital punishment as a judicial sentence for shoplifting, illegal drug possession, trespassing or adultery, or other misdemeanour offences,

Otherwise recognises the right of member states to employ any and all non-proscribed means of punishment as sentences for crimes committed within their jurisdictions as they see fit.
Hmm, I'm thinking that first clause would work better if the examples were left off. Something like this:

"Prohibits member states from using capital punishment as a judicial sentence."

And that second clause is way too broad. It would still allow sentences which were not proportionate to the crime.

The "replacement" will probably need to be replacements.

Imperfectia! Could we have a poll please? It just won't feel like a proper "AT VOTE" thread unless there is a poll.

Don't forget the Marvin the Martian option.

Imperfectia! Could we have a poll please? It just won't feel like a proper "AT VOTE" thread unless there is a poll.
Yes! Poll please!

I see the poll has arrived. :rolleyes:

I see the poll has arrived. :rolleyes:

Tell me what options you want and I'll edit it.

And for the record, I did not add that poll.

"Prohibits member states from using capital punishment as a judicial sentence."



Easy dodge. Capital level offences simply become civil matters handled by court arbitors who aren't members of the judiciary. I could still use capital punishment.

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;

And why is that a problem? In the Empire, we don't have crime, thanks (according to the UN report on our nation) to progressive social policies and an omnipresent police force. What better way to enforce our laws and ensure order than to make death the sentence for violation of the law?

Why is it any business of the government of Imperfectia how we treat our criminals?

I agree with Allech-Atreus. Especially concerning: CONCERNED that the second article gives nations the license to use capital punishment too freely;What defines "too freely?" I certainly don't believe that my nation is using Capital Punishment too freely, so, too, might nations who aren't using it at all. I question why it is the UN's right to decide what is too free or not on the issue of capital punishment. The UN professes to be a representative of its member nations, but this clearly alienates more authoritarian countries who need capital punishment in order to keep uprisings from overtaking them.

If Matianus were not allowed the use of Capital Punishment in cases that they see fit, how, then, could we execute traitors of the state? How could we keep more capitalist individuals from taking the money from the hard working people that they are responsible for paying? I certainly think that blue-collar crimes are deserving of death, as well as certain forms of trespassing.

I also believe that Capital Punishment is certainly able to be applied to some cases of illegal drug possession, which we, in Matianus, take dreadfully seriously. Especially in cases where the addict will not submit to rehabilitation, or will but refuses to stop possessing drugs. We have a "three times and you're out" rule with drug dealers and a five times and you're out in cases of just possession. Every time requires rehabilitation and jailtime. We also take our jails seriously. If you aren't in there to atone for your crimes, then you aren't in there at all and to the firing squad you go.

Attempting to eliminate an individual nation's right to decide for itself what is lawful to its people is wrong, and no place of the UN. I must vote against this.

On that note, I wonder if repeals are always necessary in the UN. Could we not ammend issues that we have with relatively good resolutions, such as this, which we may have one or two small issues with--rather than eliminating the entire resolution?

Fraj' Doodle Al' Mutin
No one in particular.

We have no problem with how you treat your criminals as long as they are not from our country on visa or carrying a passport from our country. We have no problem with executing people as necessary. We execute serial offenders in the following categories serial killers, serial rapists, and serial child molesters. For the most part these people have proven impossible to use psychological rehabilitation on, and we see them as a continued threat to the well being of our nation. They get executed.

Rex Smiley, Commonalitarianism Representative.

While my government is opposed to any use of the death penalty, what we would like to see is a "just" use of capital punishment.

And yes, I realize that "just" is open to many different interpretations. However, as stated in the repeal itself, we do not consider CP as just for what the majority of nations consider to be "petty" crimes. Murder, or other offenses of this nature, we realize that there is a stronger argument for the individual nation to sentence as they see appropriate (although, we do not believe that argument to be all persuasive).

Any replacement to FSA should limit the uses of the death penalty to those offenses that a majority of rational nations already use it for. This would not inhibit their rights, nor change their practices. What that replacement WOULD do, would be to curb excessive use of CP by nations most consider to be irrational.

Thus, to our government, this becomes a human rights issue.

For the record, I'm against the repeal, but I just had to vote Giraffe in a bathtub.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Easy dodge. Capital level offences simply become civil matters handled by court arbitors who aren't members of the judiciary. I could still use capital punishment.
Yeah, good catch. It would have to bar the judiciary, executive or legislative branches as well as non government organizations acting on behalf of the state from passing a death sentence. My "rewording" was just sort of a tongue in cheek retort to Gruen though. I really don't want to speculate on the content of a possible replacement yet.

What better way to enforce our laws and ensure order than to make death the sentence for violation of the law?
But just a few days ago everyone was screaming that a reasonable government would never do that, thus it was impossible for it to happen.

For the record, I'm against the repeal, but I just had to vote Giraffe in a bathtub.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I'm going to vote For the repeal, but I agree that the giraffe in a bathtub poll option is tempting.

I'm for, but I have to listen to my region, so I voted Giraffe in a Bathtub.

I am against this repeal. I have debated the reasons why I am against the repeal of the FSA many many times on many threads.

I urge all members of the UN to vote down this repeal. The FSA is vital to protecting nations rights to form the sentences that their people demand for criminals.

V. Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Waterana will be voting for this repeal.

As Witchcliff, I supported and voted for the FSA when it was on the floor. I've realised since that decision was a mistake, and intend to try and make up for it with my one insignificant puny vote.

While I do believe most sentencing decisions should always be in a nations hands, I've also come to see that there are some aspects of sentencing laws that do have a human rights impact, and not just the death penalty, where the UN has a place to legislate, and which this resolution prevents. Thus, I agree with the author of this repeal, and its supporters, that FSA needs to be struck down.

But just a few days ago everyone was screaming that a reasonable government would never do that, thus it was impossible for it to happen.

No, the argument was that reasonable governments wouldn't make torture and forced gangrape punishment for broken laws of any infraction, which reasonable governments do not do. Even reasonable governments have the death penalty.

Even reasonable governments have the death penalty.
For all crimes though?!

Maybe I misinterpreted your statement:
And why is that a problem? In the Empire, we don't have crime, thanks (according to the UN report on our nation) to progressive social policies and an omnipresent police force. What better way to enforce our laws and ensure order than to make death the sentence for violation of the law?

Why is it any business of the government of Imperfectia how we treat our criminals?
Correct me if I'm wrong (or if I've somehow misinterpreted your statement), but it sounds like you are implying that the death penalty is used for any violation.

I agree with Allech-Atreus. The UN professes to be a representative of its member nations, but this clearly alienates more authoritarian countries...

Alienates authoritarian regimes? Good. What is the UN for if it isn't the furtherance of democracy and human rights?

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

What will happen if this sanction is passed? I am not sure.

Greetings!

My nation is against this Repeal as it infringes the principle of sovereignty of nations upon which the UN was established. Each nation has the right to address the crimes committed in its territory as per its laws.

I agree with the author that capital punishment if used arbitrarily will result in crimes against humanity, but the Fair Sentencing Act places adequate controls by its wording:
"3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions "
Thereby independent judicial institutions can be established to review such sentences.

It also:
"Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just."
Thus a violation of this would give rise to a right of intervention to the UN on humanitarian grounds.

Thus clause 2 which is of concern to the author must not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole of the Resolution, which is also a rule of interpretation under international law.

I see, therefore, no need to establish a standardized practice as each society would be deprived of its approved practices. The fear of the author is allayed as there is sufficient regulation in place by the Resolution which he seeks to repeal.

I would still appreciate the author's interpretation, which has brought to light the possible excuse to misuse the Resolution 180.

I remain faithfully,
Delegate of La Sonadora

Greetings!

My nation is against this Repeal as it infringes the principle of sovereignty of nations upon which the UN was established. Each nation has the right to address the crimes committed in its territory as per its laws.

I agree with the author that capital punishment if used arbitrarily will result in crimes against humanity, but the Fair Sentencing Act places adequate controls by its wording:
"3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions "
Thereby independent judicial institutions can be established to review such sentences.

It also:
"Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just."
Thus a violation of this would give rise to a right of intervention to the UN on humanitarian grounds.

Thus clause 2 which is of concern to the author must not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole of the Resolution, which is also a rule of interpretation under international law.

I see, therefore, no need to establish a standardized practice as each society would be deprived of its approved practices. The fear of the author is allayed as there is sufficient regulation in place by the Resolution which he seeks to repeal.

I would still appreciate the author's interpretation, which has brought to light the possible excuse to misuse the Resolution 180.

I remain faithfully,
Delegate of La Sonadora

That has to be the most well written and thought out first post I have ever seen.

VK

I'm not too sure about this Proposal. Wouldn't it have been better as a resolution to abolish Capital Punishment, instead of a repeal? I have read Resolution #180, and it doesn't state anything expicitly about capital punishment.

You know, we get repeal motions for specific parts of resolutions being too specific and controlling, and yet this one is being attacked for leaving it up to the discretion of specific nations. So on one hand we get repeals for being too open, and on the other we get repeals for infringing on the sovereignty of nations. When will the madness end?

As far as the main argument of the repeal, is it not in fact better to leave sentencing in the jurisdiction of individual governments? They are certainly better judges of what crimes deserve what punishments. Certain crimes may be more prevalent in some nations than in others, so punishments should be different to deter crimes at appropriate levels.

If we are to determine what crimes deserve what punishment, we would need to create an entire UN criminal code to determine for every single offence, and determine what punishments are 'appropriate'. Not only would this list be arbitrary in nature, but it could not possibly cover all possible offences. In addition, many things that are crimes in certain nations are not in others, making it impossible to accomplish.

If all you are looking to accomplish in this resolution is exact a measure of control over what sentences to assign to what crimes, do this in a separate resolution instead of repealing the entire resolution and all the other parts of the resolution.

5 out of the last 8 resolutions passed have been repeal resolutions. Let the madness end, think of the starving children in the poor countries that are being ignored while we dispute whether or not our resolutions are 'good enough'.

As Witchcliff, I supported and voted for the FSA when it was on the floor. I've realised since that decision was a mistake, and intend to try and make up for it with my one insignificant puny vote.
Yeah, same with me.

5 out of the last 8 resolutions passed have been repeal resolutions.If it makes you feel better, only 8 out of the last 20 have been Repeals.

If all you are looking to accomplish in this resolution is exact a measure of control over what sentences to assign to what crimes, do this in a separate resolution instead of repealing the entire resolution and all the other parts of the resolution.

Actually, I WOULD do that, but no one can even attempt to write any resolutions of that kind while UN #180 is on the books. FSA was written explicitly so that no one could propose any resolutions dealing with sentencing on any level. That is one reason I would like to see it repealed. Even if other sentencing proposals are voted down, at least the UN should have the right to vote on such proposals.

Greetings!

My nation is against this Repeal as it infringes the principle of sovereignty of nations upon which the UN was established. Each nation has the right to address the crimes committed in its territory as per its laws.

I agree with the author that capital punishment if used arbitrarily will result in crimes against humanity, but the Fair Sentencing Act places adequate controls by its wording:
"3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions "
Thereby independent judicial institutions can be established to review such sentences.

It also:
"Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just."
Thus a violation of this would give rise to a right of intervention to the UN on humanitarian grounds.

Thus clause 2 which is of concern to the author must not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole of the Resolution, which is also a rule of interpretation under international law.

I see, therefore, no need to establish a standardized practice as each society would be deprived of its approved practices. The fear of the author is allayed as there is sufficient regulation in place by the Resolution which he seeks to repeal.

I would still appreciate the author's interpretation, which has brought to light the possible excuse to misuse the Resolution 180.

Simple. My reading of Resolution #180 is that it doesn't "REQUIRE" any such oversight. It mearly "calls for" and "requests." A nation may still remain a part of this body and NOT set up any of the oversight precautions called for in FSA. And even if a nation DOES set up some kind of judicial review process, who exactly would be establishing it? The nations themselves. In the majority of cases this would be fine - I believe that MOST natiosn are governed by sane leaders who have thier peoples best interests at heart. However, there are those nations who do not have thier peoples' best interests in mind. Those government could easliy set up a sentecning oversight panel which would do practiaclly notiong because who twould they be reporting to? The exact same government that unreasonably issued harsh sentences in the first place!

This is one of the fundamental flaws with this UN #180 and why my government woudl like to see it repealed.

And my government feels the same way.

Roderick Spear
Temporary UN Ambassador

Simple. My reading of Resolution #180 is that it doesn't "REQUIRE" any such oversight. It mearly "calls for" and "requests." A nation may still remain a part of this body and NOT set up any of the oversight precautions called for in FSA. And even if a nation DOES set up some kind of judicial review process, who exactly would be establishing it? The nations themselves. In the majority of cases this would be fine - I believe that MOST natiosn are governed by sane leaders who have thier peoples best interests at heart. However, there are those nations who do not have thier peoples' best interests in mind. Those government could easliy set up a sentecning oversight panel which would do practiaclly notiong because who twould they be reporting to? The exact same government that unreasonably issued harsh sentences in the first place!

Greetings!

The Delegate of La Sonadora understands the situation which Imperfectia puts forth. This is a paradox that reigns in the real world scenario.

It gives me the pleasure of suggesting two simple solutions to this problem. One is a matter of interpretation of Resolution 180. The other is a new proposal my humble self intends to draft, which essentially derives itself from the interpretation.

Firstly one can easily interpret clause 3 of Res. 180 (for that i quote this from Res. 180)
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.

If you notice Clause 3 does not call upon the nations unlike in clauses 1, 2, and 4 which request, declare and recommend the nations to take steps specifically. Clause 3 clearly by omitting the word nations calls upon then whom to establish such bodies? The plausible answer is the UN. These bodies set up by the UN will not affect the soveriegn right of nations to judge their own criminals but instead will ensure that the member nations respect Res. 180. in matters such as fair trial and whether sentencing power is exceeded.

Thus my second solution is the drafting of a proposal establishing an International Criminal Court having jurisdiction over International Crimes and having the discretion (upon request) to exercise opinion on a trial involving death sentence which has reached the apex court of a particular nation. This addresses Imperfectia's concerns, i sincerely hope.

My second solution in its crude form will attract questions. I shall submit a more carefully drafted proposal for debate.

Pax Deorum!

<sigh>

The only rational thing to do is vote "Giraffe in a bathtub."

Too many nationstates moan about national sovereignty. If you don't like your nation being subject to international law, resign. Then you can truly be totally free to do as you wish without interference from the international community of nations.

I hate repeals on general principles, so I am going to have to investigate this resolution further.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Clause 3 clearly by omitting the word nations calls upon then whom to establish such bodies? The plausible answer is the UN.
No. The plausible answer could include the UN. But it is not it alone. It could also include nations, regions, and more local authorities. I spent an incredibly long and foul-mouthed time rebutting the assertion made at the time that this established a UN supreme court, so I'm not wild about seeing it raised again. But let me point out clause 3 implicitly completely excludes the UN setting up such bodies: the UN is not accountable. The UN cannot create accountable committees: it is verboten by the powers that be. For a resolution to be legal, its committee must be unaccountable.

Therefore, regardless of the direction of the calling, the UN cannot set up such bodies.

These bodies set up by the UN will not affect the soveriegn right of nations to judge their own criminals but instead will ensure that the member nations respect Res. 180. in matters such as fair trial and whether sentencing power is exceeded.
Resolution #180 places no cap that "sentencing power" could exceed.

Thus my second solution is the drafting of a proposal establishing an International Criminal Court having jurisdiction over International Crimes and having the discretion (upon request) to exercise opinion on a trial involving death sentence which has reached the apex court of a particular nation. This addresses Imperfectia's concerns, i sincerely hope.
I doubt it will, given it's on request (as it would have to be to remain legal), and the nations the representatives of Imperfectia are concerned about wouldn't lodge such a request.

Also, not to discourage you, but International Court proposals have failed before. It's an idea that needs really detailed work, because it doesn't seem the GA takes that kindly to it in general.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

If it makes you feel better, only 8 out of the last 20 have been Repeals.

Three cheers for the repeal machine taking a brief break, but don't worry...it will be back. :rolleyes:

I hate repeals on general principles...

Those being...? We prefer to acknowledge when the UN has made a mistake, and seek to correct those mistakes.

My initial attitude is to vote for the repeal considering what a jerk Gruenberg was during the discussion on the last UN Resolution. But Alas I must listen to the wishes of my Region ~ Democracy you know.

So, with Principles over Personalities, We send Gruenberg some Utmost Brownies; begin with the "Giraffe in a bathtub"; wish all a Merry Christmas; and cast our Vote at the appropriate time.

Peace Out and Kisses

Love Conquers Fear

;p

I am happy to announce that I, and Charis as a region, will be voting FOR this repeal.

Roderick Spear
Temporary UN Ambassador

Posted on the NationStates Regional Message Board:

It is our initial view that Resolution # 180, which was overwhelmingly voted into law, does not meet any plausible standard for repeal and in fact merits retention in the UN.

Mikeswill

Unless otherwise convinced by compelling argument, this UN Delegate shall lobby AGAINST the repeal efforts.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

Perhaps we should consider to clear the capital punishment with UN-Resolution like the 6th Proctocoll to the European Convention of Human Roights?

The argument seems to be that FSA can be abused. Hey, you know what! It seems that any resolution ever made by man-kind or any other species can be abused! We could just as well repeal any other resolution, but hey, you know what! That is not going to happen.

Oh, and people, quit complaining about the repeal frenzy. Why don't you create a resolution before starting to complain. (Yes, we haven't made a resolution, but we tried, and we aren't complaining about a repeal frenzy, but rather those who complain about it.)

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

I'm Against this for multiple reasons.

The only argument provided by the repeal is that capital punishment may be used too frequently in some countries. Besides the fact that there is no evidence to back this assertion, Resolution 180 already has safe-gaurds in place to protect against unjust sentencing, including:

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

...

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

Furthermore, a resolution restricting capital punishment could be proposed without conflicting with Resolution 180. This repeal is uneeded.

From UN Representative Massud of Gilabad,

Both proposals are outrageous!! Each nation has the sovereign right to treat their citizens as they see fit!!! No international law is should interfere with the right of sovereignty!! Capitol punishment first of all, has been a proven deterent for criminals willing to break the laws that a country holds paramount in its own society. That's why differing laws on capitol punishment in different countries come into play. For instance, one nation might feel that adultery is immoral and disgusting, so they put a capitol punishment with the offense. That's their government's choice to do so, and they have every right to do so. Another country may see shoplifting as a disgusting and immoral offense and they may put a capitol punishment with that offense. Capitol punishment goes with each nation's "pallet" (if you will) of tolerance. It's their choice, it's their right, and it's none of the UN's buisiness!!!!

-Representative Massud

I would like to add that certain nations may always try to avoid the implementation of UN resolutions even though they are a part of this organization, however a resolution that attempts to enforce a degree of equality, such as the Fair Sentencing Act, is better than having no resolution at all. The flaws of the FSA are far fewer and less damaging than the effects of this repeal.

Capitol punishment goes with each nation's "pallet" (if you will) of tolerance. It's their choice, it's their right, and it's none of the UN's buisiness!!!!
You should vote against this repeal then.

