NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Resolution 41: End Barbaric Punishments reads as follows;

END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Checkoslovakia

Description: It has come to the attention of many nations that there is no torture in the UN. My proposal is a simple one:

To outlaw and prevent torturing of witnesses to receive information.

Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.) Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine.

I hope that everyone realizes how barbaric torture and cruel and unusual punishment really is and will support the views of the many concerned nations.

As a continuing effort to remove old legislation that doesn't actually do anything. I propose the following repeal.

RECOGNIZING the wishful intent UN Resolution 41: End Babaric Punishments seeks to implement to all member nations.

ACKNOWLEGING the fact that barbaric punishment is an unjust practice to persons throughout the UN.

CITING that UN Resolution 41: End Barbaric Punishments, does not include several forms of punishment that could be seen as torture.

NOTING that said resolution only protects "witnesses" from being tortured to recieve intelligence, and limits the definition of torture to any act that "break(s) bones, blind(s) and bruise(s) people while in questioning." This resolution does not protect individuals from punishments such as water torture, electrocusion, starvation etc.

FURTHER NOTING that this legislation blocks any proposal that may seek to fill the gaps this resolution has presented.

DETERMING that said resolution is too vague to effectively end barbaric punishment.

HEREBY repeals said resolution.

Ordinarily I'd be the one wishing a frying pan upon the head of the following objection, but given the particular explicitness of the argument, I really don't see how this can be repealed without the replacement already written. You are saying, not that it is actively damaging, but that it doesn't go far enough. Fair enough. But at the risk of truism, it goes further than nothing.

It would, however, be hypocritical of us not to offer to help with a replacement - which we will now do, subject to the usual disclaimer that not every resolution needs a replacement; this one is unusual in doing so, in fact - so we will now offer that, although I'm not sure I can commit the resources to writing it myself given other ongoing legislative commitments.

And it's Resolution #41.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Your aguments have been noted and I thank you for the advice. I looked at the wrong resolution number when I drafted it.

I too agree that there may not be need for a replacement, and that this is better than nothing. But, if we are to keep a resolution banning forms of torture, it is my own personal belief as well as others, that it should contain more forms of punishments that can be classified as torture; i.e. electrocution, starvation etc., and should protect more than "witnesses" from having amnesty from said acts.

I have no intentions of submitting this repeal without a firm proposal that would replace, if deemed necessary. I have little experience drafting proposals so I have opened the floor to anyone who wishes to do so.

You know what, let me try a knack at this, even though it is rather unlikely that my draft will be accepted. I'll need to take a look though, I think there was a stronger resolution on the books that ban this sort of interrogation, but I may be wrong.

We already got a resolution on "Fair Sentencing Act", so I am dealing only with interrogation methods at the moment.

The only thing I have an OOC problem with such a brand new resolution is different preceptions on what is humane and what isn't? Surely, I don't want to create a resolution where the only humane way to interrogate to do is say: "Hey, criminal, please, please, rat out your fellow citizens and we'll pay you a million bucks!"

"No."

"Two million!"

"No."

"Three million!"

So, deciding what forms of "information gathering methods" ARE humane is the first step. I'm leaning towards letting a Commitee decide that and overrule national governments, or just providing guidelines on what are immoral forms of interrogations.

EDIT: Alright, I found none. The Wolfish Convention of POWs had something about interrogations of POWs, so it might be seen as a basis for what I thought was UN rules on "barbaric punishments":

Article 5
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

...

Article 8
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Unfortunately for some, violence is the only language they understand.

Can we offer the prisoner a dueling match? If they win, they are freed, if they lose they spill the info?

Frankly i dont really see the need to protect those besides witnesses. Then again, im also one who subscribes to the loophole of the 8th amendment, which does not ban cruel and unusual punishments. Though these methods are best used to execute those who commit horrid crimes. After all, should the punishment not equal the crime?

