NationStates Jolt Archive

Formal Proposal to United Nations:
"End to Capital Punishment

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Mikens

Description: End to the barbaric punishment to a nations' citizen(s) by the putting to death for a crime committed."

Federation wishes to make Proposal public for UN Delegates and Citizens alike, and asks for support and open approval/disapproval from all. Unfortunate it is, that a law must be passed to state the importance of Life."


Sir Michael of the Mikens

"Whosoever shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God, made He man" Book of Genesis, Chapter 9 verse 6

when one human takes the life of another. not out of defense but out of the animal nature and with pride for simple pleasure of death then he to is no more a man and shall like a rabid dog be taken down.
not so that evil may grow but so that the innocent may bloom.

Firstly we’d like to warmly welcome the representative from Mikens and thank him for (at least in part) avoiding the mistakes of other member nations by coming the UN forum to gain experience and ask for analysis of his efforts.

Regretfully we must inform him that this resolution would be best to abandon as it contradicts the Fair Sentencing Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fair_Sentencing_Act) which makes it illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). However, we do look forward to seeing future efforts.

[B]Anravelle Kramer

Many Nations, mine being one of them, have made sure to keep religion wholly separate from their national government. So because words in a book, no matter how important, or how old the book may be, aren't legislative law, we cannot, and will not, follow those words as federal law, unless petitioned by the delegating rules of the Nation.
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.


Sir Michael of the Mikens

Branding (in NS terms) in it's simplest form when you add your nations name, or a regions name into a proposal.

For example, saying "We the Justified ancients of MU MU propose to ban all badmintion" in a proposal is branding.

Your proposal refers to a "Federation" - which I'm guessing is where the branding is, and if you had not posted again, I would have suggested signing it off with "Sir Michael of the Mikens" is also branding - but it looks like you do that in all posts, rather than making it part of the proposal.

Oh gosh darn it, I clattered out a post because Jolt was being funny and didn’t even think it had submitted so never edited it. I meant to remove the branding comment because I noticed the end of quotation. Ah well.

Regretfully we must inform him that this resolution would be best to abandon as it contradicts the Fair Sentencing Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fair_Sentencing_Act) which makes it illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). However, we do look forward to seeing future efforts.

[B]Anravelle Kramer

It doesn't if we first write :

RECALL Resolution #27 "The Universal Bill of Rights" and his Article 5 -- "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment";

RECOGNIZING that death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment;

DECIDES...

Irrelevant, we were commenting on something that doesn’t include what the representative has so kindly provided.

Further, we believe The Universal Bill of Rights doesn’t define what constitutes “cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” therefore is completely open to interpretation and useless an argument. The representative can’t employ it in this fashion to bypass the FSA because he is still contradicting an already existing resolution with no basis.

Anravelle Kramer.

OOC: I'm most sorry duckies if this isn't coherent but I haven't been to sleep for over a day.:rolleyes:

by all means the nation of sionist follows this. and as a father knows best my people know what they are to do and what to do. my people are free to do as they wish. but they remember that should they break the laws then they must pay for their actions.

Further, we believe The Universal Bill of Rights doesn’t define what constitutes “cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” therefore is completely open to interpretation and useless an argument. The representative can’t employ it in this fashion to bypass the FSA because he is still contradicting an already existing resolution with no basis.

It is true that the Universal Bill of Rights does not include such a definition, wisely in our opinion, but that in itself is not an obstacle. As the honoured representative from Respublica Romanorum has observed, all a resolution has to do to invoke it is to argue that the punishment in question is indeed cruel or inhumane.

Unfortunately we are not certain that we could sustain that argument in this case. One has to consider all reasonable means of execution, and we would have a hard time arguing that every last one of them is either cruel or inhumane. Much as we would like to support this motion, we fear it is not legal. Which is not to say that the argument should not be had, and we would encourage Sir Michael to continue his work, merely that we do not forsee a successful outcome.

Incidentally, we should point out to the honorable representative of Sionist that in our nation, incorrect use or lack of use of the Shift key is punishable by grammar lessons. In this chamber, sarcasm appears to be a more favored approach.

It would seem that such a proposal has no place in here since it would appear to have been prematurely discarded (official expiration was the 27th, still needing only 17 approvals).
It is just saddens my heart that a place that constantly worked towards peace would become disallow such a important document to be tossed aside merely on the basis of "bureaucratic procedure"
This doesn't mean I've given up on the matter, if anything it's caused me to fight harder for it, I just have to go about the "due process" a little.... differently.