The only argument provided by the repeal is that capital punishment may be used too frequently in some countries. Besides the fact that there is no evidence to back this assertion, Resolution 180 already has safe-gaurds in place to protect against unjust sentencing
For instance, one nation might feel that adultery is immoral and disgusting, so they put a capitol punishment with the offense. That's their government's choice to do so, and they have every right to do so. Another country may see shoplifting as a disgusting and immoral offense and they may put a capitol punishment with that offense.
One of you must be wrong. I'd say it's Fishyguy. Under FSA, nations could indeed issue a death sentence for adultery or shoplifting.

Furthermore, a resolution restricting capital punishment could be proposed without conflicting with Resolution 180. This repeal is uneeded.
Really? Would you care to provide an example of what such a resolution might look like?

One of you must be wrong. I'd say it's Fishyguy. Under FSA, nations could indeed issue a death sentence for adultery or shoplifting.

They could, and I would strongly recommend it be reveiwed by one of the independent bodies the FSA calls for.

Really? Would you care to provide an example of what such a resolution might look like?
No, because I would probably vote against it.

From Representative Massud of Gilabad,

What was meant by the previous statement, was that for one, Gilabad as a nation, has no regard for for Resolution 180 (we don't abide by it!!). But for the main point, was that nations have their own positions on what warrants capitol punishment, and it's their decision! In other words, Gilabad will be in full protest of repealing the resolution, not because of Resolution 180, but because it impeads on a Nation's right to sovereignty! By no means is it the interest or the place of the UN to be involved with such internal affairs!!! I'd like to see a resolution with arbitrary conditions on which a nation carries out its death sentence. Not only would such a resolution not work (my nation being an example), but it would usurp the right of sovereignty to governments!!

-Representative Massud

OOC: Before anyone gets too worked up trying to teach Gilabad to read remember who (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469824) you're dealing with.

IC: Gilabad...ah, bad memories, bad memories. Man, was Lori in shit after that.

Anyway, we'd be incredibly interested to know how exactly you "don't abide" by Resolution #180, given its complete absence of firm provisions in any matter. It was tagged as "Mild" for a reason.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

No, because I would probably vote against it.
No, because such a resolution would be illegal so long as FSA is in place.

What was meant by the previous statement, was that for one, Gilabad as a nation, has no regard for for Resolution 180 (we don't abide by it!!).
This is indeed interesting. Your courts are not affected by the "independent and accountable bodies" called for by FSA?

(OOC: I was just having a little fun with that one. That was also meant to start a war, but didn't turn out as it should.....by the way who was Lori? :OOC)

Representative Massud has been executed on the orders of President, Warlord Shawhabas and has been replaced by Borat Sogadiev, due to his ineffectiveness and disaproval rating.........

(OOC: the last OOC was refferring to the conflict that happened like 1 RL year ago in the II forum, if that was misconstrued with my previous statement........:OOC)

Those being...? We prefer to acknowledge when the UN has made a mistake, and seek to correct those mistakes.

Let us be frank, not all repeals are written to actually solve a problem. Some people simply disagree with the legislation and would prefer it to go away.

I give repeal resolutions extra scrutiny before I vote in favor of them, not that I do not give other resolutions a reasonable amount of scrutiny and thought, just I am an untrusting soul when it comes to removing a resolution from the books.

... I certainly don't believe that my nation is using Capital Punishment too freely, ... If Matianus were not allowed the use of Capital Punishment in cases that they see fit, ... How could we keep more capitalist individuals from taking the money from the hard working people that they are responsible for paying? I certainly think that blue-collar crimes are deserving of death, as well as certain forms of trespassing.

I also believe that Capital Punishment is certainly able to be applied to some cases of illegal drug possession, ... If you aren't in there to atone for your crimes, then you aren't in there at all and to the firing squad you go.
Representative Massud has been executed on the orders of President, Warlord Shawhabas ... due to his ineffectiveness and disaproval rating.........It must be Christmas. Over the course of debate concerning repeal of the FSA, I and others have been challenged to provide examples of member nations who use capital punishment for less than heinous crimes. and thus the need to initially repeal and then strengthen provisions of the FSA. And here we have two perfectly appropriate examples of situations where the nature and number of executions rise to violations of human rights. We thank you Gilabad and Matianus for your honesty before this body.
They could, and I would strongly recommend it be reveiwed by one of the independent bodies the FSA calls for.As has been already noted in this very debate, one can "urge" and "call for" for something until the cows come home but that doesn't make it exist. Had the FSA "established" or "created" said independent bodies you might have a point.
I hate repeals on general principles, so I am going to have to investigate this resolution further.We commiserate with the Ambassador from Schwarzchild concerning what seems a 'one-step-forward-two-steps-back' progression of resolutions. However, your commitment to further investigation is laudable, sir.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

LAE vote FOR this repeal, as we fail to see why this body has to declare a blancket right to governments (including those with poor democratic and human rights records) to determine sentences.

Greetings!

My nation is against this Repeal as it infringes the principle of sovereignty of nations upon which the UN was established.

We would like to welcome the Ambassador of La Sonadora in this hall. And we would like to invite him/her to have a look at the passed resolutions and also at the page where proposals are submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_new_proposal), as he/she will notice that NSUN members when joining this body, de facto agree to give up a part of their sovereignty (until they resign) to this body.
That said, of course, every member has a different vision about what is the best level of national sovereignty inside the NSUN, this is indeed an important debate.

The argument seems to be that FSA can be abused. Hey, you know what! It seems that any resolution ever made by man-kind or any other species can be abused!

Indeed, most if not all resolutions can be abused. But I'm convinced that it is not a reason to give up and to do nothing. We are trying to legislate the best that we can all together, to pass resolution, sometimes we fail, sometimes a topic can be dealt better and then we repeal and replace resolutions.
I think it's not because resolutions cannot be perfect that we have to declares easy blancket right to nations.

No. The plausible answer could include the UN. But it is not it alone. It could also include nations, regions, and more local authorities. I spent an incredibly long and foul-mouthed time rebutting the assertion made at the time that this established a UN supreme court, so I'm not wild about seeing it raised again. But let me point out clause 3 implicitly completely excludes the UN setting up such bodies: the UN is not accountable. The UN cannot create accountable committees: it is verboten by the powers that be. For a resolution to be legal, its committee must be unaccountable.

Greetings!
At the outset I see conflict in your argument. On one hand you agree that the UN could be included in clause 3, on the other you state it cannot create accountable committees and thus is implicitly excluded.

Further, I believe the Res 180. clause 3 calls for the UN not as an independent body but by passing resolutions voted upon by various nation states to collectively work on the establishment of such bodies to review sentences.

Also in response to your statement Resolution #180 places no cap that "sentencing power" could exceed Res. 180 does not explicitly lay this down, but its implicit in its wording whereby it recommends that a level of sentencing power taking into account various considerations be laid down.

Those being...? We prefer to acknowledge when the UN has made a mistake, and seek to correct those mistakes.

This is why I agree with and appreciate the author that this proposed repeal has brought out some intended abuses of Res. 180, which in my humble opinion can be shown to have been covered by the Res. 180 adequately. And if they in the opinion of the UN are truly not adequately controlled by Res. 180 then as Jey states..we must correct that mistake.

Pax Deorum!

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Hello!! I am Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad! I am here to keep this proposal from passing. If it is not success, then I will be execute.....Now as you can see, this proposal impedes on the sovereign rule of nations. This is not good....If I may ask why would anyone think of taking away a nation's right to sovereignty? I can gaurantee that not only will this inbalance in power cause problems within many a nation's own government, this is the start of massive bloodshed due to the rise of tyrannical factions via a revolution. If the government is not able to deter such factions through capitol punishment, then nations will be torn to pieces and international relations will fail!!!

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

Just so I have a proper frame of reference, please allow me to present the following hypothetical situation.

Nation A has a long, drawn-out and hyper-scrutinized capital punishment process, with appeals at every possible level, judicial review, the whole wall of backs (strike that last, reverse it).

Nation B's approach to captial punishment is somewhat...less...thorough. In fact, it's just about as close to "summary" as you can get without actually double-tapping the suspect in the back of the police car.

However, Nation A extends the death penalty all the way down to aggravated assault and grand larceny, with sub-capital punishments down to jaywalking and littering and parking violations being commensurately severe.

Nation B exacts death only for premeditated murder and child rape and commits fully to rehabilitation for every other offense...including "scared straight" programs for the aforementioned jaywalkers and litterbugs.

Which nation is in more dire need of sentencing watchdogs and/or the provisions of the FSA? At what point does/can/should the UN step in and say "that's cruel and unusual" or "no" in some other way that makes a difference?

Finally, what of crimes that occur across international boundaries? I realize that question may have been volleyballed about during debates on ICC-type resolutions in the past, so a quick precis is fine on that point.

What say the Assembly?

This one is really close.2800 cast now,and and 80 vote lead.

LAE vote FOR this repeal, as we fail to see why this body has to declare a blancket right to governments (including those with poor democratic and human rights records) to determine sentences.

Quite frankly, we fail to understand the imperialism and arrogance that goes behind the mindset that believes it is ok for these United Nations to take that right AWAY from nations. As we have been from the beginning, Altanar opposes this repeal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Quite frankly, we fail to understand the imperialism and arrogance that goes behind the mindset that believes it is ok for these United Nations to take that right AWAY from nations. As we have been from the beginning, Altanar opposes this repeal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Altanar, I think my answer was already in my post you quote: members when joining this body, de facto agree to give up a part of their sovereignty (until they resign) to this body and I suppose that your government act responsibly, freely and not randomly when joining international bodies, so I fail to see the imperialism and arrogance. Furthermore, unlike in many nations, the NSUN legislative process is democratic.

<sigh>
Too many nationstates moan about national sovereignty. If you don't like your nation being subject to international law, resign. Then you can truly be totally free to do as you wish without interference from the international community of nations.

I hate repeals on general principles, so I am going to have to investigate this resolution further.

The Representative of La Sonadora believes that international law and national soveriegnty are complimentary, though it is true that it may become excuse to avoid obligations under international law. However, one should not merely look at national sovereignty harshly. It is a principle that prevents a lot of conflicts and maintains international peace. For eg: Country A could send "Peacekeeping Troops" to Country B in order to "curb violence" citing "humanitarian intervention" because one individual in Country B was murdered brutally. My example is crude, but you do see what i attempt to put forth.

I do appreciate your laudable effort to investigate further into this issue. This is why debates are important.

LAE vote FOR this repeal, as we fail to see why this body has to declare a blancket right to governments (including those with poor democratic and human rights records) to determine sentences.

We would like to welcome the Ambassador of La Sonadora in this hall. he/she will notice that NSUN members when joining this body, de facto agree to give up a part of their sovereignty (until they resign) to this body.
That said, of course, every member has a different vision about what is the best level of national sovereignty inside the NSUN, this is indeed an important debate.


At the outset, I thank you for your warm welcome and general directions on the game.

I believe that the Res. 180 does not confer blanket rights but instead a comprehensive right which is adequately controlled by the wording of the Res. itself.

I agree that each nation while joining NSUN gives up part of its sovereignty, but to what extent is a debate as your worthy self pointed out. I believe that Res. 180 attempts to partially take away a nations right to determine sentences for offences as argued by me in previous post. This is a sufficient control. Attempting to standardize capital punishment may infringe excessively on the principle of sovereignty.

Pax Deorum!

OOC : Ok whoever reads this reply pls help. I have no idea why my posts are not going up. then i see that they have been deleted by the mostglorioushack. i didnt see any sign saying they need moderator's approval. so what is it that i am doin wrong. i am not that good with comps. any technical thing i need to be aware of? : OOC

Ok whoever reads this reply pls help. I have no idea why my posts are not going up. then i see that they have been deleted by the mostglorioushack. i didnt see any sign saying they need moderator's approval. so what is it that i am doin wrong. i am not that good with comps. any technical thing i need to be aware of?

This link should answer your question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849)

OOC: Thank You!

At the outset I see conflict in your argument. On one hand you agree that the UN could be included in clause 3, on the other you state it cannot create accountable committees and thus is implicitly excluded.
You're right: but it's not a conflict.

My point is that if you want to read clause 3 as appealling to the UN, that is a) fine and b) irrelevant, because the UN cannot create accountable committees. Arguing about whether the exclusion of "nations" means the clause applies to the UN is thereby not any matter of concern, because in fact the UN cannot live up to the clause's calling anyway.

Further, I believe the Res 180. clause 3 calls for the UN not as an independent body but by passing resolutions voted upon by various nation states to collectively work on the establishment of such bodies to review sentences.
Your belief is wrong. There was no intention for that kind of - in any case illegal - plan when clause 3 was written.

Also in response to your statement Resolution #180 places no cap that "sentencing power" could exceed Res. 180 does not explicitly lay this down, but its implicit in its wording whereby it recommends that a level of sentencing power taking into account various considerations be laid down.
It's a recommendation and nothing more. The UN can't enforce something it's agreed not to enforce.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

From what i gather from the statements of the Representative of Gruenberg i can see he intends to establish a standardized practice or something of the nature which is more enforceable than the present Res. 180 and thus prevent arbitrary enforcement of capital punishment. This may strike a wrong chord with many nations and regions for it might infringe on their soveriegn rights. This is why th NSUN resolutions are primarily recommendatory and not enforceable as you yourself have stated.

You may be successful in the repeal as i do see the possibility of abuse as you suggest. However a draft to replace Res. 180 will be a better idea. I do sincerely hope that you are successful in drafting such a resolution.

If you can produce a replacement draft for discussion, it would further your stance in the present debate.

From what i gather from the statements of the Representative of Gruenberg i can see he intends to establish a standardized practice or something of the nature which is more enforceable than the present Res. 180 and thus prevent arbitrary enforcement of capital punishment.
No. I think you may be getting confused, given I wrote Resolution #180.

This may strike a wrong chord with many nations and regions for it might infringe on their soveriegn rights.
This reasoning primarily informing as it does my voting against the repeal. And, you know, writing the resolution in the first place.

This is why th NSUN resolutions are primarily recommendatory and not enforceable as you yourself have stated.
At no stage have I stated this.

You may be successful in the repeal as i do see the possibility of abuse as you suggest.
I have never suggested that there is any abuse, or more fully that the UN should concern itself judging what constitutes an abuse.

However a draft to replace Res. 180 will be a better idea.
Yes, but the best idea will be just voting the repeal down.

If you can produce a replacement draft for discussion, it would further your stance in the present debate.
Given my stance is "vote against the repeal", I hardly see how.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Altanar, I think my answer was already in my post you quote: members when joining this body, de facto agree to give up a part of their sovereignty (until they resign) to this body and I suppose that your government act responsibly, freely and not randomly when joining international bodies, so I fail to see the imperialism and arrogance. Furthermore, unlike in many nations, the NSUN legislative process is democratic.

They agree to give up a reasonable amount of sovereignty. Dictating to them how they should punish their own criminals is not a reasonable amount. And the imperialism and arrogance stems from the mindset that some other nation knows better than we Altanari do how we should punish our criminals (or, for that matter, that the "civilized" nations have a right to impose that on any other nation they deem to have "uncivilized" CP policies, or forms of government). We do not presume to tell your nation (as an example) how you should punish your criminals, and we really wish the delegations pushing this affront to compromise and fairness would do the same in turn.

Altanar (like many nations) applies CP with extreme restraint and tries to make the process as painless as possible for the person being executed. Why should nations that practice a responsible CP policy be penalized because of the nations that don't? How many nations even apply CP in the reckless manner that this repeal seems to suggest?

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

My apologies! I was under the misunderstanding you (Gruenberg) were for this repeal. I was under the belief that you and Imperfectia were from the same region! I am completely against the repeal and hope it does not take place. In fact I applaud your wording of the Res. 180.

My apologies! I was under the misunderstanding you were for this repeal. I was under the belief that you and Imperfectia were from the same region! I am completely against the repeal and hope it does not take place. In fact I applaud your wording of the Res. 180.
Right. Well thank you.

Although now I'm a little concerned about how my arguments are appearing to others.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I believe I am partly responsible for that through my misunderstanding, but yes..also your wording was a bit confusing. I was trying to interpret your resolution to counter Imperfectia's arguments, which you countered. So i thought you were for the repeal!

Altanar (like many nations) applies CP with extreme restraint and tries to make the process as painless as possible for the person being executed.
And when the repeal passes you can continue to do that, you just won't be doing it with the blessing of the NSUN. Have you seen any evidence that a CP ban is being drafted? Do you think one would even pass? I think your "right" to snuff prisoners is safe for the forseeable future, but with FSA repealed, you won't be able to point to it anymore and say "look, look, the NSUN says we can do this!"

Too many nationstates moan about national sovereignty. If you don't like your nation being subject to international law, resign. Then you can truly be totally free to do as you wish without interference from the international community of nations.
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/4650/notagaingh9.jpg
LAE vote FOR this repeal, as we fail to see why this body has to declare a blancket right to governments (including those with poor democratic and human rights records) to determine sentences.
If said nation set up their laws, why shouldn't they be able to determine punishment for violating them?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And when the repeal passes you can continue to do that, you just won't be doing it with the blessing of the NSUN. Have you seen any evidence that a CP ban is being drafted? Do you think one would even pass? I think your "right" to snuff prisoners is safe for the forseeable future, but with FSA repealed, you won't be able to point to it anymore and say "look, look, the NSUN says we can do this!"

But why should the NSUN, directly or otherwise, even be able to say we can't do it?

More to the point, if you really expect me to believe a CP ban won't be forthcoming once FSA is repealed, you must think I am really naive. One of the clauses of this repeal specifically states:

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

How exactly do you think we should interpret the intent behind that?

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Too many nationstates moan about national sovereignty. If you don't like your nation being subject to international law, resign. Then you can truly be totally free to do as you wish without interference from the international community of nations.

That would be acceptable, if one chose to shirk their responsibilities to the international community, or deprive themselves of any chance to try to make the UN saner and more rational. Not every nation views running away as an option. Running away is also not something one should have to do because of "international law" that is idiotic or intrusive.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

But why should the NSUN, directly or otherwise, even be able to say we can't do it?
Why should the NSUN, directly or otherwise, say that you can?

More to the point, if you really expect me to believe a CP ban won't be forthcoming once FSA is repealed, you must think I am really naive. I'd rather not even take that chance.
I've heard nothing (and believe me, if there was one I would know about it) to indicate that a CP ban is in the works. That doesn't mean someone won't try eventually, but as far a I can tell one isn't being worked on now. Furthermore, even though I would support a CP ban, I don't think one could pass this assembly.

What I expect is:

a). Nothing.

or

b). Legislation guaranteeing that sentencing is proportionate to the crime. A strengthening of the current provisions against cruel and barbaric punishments. A requirement that if CP is used, it is only done after a proper appeals process and is carried out in a humane and painless manner.

Why should the NSUN, directly or otherwise, say that you can?

