NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, newbie here. I am trying to get a proposal on the floor to ban the death penalty. I need two endorsements to propose it. If you know how to do that and like the idea, please do so. Here's the proposal.

Death to the Death Penalty

Death penalties for heinous crimes completely negate the concept of higher intelligence. The distinctions between man and beast are not to be weakened but strengthened. The death penalty is an animal instinct to destroy that which is harmful. While this system of thought should be carried out against non-human entities, e.g. plagues, beasts, environment, or pollutants, it should not be enacted upon fellow man. True, when a human begins to behave like an animal there is pause to consider retaliation befitting animal-like behavior, but we civilized peoples must recognize the intrinsic value of man and not sink to such degrading levels as to slaughter our own, despite the crime.

Other measures can be taken to ensure that civilized human life will not be threatened. Such measures may cost more, but what is money besides paper and metal? Money is created by man, but man is created by God in the image of God.

Let us remove this atrocious penalty from our nations and treasure the value of human life.

Hey, welcome to the UN forums! I'm glad to see someone so eager to get to work...

Anyways, although those are arguments to ban the death penalty, that's not the usual format of a UN resolution. Click here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=190) to see some examples of correct resolution format. Also, refrain from mentioning God in your proposition. Although some UN members believe in God, others don't, and the UN maintains a stance of religious freedom and non-favoritism. I'm sure a UN forum regular like Yelda, Gruen, Kivisto, HotRodia, Frisbeetaria, or another mod will come along to help you more.

As I said before, welcome!

I would suggest writing something that contains an actual argument against the death penalty, and specific items nations are expected to implement within their own borders, and not an elementary-school essay.

I would also suggest repealing Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181), because you can't contradict an existing resolution.

If you want endorsements, however, the place to shop for them is in your own region, not here. Telegram fellow region members to offer an endorsement trade, or post on your RMB.

You have a good sense of rhetoric, Grimterra. That will certainly be useful in the UN.

Unfortunately, you not only need two endorsements so that you can submit the proposal, you also need to know how to make sure it's legal according to the UN Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). That way you can avoid a possible Mod warning.

In particular, capital punishment is allowed by the resolution "Fair Sentencing Act", so your proposal would contradict current UN legislation and thus be illegal. In order to ban the death penalty, you would need to repeal "Fair Sentencing Act" and then propose your resolution.

If we want increased activity on the UN forums, attacking new members probably isn't the best way to encourage the use of this forum, now is it, Kenny?

If we want increased activity on the UN forums, attacking new members probably isn't the best way to encourage the use of this forum, now is it, Kenny?

OOC: I'd hardly qualify Kenny's post as an attack. He was giving blunt advice. And if I might give you a little advice, grow some thicker skin. You're going to need it, if you think Kenny's post was an attack.

This is a remarkable example of two different approaches to "welcoming" new members to the NSUN. Two of our colleagues let the new member know that his proposal wasn't up to snuff, did that respectfully, and provided valuable guidance. A third chose to look down his nose and sneer at the new member's work as an "elementary school essay".

It doesn't take the legendary Albert Einstein to figure out which approach is more likely to encourage potentially valuable new members to continue participating in this Assembly and promote the health of this organization.

We join the representatives of David6 and HotRodia in welcoming the representative of Grimterra to the Assembly. We hope he'll have the fortitude to ignore the petty remarks of the Snarl and Sneer Brigade.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

This is a remarkable example of two different approaches to "welcoming" new members to the NSUN. Two of our colleagues let the new member know that his proposal wasn't up to snuff, did that respectfully, and provided valuable guidance. A third chose to look down his nose and sneer at the new member's work as an "elementary school essay". ...

We join the representatives of David6 and HotRodia in welcoming the representative of Grimterra to the Assembly. We hope he'll have the fortitude to ignore the petty remarks of the Snarl and Sneer Brigade.What amuses us are members of this Assembly who choose to look down their noses at the so-called "Snarl and Sneer Brigade" and pretend their own snarling and sneering is any more helpful than the snarling and sneering they're snarling and sneering at. But that's just us.

We were merely giving blunt advice, and critiquing shoddy work. The bit about "the petty remarks of the Snarl and Sneer Brigade" was entirely unnecessary.

I'd hardly qualify Kenny's post as an attack.

Peerhaps not an attack, but certainly not the form of constructive criticism that should be used to welcome new members.

