NationStates Jolt Archive

The Justice Act 2009

Any person discovered to have murdered someone must be subject to a full criminal trial. If the accused is found guilty:
(a)the maxium penalty is death.
(b)They will be allowed three appeals.
(c)After which time the exercusion is to occur within two years.

Avenue of Appeals after the three Appeals

To appeal a forth time the accused hired lawyer have to go to the supreame court and then the President/Prime Minister etc.

This legislation is to ensure that murders are kept at a low. If the murderers know that the punishment for murder is exercution maybe they wouldn't murder.

The Justice Act 2009

Any person discovered to have murdered someone must be subject to a full criminal trial. If the accused is found guilty:
(a)the maxium penalty is death.
(b)They will be allowed three appeals.
(c)After which time the exercusion is to occur within two years.

Avenue of Appeals after the three Appeals

To appeal a forth time the accused hired lawyer have to go to the supreame court and then the President/Prime Minister etc.

This legislation is to ensure that murders are kept at a low. If the murderers know that the punishment for murder is exercution maybe they wouldn't murder.

I'll make this one short. The title states a date. Why? 2009 passed a long long time ago for us.

Second, what about nations that disagree with the death penalty, or hold it in use for treason. I'll also say that statistically speaking, in Rutianas, when we had the death penalty for murder, it didn't affect the murder rate. In fact, it actually went up. People knew the penalty, but didn't care. What's worse than death? Probably life in prison with no chance for parole and being kept with others who'd beat you senseless every chance they got. But I digress. You're assuming everyone supports the death penalty. Not true. Rutianas only has it in place for treason. Not murder.

The fourth appeal is intriguing, however, in some countries, very unlikely for the appeal to even be heard. Again, you're assuming that nations are set up like yours. If I were you, I'd change the 'President/Prime Minister etc' to 'the leader or leaders of the nation' or something along those lines.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thanks for your reply embassador. For those nations who disagree with the death penatly they can vote against the legislation but I feel if all nations in the WA are to master crime like murder we need to have the death penalty. I would be interested to know what method you used of exercution. Thanks again.

Thanks for your reply embassador. For those nations who disagree with the death penatly they can vote against the legislation but I feel if all nations in the WA are to master crime like murder we need to have the death penalty. I would be interested to know what method you used of exercution. Thanks again.

I'm not at liberty to speak of what methods we use. However, I'm not sure that any legislation that supports the death penalty will pass. I believe that if you left it up to the nation to decide, it might stand a chance. I wish you luck in this.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thank you for your comments on this issue Ambassador. I value each nation opinion on each issue very hiighly.

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances.

This proposal betrays itself from the very start. Embedded in the language is the assumption that everyone accused of murder is guilty of murder, and that everyone guilty of murder deserves death. You couldn't find an approach more at odds with Gobbannaen law if you tried.

everyone accused of murder is guilty of murder

I don't assume that everyone that is accused of murder is guilty of murder. I clearly state that everyone has the right to a full trial under the current law.

everyone guilty of murder deserves death

Everyone who takes a life on purpose is guilty of murder and deserves death but we can make exceptions for acidental murder.

everyone accused of murder is guilty of murder

I don't assume that everyone that is accused of murder is guilty of murder. I clearly state that everyone has the right to a full trial under the current law.

everyone guilty of murder deserves death

Everyone who takes a life on purpose is guilty of murder and deserves death but we can make exceptions for acidental murder.

Forgive me for bringing abortion into this, but here goes.

Nation A has a law stating that abortion is murder. An individual goes to Nation B to have an abortion since she can't have one in Nation A. So, who's guilty? The woman surely didn't perform the actual abortion, so it would be the doctor from Nation B. Or is the Nation A so depraved as to charge and find the woman guilty of murder when she didn't perform the procedure? But Nation A isn't likely to be successful in extraditing the doctor from Nation B to stand trial as no wrong doing was done in Nation B.

There's also a paradox here.

If murder is an offense punishable by the death penalty, wouldn't that make the executioner a murderer punishable by the death penalty? Under what you have written, it would. There's no exceptions in place. Intent means nothing, honestly. It's what's written. So, there's an endless cycle of murders that can't be stopped.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

everyone accused of murder is guilty of murder

I don't assume that everyone that is accused of murder is guilty of murder. I clearly state that everyone has the right to a full trial under the current law.
"Any person discovered to have murdered someone..."

everyone guilty of murder deserves death

Everyone who takes a life on purpose is guilty of murder and deserves death but we can make exceptions for acidental murder.
And that, mercifully, will sink this proposal like a stone.

I am withdrawing this bill.

There's also a paradox here.

If murder is an offense punishable by the death penalty, wouldn't that make the executioner a murderer punishable by the death penalty? Under what you have written, it would. There's no exceptions in place. Intent means nothing, honestly. It's what's written. So, there's an endless cycle of murders that can't be stopped.
No.
"Murder" consists of killing of sapient beings that is both premeditated (in those law-codes with which I'm familiar, anyway...) and illegal. However the carrying out of a legally-decreed execution, in a nation where the death penalty is legal, is legal and is therefore no more an act of "murder" than a soldier killing an enemy combatant in battle would be.