My understanding is that current legislation on the books guarantees the right of nations to choose appropriate punishments for their legal systems, and has protections against disproportionate sentencing or cruel forms of punishment. I fail to see what is unfair about that, or what requires changing. And as far as why the NSUN should allow nations to select their own forms of criminal punishment, I would consider it a matter of respect, quite frankly, and recognition that a cookie-cutter approach forced upon all nations does not engender goodwill.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

And as far as why the NSUN should allow nations to select their own forms of criminal punishment, I would consider it a matter of respect, quite frankly
But it doesn't show much respect for nations that consider capital punishment to be a human rights abuse, does it?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, killing Altanari prisoners because Altanari law says it is OK is one thing, killing Altanari prisoners because UN law says it is OK is quite another. You shouldn't expect those of us who oppose the DP to support your endeavors through UN legislation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, killing Altanari prisoners because Altanari law says it is OK is one thing, killing Altanari prisoners because UN law says it is OK is quite another. You shouldn't expect those of us who oppose the DP to support your endeavors through UN legislation.
That's true of absolutely every form of punishment, though. If you choose to pardon criminals, or give them rehabilitation instead of punishment, or give them life sentences instead of death sentences, then we might find them distasteful. You're reading into the FSA a bias towards the death penalty that isn't found in the text (http://www.nationstates.net/52292/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179). Everyone harps on about FSA being a death penalty blocker. Where in the text is the death penalty even mentioned? It shows as much bias towards non-capital punishments as it does to capital ones: absolutely none.

If you choose to pardon criminals, or give them rehabilitation instead of punishment, or give them life sentences instead of death sentences, then we might find them distasteful.
But would you consider the pardoning of prisoners or rehabilitation to be human rights abuses?

You're reading into the FSA a bias towards the death penalty that isn't found in the text (http://www.nationstates.net/52292/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179). Everyone harps on about FSA being a death penalty blocker. Where in the text is the death penalty even mentioned? It shows as much bias towards non-capital punishments as it does to capital ones: absolutely none.
I hadn't intended this to turn into a discussion of CP. Someone else (*points at Altanar*) brought it up. My primary concern with FSA is more to do with it allowing the use of disproportionate sentencing, allowing such abhorrent punishments as judicial rape, and the FACT that nations can do these things and then grin smugly and hold up a copy of FSA saying "see, the UN says we can do these things".

But it doesn't show much respect for nations that consider capital punishment to be a human rights abuse, does it?

It doesn't show you a lack of respect at all. It doesn't require you to use CP, last time I checked. Your desires are being respected by the existing legislation; the desires of nations that use CP responsibly are not by this repeal effort.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, killing Altanari prisoners because Altanari law says it is OK is one thing, killing Altanari prisoners because UN law says it is OK is quite another. You shouldn't expect those of us who oppose the DP to support your endeavors through UN legislation.

I don't expect you to support Altanar's use of CP, or any other nation's use of it. I do expect you to respect our desires enough to leave us alone and not forcibly impose an undesired outcome on us, for a situation that does not affect your nations at all, other than offending you, perhaps. That, however, does appear increasingly to be an unrealistic expectation.

But would you consider the pardoning of prisoners or rehabilitation to be human rights abuses?
I consider wasting tax payers' money promoting recidivism to be an abuse of the rights of those propping up and being endangered by the wasteful ventures, yes.

I hadn't intended this to turn into a discussion of CP. Someone else (*points at Altanar*) brought it up. My primary concern with FSA is more to do with it allowing the use of disproportionate sentencing, allowing such abhorrent punishments as judicial rape, and the FACT that nations can do these things and then grin smugly and hold up a copy of FSA saying "see, the UN says we can do these things".
But they can't. Disproportionate sentencing is already outlawed by the UN under Resolution #47. FSA has no authority to override that. If Definition of 'Fair Trial' were repealed, you'd have a case; at the time of writing FSA, no such prospect appeared imminent.

I hadn't intended this to turn into a discussion of CP. Someone else (*points at Altanar*) brought it up.

Point that finger at this repeal instead. It specifically mentions CP. That's what started this issue.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It doesn't show you a lack of respect at all. It doesn't require you to use CP, last time I checked.
I think you're missing the point. I consider the use of CP to be a human rights abuse even when it is carried out in Altanar by Altanari authorities. The concept of human rights transcends national boundaries.
Your desires are being respected by the existing legislation; the desires of nations that use CP responsibly are not by this repeal effort.
Are you under the impression that your ability to kill prisoners will be removed when this repeal passes? It won't be, but you'll no longer have a UN document to help justify your actions.

That would be acceptable, if one chose to shirk their responsibilities to the international community, or deprive themselves of any chance to try to make the UN saner and more rational. Not every nation views running away as an option. Running away is also not something one should have to do because of "international law" that is idiotic or intrusive.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Kindly note that this is not the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild's position, Ambassador. However, I find your assessment of someone choosing not to be in the NSUN or resigning from the NSUN as "running away" highly inflammatory language, it is similar to political debates about withdrawing from a war zone as "cutting and running."

I was considering this particular repeal and I felt I needed more time on this decision. That decision is made.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes AGAINST this repeal. It's flaws outweigh it's merits and the desired repeal of a recently instituted resolution indicate to me some political drama between factions that this nation will not engage in, willingly or unwillingly. Whether we voted for or against the resolution up for repeal is not relevant and is not up for discussion.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I think you're missing the point. I consider the use of CP to be a human rights abuse even when it is carried out in Altanar by Altanari authorities. The concept of human rights transcends national boundaries.

And what of the rights of people who we desire to protect with our laws? One prominent example in our legal records concerns a man who killed 16 people, and despite our best efforts at rehabilitation, showed no sign whatsoever of changing. He tried to attack his guards several times while in prison, and also tried to escape. We executed this individual because we felt he posed a continuing threat to our populace, and felt that the many lives that could be spared by removing this dangerous threat were equally important. In the end, the greater good prevailed. Now, because you feel your self-righteous tripe "transcends national boundaries", you would take that right away from us, and potentially expose our citizenry to greater dangers. The arrogance behind that mentality is staggering.

Are you under the impression that your ability to kill prisoners will be removed when this repeal passes? It won't be, but you'll no longer have a UN document to help justify your actions.

As it has been pointed out already, FSA does a great deal more than deal with CP. Removing FSA just to get rid of the "justification" to use CP (a right nations should, by all rights, have anyway) is like shooting your foot off to remove a hangnail.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Kindly note that this is not the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild's position, Ambassador. However, I find your assessment of someone choosing not to be in the NSUN or resigning from the NSUN as "running away" highly inflammatory language, it is similar to political debates about withdrawing from a war zone as "cutting and running."

I apologize if my words were in any way offensive. But to suggest that nations that disagree with whatever legislative offal is proposed in the UN on a given day should just leave is, to us, cutting and running.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes AGAINST this repeal. It's flaws outweigh it's merits and the desired repeal of a recently instituted resolution indicate to me some political drama between factions that this nation will not engage in, willingly or unwillingly. Whether we voted for or against the resolution up for repeal is not relevant and is not up for discussion.

Whatever your reasons, we thank you for voting against it.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I consider wasting tax payers' money promoting recidivism to be an abuse of the rights of those propping up and being endangered by the wasteful ventures, yes.
You care about how Yelda chooses to spend its tax revenue? Why?

But they can't. Disproportionate sentencing is already outlawed by the UN under Resolution #47. FSA has no authority to override that. If Definition of 'Fair Trial' were repealed, you'd have a case; at the time of writing FSA, no such prospect appeared imminent.
Yes they can. Do you want that I should have Felix prove it? Look, we've already had this discussion in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510983). I remain unconvinced that earlier resolutions such as UNR #47 provide adequate protections against the licence provided by clause 2 of FSA.

you would take that right away from us
How does this repeal take that right away from you?

You care about how Yelda chooses to spend its tax revenue? Why?
Because property is a universal human right. You seem to want to drag this into a discussion of universal rights that transcend national boundaries: well, there you goat.

You're the one arguing matters of criminal justice transcend national boundaries. Surely you're not now going to argue that only flows one way?

Yes they can. Do you want that I should have Felix prove it? Look, we've already had this discussion in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510983). I remain unconvinced that earlier resolutions such as UNR #47 provide adequate protections against the licence provided by clause 2 of FSA.
I see. So you don't think that the UN prohibiting disproportionate sentencing will stop disproportionate sentencing. In the words of a great man, why all the fucking whining then?

How does this repeal take that right away from you?

The repeal specifically mentions "the license to use capital punishment too freely" as a justification for repealing FSA. To suggest that this repeal is not intended as some form or fashion to eventually attack the right to use CP is, to us, a disingenuous argument.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Because property is a universal human right.
ho ho ho, he he he , ha ha ha. OK, we're done with this particular line of debate.


I see. So you don't think that the UN prohibiting disproportionate sentencing will stop disproportionate sentencing. In the words of a great man, why all the fucking whining then?
Who, in your opinion, would get to decide whether the sentence was proportionate? A judge could easily say that judicial rape was a proportionate sentence for the "crime" of adultery.

(note: I know we've been over this before. I'm about to just start copy and pasting my responses from elsewhere rather than keep repeating myself.)

Who, in your opinion, would get to decide whether the sentence was proportionate? A judge could easily say that judicial rape was a proportionate sentence for the "crime" of adultery.
Sorry, I'm waiting for you to point out what would be wrong with that.

Sorry, I'm waiting for you to point out what would be wrong with that.
You know, you're right. All whoring slut adultresses could stand to undergo a good old fashioned raping. What the hell was I thinking?

You know, you're right. All whoring slut adultresses could stand to undergo a good old fashioned raping. What the hell was I thinking?
You were presumably thinking in Yeldan mindset, with regard for Yeldan culture, values, morals and law. Which is pretty understandable, and I certainly won't seek to impose my - Gruenberger - way of thinking on you or your country. Indeed, I think you've just amply demonstrated how attitudes to punishment vary from nation to nation, and are thus not really anything the UN can usefully muck about with.

I think you've just amply demonstrated how attitudes to punishment vary from nation to nation
Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, I offer to you Exhibit A: The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg, where judicial rape is considered a "proportionate sentence".

Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, I offer to you Exhibit A: The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg, where judicial rape is considered a "proportionate sentence".

Perhaps you should offer your nation up as an example of nations that know better than everyone else, and have the "moral right" to judge how other nations handle their own legal affairs. I am sure that Altanar would not approve of the judicial practices of many of the nations here, but we also do believe that moralizing and judging are possibly the least effective means of convincing anyone to do anything, ever.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Again, not a rebuttal, just a lot of bluster. It's becoming something of a pattern.
"You're a bad nasty bad man!"

"Why?"

"...er...look at the bad nasty man!"

"Yes, but why do you think I'm bad or nasty?"

"...cough...uh...tumbleweed...come see how bad and nasty he is!"
Please. Your hyperbole is becoming wearing. You haven't demonstrated that there is an overriding interest in fiddling with criminal sentencing: indeed, you decided to close off the only line of argument, that of human rights transcending national borders, that could have done so.

Again, not a rebuttal, just a lot of bluster. It's becoming something of a pattern.
You're a bad, nasty man.

you decided to close off the only line of argument, that of human rights transcending national borders, that could have done so.
We can talk about human rights transcending national borders if you want. What we're not going to talk about is your attempt to infuse the notion of property as a universal human right into the discussion.

We can talk about human rights transcending national borders if you want. What we're not going to talk about is your attempt to infuse the notion of property as a universal human right into the discussion.
I see. So the only human rights that are allowed to be universal are the ones you agree with. What an astonishingly convenient turn of affairs.

Perhaps you should offer your nation up as an example of nations that know better than everyone else, and have the "moral right" to judge how other nations handle their own legal affairs. I am sure that Altanar would not approve of the judicial practices of many of the nations here, but we also do believe that moralizing and judging are possibly the least effective means of convincing anyone to do anything, ever.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador
Heh. If you find what I've said so far distressing then you may want to take a break from these proceedings. I haven't even gotten to the moralizing and judging phase yet.

I see. So the only human rights that are allowed to be universal are the ones you agree with. What an astonishingly convenient turn of affairs.
*sigh* OK, fine. Since we don't have anything better to do, if you can present a plausible case for the budget of the Yeldan Department of Corrections being a matter of international concern under your theory of "universal human right to property", I'll play.

The removal of property from someone's possession requires an act of force. Hence removal of property rights, in whatever form, boils down to the inflicting of violence, the abrogation of individual integrity. Doing so in the name of a supposed "public good" - pampering rapists and putting serial killers on day release programs so they can feast once more on the flesh of the innocent - is no less an act of force than doing so in the name of something really abhorrent - like actually delivering justice.

My point being pretty much any form of criminal justice is going to restrict someone's rights. You commies like freedom of association rights, yes? Well, you're going to restrict that for prisoners, aren't you? You'll restrict their freedom of movement, maybe their freedom of speech, certainly their right to privacy. No matter what the punishment - imprisonment, corporal punishment, a fine - it'll somehow impinge on their basic freedoms.

Which is the whole fucking point of criminal justice.

Those who trespass against others deserve a good trespass to the face. You think our swift, humane executions are barbaric (even though they draw in valuable sponsorship revenue for the country) because they violate the right to life. I think caging someone against their will is barbaric because it violates their right to go out and get a job. You think giving someone a lesson their stinging flesh will remember is barbaric because of this bodily integrity mumbo-jumbo. I think stealing from taxpayers to feed child molesters is barbaric because of this property rights mumbo-jumbo.

Any and every form of criminal justice will violate what someone views as a "right". And I see no reason why yours - life or whatever - is any better, or any more worthy of preserving, than mine - the most basic human right of all, property.

It's certainly cliche to say this in the General Assembley noawadays, but at the risk of seeming passe and uncultured, I have to say that I unequivocally and totally agree with Mr. Pyandran's statement.

Most courteously,

Heh. If you find what I've said so far distressing then you may want to take a break from these proceedings. I haven't even gotten to the moralizing and judging phase yet.

I don't find it distressing at all. Annoying, perhaps. Questionable, definitely. Condescending and paternalistic, most certainly. But distressing? Only in the sense that it distresses us that any nation feels the way your delegation apparently does in regards to this matter. And we would never think of yielding the floor to such "moralizing and judging".

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

OOC: Two thoughts:

1. I doubt that this is the direction Imperfectia expected the debate to go in when he started this. :D

2. Ain't got no homies that got my back.

The removal of property from someone's possession requires an act of force.
Not necessarily. Property in the form of tax revenues can be removed with the consent of the governed.
Hence removal of property rights, in whatever form, boils down to the inflicting of violence, the abrogation of individual integrity.
See above.
Doing so in the name of a supposed "public good" - pampering rapists and putting serial killers on day release programs so they can feast once more on the flesh of the innocent - is no less an act of force than doing so in the name of something really abhorrent - like actually delivering justice.
Who puts rapists and serial killers on day release programs? When did I ever suggest that we do such a thing?


My point being pretty much any form of criminal justice is going to restrict someone's rights.
True. Serving in the military will result in a restriction of one's rights. Restricting rights and violating or suspending rights are not the same thing.
You commies like freedom of association rights, yes? Well, you're going to restrict that for prisoners, aren't you?
Yes, we restrict that right for prisoners.
You'll restrict their freedom of movement, maybe their freedom of speech, certainly their right to privacy. No matter what the punishment - imprisonment, corporal punishment, a fine - it'll somehow impinge on their basic freedoms.
Restricting freedom of movement, freedom of speech, right to privacy, corporal punishment and fines does not rise to the level of taking a life.

Which is the whole fucking point of criminal justice.
The point of criminal justice is to prevent crime. This can be done through punishments, but also through rehabilitation programs.

Those who trespass against others deserve a good trespass to the face.
An eye for an eye? Sounds more like revenge than "justice".

You think our swift, humane executions are barbaric (even though they draw in valuable sponsorship revenue for the country) because they violate the right to life. I think caging someone against their will is barbaric because it violates their right to go out and get a job.
But if you execute someone, doesn't that also deprive them of their right to get a job? You just took a potential laborer out of the workforce. Permanently. Since in Gruenberg the right to property is paramount, wouldn't it be better to employ them in some sort of forced labor where they could still aid in the creation of property and wealth?

You think giving someone a lesson their stinging flesh will remember is barbaric because of this bodily integrity mumbo-jumbo. I think stealing from taxpayers to feed child molesters is barbaric because of this property rights mumbo-jumbo. Any and every form of criminal justice will violate what someone views as a "right". And I see no reason why yours - life or whatever - is any better, or any more worthy of preserving, than mine - the most basic human right of all, property.
I would wager that the "bodily integrity mumbo jumbo" would be more likely to be found in most peoples list of basic rights than the "property rights mumbo-jumbo". And yes, our views are better than yours. I say that with no hesitation or reservations.

OOC: Two thoughts:

1. I doubt that this is the direction Imperfectia expected the debate to go in when he started this. :D

2. Ain't got no homies that got my back.

OOC: well, once you let the cat out of the bag, it wanders off wherever it wants. And don't worry about the whole not-having-your-back thing, you can make a heroic last stand or something. ;)

I would wager that the "bodily integrity mumbo jumbo" would be more likely to be found in most peoples list of basic rights than the "property rights mumbo-jumbo".

Well then, how do you answer the point that protecting the "bodily integrity" of the many is a better goal than protecting the "bodily integrity" of one, as in our earlier example about the serial killer we executed? I notice that point was conveniently ignored.

And yes, our views are better than yours. I say that with no hesitation or reservations.

We are glad that it is abundantly clear that your objections are based merely on "moral" disgust, with no other basis in fact, and that you're comfortable with that.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I apologize if my words were in any way offensive. But to suggest that nations that disagree with whatever legislative offal is proposed in the UN on a given day should just leave is, to us, cutting and running.

To be frank, it is well known that my opinion of the NSUN is not favorable. Yet I remain here for various reasons. I believe it is an equally valid opinion for someone to hate this place and leave. They could leave for quite a number of valid, well thought out and intelligent reasons. If the line in my post convinced someone to leave the UN for whatever reason (good or bad), then they simply were not happy here in the first place and it is good that they left.


Whatever your reasons, we thank you for voting against it.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Suffice to say we voted for what we felt was in our nation's best interest. Also suffice to say that we neither belong in the camp of national sovereigntists nor internationalists. I prefer to stay out of that fight.

Good luck,

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I am fully opposed to this moralistic tripe masquerading as a repeal. I get enough moralizing from religious conservatives in the Federation, and certainly do not need any of it here in the halls of the United Nations.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Well then, how do you answer the point that protecting the "bodily integrity" of the many is a better goal than protecting the "bodily integrity" of one, as in our earlier example about the serial killer we executed? I notice that point was conveniently ignored.
OOC: I sometimes don't respond to roleplayed examples. I could just as easily say "Hey! Did you hear about the Yeldan serial killer that we rehabilitated? He's now a leading pediatric surgeon and a victims rights advocate. He wrote a book about his crimes which sold 15 bazillion copies and donated all of his earnings to charity."
One prominent example in our legal records concerns a man who killed 16 people, and despite our best efforts at rehabilitation, showed no sign whatsoever of changing. He tried to attack his guards several times while in prison, and also tried to escape. We executed this individual because we felt he posed a continuing threat to our populace, and felt that the many lives that could be spared by removing this dangerous threat were equally important. In the end, the greater good prevailed.

1. Once he was executed, did any of his victims suddenly come back to life?

2. Couldn't you have just as easily protected the bodily integrity of the many by sentencing him to life with no possibility of parole in a maximum security facility?

The point of criminal justice is to prevent crime. This can be done through punishments, but also through rehabilitation programs.