When a new nation gives a suggestion and asks for help, you decide then is the right time to "bluntly critique their shoddy work?" Nobody is endowed upon birth with the knowledge about the way the UN system on NationStates works. The ones that know now know because they learned it. Shouldn't we help Grimterra, instead of calling his/her work an "elementary school essay?" Grimterra actually made the first correct decision by posting the draft here, on the UN forums. Unlike some (I did this too) who posted their proposals immediately, without looking for contradictions with past UN propositions. I would also like to remind Kenny that nobody has, as of yet, personally attacked anyone on this thread.

First, welcome to the UN forum Grimterra. Second, as has ben mentioned, banning the death penalty is going to require the repeal of UNR #180 Fair Sentencing Act. There was a recent attempt to repeal it which was narrowly defeated and many of us feel that another attempt could be successful. You might want to read this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512198), this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511694) and this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510983) to get an idea of the arguments for and against the repeal. I would also encourage you to read the Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and take a look at the Passed N.S.U.N. Resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572) and United Nations Reference Guide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490188). The Passed N.S.U.N. Resolutions list will give you an idea of what a proposal should look like, the formatting and such. The Rules thread will inform you of what it takes to write a legal proposal and the Reference guide will give you an idea of how the NSUN works.

Again, welcome to the UN. I'm sure there will be another attempt to repeal FSA and I hope you will participate in that effort. Once that is done, we can talk about writing death penalty bans.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Greetings Grimterra! Your inquiry has already been answered a few times, so I just thought I'd say hi. Try not to be dissuaded by some of the semi-veiled bickering that seems to have hijacked your thread. It's pretty common for some of us regulars to give each other a hard time about everything. There is little personal or actually malicious about most of it, just a bunch of colleagues who chide each other.

What you are talking about is NOT a death penalty.

It's capital punishment.

Death penalty includes the right of a Police Chief to order the shooting of a sniper killing indiscriminately in a mall , the enactment of certain war or intelligence protocols, the right of anyone to kill in self-defence - all under the justification of the principle of the double effect - one is taking life in order to defend the person, the community or the state. i.e. one takes the life of an aggressor who directly threatens lives in order to protect,promote and sustain life.

Capital punishment is very specific .
It is punitive, retributive, non-reformative,non-rehabilitative and is the execution of a person who is incarcerated and poses no immediate threat whatsoever to anyone. It is always a form of judicial murder.

Death can never be a valid form of punishment, and if you are on a desert island with no means of restricting the movements of a homicidal aggressor one has the moral justification to kill on the grounds of self-defence because he or she is a constant threat and there are no means of incarcerating them. This is not punishment, but protection and the promotion of life.

See my point ?

Oppose capital Punishment like every other sane person on the planet should, but please be aware that a death penalty includes many other justifiable actions.

What you are talking about is NOT a death penalty.

Yes. Yes it is.

It's capital punishment.

For those of you just tuning in to the language we like to call english, here's a rundown of the most basic definitions of the words being used.

Death: the end of life
Penalty: punishment
Capital: involving death
Punishment: penalty

To summarize how these things correlate; the Death Penalty is a punishment in which life is ended. Capital Punishment is a penalty involving death.

I thought about addressing your examples about DP v CP, but every single one of them was either spurious or simply fallacious.

Death can never be a valid form of punishment,

I completely disagree and state that you have no authority, either moral or otherwise, to force your views upon every single UN nation.

See my point ?

Assuming you're not referring to the one on the top of your head, I doubt you even understand the point yourself. You have demonstrated a complete failure to comprehend the most basic language that begins a debate about DP/CP. The finer points of the morality or lack thereof requires a somewhat greater level of basic comrehension than that.

Oppose capital Punishment like every other sane person on the planet should, but please be aware that a death penalty includes many other justifiable actions.

Your final point is that it's bad for people to kill people, but sometimes it's okay to kill people. Life vs Death is a pretty absolutist situation, and you are attempting to create a pretty unstable gray area with slippery slopes everywhere. If you are unwilling, or unable, to take a proper stance, then don't.

You admit that there are situations which could validate the termination of a life as an option, yet you, at the same time, declare a moral condemnation of the taking of a life. That pickett fence can't possibly be comfortable, friend. Perhaps you should climb off.

Let's jump on the happy-fluffy welcome wagon and all hug the newbie, and spit in the eye of those nasty, mean 'ol Kennyites.

Anyway, it's nice to see someone with an agenda. I would echo OMGTKK's points about putting forth arguments about capital punishment. However, you would first need to repeal Fair Sentencing Act, which allows nations to use capital punishment.

