NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently drafted a proposal to ban improper execution. Please note that it will not ban capital punishment in general, only brutal forms that endanger human rights.

I need U.N. delegates to a support it to get it to vote, however.

Here it is:

Ban on improper execution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.



RECOGNIZING that each nation has the right to self-determine laws involving the use of capital punishment as a deterrent

ALLOWS the use of execution as a form of punishment

BUT FURTHER RECOGNIZES that certain rights must be upheld through the execution proccess including:
--The right to a quick and painless death
--The right to a private execution so as to avoid a public spectacle
--The right of the convicted to a will and/or last statement
--The right to humane treatment throughout the whole proccess

The United Nations hopes that this resolution will increase civility throughout the general assembly.

Unfortunately, you can't do this as it contradicts Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181) which states:

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

Courts in UN member states are fully within their rights to impose slow painful death as a sentence.

I disagree. By that logic we couldn't pass any further human rights resolutions because they infringe on the Fair Sentencing Resolution. This proposal would protect rights. The resolution Female Genital Mutilation could not stand, it is still law. That logic would also invalidate numerous other resolutions. This proposal could be enacted.

Courts in UN member states are fully within their rights to impose slow painful death as a sentence.Didn't we already have this discussion, wherein it was contended that previous UN resolutions already banned cruel and unusual ... aww, never mind! :p

I disagree. By that logic we couldn't pass any further human rights resolutions because they infringe on the Fair Sentencing Resolution. This proposal would protect rights. The resolution Female Genital Mutilation could not stand, it is still law. That logic would also invalidate numerous other resolutions. This proposal could be enacted.No, by that logic, you just can't pass resolutions interfering with nations' rights to sentence criminal suspects. Any other area of human rights (save maybe the right to an abortion) is fair game. In addition, Female Genital Mutilation preceded Fair Sentencing Act, and since FSA does not affect previously passed resolutions, it stands. So even if nations desired to sentence female convicts to genital mutilation, it would be condemned under FGM, and probably outlawed under previous resolutions forbidding cruel and unusual punishment (though some FSA critics do not necessarily agree on that last point).

I agree with Stopmenow100, to execute those who must be punished for their evil deeds. Though, I must say that everyone who opposes the right to live from anyone. They should be executed right away, that way the people will have less crime. A fast, painless death would be fitted right, why waste our time with making them suffer. They will cease to exist anyway, it is inevitable that whoever is going to be executed will die.

Yelda wasn't trying to contradict your argument, he was pointing out the way the UN part of the game works. You can't make a legal proposal that contradicts an existing resolution.

If you wanted this proposal to go ahead, you'd first have to repeal the resolution it contradicts.

Given the fraught debates that happen every time capital punishment comes up, I wouldn't give much for your chances of doing that just yet. People won't want to dump a compromise that was hammered out at some emotional cost.

It doesn't prevent other human rights proposals not in that area going ahead, or existing ones applying.

I beleive public executions should be allowed against traitors or murderers and the people should choose how they will be purged in front of them, we must show them that if you are evil you will be destroyed in a shamfule way.

I beleive public executions should be allowed against traitors or murderers and the people should choose how they will be purged in front of them, we must show them that if you are evil you will be destroyed in a shamfule way.

Tell me, what exactly is evil?

Figure that one out, then we'll talk.

Tell me, what exactly is evil?

The short (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12267323&postcount=42) films (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12310795&postcount=60) in support of UN proposals that were prepared by my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Unfortunately, you can't do this as it contradicts Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181) which states:



Courts in UN member states are fully within their rights to impose slow painful death as a sentence.

I don't agree with this because The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27) states : Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

So the proposal of Stopmenow100 could be considered as a more precise interpretation of the Fair Sentencing Act but must be rewritten in :

RECALL Resolution #181 "Fair Sentencing Act" stating that each nation has the right "to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions";

RECALL Resolution #27 "The Universal Bill of Rights" stating that "all human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment";

DECIDES that certain rights must be upheld through the execution process including:
--The right to a quick and painless death
--The right to a private execution so as to avoid a public spectacle
--The right of the convicted to a will and/or last statement
--The right to humane treatment throughout the whole proccess

On one hand, I would personally vote for something like what the esteemed delegate from Respublica Romanorum has suggested. It actually seems to fit both Fair Sentencing Act and the Universal Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, Dear Leader would not be pleased with such a bill. It would mean the Death Lottery would be far less entertaining, and since Dear Leader's cousin is the executive producer of our #1 TV program, Execution Theater, it would be a great loss for the TV industry and for our economy.

Therefore, I must stand in opposition to such a proposal. My apologies.

Sincerely,

MacKenzie Romanov
UN Chief Ambassador of Law Abiding Criminals

Unfortunately, you can't do this as it contradicts Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181) which states:



Courts in UN member states are fully within their rights to impose slow painful death as a sentence.

i dont tell you how to deal with your peoples criminals, you dont tell me what to do with mine. and we can live in peace.

Rewriting the proposal may not be such a bad idea. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to write it to include the Universal Bill of Rights and The Fair Sentencing Act.

If (more like when) it fails to get through and reach it should be re-proposed with the new wording.

i dont tell you how to deal with your peoples criminals, you dont tell me what to do with mine. and we can live in peace.

Yes, that's pretty much the gist of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Rewriting the proposal may not be such a bad idea. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to write it to include the Universal Bill of Rights and The Fair Sentencing Act.

If (more like when) it fails to get through and reach it should be re-proposed with the new wording.

If it includes any restrictions on how a nation may sentence their criminals in any way, it will be deleted as illegal for contradicting FSA. Considering your apparent goal here is to restrict how nations may sentence their criminals, I think you'll have to attempt a repeal of FSA first.

Originally said by Kivisto
If it includes any restrictions on how a nation may sentence their criminals in any way, it will be deleted as illegal for contradicting FSA. Considering your apparent goal here is to restrict how nations may sentence their criminals, I think you'll have to attempt a repeal of FSA first.


You're right, and any attempt to rewrite this proposal would have to come after that repeal. I am currently trying to repeal FSA, but I don't how far that will go.

Before you consider this a lost cause, I'd like you to read a fellow proposal that is trying for a more hard-line attitude on Capital Punishment and the debate that is currently storming about possible loopholes that could get around UNR #180

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521970

At this point, the debate is theoretical and could very well be decreed impossible by a moderator in one fell swoop, but it very well might work.

Thanks. That is a good point, too.

Originally said by Mikens

As for laws that are passed, I do not see where the Fair Sentencing Act would be contradicted. If anything it would be suggested in the line "...legal processes are fair and just;" Abolishion of such cruel punishment would only better support the Justification Process of life, rights, and laws.
If I am going about this all the wrong way, then I suppose a few more steps have to be taken before I can propose this matter. In fact, it seems that there is already a college vying for support in the repeal of the Fair Sentencing Act.


If the line states that legal processes must be fair and just, this proposal does not contradict the FSA. In fact, it somewhat supports it. Cruel execution is considered by many to be unfair; I mean not only can it be argued that this is not just, a trial with such emotions as this type of punishment would have could lead to an unjust trial.