That's not justice. That's prevention. Justice is punishing those who break laws.

Often, the two do intersect.

An eye for an eye? Sounds more like revenge than "justice".

Isn't that what justice is? Punishing people for doing bad things? You steal the pension from some old lady, we put you in jail for fraud and theft?

But if you execute someone, doesn't that also deprive them of their right to get a job? You just took a potential laborer out of the workforce. Permanently. Since in Gruenberg the right to property is paramount, wouldn't it be better to employ them in some sort of forced labor where they could still aid in the creation of property and wealth?

To quote Mr. Krytellin, it's in the public interest to excise the rapists and murderers. Sure, they may be possible workers, but their use risk is much to high to make it worthwhile. It would be more advantageous to simply execute the criminal, rather than spend money on rehabilitation, extra security, and constant government interference. That serves to reduce costs and increase profit and wealth.

I would wager that the "bodily integrity mumbo jumbo" would be more likely to be found in most peoples list of basic rights than the "property rights mumbo-jumbo". And yes, our views are better than yours. I say that with no hesitation or reservations.

And why? Please, tell us why, rather than just waving your red flag and shaking your finger at us.

Most courteously,

1. Once he was executed, did any of his victims suddenly come back to life?

No, they did not. But no one else ended up dead at his hands, either. That seemed like a good thing to us, at least.

2. Couldn't you have just as easily protected the bodily integrity of the many by sentencing him to life with no possibility of parole in a maximum security facility?

Yes, we could. In most cases we do exactly that. But when someone poses an extreme danger, we do not find the risk justifiable. As I mentioned previously, the individual I mentioned made several escape attempts before being executed. If he had succeeded in even one of them, and gone on to kill other innocent people, we would consider that to be extreme negligence on our part as a government. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to explain to the families of the new victims why their loved ones were dead.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It gives me great pleasure to place the New Cultural Revolution's vote in favour of repeal. I look forward not only to an aggressive campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in UN nations, but also a resolution that returns some of the more favourable provisions of FSA to the UN statute.

Benedictions,

And why? Please, tell us why, rather than just waving your red flag and shaking your finger at us.
OOC: That statement you responded to was intended as a taunt directed at Gruen, but since you've responded.....

IC: If you agree with Mr. Pyandran's earlier statements that judicial rape can be an appropriate and proportional sentence and that ownership of property is the foremost human right of all, then yes, our views are better than yours and furthermore you're a nut and no further explanations are needed.

2. Couldn't you have just as easily protected the bodily integrity of the many by sentencing him to life with no possibility of parole in a maximum security facility?

This questions brings up a general issue I would like to remark upon.

The assumption that lifetime prison sentences are more humane than the death penalty is ludicrous. Not only do you deprive them of essential liberty in imprisoning them, you take their life. They will not regain those years of time lost in a cell. A life sentence in prison is no less a sentence to death and permanent loss of liberty than the death penalty. It is simply carried out more slowly and painfully.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I would like to point out the the representative from Altanar that nobody, not even the government of Imperfectia, intends to ban capital punishment. The example you gave of executing a mass murderer is in fact valid, and Paradica would've done the same thing in that situation. However, it is my belief, and most likely that of the representative of Imperfectia, that the FSA gives nations too much control over the use of the death sentence and other sentences.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

I would like to point out the the representative from Altanar that nobody, not even the government of Imperfectia, intends to ban capital punishment.

That's a pretty broad assertion to make concerning the 28,484 member nations in the UN right now.

The example you gave of executing a mass murderer is in fact valid, and Paradica would've done the same thing in that situation. However, it is my belief, and most likely that of the representative of Imperfectia, that the FSA gives nations too much control over the use of the death sentence and other sentences.

I do understand that belief. I just don't understand why you feel that way. Why shouldn't nations have control over how they sentence criminals? And how does the FSA give them "too much" control over something we feel that they should have control over, by any right?

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

That's a pretty broad assertion to make concerning the 28,484 member nations in the UN right now.
My "nobody" refers to "nobody in this debate"

I do understand that belief. I just don't understand why you feel that way. Why shouldn't nations have control over how they sentence criminals? And how does the FSA give them "too much" control over something we feel that they should have control over, by any right?
This is where we differ. In my opinion, it is the rights of the citizens of the nations, not the rights of the nations themselves, that should be protected. For this reason, the FSA must go. There are other, similar resolutions that should also be repealed in the opinion of my government, however, the FSA is the one that is at vote.

Roderick Spear
Prime Minister of Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

Not necessarily. Property in the form of tax revenues can be removed with the consent of the governed.
No. They can be removed with the consent of some of the governed. I've never once consented to pay taxes, or voted to increase them: yet each year, up they creep. If you're suggesting that in Yelda, you can walk into a shop and buy an item at 50% its price, explaining "I don't consent to pay sales tax" or that on your income tax returns you can file yourself in the 0% "I don't consent to pay income tax" bracket, then fuck me I'm moving to Yelda.

True. Serving in the military will result in a restriction of one's rights. Restricting rights and violating or suspending rights are not the same thing.
Care to explain the difference? Though it seems a little odd anyway, given that military service is in general a choice, as opposed to prison time, which is generally not.

Restricting freedom of movement, freedom of speech, right to privacy, corporal punishment and fines does not rise to the level of taking a life.
I'm not interested in moral mathematics. Your assertion was that there was universal human rights at stake here. Is freedom of speech a universal right? Privacy? Assembly? If so, then your justice system is going to need as much reforming as ours. If not, then will you help us repeal all the shit piled up on those assumptions?

Because your stance has clearly changed. Before it was "this is a matter of universal human rights"; now it's "screw universal human rights, this is about life". Hence my confusion.

The point of criminal justice is to prevent crime. This can be done through punishments, but also through rehabilitation programs.
No. The point of criminal justice is to deliver justice. Prevention of crimes is something to be thrown into the equation, but in any moral society - and you seem awfully keen on morals - that equation begins based on moral equivalence. A crime worthy of punishment must be punished. A crime worthy of execution must see that execution carried out. I don't really give a damn if it acts as a deterrent or not.

An eye for an eye? Sounds more like revenge than "justice".
"An eye for an eye" is a heathen aphorism from a banned text, and your attempts to equate Wenaist justice with it are not kindly looked upon. It's not a matter of revenge, in any case: there are times when the victim does not ask for the death penalty, or even pleads against it. The state still has a responsibility to deliver non-snear quoted enamelled justice.

But if you execute someone, doesn't that also deprive them of their right to get a job? You just took a potential laborer out of the workforce. Permanently. Since in Gruenberg the right to property is paramount, wouldn't it be better to employ them in some sort of forced labor where they could still aid in the creation of property and wealth?
That does happen, yes. But first and foremost, we look for justice. You're trying to box me into a Draconian corner, but that's not really what I'm advocating. A small crime deserves only a small punishment: that's what the whole notion of proportionality is built upon. You think a harsh sentence for a misdemeanour is bad because it is disproportionate. Well it works the other way too: a lenient sentence is disproportionate. Why is that any fairer?

I would wager that the "bodily integrity mumbo jumbo" would be more likely to be found in most peoples list of basic rights than the "property rights mumbo-jumbo".
I don't really care. Plus, most surveys indicate a slight (very slight, I admit) majority of people support the death penalty for serious crimes. You really want to play that card? I would think it'd be more profitable for you to argue that no overwhelming weight of majority can vote away someone's right to life. But I guess I'm just a brutal sadist who can't think straight through the bloodlust.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: Sorry I was away for a while - watching, ironically enough, Shawshank Redemption. This is getting to be fun.

My "nobody" refers to "nobody in this debate"
He may be quietly spoken, but that doesn't he has no voice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12135056&postcount=115) at all.

This is where we differ. In my opinion, it is the rights of the citizens of the nations, not the rights of the nations themselves, that should be protected. For this reason, the FSA must go. There are other, similar resolutions that should also be repealed in the opinion of my government, however, the FSA is the one that is at vote.
You do realize it is the nations, not the citizens, that decide on whether to be subject to UN law or not, right?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: That statement you responded to was intended as a taunt directed at Gruen, but since you've responded.....

IC: If you agree with Mr. Pyandran's earlier statements that judicial rape can be an appropriate and proportional sentence and that ownership of property is the foremost human right of all, then yes, our views are better than yours and furthermore you're a nut and no further explanations are needed.

OOC: Meh.

IC:

Well, that most certainly isn't an explanation. Funny how people who explain their arguments are taken more seriously by their peers!

It's rather interesting to us to note that it is only the Fine Yeldan Ambassador (tm) who has really raised any support for this legislation. It is more saddening that his main objections have been unverifiably biased, unsupported, and culturally imperialistic.

You do realize it is the nations, not the citizens, that decide on whether to be subject to UN law or not, right?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Of course. But would you have the UN do nothing at all, its purpose completely removed in the name of "sovereignty?"

Roderick Spear
Prime Minister of Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST the repeal of "Fair Sentencing Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

Of course. But would you have the UN do nothing at all,
No. Which should be pretty fucking obvious given Gruenberg has, in its time:
- authored seven substantive resolutions
- founded two UN committees, one for demining and one for promoting education
- created a free trade area for recycled goods and a system for exchanging information on recycling
- promoted the policy of subsidiarity in working time regulation
- prohibited child pornography and supported international efforts to tackle the crime
- tried to promote free trade in textiles
- supported, through votes, arguments and approvals numerous other substantive resolutions

How dare you accuse of legislative lethargy, when you have what? to show for yourselves?

its purpose completely removed in the name of "sovereignty?"
Uh, why the snear quotes? Sovereignty is a perfectly valid concept: indeed, in the United Nations, it would be a rather odd thing not to acknowledge, nah?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC:
|
|
|
v
Ha ha ha funny...oh wait.

OOC: What a fabulously appropriate time for a representative of Gatesville to post, considering my post directly above it.

Uh, why the snear quotes? Sovereignty is a perfectly valid concept: indeed, in the United Nations, it would be a rather odd thing not to acknowledge, nah?
I do acknowledge that it has a place in the UN. In fact, that is exactly why the quote marks were there. I don't believe that removing the UN's right to do stuff is in any way related to sovereignty.

Roderick Spear
Prime Minister of Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

OOC: What a fabulously appropriate time for a representative of Gatesville to post, considering my post directly above it.

OOC: What's funny is that Gatesville has supported good international legislation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973211&postcount=184) in the recent past, so your remark about having the UN do nothing in the name of sovereignty falls a little flat.

Retired Werepenguins has voted against this repeal.

You do realize it is the nations, not the citizens, that decide on whether to be subject to UN law or not, right?


I think it's interesting to emphasize what the purpose of nations is, in the first place. It sems to me that a nation is a tool to serve citizens, so when nations join/legislate/vote (at) the NSUN it seems also to me that it's (indirectly) for its citizens.

As nations are subject to NSUN laws, citizens are de facto subject to NSUN laws.

I think it's interesting to emphasize what the purpose of nations is, in the first place. It sems to me that a nation is a tool to serve citizens, so when nations join/legislate/vote (at) the NSUN it seems also to me that it's (indirectly) for its citizens.

As nations are subject to NSUN laws, citizens are de facto subject to NSUN laws.
That's not my point. My point is trying to protect citizens from their own nations through the UN is a little pointless, given it is the nation and not the citizens that ultimately decide on membership. You can't coerce a nation into respecting protections for its citizens it opposes, because there is a point at which it will just leave. If I go to a film I don't like, I leave.

My "nobody" refers to "nobody in this debate"

Untrue, as already pointed out.

This is where we differ. In my opinion, it is the rights of the citizens of the nations, not the rights of the nations themselves, that should be protected. For this reason, the FSA must go. There are other, similar resolutions that should also be repealed in the opinion of my government, however, the FSA is the one that is at vote.

The rights of the citizens, and the rights of the nations they comprise, are inseperable in our opinion. Therefore, we do not understand your assertion that the rights of the citizens demand repeal of FSA. The citizens of nations, in most cases, tend to have the legal systems, sentences and rights they desire and are willing to accept/put up with, as the case may be. Once a government goes too far beyond what the people are willing to accept or tolerate, that's when you see revolutions and changes of government. I also wonder why the nations that support this repeal seem to believe they have a better understanding of what the rights of their fellow UN members demand than the nations that represent them do. I don't presume to understand what the citizens of Imperfectia, Yelda or Paradica want or demand; why do you feel you understand what Altanar's citizens, or Gruenberg's, or Allech-Atreus', or any of the other nations that have argued against this repeal need, better than their governments do?

That's not my point. My point is trying to protect citizens from their own nations through the UN is a little pointless, given it is the nation and not the citizens that ultimately decide on membership. You can't coerce a nation into respecting protections for its citizens it opposes, because there is a point at which it will just leave. If I go to a film I don't like, I leave.

Please forgive me if I misanderstood you, but when I read what you just say, I feel uneasy, as your proposal #180 states:

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

which seems to me "trying to protect citizens from their own nations through the UN".

And I would like to say that LAE, while FOR this repeal (and having voted against #180) had officially said in the debate about #180 that we like this clause, as LAE is a strong advocate of the separation of powers. We don't think this clause is pointless.

which seems to me "trying to protect citizens from their own nations through the UN".
It's not mandatory though, is it, which I suspect a death penalty ban would be. If nations don't like the clause, they don't need to leave the UN: they can just not accept the calling. Much as with many of your proposals, mildness and sovereignty-friendli...ness go hand in hand.

I Donno if there are some others nations interested in stats, but I would like to ask a favour from any member.
As it will not be possible for me to record the final vote of delegates, may someone either do the stats about final delegates/members votes for this one or just record the page just before deletion and post it in the forum.
Thanks a lot.

A possible method to do the stats (sorry I didn't get the time to do a macro):

-copy the list of delegates (FOR) into word
-replace all “, “ (comma and space) by “^l” (line break)
-replace all “]” by nothing
-copy the list in the following excel sheet in column A
http://test256.free.fr/rfsa.xls
-select column A then click “data”, “Text to column”, “Delimited”, Next, “Other:”
-put “[“ in the "Other:" box and finish

-do the same thing with delegates (AGAINST) and column D
-report the total votes for and against
That's it.

OOC: I think I remember why I hate this forum. :rolleyes:

OOC: I think I remember why I hate this forum. :rolleyes:

OOC: Care to enlighten the rest of us?

I can't believe I've allowed you to draw me into a debate of the merits of tax policy as it relates to human rights. I blame boredom.

No. They can be removed with the consent of some of the governed.
They can be removed with the consent of all of the governed if the nation in question is populated by citizens who recognize the effectiveness of their public sector. There is no "tax protest' to speak of in Yelda, I imagine that is not the case in Gruenberg.

I've never once consented to pay taxes, or voted to increase them
Nor would I if I lived under the "enlightened" rule of a Wenaist Sultanate.
If you're suggesting that in Yelda, you can walk into a shop and buy an item at 50% its price, explaining "I don't consent to pay sales tax" or that on your income tax returns you can file yourself in the 0% "I don't consent to pay income tax" bracket, then fuck me I'm moving to Yelda.
I don't even understand what you're "getting at" here. What the fuck do sales taxes and retail prices have to do with anything?


Care to explain the difference? Though it seems a little odd anyway, given that military service is in general a choice, as opposed to prison time, which is generally not.
Compulsory military service?


I'm not interested in moral mathematics. Your assertion was that there was universal human rights at stake here. Is freedom of speech a universal right? Privacy? Assembly? If so, then your justice system is going to need as much reforming as ours. If not, then will you help us repeal all the shit piled up on those assumptions?
So by this reasoning, since we restrict the rights of prisoners we should just shut up about any human rights abuses?

Because your stance has clearly changed.
No it hasn't
Before it was "this is a matter of universal human rights"; now it's "screw universal human rights, this is about life". Hence my confusion.
What the fuck are you talking about? When did I say "screw universal human rights"? Further, who was it that turned this debate to one on the "merits" (or lack thereof) of CP?



No. The point of criminal justice is to deliver justice. Prevention of crimes is something to be thrown into the equation, but in any moral society - and you seem awfully keen on morals - that equation begins based on moral equivalence. A crime worthy of punishment must be punished. A crime worthy of execution must see that execution carried out. I don't really give a damn if it acts as a deterrent or not.
And what is the point of delivering "justice" if all it accomplishes is allowing you to pat yourselves on the back and say "we delivered justice"? Shouldn't the aim of justice also be a lowering of the crime rate, reduced recidivism, improved social conditions due to safer neighborhoods?


"An eye for an eye" is a heathen aphorism from a banned text, and your attempts to equate Wenaist justice with it are not kindly looked upon. It's not a matter of revenge, in any case: there are times when the victim does not ask for the death penalty, or even pleads against it. The state still has a responsibility to deliver non-snear quoted enamelled justice.
For what sort of crime would you be executing someone if there is a victim still alive to ask or not ask for the death penalty, or to plead against it?



That does happen, yes. But first and foremost, we look for justice. You're trying to box me into a Draconian corner, but that's not really what I'm advocating. A small crime deserves only a small punishment: that's what the whole notion of proportionality is built upon. You think a harsh sentence for a misdemeanour is bad because it is disproportionate. Well it works the other way too: a lenient sentence is disproportionate. Why is that any fairer?
A sentence which is too lenient is wrong as well, yes. However, I suspect that your idea of "too lenient" and mine would be somewhat different.


I don't really care. Plus, most surveys indicate a slight (very slight, I admit) majority of people support the death penalty for serious crimes.
Which surveys?
You really want to play that card?
Play what "card"? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
I would think it'd be more profitable for you to argue that no overwhelming weight of majority can vote away someone's right to life.
UM..when did I say that an "overwhelming weight of majority" should be able to vote away someones right to life?
But I guess I'm just a brutal sadist who can't think straight through the bloodlust.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Yes, perhaps so.

Quynn Olver
Purveyor of sneer quotes



OOC: Sorry I was away for a while - watching, ironically enough, Shawshank Redemption. This is getting to be fun.
OOC: I wish you had posted that IC so I could ask: "Shawshank Redemption? That's filed in the "comedy" section in Gruenberger video shops, isn't it?"

OOC: Yay! I'm still here! Actually for just about everyone that isn't a yay since y'all seem to hate me except for Imperfectia and Yelda.

OOC: Yay! I'm still here! Actually for just about everyone that isn't a yay since y'all seem to hate me except for Imperfectia and Yelda.

OOC: I don't hate you. I just debate you. What's all this business about hate?

And why are you bringing it into a debate?

OOC: Yay! I'm still here! Actually for just about everyone that isn't a yay since y'all seem to hate me except for Imperfectia and Yelda.
OOC: What the hell are you doing? Why is posting on a forum cause for celebration - especially given the forum is so beneath you anyway? And I really doubt Yelda is yaying at this sort of inanity.

OOC: Meh.
OOC: Meh yourself.

IC:

Well, that most certainly isn't an explanation. Funny how people who explain their arguments are taken more seriously by their peers!
IC: Would you care to address my query about your stance on judicial rape and the primacy of the "human right" to own property?

It's rather interesting to us to note that it is only the Fine Yeldan Ambassador (tm) who has really raised any support for this legislation.
Maybe you should learn to make the ™ symbol, or better yet just don't. I'm guessing that the reason I was the only one arguing in favor is that no further arguments were needed. *"sneer"*

It is more saddening that his main objections have been unverifiably biased, unsupported, and culturally imperialistic.
Shut the fuck up.