Sadrin Darkfire, UN rep of Iceforge

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

Actually, we're curious why this passage was included in the Wolfish Convention. Is there some unfair advantage to be gained by questioning POWs in a language they don't understand?

Frankly i dont really see the need to protect those besides witnesses. Then again, im also one who subscribes to the loophole of the 8th amendment, which does not ban cruel and unusual punishments. Though these methods are best used to execute those who commit horrid crimes. After all, should the punishment not equal the crime?

Sadrin Darkfire, UN rep of Iceforge

I think we should extend this to include torture as a means for criminal punishment as well. The main focus of this repeal is the simple fact that the original resolution leaves out a great deal of punishments that can be seen as torture.

The replacement, which has been drafted, will re-define torture.

Edit: Regulating sentencing would contravine the Fair Sentencing Act.

Upon further review. Resolution 41 has been found to be a duplicate of Article 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights, and Article 8 of the Wolfish Convention on POWs.

I think we should extend this to include torture as a means for criminal punishment as well..Why should a criminal who has no idea what barbaric is be granted protections from others being barbaric toward them. A man rapes a twelve year for days and does about everthing evil one can to her... She survives he is no murderer so gets hard time in a prison.... then expects to be treated with kid gloves while doing time... She struggles to pay her bills and just live day to day... he is in prison all his cares taken care of because you can't touch him and have to treat him nice let him see a doctor and have shelter, clothing, and food. No criminals who do barbaric acts give up all rights to any protections once they act... they either get hung or locked up where they will not harm anyone ever again nor burden society. This crap to rehab them works only while they being watched not once they free and back to prey on folks again.

I will agree we don't need to torture them; just until they reach the end of that rope and it draws tight around their necks.

Also as noted those we call terrorist only understand pain as asking then politely to give up their allies does nothing while more die. Also the idea of locking up suspected terrorist and not letting them have contact with other than those who are questioning them may be only way to save lives.. Agent gets into a terrorist group and is gathering information and got their based on information from a person being held that is suppose to be free and just in hiding. All of a sudden his prist, sister, mother, lawyer, and others find he is being held by a government agency as a terrorist, how long before they go to the news folks or the group he is part of. And to many holding them without due process is barbaric and torture.

Barbaric and inhumane punishments are really the only way of reforming one individual......Perhaps we should look at a specific situation...
A parent justly hitting a child. When you look at me i wouldn't be what i am today had my parents decided not to hit me...The mentality of most offenders when not punished for their wrong doing is that they think what ever that they where doing is acceptable and they get back right on doing it...Rehab programs are bullshit. I think we should just categorize how Exactly brutal and inhumane one such punishment is...


Alan-UGL rep

Actually, we're curious why this passage was included in the Wolfish Convention. Is there some unfair advantage to be gained by questioning POWs in a language they don't understand?

ROTFLOL

Upon further review. Resolution 41 has been found to be a duplicate of Article 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights, and Article 8 of the Wolfish Convention on POWs.

Well, as OMGTKK said, the UBR is merely 'endorsed', so it could be seen as a big loophole. And Article 8 only applies to POWs...unless you wish to define any criminals being captured as therefore becoming "Prisoners of War", in which case, the War on Crime.

Again, it is inhumane to tortue, but we shouldn't coodle at the same time. A definition of 'tortue' is therefore what we really desire at the moment, so that we know what is legal and what is immoral.

Yes i agree, a definition of torture should really be put up. Though we should all agree on one if possible... after all my definition is kinda loose (Torture includes all forms of physical and mental violence committed towards a person that exceeds a given persons crimes.)

As I said earlier, the UN can't deem what is a worthy punishment. Under the Fair Sentencing Act that lies to the individual nations. The Bill of Rights isn't really what you would call a law, it sets up guidelines that should be enstated in member nations that don't already have those kinds of laws in place, but doesn't replace ones that supercede then ones written in it. Now that is a tricky situation. We can't draft a resolution that would override both of them without stepping on national sovereignty. A replacement would be complicated business as we've already found out.