That said, my nations would not support such an endeavor.

Welcome to the UN. Your ambassador is free to join us in my delegation's Ambassador's Lounge (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/Lounge2.jpg), with a complimentary Kazman cigar. We look forward to seeing you in the Stranger's Bar. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=310853&page=361)

Most courteously,

Dear Kivisto, bless your cotton socks !

Ostensibly your reply appears, even amidst the insults and accusations, to possess a modicum of rationality.

If only it did ?

Your confusion regarding both phenomena is quite widespread, nevertheless it is erroneous.

A police chief ordering the shooting of a sniper "taking out" citizens from a rooftop ; actuates a death penalty : Not capital punishment.

A nation's army defending itself against an aggressive invading force enacts a penalty of retaliatory lethal force.

Any form of killing in self-defence penalises the aggressor by taking their life as a direct consequence of their actions.

All Capital Punishment is a form of Death Penalty ; but to presume that the reverse is axiomatically the case IS fallacious. [sic]

This is not fence-sitting ; this is being precise [albeit subtly] regarding principles of intrinsic import.

Should you still have problems understanding the gulf between the two concepts, may I refer you to The Catechism of the Catholic Church which considers Capital Punishment morally reprehensible; but a Self-Defensive Death Penalty as a permissible, [within the remit of the double effect] but regrettable, necessity when an aggressor jeapordises life.

The opening thread's proposals asked for reactions and opinions : Whether dependant upon Doxic opinions regarding taste, or rational Epistemic beliefs grounded upon moral principles.

I stated the belief that Capital Punishment cannot ever be presumed to be a valid moral form of punishment - based upon the principle that it denies the opportunity for restoration or rehabilitation. Even the argument that punishment should be solely retributive does not hold water with regard to capital punishment ; as the offender is no longer alive to endure any form of punishment.

You are perfectly free to oppose this position ; on any grounds whatsoever ; but frankly, to just be offensive and accuse me of failing to understand either english or logic ; well, it merely lessens you.

I posted my previous thread merely to qualify and redress the false presumption that the death penalty is absolutely congruent with capital punishment. It is not.

Nuff said ?!!!

Yes, 'nuff said. Please stop spewing your ridiculous "definition" of the death penalty here.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Meh, this is silly.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+capital+punishment&meta=

First result? the definition of capital punishment is "the death penalty" or wikipedia "Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty..."

That's answered that then.

Grimterra, welcome to the UN. Your idea of bringing up the death penalty is going to open a can of worms I'm sure. Sounds like fun :D

What you are talking about is NOT a death penalty.

It's capital punishment.

Death penalty includes the right of a Police Chief to order the shooting of a sniper killing indiscriminately in a mall , the enactment of certain war or intelligence protocols, the right of anyone to kill in self-defence - all under the justification of the principle of the double effect - one is taking life in order to defend the person, the community or the state. i.e. one takes the life of an aggressor who directly threatens lives in order to protect,promote and sustain life.


A professor in one of our universities has a standard answer when one of his students makes a statement of "fact" that he disagrees with: "Cite your sources". Now, the definition of capital punishment the representative put forward is completely different from any use of the term we've ever heard. But, rather than simply dismiss it, we'll just quote the old professor. Cite your sources.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Sounds like fun :D

FUN! You my friend, have a twisted idea of fun.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Welcome to the UN halls Grimterra. As a kinda-newbie here still myself, I can personally tell you that you will find both supporters and opponents of you desired ban.

If you are interested in working on a repeal of Fair Sentencing Act, I would be more than glad to offer any advice. My government is refraining from another such attempt at the present time. ;)

Dear Kivisto, bless your cotton socks !

They're nylon, but thanks anyways.

Ostensibly your reply appears, even amidst the insults and accusations, to possess a modicum of rationality.

I am rarely accused of rationality.

If only it did ?

Ahhhh... the whimsy....

Your confusion regarding both phenomena is quite widespread, nevertheless it is erroneous.

According to the a few law professors, a retired police officer, and a basic understanding of the english language, no, it isn't. The definitions I used were taken directly from Merriam-Webster.

A police chief ordering the shooting of a sniper "taking out" citizens from a rooftop ; actuates a death penalty : Not capital punishment.

By that rationale, the sniper who shoots the police chief in the head to prevent him from making that order also actuates a death penalty.

A nation's army defending itself against an aggressive invading force enacts a penalty of retaliatory lethal force.

The same argument could be made for the invaders, using your logic again.