Quynn Olver
User of the term "shut the fuck up"

I Donno if there are some others nations interested in stats, but I would like to ask a favour from any member.
As it will not be possible for me to record the final vote of delegates, may someone either do the stats about final delegates/members votes for this one or just record the page just before deletion and post it in the forum.
Thanks a lot.

A possible method to do the stats (sorry I didn't get the time to do a macro):

-copy the list of delegates (FOR) into word
-replace all “, “ (comma and space) by “^l” (line break)
-replace all “]” by nothing
-copy the list in the following excel sheet in column A
http://test256.free.fr/rfsa.xls
-select column A then click “data”, “Text to column”, “Delimited”, Next, “Other:”
-put “[“ in the "Other:" box and finish

-do the same thing with delegates (AGAINST) and column D
-report the total votes for and against
That's it.
I may not have time to do the stats, but I'll grab the final delegates/members votes for you.

*snip, preachy cultural imperialist nonsense* Shut the fuck up.

It seems to me that the supporters of this "repeal" do not appreciate the truth being shoved right into their faces.

While Ellelt has been largely silent in this current debate...having debated this issue to death before both in committee and on offisite forums. We feel it is time to point out that those who seem to support this rubbish--er--I mean repeal, have no other argument than "our culture is better than yours".

Quite frankly I am disgusted with that attitude. Indeed it is one of the reasons I left the UIC.

Nations are responsible to their citizens. The Citizens of Ellelt demand that murderers, child molesters, and traitors be executed. Such persons by our cultural definitions are not able to be rehabilitated.

Further our cultural morals (something that Yelda in particular likes to preach about) dictates that he who does not work does not eat. To us, imprisoning someone without having them work is more barbaric than giving them nine grams of lead to the head. Indeed those who are executed by our justice system many times would only be sentenced to a life term of hard labor, where they would be executed by the prisoners already in our gulag system. This is the case with rapists now, who under current law would not be executed--but are often murdered on transportation to, or within the confines of our many fine rehabilitative institutions.

The Supporters of this repeal do not take that issue into consideration.

Further an other consideration they do not take into account is the definition of cruel and unusual differs from nation to nation. With 28,000+ members of the UN punishments may range from fines to capital punishments and all be considered moral and necessary by the nations' laws. The FSA protects the rights of the nations and their constituent citizens to determine for themselves what are the crimes in their nation...and what punishments shall be given for persons who commit those crimes.

The FSA also provides a system of oversight as concerns the dispensation of justice in the various nations.

I find the arguments over taxes to be interesting in this thread. I'm not really sure what the point is over them. However, as far as taxes go from the Elleltian experience. Tax laws are drafted and ratified by the Supreme Soviet, and are observed by all citizens (be those taxes on income, or consumption {sometimes called sales tax or value added tax}) unless they wish to be sentenced to five years hard labor for tax evasion. That would indicate that taxes are hardly voluntary--Indeed were they not needed to support the governments many projects that make life better for Elleltians (such as the Indoor Plumbing initiative, or Work Force Rehabilitation Training Schools, or the Endowment for Cultural Progress and Art) we wouldn't have them at all.

We look forward to seeing this tripe being defeated so that we will not need to defend our rights as a Sovereign Nation, Nor the rights of other Sovereign Nations for a while...and can get to work on real issues of international concern, like Kenny's ban on UN Armies for example.

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

A message fom the Almighty Emperor of the Glorious Empire of TheNew_WorldOrder:

Greetings Mortals,


The Almighty Empror is OUTRAGED that the United Nations would even CONSIDER setting regulations for capitol punishment!

There are so many corrupt, criminalized governments in the world that would set the standard far too high for capital punishment standards.

For example, Shoplifting? This is a horrible offense! How can you let someone get away with stealing from the corporations that put food on all of our citizens tables? No, those shoplifters must die.

Jaywalkers? As our Corporate Citizens drive through the streets of our Glorious Nation they often run the risk of chipped paint and blood stains from children not using the crosswalks. This is INEXCUSABLE!!! These children (that arent killed by the cars) are currently boiled in acid in public squares.

Under this proposed regulation, these vicious criminals would be given lollipops and sent on their way.

I'm not even going to get started on those people that remove the tags from their mattresses!!!

Without capitol punishment for these serious offenses, there would be total anarchy in the civilized world. Do we all want to be like dirty Bigtopia where people return library books whenever they feel like it, with out the fear of death by wild dog packs?

I'm sorry, that is not the way to lead a civilized world.


Signed on this day December 26, 2006 by The One True God,

The Almighty Emperor of TheNew_WorldOrder

A message fom the Almighty Emperor of the Glorious Empire of TheNew_WorldOrder:

Greetings Mortals,


The Almighty Empror is OUTRAGED that the United Nations would even CONSIDER setting regulations for capitol punishment!

There are so many corrupt, criminalized governments in the world that would set the standard far too high for capital punishment standards.

For example, Shoplifting? This is a horrible offense! How can you let someone get away with stealing from the corporations that put food on all of our citizens tables? No, those shoplifters must die.

Jaywalkers? As our Corporate Citizens drive through the streets of our Glorious Nation they often run the risk of chipped paint and blood stains from children not using the crosswalks. This is INEXCUSABLE!!! These children (that arent killed by the cars) are currently boiled in acid in public squares.

Under this proposed regulation, these vicious criminals would be given lollipops and sent on their way.

I'm not even going to get started on those people that remove the tags from their mattresses!!!

Without capitol punishment for these serious offenses, there would be total anarchy in the civilized world. Do we all want to be like dirty Bigtopia where people return library books whenever they feel like it, with out the fear of death by wild dog packs?

I'm sorry, that is not the way to lead a civilized world.


Signed on this day December 26, 2006 by The One True God,

The Almighty Emperor of TheNew_WorldOrder

Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, I offer to you exhibit B: The Empire of TheNew_WorldOrder, where shoplifters and jaywalkers are executed and children are boiled in acid in public squares.

Ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly, I offer to you exhibit B: The Empire of TheNew_WorldOrder, where shoplifters and jaywalkers are executed and children are boiled in acid in public squares.

Hot damn!

OOC: Yay! I'm still here! Actually for just about everyone that isn't a yay since y'all seem to hate me except for Imperfectia and Yelda.

OOC: I don't hate anyone on here. I don't take this personally, and I hope you don't either....it's not meant that way (from me, anyway).

Hot damn!
OOC: Heh, yeah. Too bad they're not a member. But I bet they've got a UN puppet lurking somewhere that's equally vile!

OOC: I don't hate anyone on here. I don't take this personally, and I hope you don't either....it's not meant that way (from me, anyway).
OOC: Indeed. While our characters were cursing and swearing here, Gruen and I were exchanging pleasant and civil PMs at another board.

I don't believe that removing the UN's right to do stuff is in any way related to sovereignty.

Roderick Spear
Prime Minister of Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

Well, gee whiz, and here I thought that doing things like insuring that the UN can't prevent it's members from owning nuclear weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) insures a nation's sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

An army does not make a nation,

a language makes a nation,
a religion makes a nation,
and laws make a nation.

Which is why I had to oppose to the repeal of this motion. Though my people, and I, are opposed to capital punishment, I do not think we can force others to use it as a tactic. For some, the logic is that if they make the punishment great enough, noone will commit the crime and all will be fine. Or they may not have intellectually gotten past the "an eye for an eye" wall and figured out the ideal of correction and forgiveness. But let us have one of them speak for themselves.

Greetings!

In this extensive debate I have noticed that several nations believe that they have a right to punish their offenders with punishments according to their legal systems and their well developed laws.

Let me remind all nations who are for this repeal...the judicial systems in a country are the outcome of eons and eons of deliberations, debates, amendments and based on each society's prevalent practices. Thus no nation is right or wrong in its legal system. What right does one nation have (a nation which preaches Rehabilitation as appropriate method to solve crime) to rule that Deterrent system is wrong?

What is wrong or right has to be seen in social, economical and political context. This is why Res. 180 is well worded and broad enough to address each nations soveriegn rights respecting that each society has its appropriate methods of tackling crime.

Each of us as a nation is looking through our own ideology and being moralistic about an issue that is infact very much based on socio-political undercurrents. This is why nations for the repeal must view it from the viewpoint of a nation where armed robbery is so high that there remains no way of curbing it but detterence through harsh punishment.

Pax Deorum!

Need i reiterate...I am strongly against this repeal!

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

In my country, you would be executed for cursing in a formal debate. Now back to buisiness without "Uzbeck language" (flaming) ......yes? Now back to subject! This proposal is as I said before very intrusive upon a nations right to sovereignty and frankly it's so bad that it has caused 2 UN members to start talking in "Uzbeck language"!!! To whomevery made this proposal, my government wishes that you would be shreaded by Khazakstanian peasants!!! To La Sonadora, TheNew_World Order, and Ellelt, my governent applauds your action against these heathen infidels of hell!! I am hereby proposing a unilateral Philibuster to block this proposal from passing!! What do you infidels plan to do now!!!!!!

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

My regards to the Representative of Gilabad. As you can see, in this forum, the poll is tipped in favour of our stance, i.e. against the repeal. But the actual voting is tipped in favour for the repeal.

Our reasoning is not reaching the other nations. Its staying in here within this forum. invite others to our debate!

Pax Deorum!

I am hereby proposing a unilateral Philibuster to block this proposal from passing!! What do you infidels plan to do now!!!!!!At a guess? Ignore your idiocy. There is no such thing as a filibuster in the UN.


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

An army does not make a nation,

a language makes a nation,
a religion makes a nation,
and laws make a nation.

Which is why I had to oppose to the repeal of this motion. Though my people, and I, are opposed to capital punishment, I do not think we can force others to use it as a tactic. For some, the logic is that if they make the punishment great enough, noone will commit the crime and all will be fine. Or they may not have intellectually gotten past the "an eye for an eye" wall and figured out the ideal of correction and forgiveness. But let us have one of them speak for themselves.

So, I don't understand. You are against forcing nations to practice CP, and are yourself against using the death penalty, however, you are agaisnt this resolution? Could you please elaborate more?

Greetings!

In this extensive debate I have noticed that several nations believe that they have a right to punish their offenders with punishments according to their legal systems and their well developed laws.

Let me remind all nations who are for this repeal...the judicial systems in a country are the outcome of eons and eons of deliberations, debates, amendments and based on each society's prevalent practices.

My resolution would not hinder that from happening. In fact, it even recognizes that different situations may warrant different punishments for the same crime.

Thus no nation is right or wrong in its legal system. What right does one nation have (a nation which preaches Rehabilitation as appropriate method to solve crime) to rule that Deterrent system is wrong?

What is wrong or right has to be seen in social, economical and political context. This is why Res. 180 is well worded and broad enough to address each nations soveriegn rights respecting that each society has its appropriate methods of tackling crime.

Yes and no. Obviously the UN feels that there ARE certain practices that are "right" while other practices are wrong. For example, a nation may not torture (though the definition of torture is somewhat limitted) a suspected criminal. This may fly in the face of a certain nation's developed practice in getting suspected criminals to confess or give information regarding the crime. And yet the UN has seen fit to "madate" that no nation should torture its suspects. Why? because a majoity of the natiosn within this body have this crazy idea that torturing individuals is wrong. If a nation's citizens are in compete fear of their government, and are not completely sure what offense may warrant CP as a sentence, that system is anything but jsut and well developed. Who's responsibility is it then to ensure those citizens' basic civil rights? I, and many other, feel that it is the place of the UN to pass resolutions for the protection of individuals given those circumstances. FSA does not allow for that atthe moment, and thus that is one significant reason why my government would like to see it repealed.


Each of us as a nation is looking through our own ideology and being moralistic about an issue that is infact very much based on socio-political undercurrents. This is why nations for the repeal must view it from the viewpoint of a nation where armed robbery is so high that there remains no way of curbing it but detterence through harsh punishment.

Pax Deorum!

I have no problem saying that I view this from a certain persepective, but then again I have no problem saying that I DO see certain judicial practices and sentences in terms of HUMAN rights - basic and supposedly guarenteed to EVERYONE. Sure, I can see the representative from La Sonadora's point in regards to a nation with such high armed robbery that they feel use of the death penatly is needed as a detterent. While I do not want to explicitly argue the merrits and weakness of CP (OOC - which seems to have been argued extensivley while I was gone for Christmas), I would simply like to point out that this repeal would NOT infringe upon a nations ability to issue such senetences.

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

In my country, you would be executed for cursing in a formal debate. Now back to buisiness without "Uzbeck language" (flaming) ......yes? Now back to subject! This proposal is as I said before very intrusive upon a nations right to sovereignty and frankly it's so bad that it has caused 2 UN members to start talking in "Uzbeck language"!!! To whomevery made this proposal, my government wishes that you would be shreaded by Khazakstanian peasants!!! To La Sonadora, TheNew_World Order, and Ellelt, my governent applauds your action against these heathen infidels of hell!! I am hereby proposing a unilateral Philibuster to block this proposal from passing!! What do you infidels plan to do now!!!!!!

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

My response to the estemed Rep. Borat Sogadiev, is that while in your nation they may use capital punishment for cursing in a debate, and it may even seem reasonable to your nation's citizens, the majoirty of nations within this body would view such use of CP as unjust and certainly not proportional to the crime. Regardless, I thank you for your views, and will pass along your lovely sentiments of well wishes to my government. Oh yes, one other thing - this repeal WILL NOT INFRINGE ON ANY NATIONS ABILITY TO USE THE DEATH PENALTY! I therefore fail to see how this repeal is a "very intrusive upon a nations right to sovereignty."

I think that the death penalty is the only way to get people to see who's the boss here. I'm all for death penalties. Some may see it as "inhumain" but I see it as a calling card or even a tactic.

{...} this repeal WILL NOT INFRINGE ON ANY NATIONS ABILITY TO USE THE DEATH PENALTY! I therefore fail to see how this repeal is a "very intrusive upon a nations right to sovereignty".

So you say, and yet the proposal seems to me to say different. It specifically points to the second article in the Fair Sentencing Act, the one which grants member nations the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions", as problematic in the sense that it grants too much freedom in regards to capital punishment, and then goes on to proclaim the need for an international standard for punishment. Plainly put, I read that as dictating to us when and how we can punish our own criminals, which certainly strikes me as an infringement on sovereignty.

I have no problem saying that I view this from a certain persepective, but then again I have no problem saying that I DO see certain judicial practices and sentences in terms of HUMAN rights - basic and supposedly guarenteed to EVERYONE. Sure, I can see the representative from La Sonadora's point in regards to a nation with such high armed robbery that they feel use of the death penatly is needed as a detterent. While I do not want to explicitly argue the merrits and weakness of CP (OOC - which seems to have been argued extensivley while I was gone for Christmas), I would simply like to point out that this repeal would NOT infringe upon a nations ability to issue such senetences.

This is exactly why the representative of La Sonadora would likt to reiterate that even though it personally believes that CP should be used in an effective manner, the UN has no right to determine the particular level at which it must be exercised, for such a particular level can never be achieved. In some countries shoplifting might be so debilitating to the country's economy that it is worse than murder. (to give an extreme example) In another country sodomy may be permitted, but another's culture terms that as an offence with capital punishment.How will the UN be able to decide the level. In country X many deaths may be taking place of children due to exposure to heavy doses of drugs, while in country Y lesser deaths may be taking place due to various circumstantial situations. In country X, CP may be right, in Y it is not needed. How do we determine the threshold?

Your res. will not deprive the country's of their right to use CP but it will curb its unjustified use. How do we determine what is unjustified? We cannot. We should not.

Pax Deorum!

Your res. will not deprive the country's of their right to use CP but it will curb its unjustified use. How do we determine what is unjustified? We cannot. We should not.

Pax Deorum!

how many time must I repeat this on this thread - This repeal will not in any way hinder a nation's ability to use CP as they are currently doing! (OOC - This is a repeal, and by the very rules of the game a repeal may not introduce new legislation!) I have simply used the argument that FSA allows possible human rights violations as punishments and no one in the UN may do anything about it because of FSA. THAT, and no ban on CP, is why I would like to see FSA repealed.

At a guess? Ignore your idiocy. There is no such thing as a filibuster in the UN.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
I thought that all we did around here. After all, how many times has our debates ever changed the vote outcome?
So, I don't understand. You are against forcing nations to practice CP, and are yourself against using the death penalty, however, you are agaisnt this resolution? Could you please elaborate more?Obviously they realize that the Fair Sentencing Act also prevents the UN from forcing it's members to use the death penalty.

how many time must I repeat this on this thread - This repeal will not in any way hinder a nation's ability to use CP as they are currently doing! (OOC - This is a repeal, and by the very rules of the game a repeal may not introduce new legislation!) I have simply used the argument that FSA allows possible human rights violations as punishments and no one in the UN may do anything about it because of FSA. THAT, and no ban on CP, is why I would like to see FSA repealed.
While I'll admit, the repeal in and of itself won't affect a nation's sovereignty it will however open the door for someone to write a resolution about the death penalty that will. As it stands right now, no one can submit a resolution that bans the use of the death penalty, nor can anyone submit a resolution that mandates that nations use it a fact that you anti death penalty people seem to be ignoring.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

While I'll admit, the repeal in and of itself won't affect a nation's sovereignty it will however open the door for someone to write a resolution about the death penalty that will. As it stands right now, no one can submit a resolution that bans the use of the death penalty, nor can anyone submit a resolution that mandates that nations use it a fact that you anti death penalty people seem to be ignoring.

Honestly, Ambassador Flibble, my government would not have a problem with a nation trying to mandate specific times that CP should be used. We would of course vote no to any such proposal, but maybe we should at least have an opportunity to be able to vote no. The point is that they should at least have a chance to bring it before the UN for a vote. And you are very correct, FSA does not allow the UN nor individualy concerned nations that freedom.

Zelpharia is against the repeal. We enjoy our right to execute any suspected communists or traitors.

Good job. However, repealing the FSA won't remove that right.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

So... why not just make a resolution saying the punishment must fit the crime, or that capital punishment be limited? Instead you want to repeal the only thing preventing uninhibited judicial systems?

The former has already been done (Definition of Fair Trial) and the latter is impossible with FSA still on the books.

So... why not just make a resolution saying the punishment must fit the crime, or that capital punishment be limited?
Such a resolution would be illegal while FSA is in place.
Instead you want to repeal the only thing preventing uninhibited judicial systems?
Wrong. FSA allows uninhibited judicial systems.
2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

The former has already been done (Definition of Fair Trial)
And remember that DFT leaves the interpretation of "verdicts which are proportional to the crime" up in the air. Presumably the trial judge, holding a copy of DFT in one hand and a copy of FSA in the other could decide that virtually any sentence was "proportional".

Of course. It's hard to say "the punishment must fit the crime" if you DON'T have a One World Government.

EDIT: I am by no means saying that we should have a One World Government, but the fact remains that unless every national leader agrees on everything, there is no way to determine what a "proportional sentence" is.

Of course. It's hard to say "the punishment must fit the crime" if you DON'T have a One World Government.
What the hell?! One World Government?

Of course. It's hard to say "the punishment must fit the crime" if you DON'T have a One World Government.