The proposal, as worded, violated Fair Sentencing Act in the manner indicated by the representative of Ithania. If you truly wish to attempt to get a proposal going which will move for Capital Punishment to be banned under grounds that it is a Cruel and Inhumane punishment which has been speculated as being a possible loophole in Fair Sentencing Act, we can assist in the drafting process. We recommend that the representative request that the title of this thread be changed to advertise that this is a discussion about Capital Punishment rather than yet-another-human-rights proposal as its title currently implies.

"Whosoever shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God, made He man" Book of Genesis, Chapter 9 verse 6

when one human takes the life of another. not out of defense but out of the animal nature and with pride for simple pleasure of death then he to is no more a man and shall like a rabid dog be taken down.
not so that evil may grow but so that the innocent may bloom.

That argument you are using is in support of a moral decency argument, not a human rights argument, just as the proposer is making a proposal supporting furthering rights of the prisoner while making no mention of those who may be affected by this proposal. As such, it is a human rights proposal for it promotes the rights of the humans being directly affected by its text.

Further, we believe The Universal Bill of Rights doesn’t define what constitutes “cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” therefore is completely open to interpretation and useless an argument. The representative can’t employ it in this fashion to bypass the FSA because he is still contradicting an already existing resolution with no basis.

The representative of Ithania would find herself (OOC: or is it himself?) incorrect on this claim. The precendent on such matters is if a previous resolution fails to define a term, subsequent proposals may define it in such a manner to suit their needs. The most obvious benefactor of these proposals are the various weaponry resolutions that have come since the passing of UNR #110 (UNSA) which protects all weapons that are "necessary for defense". The author, the now-Secretariat representative of Texan Hotrodders failed to defined "necessary for defense" and thus the Secretariat at the time ruled that all future weapons proposals that declared that a particular weapon was not necessary for defense would be considered to have bypassed this particular limitation.

Unfortunately we are not certain that we could sustain that argument in this case. One has to consider all reasonable means of execution, and we would have a hard time arguing that every last one of them is either cruel or inhumane.

The representative of Gobbanium might consider the possibility that it is, perhaps, the act of removing the life of the prisoner that could be argued as cruel and inhumane, not the method of doing so. It is our belief that a successful bypass of the Fair Sentencing Act would hinge entirely upon this argument.

That said, it is not our belief that the UN will accept and pass a resolution of this sorts. We encourage the author of this proposal to continue and to give this body something more to think about, but we remain, realistically, pessimistic.

The representative of Gobbanium might consider the possibility that it is, perhaps, the act of removing the life of the prisoner that could be argued as cruel and inhumane, not the method of doing so. It is our belief that a successful bypass of the Fair Sentencing Act would hinge entirely upon this argument.

We thank Ambasaddor Macdougall, but we had considered that approach. We do not believe that we could currently construct a watertight ethical argument that such was the case, and therefore regretfully set it aside. We intend to revisit the thought, since the hour being well past midnight may have coloured our conclusion.

We thank Ambasaddor Macdougall, but we had considered that approach. We do not believe that we could currently construct a watertight ethical argument that such was the case, and therefore regretfully set it aside. We intend to revisit the thought, since the hour being well past midnight may have coloured our conclusion.

If the concern is legality, I believe that such an argument can be made. If the concern is about being able to sell it to the general membership, I concur that this is a battle that is not winnable. That said, that should not deter us from trying.

After further analysis, we must conclude that the claims stated above create an extreme tightrope to walk. While UNR #27, Universal Bill of Rights, states that citizens cannot be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment, we must recall the fact that such a proposal would then be sitting as a House of Cards resolution, bypassing UNR #180 merely because UNR #27 exists. While it MAY be possible to create a legal resolution that declares execution as a cruel and inhumane treatment, such a resolution could not, explicitly, outlaw the Capital Punishment without violating the House of Cards claim. Further, if we left just that one claim alone, it would be illegal for doing nothing. At a minimum, the resolution would need to declare the treatment cruel and inhumane and then denounce Capital Punishment......which I actually think might be able to pass the litmus test of legalities.

On a similar note......we have a loophole for a different proposal to abuse....