Any form of killing in self-defence penalises the aggressor by taking their life as a direct consequence of their actions.

All Capital Punishment is a form of Death Penalty ; but to presume that the reverse is axiomatically the case IS fallacious. [sic]

Outside of legal circles, I might agree. We are, however, in an international legislature where laws are drafted. This is not the time or place for your cute little rhetoric about self-defence. As I would hope you have already noticed, the generally accepted usage of Death Penalty within law is as a reference to Capital Punishment.

This is not fence-sitting ; this is being precise [albeit subtly] regarding principles of intrinsic import.

In philosophy, possibly. Here, you're unnecessarily splitting hairs completely out of context of the situation.

Should you still have problems understanding the gulf between the two concepts, may I refer you to The Catechism of the Catholic Church which considers Capital Punishment morally reprehensible;

OOC:

1) Separation of Church and State. I won't be referencing religious materials for matters of law. Nor would I reference political manifestos for spiritual matters. The Catholic Church does not publish legal reference documents.

2) I refuse to accept the sanctimony from any religion that sanctioned the crusades. The Catholic Church does not publish legally binding laws regarding death.

3) This is not the real world. This is nationstates. This is a game wherein the catholic church has little if any sway at all, and that only amongst those very few nations who acknowledge its existence. The Catholic Church publishes nothing usable by way of definitions or reference material for the NSUN.

/ooc

You are perfectly free to oppose this position ; on any grounds whatsoever ; but frankly, to just be offensive and accuse me of failing to understand either english or logic ; well, it merely lessens you.

What a wonderful view of the world. If anyone points out your foibles, they must be wrong. Trust me, I'm a small, petty man, with little concern of what your self-righteous, holy-rolling delegation may think of me. And the fact remains that you still have not demonstrated any form of appropriate information regarding the subject matter.

I posted my previous thread merely to qualify and redress the false presumption that the death penalty is absolutely congruent with capital punishment. It is not.

There was no claim made that they were 100% the same. They are used interchangeably because anyone with even the tiniest bit of common sense within their skull can figure out what is intended by reading it in context instead of pulling out a single term and rambling off a semi-coherent tirade that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Nuff said ?!!!

Not quite. There's always more to be said. That being said, do us all a favour and try to get some concept of context before replying. Realize that this "misconception" is so widespread because it is a part of common parlance within these circles. You can pedant and linguo all over it, but it will not change the usage that the term receives within the NSUN. Simple fact remains that the most basic definitions of the words being used do not support your case. They do, however, support our usage.

This is neither pedantry nor specious complexity.

It's merely a request to refer to a principle, no matter how colloquially or politically referred to as one thing; to be given accurate ethical terminology.

If you mean Capital Punishment, the execution of an incarcerated criminal who is of no immediate aggressive threat to the community or state; as a punishment for their crime[s]. please refer to it as such.

Just because the general public and a dictionary equivocate a congruency between two concepts , it doesn't mean an ethicist will.

I referred to the catholic church, because it is one organisation which does clarify the vast difference between the concepts - not because it is of any moral superiority or has any rights to impose its position upon any state body.

[ Aside ] As for the reference to the crusades, albeit actuated by a gullible Pope, Urban II,and continued by less scrupulous individuals; it was all at the instigation of european leaders who recognised that warring lords and their armies were tearing europe apart with civil wars : and it would be much more beneficial if they were all on the same side fighting outside europe. It was a secular political policy - just like the venetian doge's rape of constantinople!

As for your reversal of arguments, are you serious ? Lucasiewicz will be spinning in his grave!
self-defence cannot be equivocated away as unwarranted,unjust or illegal ; nor can it be deemed as congruent with hostile aggression.

What's wrong with saying "If you mean capital punishment, please call it capital punishment !" ?

Not all people are aware of the meanings of "extraordinary rendition" or "collateral damage " are they ? Why do you think governments use them ?

A century of logical positivism should give at least some credence for proposing that we are as accurate as possible in the words we use to avoid confusion.

My apologies to those whom I've bored rigid. I merely sought to qualify a position.

Just because the general public and a dictionary equivocate a congruency between two concepts , it doesn't mean an ethicist will.Rather depends on the dictionary being used. When creating international law, you want to use legal definitions. So, we look to the Cornell Law Library, and we read:

The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes.[emphasis added, of course]You lose. The definitions that matter are the legal ones, and the legal definition of death penalty clearly shows that the two terms are not only synonyms, but are entirely interchangable.

Can we please put this pointless tangent to bed?