EDIT: I am by no means saying that we should have a One World Government, but the fact remains that unless every national leader agrees on everything, there is no way to determine what a "proportional sentence" is.We must disagree strongly with Ambassador Spear. There is no need for every national leader to agree on "everything" in order to define proportionate sentencing. Indeed those of us supporting this resolution differ quite significantly on any number of topics. What we, hopefully, agree upon is that it is worth the effort to define humane sentencing, that it is worth it for this body to adopt a standard of humane treatment of persons under adjudication and that the current version of the FSA fails to prevent cruel and inhumane sentences.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

What the hell?! One World Government?
OOC: Read the edit.

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Imperfectia, how can you say this that "it does not intrude on a nation's sovereignty", when it has been seared into the very inner circles of your proposal, that it emphasizes and requires strict regulations on the use of corporal punishment. In my country, you would be execute for lying to government officials!!! I spit on your proposal!! I can assure you that this proposal will most assuredly be used as toilet paper in our prisons.....


-Representative Borat Sogadiev

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Imperfectia, how can you say this that "it does not intrude on a nation's sovereignty", when it has been seared into the very inner circles of your proposal, that it emphasizes and requires strict regulations on the use of corporal punishment. In my country, you would be execute for lying to government officials!!! I spit on your proposal!! I can assure you that this proposal will most assuredly be used as toilet paper in our prisons.....


-Representative Borat Sogadiev

Representative Borat Sogadiev,

First, my appologies if my remarks were taken in a hostile light. I assure you that my government has no intentions whatsoever of offending your nation and its people.

Second, Sure, I admit that I have used use of the Death Penalty as my main argument for repealing FSA. However, as has been pointed out by both proponents of this resolution AND opponents, a repeal will not introduce any new legislation. It can not (speaking OOC here - the game rules do not allow a repeal to introduce anythign new - only to make an argument to repeal said resolution) force your nation or any nation to abolish or limit your nations use of the death penalty. I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but I feel that you have not yet understood that this repeal will not influnence your nation in any such way as to your actual sentencing practices.

Finally, if you have issues with my resolution, please state your objections to it that I have not already answered before!

Just for the fun of it, I'm going to give the text of this the once over.

Let's see here...

Argument: The United Nations,

That's us.

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;

Sounds like a great reason to ensure that judicial decisions are handled at levels that are most familiar with all circumstances and any relevant external (eg-cultural) factors.

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

A worthwhile commendation. I whole-heartedly agree.

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

Why? I'll develop this train of thought more fully in a moment, but what concern is it of the UN? I realize that there have been, currently are, and will continue to be, any number of arguments debating either side of this issue, but there are no arguments presented within the repeal, so why should I even consider this to be a valid reason for repealing FSA?

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;

To more fully develop the previous statement, and to take a different angle on things, let's try this one: Such nations will greatly dwindle their populace, and power base, at an alarming rate using such tactics. They will either realize the error of thier ways and self correct, or they will vanish from the world scene in a puff of Darwinism. Why must we protect the idiots from themselves? Let political natural selection run its own course and remove these stains from our presence without our meddling in their filth.

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;

If ever there was a statement that needed justification, this was it. This statement declares that we can promote international accord by ramming a single, widely debated, viewpoint down everyone's throat, whether they like it or not. How is that supposed to promote world peace? The road to hell and all that rot. Realizing that an internationally recognized standard practice may not take either extreme, there will still be dissenters that do not wish any interference, and those on both ends of the spectrum who feel that it either goes too far or not far enough. Somehow, you're trying to tell us that this sort of a decision would actually bring us all closer together into a more peaceful society. You know, there's this bridge that I've been trying to offload for some time now, and you look like the sort of guy who knows what to do with a bridge....

HEREBY repeals UN #180, “Fair Sentencing Act”

I fear that you may be right. I also fear that far too many of the voters are being swayed by this pablum that you are spoonfeeding them. Tripe about creating peace through enforced ideology. I can hardly believe that even the author truly believes such malarkey. Hogwash.

Before, I was against the repeal. Now, I'm disgusted by it. Such fallacious logic ought to be barred from being used as textual argument within these halls.

Imperfectia has some small measure of my pity that these are the best arguments they saw fit to put forward on this matter. It is unfortunate that such naivete has been allowed to fester within their international delegation. A shame.

Oskar Feldstein
Kivistan UN Ambassador
Scratching The Master's Itch

Honestly, Ambassador Flibble, my government would not have a problem with a nation trying to mandate specific times that CP should be used. We would of course vote no to any such proposalIf you don't like that idea then maybe you shouldn't be opening the door to allow such a proposal to be submitted in the first place.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It seems the Delegate of Imperfectia is misunderstanding my statements. The reasoning that you give in your repeal is that a standardized practice must be established as Res. 180 can be used to justify heinous use of CP.

The very fact that standardized practice cannot be established (as i have pointed out that it would be absurd to even try) and that Res. 180 cannot be used to justify arbitrary use of CP (as it places adequate controls on the nations as i have shown by my prev interpretations of Res. 180) shows that this repeal is of no advantage.

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

Why? I'll develop this train of thought more fully in a moment, but what concern is it of the UN? I realize that there have been, currently are, and will continue to be, any number of arguments debating either side of this issue, but there are no arguments presented within the repeal, so why should I even consider this to be a valid reason for repealing FSA?

Ok, so its not so much of an argument as it is exactly what it says it is, a "concern" - one which you appareantly don't happen to share. Fine. If you don't share the concern, then you of course would not consider it a valid argument for repeal. *shrug* I am willing to concede that.

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;

To more fully develop the previous statement, and to take a different angle on things, let's try this one: Such nations will greatly dwindle their populace, and power base, at an alarming rate using such tactics. They will either realize the error of thier ways and self correct, or they will vanish from the world scene in a puff of Darwinism. Why must we protect the idiots from themselves? Let political natural selection run its own course and remove these stains from our presence without our meddling in their filth.

That is where we disagree. The UN has every right to express outrage over human rights violations, and I do not know about your government, but my government would not be content to simply sit back and let those in power eliminate their nations population simply for the hell of it. As members of a global body, we have every right to be concerned for and seek the welfare of all individuals. So this argument of political Darwinism may make your govenment feel better about itself, but tell that to the innocents who are then slaughtered.

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;

If ever there was a statement that needed justification, this was it. This statement declares that we can promote international accord by ramming a single, widely debated, viewpoint down everyone's throat, whether they like it or not. How is that supposed to promote world peace? The road to hell and all that rot. Realizing that an internationally recognized standard practice may not take either extreme, there will still be dissenters that do not wish any interference, and those on both ends of the spectrum who feel that it either goes too far or not far enough. Somehow, you're trying to tell us that this sort of a decision would actually bring us all closer together into a more peaceful society. You know, there's this bridge that I've been trying to offload for some time now, and you look like the sort of guy who knows what to do with a bridge....

Who's to say that the UN can not rule one extreme or the other to be wrong? Why are you working under this deluded assumption that the UN can not enforce one view or the other on its member nations? It seems to me, after looking over several past resolutions that that is exactly what the UN has done - for better or for worse. As far as creating some kind of "international standard for use of CP," why not? Give me one good reason why not. I still have yet to hear anything other than nations whining and moaning that they won't be able to kill everyone and anyone anymore... Gee, And here I thought that I wasn't introducing any new legislation but simply allowing UN nations the right to vote on such matters. If the UN, as a global body, reaches a consensus that CP is wrong in certain cirumstances, then yes, the UN has every reason to enforce that view on its members.

HEREBY repeals UN #180, “Fair Sentencing Act”

I fear that you may be right. I also fear that far too many of the voters are being swayed by this pablum that you are spoonfeeding them. Tripe about creating peace through enforced ideology. I can hardly believe that even the author truly believes such malarkey. Hogwash.

Yes, a crazed dictator may call it that, however, it should better be viewed as creating a better environment for peace through a shared concern for human dignity and universal rights. I am sorry that your government doesn't seem to share those sentiments.

Before, I was against the repeal. Now, I'm disgusted by it. Such fallacious logic ought to be barred from being used as textual argument within these halls.

Imperfectia has some small measure of my pity that these are the best arguments they saw fit to put forward on this matter. It is unfortunate that such naivete has been allowed to fester within their international delegation. A shame.

Oskar Feldstein
Kivistan UN Ambassador
Scratching The Master's Itch

We thank you for your pity. However it is not naivete that has brought about this repeal but a concern for individual human rights. I am sorry to see that my fellow representative has lost his sense of moral obligation to help those in need of protection. We can only hope that such a deep seated fear of this repeal is not because of practices taking place within your own nation that you are ashamed of


Honestly, Ambassador Flibble, my government would not have a problem with a nation trying to mandate specific times that CP should be used. We would of course vote no to any such proposal

If you don't like that idea then maybe you shouldn't be opening the door to allow such a proposal to be submitted in the first place.

Again, Rep. Flibble, why do you seem to miss the point that though we may disagree with the proposed legislation, we feel that a nation has the sovereign right to introduce legislation into the UN. Why would you deny a nation this right?

I realize your questions are probably directed at Imperfectia, but I'd like to address these points myself.
Why? I'll develop this train of thought more fully in a moment, but what concern is it of the UN?
It is a concern of the UN because human rights are a concern of the UN. If capital punishment is used inappropriately then it may very well constitute a human rights violation. It's bad enough that these human rights abuses could take place in the first place, but if they are carried out with a UN resolution used as part of their justification then that is unacceptable.

To more fully develop the previous statement, and to take a different angle on things, let's try this one: Such nations will greatly dwindle their populace, and power base, at an alarming rate using such tactics. They will either realize the error of thier ways and self correct, or they will vanish from the world scene in a puff of Darwinism. Why must we protect the idiots from themselves? Let political natural selection run its own course and remove these stains from our presence without our meddling in their filth.
IC: We must protect "these idiots" from themselves because they are People. I'm talking here about the citizens of these nations, who may be the innocent victims of a dictatorial regime and a judicial system run wild. Good lord man, are you actually suggesting that we look the other way and wait for the "problem" to solve itself through attrition?

OOC: In order for the game to seem fun and real to me, I have to pretend that our make-believe nations are populated with make-believe citizens. People. To suggest that we should just allow a government to savage it's population because soon the nation will exterminate itself is something I'm not able to do, even though I realize that neither the "government" nor the "population" really exist.

It seems the Delegate of Imperfectia is misunderstanding my statements. The reasoning that you give in your repeal is that a standardized practice must be established as Res. 180 can be used to justify heinous use of CP.

The very fact that standardized practice cannot be established (as i have pointed out that it would be absurd to even try) and that Res. 180 cannot be used to justify arbitrary use of CP (as it places adequate controls on the nations as i have shown by my prev interpretations of Res. 180) shows that this repeal is of no advantage.

I am sorry, but who says that a standardized practice, a consensus of when use of CP is a violation of human rights, can not be reached? Yes, there is a WIDE range of practice concerning use of the Death penalty, but I seem to have a little more faith in the international community being able to come together and find a comon ground solution.

Article 2 of UN res #180 gives nations free regin to do whatever they want - the other articles are of little concern because, while they may sound nice, they are not actually binding on the nation. This is why my govenment would like to see FSA repealed - there is no REAL oversight required by FSA. Even the author of #180 stated that the other articles are not binding on the nation - simply suggestions of what the UN thinks might be nice for them to do.

i voted for the appeal, because if it gives nations lots of freedom to capital punishment.. that's wrong in my opinion.

Honestly, Ambassador Flibble, my government would not have a problem with a nation trying to mandate specific times that CP should be used. We would of course vote no to any such proposalIf you don't like that idea then maybe you shouldn't be opening the door to allow such a proposal to be submitted in the first place.
Again, Rep. Flibble, why do you seem to miss the point that though we may disagree with the proposed legislation, we feel that a nation has the sovereign right to introduce legislation into the UN. Why would you deny a nation this right?

Because I'd rather deny that "right" as you call it, than have the UN deny it's members the right to use the death penalty, or possess nuclear weapons, or set their own marriage laws, or anything else that the UN has passed "blocker" resolutions on.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

P.S. My assistant has something he'd like to add.

You're one of those anti-blocker people ain't 'cha?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

OOC: Boy setting up that quote in a quote thing was a bitch.

You know, as strange as it sounds even to me....perhaps I'm falling back on internationalist practices. And Reviewing the current vote on the repeal of the FSA. I came up with the clever Idea of drafting a resolution that would be legal when the FSA was repealed. It would mandate capital punishment.

That and the extreme opposite is the reason that the FSA was written in the first place. The FSA by throwing sentencing to the Sovereign Nations...insures that nobody's morality is offended. Those who like CP can use it, those who think its barbaric can not use it. But with it going, going, gone...I suppose I need to get drafting. Cant wait to see you all in the draft thread. ;)

Hows that for using my "right" to introduce legislation to this body Ambassador Integrity?

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

You know, as strange as it sounds even to me....perhaps I'm falling back on internationalist practices. And Reviewing the current vote on the repeal of the FSA. I came up with the clever Idea of drafting a resolution that would be legal when the FSA was repealed. It would mandate capital punishment.

If your government is once again open to the concepts of the IntFed movement, then we would welcome that quick change of heart. As for drafting a piece of legislation that woudl require its member nations to use CP, well good luck with that.

That and the extreme opposite is the reason that the FSA was written in the first place. The FSA by throwing sentencing to the Sovereign Nations...insures that nobody's morality is offended. Those who like CP can use it, those who think its barbaric can not use it. But with it going, going, gone...I suppose I need to get drafting. Cant wait to see you all in the draft thread.

"Insure's that nobody's morality is offended?" Yes, this is a great reason to keep FSA on the books. It doesn't offend a geonicidal maniac who has recently taken over his nation. Yep, nothing at all in place to stop him from sentencing whoever he feels like to death or other outrageuos punishments such as judicial rape. Maybe FSA would be ok if it actually provided oversight of a sentencing practices but as we have seen in this debate, that is not the case. The best thing to do from a human rights standpoint is to repeal it.

Hows that for using my "right" to introduce legislation to this body Ambassador Integrity?

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

Why are you still working under the assumption that my government would not support your right to present your draft resolution to this esteemed body? Why do you think i am working for this repeal? If you are currently drafting legislation that you were unable to before a repeal of FSA, then my government welcomes the chance to debate it and let it rise or fall on its own merits.

Thank you, Ambassador Khernynko, by introducing said draft to this Assembly, you are letting us know that even outspoken critics of this repeal such as yourself are ready to put FSA behind us.

If this body is actually unintelligent enough to vote a resolution mandating CP into law, then I intend to resign. There is more to getting something to pass than writing it. Sure, such a proposal will be legal if this repeal passes, but it has little to no chance of reaching quorum, never mind actually passing.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

The point was to demonstrate that by repealing the FSA one would be in effect opening Pandora's box.

Ellelt will not be embracing the "internationalist"--it really should be called Cultural Imperialist--cause.

Also I would also note that if the "honorable" Ambassador of Imperfecta, had read the FSA:

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


they would see that it does make provisions for the prevention abuse of the rights of punishment making by nations.

That said however, I have already began writing a real replacement for the FSA that should be ready for consideration upon the passage of this repeal...if this august body is dumb enough to pass it.

And anyone who would wish to resign after seeing the passage of a proposal requiring or restricting capital punishment may as well do so as soon as this repeal is passed.

Strange, that those who go on and on about morals, and decency and human rights but never define them are willing to open up the UN to all sorts of problematic proposals. Indeed opening the door for the exact opposite of their goals to become international law.

Actions have consiquences....the "internationalists" have never seemed to learn that.

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

You know what? Just shut the hell up.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

You know what? Just shut the hell up.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

I see that is the best response that the "internationalists" can come up with when they have been defeated by mere logic.

I have no intention to shut up, what-so-ever, not until this tripe is defeated.

VK

The point was to demonstrate that by repealing the FSA one would be in effect opening Pandora's box.

That said however, I have already began writing a real replacement for the FSA that should be ready for consideration upon the passage of this repeal...if this august body is dumb enough to pass it.

Strange, that those who go on and on about morals, and decency and human rights but never define them...

I see that is the best response that the "internationalists" can come up with when they have been defeated by mere logic.
Perhaps some of this body no longer cowers at the railings of such as yourself, Ambassador Khernynko. A "real" replacement? Really? As opposed to a "fake" replacement?

As for your puzzlement, this "dumb" assembly, perhaps wrongly, assumes that its members are generally familiar with such concepts. If you are not, perhaps your government should recall you. Hopefully your government isn't as psychotic as Gilabad's and you won't be executed for your lack of education.

Oh, and since when is fearmongering "logic"?

Leetha "I swore I wouldn't wrestle with pigs" Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

If this body is actually unintelligent enough to vote a resolution mandating CP into law, then I intend to resign.

Well then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh and do you have a nice office? Never underestimate the lack of inteligence of this body. Blockers are there for a reason, and neither logic nor intelligence has anything to do with it.

Do you really think you have the votes to get an anti CP resolution passed in this body? It's really easy to get the fluffies to vote for a repeal if the resolution name is not in and of itself fluffy. You can hide the fact that this repeal is merely an excuse to get an anti-CP resolution because those moronic fluffies are indeed so unintelligent as to look at only the title of the resolution.

I have been reminded by my secretary Red Hot that technically Retired Werepenguins does not have "capital punishment." Yes we do kill tourists before we cook and eat them but that's not a punishment, that's a reward. And they don't serve time in prision, they life the life of Riley in a four star posh hotel for a whole year. So if this was passed, we certanly would not care less. Nor would those mass groups of unintelligent who you apparently hate but use to your advantage when you can.

Familiar with concepts eh? Well, the Elletian concept of human rights might be very different from yours. We tend to feel that exploiting people for profit is a violation of human rights...Capitalists would by definition disagree. Indeed there is a saying in my country "Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups." That argument holds water like a colander.

We also feel that allowing criminals to sit around on their ass in prison and be fed at the taxpayer's expense is criminal. Obviously there are those who would disagree with that.

Further, we feel that people have the right to life (that would be post-birth life, btw)...and when that life is forcibly taken by an other...only the blood of the guilty...ie the execution of the guilty party will satisfy the demands of justice.

Ellelt cares deeply about human rights for its law abiding citizens. Those who cannot follow such simple rules as..don't kill, don't betray the motherland, and don't diddle little kids...are not human. They are animals. Beasts.

Indeed Ellelt spends most of its punishment funds working to rehabilitate the criminal element...through labor. However, there are those who cannot be rehablitated...it is for them that capital punishment is necessary. And should be left to the discretion of the individual Sovereign Nations to determine for which crimes.

As for "Fear mongering"...I would hardly call pointing out what will become possible after the repeal of the FSA fear mongering. Indeed it would open the very door to mandated execution that I believe you oppose, as it would likewise open the door for an outright ban of capital punishment. Hardly fear mongering...rather pointing out reality...which might come back to haunt the International Federalist camp...as it often does.

I must say that I am intrigued by your description in your signature. If you do not wish to "wrestle with pigs" then why don't you leave the pig-sty.

Leetha "I swore I wouldn't wrestle with pigs" Talone


I did, and further I will be sending the UIC the dry-cleaning bill for my suit and reputation.

As for being recalled...Comrade Serpov has already made arrangements for me to take over the party after his death...but that probably wont be happening for a very very very long time. That man despite his age is in great health.