There are no less than three individual resolutions that already deal with torture. One has a definition in it, I can't seem to locate it again, but it was something like this; Defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.

Right now the major reason for repealing 41 is that it's useless. If a definition is elsewhere, and POWs and citizens already have immunity from inhumane punishments, there's no need to keep 41 on the books.

Keep in mind, I'm perfectly fine with leaving it up. I was just looking through past resolutions and it caught my eye. We need to get some of the older ones that are meaningless out so they don't block future proposals.

Right now the major reason for repealing 41 is that it's useless. If a definition is elsewhere, and POWs and citizens already have immunity from inhumane punishments, there's no need to keep 41 on the books.

Okay then. Sounds like an admirable solution. And since you are either a civilian or military (and hence covered under the Wolfish Convention), we already got a de facto ban. We're for the repeal then, but there might be no need to repeal it...

All we need to do is find the exact resolution with that definition...

Okay then. Sounds like an admirable solution. And since you are either a civilian or military (and hence covered under the Wolfish Convention), we already got a de facto ban. We're for the repeal then, but there might be no need to repeal it...

That's how I see it. That's why I'm not going to lose any sleep if no one decides we need to repeal. At this point I would mention that this could prevent something that could possibly come along and deal with witness protection in national or international crimes. Not sure though, I'd need to check.

EDIT: The definition of torture can be found under Resolution 193, Extraordinary Renditions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12231403&postcount=194) under section 1;

1. Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, torture as any act of physical or psychological violence perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;

It's not '[t]he definition of torture', it's a definition of torture. I caught seven shades of shit during the debate over that resolution, and although six of them emanated from an eminently ignorable source, the seventh is probably bearing in mind. Which is not to say that it should be abandoned, just very carefully considered before being used.

-- Samantha Benson
Author, "Extraordinary Rendition"
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

OOC: From the RL UNCAT:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

OOC: Thanks Quod. That is actually the one I was looking for. When Douria made the replacement I though he found that definition in one of our resolutions. I don't think it would be possible to give another definition of torture and still be legal without getting rid of any of the others that cover it. The whole situation is a knotted up mess as we discovered last night. It might be worth leaving it alone.

OOC: That's exactly why 'for the purposes of this resolution' (my italics) was used. Using a different definition elsewhere would be perfectly legal. (Well, I think so, anyway; obviously, I can't predict what the official line will be.)

It is hard to tell how things will go in the GA. My philosophy is if it leaves any room for someone to find a reason not to support; they will, at great length, go on on about how terrible it would be if it were passed. Considering this is only a draft, I'm not inclined to submit it anytime soon. The whole reason for sending it here was to see if there was enough support to send it through. I will use the time between now and when/if I decide to reintroduce it to draft a replacement with another definition.

Seeing as how this is intended as a thread for the repeal, can we reserve the replacement talk for another thread?

OOC: This is falling under the "Hey it's ok to repeal it, but I want a replacement ready" thing, even though we're all pretty clear now that a replacement would actually be illegal until some other stuff got repealed. And yeah Zarquon, I found that pretty easily by looking up "torture" in Google, and following the wikipedia link. Had the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which includes what I'd say is the best definition of torture.

I would support this resolution. I believe in torture, if it will save the lives of others. For example, if someone will not release information that will save thousands of lives, I think it right to torture one man to save a thousand.

Telegram from the Union of Police Stations, the true and legitmnate government of SilentScope003, and not at all represented by Dr. Bob:

Considering the fact that all forms of tortue is, in all likelyhood, already banned in the UN, do you have any good ideas for gaining information from criminals, so that we can remain in compliance, yet at the same time, gain valuable information from the criminals in question. We are waging a War on Crime, and wish to remain compliant with UN Law without suffering any problems in the process.

Thanks for responding.