The precendent on such matters is if a previous resolution fails to define a term, subsequent proposals may define it in such a manner to suit their needs.

We’re afraid despite our lack of information over this issue we still disagree that UNR #26 allows FSA to be bypassed.

We see abusing the lack of definition over what constitutes “weapons that are necessary to defend” in order to circumvent UNSA as entirely different to this circumstance because no blocker was passed (and obviously not legal) after the UNSA awarding member nations the right to define what constitutes a weapon necessary for defence. That’s what we see the FSA’s actions as being equivalent to.

Perhaps prior to the FSA passing we would have agreed with the representative’s argument but now we would assert that the FSA slammed the door on utilising that ambiguity by totally removing the power to determine sentencing from the UN.

To now attempt to give power over sentencing back to the UN is impossible in our view because it would contradict that resolution. We suggest that if the representative wishes to use this argument she must first repeal the FSA because at the moment it is acting as a barrier between her and the fluidic definition she wishes to employ.

Anravelle Kramer.

OOC: Deary me; good luck deciphering that nonsense. Legality always confuses me but only trial by fire will help.

Oh and Anravelle is female dear but speech conventions are somewhat reversed in Ithania because it was formerly a matriarchal society meaning female dominance lead to the transactional nature of speech being employed by women. I do dearly hope that helps. :)

RECALLING UN Resolution #27

DECLARING that Capital Punishment is a Cruel and inhumane treatment

CONDEMNS the practice and use of Capital Punishment

Hmmm.....let's see about the contradiction here....

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

Explain to me how this is illegal? It can only possibly be illegal if you can put together the thousands of dots of legal wrangling.

Condemn: To declare judgement against, to pronounce unfit for use, to express strong disapproval of.

Condemning capital punishment in a writ of UN law would run contrary to the declaration of FSA that nations can use it if they want.

I am being reminded of Ceorana's attempt at bypassing FSA with his Humane Treatment Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508426), which was declared illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12017036&postcount=211).

While this new entity is somewhat different from HTA in concept and execution, the underlying premise and motivation are exactly the same. It wishes to limit the sentencing power of individual nations.

Linky, please. Considering that condemnation applies no actual, enforceable restrictions against nations using the item being condemned, that seems like a stupid, stupid mod ruling. Humorously, I recall discussing with the representatives of Texan Hotrodders in the fallout from UNR #110 that his original intention was to give us the flexibility to recommend or condemn the possession and usage of weapons we did not like while tying the hands of the UN completely in the ability to actually ban them. If this mod ruling is as you say it is, then he has failed utterly in both components of his claimed objective.

The definition of Condemn I just pulled from a dictionary. Nothing really insightful about it. You are right that condemning it wouldn't actually stop nations from using it, which is why this would be rather different from the HTA ruling. HTA was an attempt to bypass FSA by restricting nations' capacity to convict people when certain sentences were going to be used. I find them similar in that this is another attempted end-run around FSA.

I suppose that by simply disapproving of the practice, it wouldn't contradict FSA, but then what would it do? Would it simply be a statement that "We don't like that" and nothing else? I think there might be other legality issues with that.

My only suggestion would be to change Condemn to Contemn. It's an alteration from passing judgement on the practice to looking down upon it with comtempt.

The definition of Condemn I just pulled from a dictionary. Nothing really insightful about it. You are right that condemning it wouldn't actually stop nations from using it, which is why this would be rather different from the HTA ruling. HTA was an attempt to bypass FSA by restricting nations' capacity to convict people when certain sentences were going to be used. I find them similar in that this is another attempted end-run around FSA.

I suppose that by simply disapproving of the practice, it wouldn't contradict FSA, but then what would it do? Would it simply be a statement that "We don't like that" and nothing else? I think there might be other legality issues with that.

Alone, it does nothing. With UNR #27.....it effectively does bypass FSA but I can assure you, the Condemns statement has absolutely nothing to do with that (the Condemns statement merely assures that the proposal, itself, can stand on its own to meet the House of Cards requirements)

My only suggestion would be to change Condemn to Contemn. It's an alteration from passing judgement on the practice to looking down upon it with comtempt.

We remind the representative of Kivisto what happened to the proposal that chose sapient over sentient because it was slightly better despite the fact that fewer people knew the word.

GAH! I know I would've never gotten this wrong before

UNR #26!