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

I have been reminded by my secretary Red Hot that technically Retired Werepenguins does not have "capital punishment." Yes we do kill tourists before we cook and eat them but that's not a punishment, that's a reward. And they don't serve time in prison, they live the life of Riley in a four star posh hotel for a whole year.

OOC: If that's the life of Jack Riley then they'd certainly be thoroughly marinated...

We also feel that allowing criminals to sit around on their ass in prison and be fed at the taxpayer's expense is criminal. [repetitiousness snipped]The "wonders" of your gulags are well-known, Khernynko. As I'm sure Imperfectia has grown tired of saying, this repeal does nothing to change your chosen treatment of prisoners. We're nonplussed that you don't seem to get that.

As for "Fear mongering"...I would hardly call pointing out what will become possible after the repeal of the FSA fear mongering. ...rather pointing out reality...which might come back to haunt the International Federalist camp...as it often does.Pretty much the definition of fearmongering right there. Plus the oft-repeated slur of Int-Feds. It heartens me so that you fear us so much.

I must say that I am intrigued by your description in your signature. If you do not wish to "wrestle with pigs" then why don't you leave the pig-sty.I have no problems with this "filthy hippie" organization, though you seem to. But for your edification, the presence of pigs does not a pig-sty make.

L.T.

On the subject of the repeal. I'm sure you young wippersnappers don't recall or don't care to recall the "fun" times we had on the UN floor when UN Resolution #61 was repealed. There was a mad rush to get something onto the queue and approved first so that all other resolutions would be made void once the resolution was passed. This was not a pretty picture.

If you want to have the same thing for CP then have fun. I'll be at the stranger's bar. I better go now before the gnomes relalize I'm no longer a representative anymore since we quit the UN.

We find it highly amusing (if a bit disingenuous) that the supporters of this repeal keep insisting that the use of capital punishment is a secondary issue to their repeal efforts. While they are correct that the repeal itself does not affect CP, it is quite evident from the terminology concerning CP used in the repeal what their real intent is.

The FSA strikes a balance between protecting the rights of individuals to fair treatment under the laws of their nation, and the rights of nations to make their own decisions in regards to sentencing and judicial practice without having those decisions imposed on them by the UN. As such, it achieves the compromise and balance Altanar feels is most beneficial in the conduct of international relations. We are throughly frustrated by the willingness of the supporters of this repeal to throw out a perfectly good and effective resolution to achieve a very narrow agenda, an agenda that is paternalistic, moralistic, and unfair. There are several words in Altanari that convey our disgust effectively, but since they are a bit obscene, we will refrain from speaking them (publicly at least).

We have resigned ourselves to the likelihood of this repeal passing, although we do intend to keep fighting against it. However, if and when it does pass, and the inevitable effort to ban CP does come through as a result, the fight Altanar puts up against that will make our arguments against this ridiculous repeal look mild and gentle in comparison.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Ok, so its not so much of an argument as it is exactly what it says it is, a "concern" - one which you appareantly don't happen to share. Fine. If you don't share the concern, then you of course would not consider it a valid argument for repeal. *shrug* I am willing to concede that.

And that is supposed to be a defence of that concern being used as argument within this repeal? It's a lucky thing for you that you have delegations such as the Yeldans to back your efforts here.

That is where we disagree.

Obviously.

The UN has every right to express outrage over human rights violations, and I do not know about your government, but my government would not be content to simply sit back and let those in power eliminate their nations population simply for the hell of it. As members of a global body, we have every right to be concerned for and seek the welfare of all individuals. So this argument of political Darwinism may make your govenment feel better about itself, but tell that to the innocents who are then slaughtered.

You completely misunderstood my statement. This isn't about whether or not we have the right to express outrage over such things. What I was looking for was your reasoning as to why the UN should be outraged over these things.

Who's to say that the UN can not rule one extreme or the other to be wrong?

Nobody said that the UN doesn't have the power.

Why are you working under this deluded assumption that the UN can not enforce one view or the other on its member nations?

I'm not.

It seems to me, after looking over several past resolutions that that is exactly what the UN has done - for better or for worse.

Agreed.

As far as creating some kind of "international standard for use of CP," why not? Give me one good reason why not.

Because the rationale that you have offered behind doing so, that it would create peace, is inherently flawed. Forcing people to agree on things is not a good way to create peace.

I still have yet to hear anything other than nations whining and moaning that they won't be able to kill everyone and anyone anymore...

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Gee, And here I thought that I wasn't introducing any new legislation but simply allowing UN nations the right to vote on such matters.

You aren't introducing anything new. The arguments you have used within this repeal are flawed. That is the sticking point for me.

If the UN, as a global body, reaches a consensus that CP is wrong in certain cirumstances, then yes, the UN has every reason to enforce that view on its members.

For the UN to reach consensus on CP, we would all have to willingly agree to a certain view. If you believe that a full and proper consensus can be reached on such things, then you really haven't been paying attention.

Yes, a crazed dictator may call it that, however, it should better be viewed as creating a better environment for peace through a shared concern for human dignity and universal rights. I am sorry that your government doesn't seem to share those sentiments.

Once again, you completely fail to understand. Not everybody shares these concerns. Not in the same way that some others do. Such concern cannot be enforced through mandate. We can rewrite their entire legislature, but we cannot change their hearts. Their will be dissenters. They will resent such infringements into their judicial capacity, and they will not wish to be peaceful about it. Enforcing peace on the matter would be the act of a crazed, oppressive, censuring dictator. Not allowing or aknowledging the differing views and voices on the matter is an act of foolishness.

We thank you for your pity. However it is not naivete that has brought about this repeal but a concern for individual human rights.

The argument that universal mandate upon CP will bring about peace is naive.

I am sorry to see that my fellow representative has lost his sense of moral obligation to help those in need of protection. We can only hope that such a deep seated fear of this repeal is not because of practices taking place within your own nation that you are ashamed of

We are more than willing to help those in need of protection. In fact, that's how we became a nation to begin with. We hardly fear the repeal, itself. What we fear is that the "logic" being used within it are what is driving it to success.

Again, Rep. Flibble, why do you seem to miss the point that though we may disagree with the proposed legislation, we feel that a nation has the sovereign right to introduce legislation into the UN. Why would you deny a nation this right?

That is almost as pedantic as you can get. Do you actually have any proper defence of your view, or is this the best you can do?

I realize your questions are probably directed at Imperfectia, but I'd like to address these points myself.

They were, but I am always willing to listen to the comments and questions from the Yeldan delegation.

It is a concern of the UN because human rights are a concern of the UN. If capital punishment is used inappropriately then it may very well constitute a human rights violation.

If such wording was included in an appropriate fashion within the text of the repeal, I would be much less inclined to oppose it.

It's bad enough that these human rights abuses could take place in the first place, but if they are carried out with a UN resolution used as part of their justification then that is unacceptable.

There have already been comments about whether FSA could rationally be used as justification of such a thing. That FSA might allow a nation to use capital punishment is hardly an endorsement to do so. That said, I understand your concern. Again, were the repeal to have presented itself as such, I might be less opposed to it.

IC: We must protect "these idiots" from themselves because they are People. I'm talking here about the citizens of these nations, who may be the innocent victims of a dictatorial regime and a judicial system run wild. Good lord man, are you actually suggesting that we look the other way and wait for the "problem" to solve itself through attrition?

OOC: In order for the game to seem fun and real to me, I have to pretend that our make-believe nations are populated with make-believe citizens. People. To suggest that we should just allow a government to savage it's population because soon the nation will exterminate itself is something I'm not able to do, even though I realize that neither the "government" nor the "population" really exist.

OOC: I'll deal with both IC and OOC with the same IC response to save me saying essentially the same thing IC and then again OOC.

IC: I'm not so much advocating that we allow leaders to wipe their nations out through executions. More suggesting that there are alternatives. We could allow attrition to remove them. Should we? Maybe not. We could open up comprehensive refugee programs to allow those citizens living within these regimes an easy escape path. Were the UN to mandate something that required nations to allow people to emmigrate, and facilitated the evacuation of those wishing to leave their homeland for reasons such as you have listed, these innocents would have the option of escaping from such fearful oppression until such a time as the government takes a more "enlightened" view towards its people.

I am sorry, but who says that a standardized practice, a consensus of when use of CP is a violation of human rights, can not be reached?

I do. A consensus requires broad spectrum agreement. There will be dissenters. Were you to ban CP, there will be those who scream about it infringing upon their judicial capacity. Were you to fully allow it, there will be those who scream about potential human rights abuses. Any middle road will have people from both ends attacking it because it either goes too far or not far enough. This debate alone should be proof enough that the differing views will not be easily or readily reconciled.

Yes, there is a WIDE range of practice concerning use of the Death penalty, but I seem to have a little more faith in the international community being able to come together and find a comon ground solution.

Such as? If you allow it in any instance, for whatever reason, no matter what qualifications are required for it, there will be those who can and will abuse it, and others who will decry these potential abuses. If you completely outlaw the use of CP, there will be those who will scream about judicial infringement. Your best bet would be to allow nations to decide upon such matters for themselves. ....oh wait.

Article 2 of UN res #180 gives nations free regin to do whatever they want - the other articles are of little concern because, while they may sound nice, they are not actually binding on the nation. This is why my govenment would like to see FSA repealed - there is no REAL oversight required by FSA. Even the author of #180 stated that the other articles are not binding on the nation - simply suggestions of what the UN thinks might be nice for them to do.

So you've decided to completely ignore any other resolutions on the books as well as Reasonable Nation Theory? You don't need to answer that, your statement says it all.

If this body is actually unintelligent enough to vote a resolution mandating CP into law, then I intend to resign.

If that is all that it would take to have you remove your nation from the UN, then you should have considered that such things could happen before applying to join. Were you hoping that there would never be a single such thing ever brought before the GA? Are you currently hoping that the threat of your departure will sway anyone? I don't mean to sound overly hostile about it, but with a membership upwards of 30,000 nations, it becomes pretty hard to conceive that you would think that it would have any really lasting impression.

You know what? Just shut the hell up.

That's it? That's all you can manage now? "Do that and I'll take my ball and go home" followed by "Shut up"? Seriously? Is this the debating power of the Paradicans that we can expect in the future? Really?

Oh, and since when is fearmongering "logic"?


So you're saying that there is absolutely no chance of anyone ever getting anything of the sort up to vote and passed? The naive seem to be oozing out of the drywall for this debate. If FSA is as despicable as people continually claim it is, and it got passed, then what would stop a determined and creative individual from doing the same for what the representative of Ellelt was suggesting?

And what you don't seem to get is that it isn't the repeal that is the problem. It is the fact that by repealing the FSA you are opening the door to UN mandated sentences, which being UN mandates must be used in all UN nations.

I have repeated myself hundreds of times on this topic using the same argument and still you don't get it?

Incidentally about pig-sty's...I can tell by your post that you have never been involved in pork production what-so-ever. Igor Vassilovich Khernynko, that would be my father, was a hog farmer...so I have intimate knowledge of hogs and what they do. Your silly bourgeois comments are just that silly.

The presence of more than two instantaneously fouls whatever area they are contained in...thereby automatically making that area a pig-sty by definition.

As for calling the IntFed's what they are...is not a slander at all. Indeed the UIC is nothing more than a cesspit of cultural imperialism. Granted, I may not agree with the punishments meted out by Gilabad's court system...but Ellelt nor any other nation has the right to dictate to them what punishments they can and cannot use. To do so would be by definition...cultural imperialism.

As for the words "Might come back to haunt them"...That is a true statement. Again by opening doors...that were shut with a good reason, would allow proposals that would either mandate the use of capital punishment, or ban it completely. Either way about half of this body's toes would be crushed. Ellelt is fortunate in that It has a UN Clone that has to abide by the resolutions of this body, although we do in the main nation for the most part. And seeing that as Ellelt UN Clone is but one room in the Krimlin, with a population of five I highly doubt we would have an execution anytime soon...who is going to liquidate 20% of their population? Ellelt's concern is with other nations which do not have a Representative puppet to absorb the absurdities that occasionally are passed by this body, and that they and their population would be dictated to by a few with some pretty words and high-minded ideals but little regard for the man and woman on the street and in the factory of their nations.

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

We find it highly amusing (if a bit disingenuous) that the supporters of this repeal keep insisting that the use of capital punishment is a secondary issue to their repeal efforts. While they are correct that the repeal itself does not affect CP, it is quite evident from the terminology concerning CP used in the repeal what their real intent is.

We have resigned ourselves to the likelihood of this repeal passing, although we do intend to keep fighting against it. However, if and when it does pass, and the inevitable effort to ban CP does come through, the fight Altanar puts up against that will make our arguments against this ridiculous repeal look mild and gentle in comparison.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador


"Disingenuous?" I would like to kindly remind Ambassador Krytellin that I have only ever been upfront and honest in my expectations and desires for both why my government would like to see FSA repealed, and an idea of what we would like to see it replaced with. You want to know what my government thinks? Read the minutes of this debate! We have already publicliy stated that we would not like to see a complete ban on CP. So why is that even still an issue?

As for the terminoloy used in the repeal - I mearly pointed out how FSA may be abused. Read into it what you will.

As I said before: shut the bloody hell up. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone has the same beliefs as you. And just maybe, it's possible for you to be wrong sometimes.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

OOC EDIT: This was directed at Ellelt, not Imperfectia.

As I said before: shut the bloody hell up. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone has the same beliefs as you. And just maybe, it's possible for you to be wrong sometimes.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

Perhaps you should follow your own advice Ambassador Spear.

VK

"Disingenuous?" I would like to kindly remind Ambassador Krytellin that I have only ever been upfront and honest in my expectations and desires for both why my government would like to see FSA repealed, and an idea of what we would like to see it replaced with. You want to know what my government thinks? Read the minutes of this debate! We have already publicliy stated that we would not like to see a complete ban on CP. So why is that even still an issue?

As for the terminoloy used in the repeal - I mearly pointed out how FSA may be abused. Read into it what you will.

Let's take a look at the terminology in question:

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;

Your arguments against CP take up a large portion of your repeal text. In fact, it could easily be argued that the portions concerning CP are the most elucidated and elaborated portion of the entire repeal. I don't know what else one can read into that, as far as the intent of the repeal. it is the very fact that your arguments in this debate say one thing, and your repeal text seems to say another, that cause me to brand the whole thing disingenuous.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

As I said before: shut the bloody hell up. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone has the same beliefs as you. And just maybe, it's possible for you to be wrong sometimes.

zOMG! Not everyone has the same beliefs regarding the use of Capital Punishment???? Whoever would have thought such a thing? We must do something!!1! Perhaps create something that allows for different nations to decide upon it for themselves.

...

Oh wait...

You're speaking to the wrong person. I didn't write this repeal, and my nation does in fact use capital punishment.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

You're speaking to the wrong person. I didn't write this repeal, and my nation does in fact use capital punishment.

But you're supporting the repeal, which if it goes through, would open the doors to possible resolutions that would take that right away from you.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

And what you don't seem to get is that it isn't the repeal that is the problem.Yet, the repeal is the only thing on the table at this time. If you find no problem with it, perhaps you should change your vote?
I have repeated myself hundreds of times on this topic using the same argument and still you don't get it?Rote repetition doesn't improve an argument.I can tell by your post that you have never been involved in pork production what-so-ever. Igor Vassilovich Khernynko, that would be my father, was a hog farmer...so I have intimate knowledge of hogs and what they do. Your silly bourgeois comments are just that silly.

The presence of more than two instantaneously fouls whatever area they are contained in.Perhaps you should be careful. Although I am not absolutely certain, it is not beyond ken that we have porcine delegations in this very body.

As for calling the IntFed's what they are...is not a slander at all.I mentioned not slander, Ambassador Khernynko, though you seem to have no qualms doing so regardless of whom you speak.

Again by opening doors...that were shut with a good reason,Doors that were shut poorly. There are limits to what this body can be expected to turn a blind eye toward. Were you interested in listening, you would by now realize that the mere existence of capital punishment is not the rationale for this repeal. Ellelt is fortunate in that It has a UN Clone that has to abide by the resolutions of this bodyCongratulations on your wankery. Ellelt's concern is with other nations which do not have a Representative puppet to absorb the absurdities that occasionally are passed by this bodyExcuse me? What happened to your vaunted national sovereignty argument? Surely as a "rugged individualist" nation you should be letting nations worry about themselves. If you want to see what cultural imperialism looks like, look in a mirror.

--L.T.

They were, but I am always willing to listen to the comments and questions from the Yeldan delegation.
Thank you, and might I add that we have the same interest in hearing the views of the Kivistan delegation.



If such wording was included in an appropriate fashion within the text of the repeal, I would be much less inclined to oppose it.

There have already been comments about whether FSA could rationally be used as justification of such a thing. That FSA might allow a nation to use capital punishment is hardly an endorsement to do so. That said, I understand your concern. Again, were the repeal to have presented itself as such, I might be less opposed to it.
If I had written it, it probably would have been worded differently. As I've said, I didn't set out to debate CP in this discussion. My concerns with FSA are more in the area of allowing abuses and disproportionate sentencing. As it is though, I didn't write it and I'm not going to complain about the text. Imperfectia has done a fine job with this repeal and I find that I am able to support it as written, particularly that last line that says "HEREBY repeals Fair Sentencing Act”.



IC: I'm not so much advocating that we allow leaders to wipe their nations out through executions. More suggesting that there are alternatives. We could allow attrition to remove them. Should we? Maybe not. We could open up comprehensive refugee programs to allow those citizens living within these regimes an easy escape path. Were the UN to mandate something that required nations to allow people to emmigrate, and facilitated the evacuation of those wishing to leave their homeland for reasons such as you have listed, these innocents would have the option of escaping from such fearful oppression until such a time as the government takes a more "enlightened" view towards its people.
Well that's certainly something to think about, an emigration/immigration bill which would cover the rights of refugees to flee such situations.

OOC: And I could have sworn that we had something that would cover that, but I can't seem to find it. We discussed emigration/immigration when Waterana's Forced Banishment Ban was at vote. I must be thinking of that. That's a resolution topic I would like to explore/discuss more thoroughly.

So you're saying that there is absolutely no chance of anyone ever getting anything of the sort up to vote and passed? The naive seem to be oozing out of the drywall for this debate. If FSA is as despicable as people continually claim it is, and it got passed, then what would stop a determined and creative individual from doing the same for what the representative of Ellelt was suggesting?Not at all. I'm saying that Ellelt is overstating the case with his "Pandora's box" argument. Although your reference to the hoodwinking of this body with regard to the original FSA is interesting, it does not follow that this body doesn't learn from its past.

Personally, I hope to see an improved FSA on the books at some time--one that takes human rights into consideration.

You're speaking to the wrong person. I didn't write this repeal, and my nation does in fact use capital punishment.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

But you're supporting the repeal, which if it goes through, would open the doors to possible resolutions that would take that right away from you.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador


1. No, we do not use the death penalty.
2. Yes, we would like to see it banned and would support a proposal to ban it.
3. No, we don't think such a ban would have a hope in hell of passing. Nor would a proposal mandating the use of the death penalty.
4. What we would like to see in any "replacement" of FSA are 3 things:
a. An ironclad definition and BAN of cruel, unusual, barbaric, inhumane (or whatever you want to call them) punishments. This might require a repeal of some earlier, ineffective resolutions if a way cannot be found to write around them without duplication.
b. A provision to once and for all define and prevent disproportionate sentencing.
c. A provision to confine the use of the death penalty to only the most heinous crimes and a mandate that it must be carried out in a swift, humane and painless manner. An outright ban would be nice, but it would also be a deal breaker which would assure the failure of the resolution.

Barring the inclusion of these provisions, I think I would prefer that the UN legislate no further on the subject of sentencing and punishments.

Yet, the repeal is the only thing on the table at this time. If you find no problem with it, perhaps you should change your vote?

Again the problem with the repeal is that it opens a door in international law that is better left closed. So No I will not be changing my vote. The potential of the adoption of odious resolutions in regard to National Judaical Systems is too great to allow that door to be opened.


Doors that were shut poorly. There are limits to what this body can be expected to turn a blind eye toward. Were you interested in listening, you would by now realize that the mere existence of capital punishment is not the rationale for this repeal. Congratulations on your wankery. Excuse me? What happened to your vaunted national sovereignty argument? Surely as a "rugged individualist" nation you should be letting nations worry about themselves. If you want to see what cultural imperialism looks like, look in a mirror.

--L.T.

Considering that the second and third clauses of the repeal are about Capital Punishment what is one to think? Somehow I do not buy the argument that "we should repeal the FSA because it allows too much capital punishment" to be valid when in the next sentence the supporters of the repeal say...but the repeal doesn't ban capital punishment.

Of course it doesn't. Repeals do not introduce new legislation. However again...opening doors in international law to mandate execution or to mandate a ban of execution. By repealing the FSA that is a probable possibility.

Now, I have never once claimed to be a "rugged individualist". Indeed, such a policy would be going against our nature as a Bolshevik Republic. Indeed If I were a "rugged individualist" would I participate in the UN at all?...probably not.

However, defending the rights of nations to determine their judicial systems and their crimes and punishments for themselves is not cultural imperialism. Rather is is defending the rights of my fellows and myself from the intrusion of amoralistic preachers. Indeed that mirror reflects a Defender of the Proletariat of all nations, as well as my own.

VK

Jevian Voting Report

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif FOR -- 4,294 -- (54.76%)
--- AGAINST -- 3,547 -- (45.24%)

Votes Reporting: 68% (Compared to votes for UN Drug Act)

The Jevian UN Office is prepared to project that the proposal "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" will pass in the election of 12.29.2006, with 4,294 current votes, or 54.76% of the total votes. Approximately 68% of the UN's votes have been recorded at this time. We are sad to project this result, and hope that our predictions are not realized.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative,
Voting Analyst

a. An ironclad definition and BAN of cruel, unusual, barbaric, inhumane (or whatever you want to call them) punishments. This might require a repeal of some earlier, ineffective resolutions if a way cannot be found to write around them without duplication.

Such a definition is probably unworkable. With 28,000+ members in the UN there are at least 28,000 different definitions of what is and is not a cruel, inhumane, barbaric, unusual, etc, punishment.

b. A provision to once and for all define and prevent disproportionate sentencing.

The only way I can think of to work around that is to design a classification system of various crimes as to their seriousness. For Example the classifications would be misdemeanor, felony, capital offense. With a description of each, however, the character limitations would prevent a listing of crimes that would be in each category.

Further the UN mandating a maximum possible penalty would be infringing on national rights...so there would be massive opposition to that.

c. A provision to confine the use of the death penalty to only the most heinous crimes and a mandate that it must be carried out in a swift, humane and painless manner. An outright ban would be nice, but it would also be a deal breaker which would assure the failure of the resolution.

That might be possible, but again the definitions of swift, humane and painless would be subject to much debate. (same response pretty much to "a").

Barring the inclusion of these provisions, I think I would prefer that the UN legislate no further on the subject of sentencing and punishments.

If that is the case, why then would you support the repeal of the FSA which prevents legislation on the subject of sentencing and punishments, in favor of allowing the Sovereign Nations to determine for themselves what is and is not fair, just, cruel, inhumane, painless etc.

Repealing the FSA opens the floodgates for anybody with an ax to grind about a particular crime to write a proposal concerning the punishment of that crime. If that person happens to be an Imperfectian, Rubina-ite (sorry I don't know what your people call themselves), Yeldan, or Elleltian or not is of little consequence. As I have said before in this very post there are 28,000+ UN members and I wouldn't be shocked to find that half of them have the required 2 endorsements to propose legislation...any one of them could write a proposal on punishments and sentencing with the FSA gone.

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

Well that's certainly something to think about, an emigration/immigration bill which would cover the rights of refugees to flee such situations.

OOC: And I could have sworn that we had something that would cover that, but I can't seem to find it. We discussed emigration/immigration when Waterana's Forced Banishment Ban was at vote. I must be thinking of that. That's a resolution topic I would like to explore/discuss more thoroughly.

I've been thinking about having another crack at Banishment Ban since this repeal of FSA got to quorum. While I think something like it could be written around FSA, it would be much easier with that reso gone. Then a new resolution could ban exile without destination as a sentence, not just stop such exiles at a nations border.

Another reason I have my fingers crossed that this repeal passes.

Thank you, and might I add that we have the same interest in hearing the views of the Kivistan delegation.

And thank you. It is always nice to see that members from opposing factions can continue proper civilized discourse on controversial subjects, and we have always known the Yeldans to be capable of such. A toast of Fine Yeldan to the Yeldans.

If I had written it, it probably would have been worded differently. As I've said, I didn't set out to debate CP in this discussion. My concerns with FSA are more in the area of allowing abuses and disproportionate sentencing. As it is though, I didn't write it and I'm not going to complain about the text. Imperfectia has done a fine job with this repeal and I find that I am able to support it as written, particularly that last line that says "HEREBY repeals Fair Sentencing Act”.

We once followed a similar view, that it was that final line within repeals that really mattered, the rest being mere window dressing. We came to realize that the preceeding text would be left on the legislative books in perpetuity for future generations to judge. Should we allow fallacious logic and flowery wording to win the day, we will be seen as dupes by future legislators. While the here and now will only be affected by that last line, I have no desire to be cast in such a light unless I turn that light on, myself.

Well that's certainly something to think about, an emigration/immigration bill which would cover the rights of refugees to flee such situations.

And being of a somewhat international scope, it would receive less NSO opposition (depending on exact effect, of course). Hell, regardless of this repeal's success or failure, or any potential follow up to it, that might not be a bad idea anyways. What would it be? HR? GD, maybe, for removing barriers to people? Perhaps we could discuss this outside of this debate. Have your people contact my people if there is any interest.

Not at all. I'm saying that Ellelt is overstating the case with his "Pandora's box" argument.

I do agree that there has been some exxageration utilized on both sides of this debate.

3. No, we don't think such a ban would have a hope in hell of passing. Nor would a proposal mandating the use of the death penalty.

On this we must agree.

4. What we would like to see in any "replacement" of FSA are 3 things:
a. An ironclad definition and BAN of cruel, unusual, barbaric, inhumane (or whatever you want to call them) punishments. This might require a repeal of some earlier, ineffective resolutions if a way cannot be found to write around them without duplication.
b. A provision to once and for all define and prevent disproportionate sentencing.
c. A provision to confine the use of the death penalty to only the most heinous crimes and a mandate that it must be carried out in a swift, humane and painless manner. An outright ban would be nice, but it would also be a deal breaker which would assure the failure of the resolution.

Barring the National Sovereignty issues that would be associated with such legislation, there would definitely be some difficulty in the careful crafting of those definitions. There would not necessarily be any need for them all to exist in a single piece of legislation, however. If the various stipulations that you have set out were to be dealt with individually, you would stand a better chance of at least some of them being palatable to the GA, and managing to remain within character limits.

With National Sovereignty being a fairly paramount concern for many nations, these things could be a hard sell for many, though.

Barring the inclusion of these provisions, I think I would prefer that the UN legislate no further on the subject of sentencing and punishments.

Which was one of the reasons for the original creation of the FSA, I'm sure, though I shouldn't attempt to speak for the author. The Gruenbergers can correct me if I am wrong.

I've been thinking about having another crack at Banishment Ban since this repeal of FSA got to quorum. While I think something like it could be written around FSA, it would be much easier with that reso gone. Then a new resolution could ban exile without destination as a sentence, not just stop such exiles at a nations border.

Another reason I have my fingers crossed that this repeal passes.

Try attacking it from the other angle. Offer these people a place to go instead of making it so they don't have to leave. Frankly, if the nation is willing to kick them to the curb without assistance or destination, the lives of these people will not be easy if they get to hang around because the UN mandates it.

Try attacking it from the other angle. Offer these people a place to go instead of making it so they don't have to leave. Frankly, if the nation is willing to kick them to the curb without assistance or destination, the lives of these people will not be easy if they get to hang around because the UN mandates it.

I don't want to get into a discussion on that in this thread. Keep an eye on Reclamation over the next few days, and I'll get something up there that will show my intentions and what I want a proposal on the subject to achieve.

We once followed a similar view, that it was that final line within repeals that really mattered, the rest being mere window dressing. We came to realize that the preceeding text would be left on the legislative books in perpetuity for future generations to judge. Should we allow fallacious logic and flowery wording to win the day, we will be seen as dupes by future legislators. While the here and now will only be affected by that last line, I have no desire to be cast in such a light unless I turn that light on, myself.
I don't think Imperfectia's arguments are fallacious. It's just not the angle I would have approached the repeal from. Honestly, I would have shied away from the CP angle and I'm impressed that Imperfectia chose to address it head-on and it is doing as well as it is.



And being of a somewhat international scope, it would receive less NSO opposition (depending on exact effect, of course). Hell, regardless of this repeal's success or failure, or any potential follow up to it, that might not be a bad idea anyways. What would it be? HR? GD, maybe, for removing barriers to people? Perhaps we could discuss this outside of this debate. Have your people contact my people if there is any interest.
Agreed, and I'm thinking it would be HR. My people have contacted your people. (OOC: you have a PM at AO)


Barring the National Sovereignty issues that would be associated with such legislation, there would definitely be some difficulty in the careful crafting of those definitions. There would not necessarily be any need for them all to exist in a single piece of legislation, however. If the various stipulations that you have set out were to be dealt with individually, you would stand a better chance of at least some of them being palatable to the GA, and managing to remain within character limits.

With National Sovereignty being a fairly paramount concern for many nations, these things could be a hard sell for many, though.
Yes, it might actually be desirable to address them in separate bills. The definitions and the writing around DFT and EBP would be tricky to say the least. An omnibus bill that tried to address all of those points and included the necessary definitions would be unwieldy and would push the character limit. The CP part would, of course, be the hardest sell.



Which was one of the reasons for the original creation of the FSA, I'm sure, though I shouldn't attempt to speak for the author. The Gruenbergers can correct me if I am wrong.
I seem to remember the primary purpose of FSA to be the prevention of a CP ban. All of the issues which have brought the ire of this delegation are unfortunate side effects. Like you though, I'll defer to the Gruenbergers on this.

I don't think Imperfectia's arguments are fallacious. It's just not the angle I would have approached the repeal from. Honestly, I would have shied away from the CP angle and I'm impressed that Imperfectia chose to address it head-on and it is doing as well as it is.


The logic that I refer to as fallacious is the part that states that an internationally uniform piece of legislation on the matter will improve world peace. While I accept that such is vaguely possible, it is not likely enough that I would wish to put that sentiment in writing with my endorsement on it.

I don't want to get into a discussion on that in this thread. Keep an eye on Reclamation over the next few days, and I'll get something up there that will show my intentions and what I want a proposal on the subject to achieve.

Will do. I look forward to seeing what you have come up with.

Thanks to helpful recent votes by the West Pacific, The Lexicon, the North Pacific, and Texas, there is about a 300 vote lead for the AGAINST position!

Wow: I thought this was about 800 up when I went to bed.

It probably was. I know it was when I went to bed.

However it seems that some large regions have voted against it. And last night I was elected Delegate of the ACS so we brought in all 7 of our votes against it.

There is hope in the UN yet I tell you.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.
Regional Delegate for Allied Communist States.

Congratulations to the representative from Ellelt on his nation's recent election victory.
As for there being "hope in the UN," there's always hope ;)

The vote was close, still is. However, it currently looks like more big regions have voted against than for.

This is definitely a wonderful surprise! You can fool some of the people some of time but this time the feeders weren't fooled! 2006 will end on a happy note!

The Dominion of Tannenhaus has voted against the repeal for reasons well covered, already. Primarily, the possibility of the bill being replaced with a much more strict bill concerning the use of capital punishment.

The existance of any bills which would limit our nation's ability to combat crime and sedition is a concern but we are forced to side with the devil we know rather than the one we don't.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic voted against this repeal, out of support for the principle of National Sovereignty and concern that a successful repeal of the FSA would be followed in short order by a resolution banning the use of capital punishment altogether: We don't use execution very often, having a very low crime-rate (and a sensible law-code) as we do, but would definitely prefer to keep its possibility on the books instead of seeing it banned by the UN. Admittedly the FSA might be open to abuse by tyrannical regimes, although we consider some of the arguments that have been raised here along that line to be rather tendentious, but then -- after all -- there would be nothing to keep those regimes from taking their nations out of the UN altogether (whether or not they then created token puppets to vote here) in order to avoid the effects of any more restrictive resolutions so that those resolutions wouldn't actually help those nations' peoples at all...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

This is definitely a wonderful surprise! You can fool some of the people some of time but this time the feeders weren't fooled! 2006 will end on a happy note!
The feeders weren't fooled? What, all ten-odd that have bothered to vote?

Amazing! I had expected a disappointing defeat for our side, but it seems that fate has smiled on us.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a superstitious man, but I don't go round deliberately walking under ladders either. Maybe we could lay off the assuming of results for now: it'll make mocking the Jevian predictions all the sweeter later anyway.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Throwing Salt Over his Shoulder

The Delegate from La Sonadora wholeheartedly agrees with the delegate from Gruenberg!!!

:D

Damn.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

it'll make mocking the Jevian predictions all the sweeter later anyway.

Hey..we're 2 for 3. :)

I don't know what that means. If, though, it's taking pride in casting predictions with under 48 hours of voting to go...probably worth just throwing that fish straight back.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Snark

Well, you win some, you lose some.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

We of the Oppressed peoples of Schlagerland would gladly point out, as RATIONAL Anarchists, that although we may or may not choose to use Capital Punishment, it should be an option for those of you who DO wish to use it.

That way, more of your people will emigrate to our country and enjoy our rational freedoms... and watch the biker fights on our satellite Channel!

Maximizing Rugged Individualism (for the Greater Good) since 2006...

The resolution "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" was defeated 5,517 votes to 5,157.

Let no joyful voice be heard, let no man look up at the sky with hope, and let this day be cursed by we who ready to wake the Feeders!

The Jevian UN Office is prepared to project that the proposal "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" will pass in the election of 12.29.2006, with 4,294 current votes, or 54.76% of the total votes.The resolution "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" was defeated 5,517 votes to 5,157.

Let no joyful voice be heard, let no man look up at the sky with hope, and let this day be cursed by we who ready to wake the Feeders!

Well, we're happy with the results, too, even if our projection was wrong.

Well, I thought this resolution had a good shot, but appearantly the strategy I chose to go with didn't work in the end.

Gruen, congrats on having FSA stick around. It was too close to call until the end, which gives my government some small measure of comfort that the potintial abuses allowed by FSA will remain in nations minds.

Now for the next battle...

And with it this close, a repeal of FSA could succeed in the future.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate for Charis

The resolution "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" was defeated 5,517 votes to 5,157.


The people of Ellelt are dancing and singing drunkenly in the streets at this very moment.

Drinks on Ellelt for all those who voted against the repeal.

TO THE STRANGERS BAR!!!!!

VK

We have resigned ourselves to the likelihood of this repeal passing

We have never been more pleased to be proven wrong. On behalf of the Kingdom of Altanar, our hearty thanks go to everyone who voted against this repeal.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The people of Ellelt are dancing and singing drunkenly in the streets at this very moment.

Drinks on Ellelt for all those who voted against the repeal.

TO THE STRANGERS BAR!!!!!

VK

Concerning the voting results on a previous resolution, we quoted an old Ausserland saying: "Gloating is the pastime of small minds." We thank the representative of Ellelt for demonstrating the truth of this.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Imperfectia, I want to congratulate you for getting this repeal to quorum and almost, within a hairs breath, pulling it off.

While the repeal fell just short of passing, it does show that a lot of people don't like this resolution, and these blockers aren't as secure as a lot of us, including me, seem to think. I don't consider this repeal failing as a loss, but a win, because it has been a shot in the arm to the int fed movement and inspired some of us to look more closely at other blocker resolutions and start planning some future battles of our own ;).

Don't give up on this. Another try in a month or three could well succeed.

A shot in the arm to the IntFed movement?

A shot in the arm to the IntFed movement?
Yes. As in "a wake up call".

Concerning the voting results on a previous resolution, we quoted an old Ausserland saying: "Gloating is the pastime of small minds."
I could not agree more.

On which note,
Well, I thought this resolution had a good shot, but appearantly the strategy I chose to go with didn't work in the end.

Gruen, congrats on having FSA stick around. It was too close to call until the end, which gives my government some small measure of comfort that the potintial abuses allowed by FSA will remain in nations minds.

Now for the next battle...
Full credit for getting so close. The original resolution passed something like 2:1 if I recall, so you certainly convinced a few to change their votes. Whilst I won't pretend I'm not heartened to see my resolution stay in tact, I'm also glad that, this time, the debate was much more enlivening.

So yes, until next time.

The people of Unkerlantum have never been so proud of their region. Knowing that the West Pacific played a decisive factor in the outcome of this repeal has us parading in the streets.

Yes. As in "a wake up call".
Oh, now I get it. I thought Waterana was talking about the fact that it almost passed, rather than the fact that it failed.

Concerning the voting results on a previous resolution, we quoted an old Ausserland saying: "Gloating is the pastime of small minds." We thank the representative of Ellelt for demonstrating the truth of this.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Do sour grapes make good wine?

Please don't tell me that you wouldn't be either buying or partaking in drinks if this repeal had passed.

EDIT: I'm not sure, but that vote has to rank as among the closest ever in NSUN history -- Assemby Historian, front and center!

EDIT AGAIN: Great debate and a shining example of how vital the UN can be -- and how important each vote can be.

Jevian Voting Report

Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif FOR -- 4,294 -- (54.76%)
--- AGAINST -- 3,547 -- (45.24%)

Votes Reporting: 68% (Compared to votes for UN Drug Act)

The Jevian UN Office is prepared to project that the proposal "Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act"" will pass in the election of 12.29.2006, with 4,294 current votes, or 54.76% of the total votes. Approximately 68% of the UN's votes have been recorded at this time. We are sad to project this result, and hope that our predictions are not realized.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative,
Voting Analyst

*Borrows Stewie Griffin voice and baseball bat*

WHACK!

"What did you learn?"



EDIT: Sorry, but what was a bad idea in the RLUS election of 2004 if a bad idea here. I can't stop you from posting your predictions (though I wish you would), but I reserve the right to mock them.