NationStates Jolt Archive

Debate
1. Any delegate may post a debate proposal outline, with a public poll asking if the proposal is of interest to the parliament.
2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one third (9) of the parliament it is to be debated.
3. The outline is then fleshed out into a full proposal and a debate started by the posting of this proposal within three days of the outline reaching quorum, or immediately on the completion of the previous debate, whichever is later.


Based upon the above-stated rules, I, as duly elected Member of Parliament representing the United Democratic Communist Party, hereby submit the following proposal outline for consideration by my esteemed colleagues and fellow Members of Parliament:

That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned; and, further, that all suspects of any misdeed or crime, in addition to the right to life, be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.

As per Parliamentary rules of debate, should this outline be retained for consideration by at least nine Members of Parliament, I will present Parliament with a more detailed proposal, after input from my fellow Party members.

I must argue against this proposal. This will prevent us form removing 'Dangers to society' from erm... Society.

I therefore have voted agaisnt this proposal.

Arogance1, you have voted 'Nay - I am an MP', but you are not an MP. Your vote will not be counted.

This certainly is a matter that requires debate. However there are two separate issues combined into one here, and I for one dislike tied selling.

That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned is one proposal, which as it happens I would oppose as law, and:
all suspects of any misdeed or crime be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court. is a second and different matter which I would suport.

Which of these two do you intend to place before the house?

My original intent was to propose only the former. However, the Party suggested the latter as an additional aspect, and I concurred. The two points, I believe, can be seen as deriving from a same concern for the respect of human rights in matters of law and justice. Thus the second part is intended as a logical complement to the former.

Sorry, but they are not part of the same concern, as is evidenced by the phrase "in addition to the right to life" which I cut from the proposal, and which served the purpose of linking the two.

One, the exclusion of the death penalty, is based on some mythical and unjustifiable right to life.

The other, the requirement of free and fair trials is based on a justifiable proposition of the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

There is no connection between these two supposed rights.

I disagree with the UDCP's representative on this, this forces us to reject the right to a fair trial if we wish to support the death penalty, or alternatively forces us to reject the death penalty just to support the right to a fair trial. These are two separate issues, and just because they both vaguely involve human rights and the legal system, does not change that fact.

Sorry, but they are not part of the same concern, as is evidenced by the phrase "in addition to the right to life" which I cut from the proposal, and which served the purpose of linking the two.

One, the exclusion of the death penalty, is based on some mythical and unjustifiable right to life.

The other, the requirement of free and fair trials is based on a justifiable proposition of the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

There is no connection between these two supposed rights.

Given that justice is falliable, and that guilt can, at best, be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt"; given also that, where the death penalty is still practised, people on death row have, on numerous occasions, been retroactively proven to be innocent, then, bearing your above points in mind, the two are, on the contrary, very closely linked indeed.

Further, I do not see how you can argue that the right to a fair trial is fundamental while the right to life is not. Surely these are two fundamental rights which society should uphold and protect.

Given that justice is falliable, and that guilt can, at best, be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt"; given also that, where the death penalty is still practised, people on death row have, on numerous occasions, been retroactively proven to be innocent, then, bearing your above points in mind, the two are, on the contrary, very closely linked indeed.


These are two separate issues. You admit they are "closely linked," but that just shows you recognize them to be separate issues and NOT the same. Surely you can now see that people may have very different ideas about one or the other, and it would be far more efficient to address a single issue with a single proposal?

If not, then I'm afraid I have to say nay on this. You're trying to sneak in a forced stance on capital punishment by riding it on the back of a stance on right to fair trial - I can hardly say no to this if it were a proposal, since doing so would mean I would have to say I disagree with the right to a fair and free trial.

So in effect, you are saying "you're either for a fair and free trial, or you support the death penalty." Sorry, they're separate issues.

If not, then I'm afraid I have to say nay on this. You're trying to sneak in a forced stance on capital punishment by riding it on the back of a stance on right to fair trial

Actually, no, and Alien Born can confirm that.


So in effect, you are saying "you're either for a fair and free trial, or you support the death penalty." Sorry, they're separate issues.

No. You're either in favour of both aspects, or you're opposed to one, the other or both. Let's see what Parliament thinks. If many MPs feel the same as you do, I can always re-submit this as two seperate proposals.

But if this one comes to the vote, then Parliament can always propose an amendment to split it into two and vote on each part seperately. Ultimately, it's up to what most MPs feel is best. Although the voters seem to be massively supporting this proposal.

Your proposal is:


That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned; and, further, that all suspects of any misdeed or crime, in addition to the right to life, be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.

It is impossible to disagree or agree - as in, "nay" or "yea" - this proposal without a lump-sum disagreement or agreement with both issues addressed in it.

True, we can split it apart later - but then why do that if you had properly submitted only one issue at a time? I am voting nay, though I might have voted differently had I been able to address each issue in turn.

And I see no "massive support" for this but, interesting time for propaganda.

Actually, no, and Alien Born can confirm that.
Huh? I think you are trying to tie these two seperate issues together with this proposal. I agree with Santa Barbara here. I can not confirm anything to the contrary. That your original idea was to just move the opposition to the death penalty I can confirm, but that is not the proposal you are making.

No. You're either in favour of both aspects, or you're opposed to one, the other or both. Let's see what Parliament thinks. If many MPs feel the same as you do, I can always re-submit this as two seperate proposals.
That is what we are suggesting you should do. The right to a free and fair trial would carry unanimously, in our opinion. The death penalty issue, however is not so clear cut.

But if this one comes to the vote, then Parliament can always propose an amendment to split it into two and vote on each part seperately. Ultimately, it's up to what most MPs feel is best. Although the voters seem to be massively supporting this proposal.
The idea behind having the proposal phase is to thrash out points like this and to avoid having bills and ammendments to bills etc. Let us try and keep it simple and clear. We recommend that you withdraw this proposal, and replace it with two seperate proposals, one for the right to a free and fair trial, the other for the exclusion of the death penalty.

As I said, we'll see what the other MPs think of it. You do raise an interesting point, SB, but it hadn't occured to me to present it as two seperate proposals. I saw no reason why a proposal should deal with a single issue, and I'm hoping a majority of MPs will back both aspects.

Oh, and to address your latter point, Santa Barbara, of the 6 non-MPs to have voted and expressed an opinion so far, all 6 have voted 'yea', none have voted 'nay'.

I agree with Santa Barbara and Alien Born on this. I'm afraid that I must in good conscience vote "nay".

We recommend that you withdraw this proposal, and replace it with two seperate proposals, one for the right to a free and fair trial, the other for the exclusion of the death penalty.

Your recommendation is duly noted, and will be considered. However, I'm hoping that a sufficient number of MPs will actually back both aspects of the proposal. So for now I prefer to wait and see.

This seems a bit premature to me. Shouldn't we deal first with matters relating to how Parliament will function before we embroil ourselves in controversial issues?

If you do not wish to seperate these issues, then fine. However it is likely that any bill presented that ties the death penalty in any way to another issue will be regarded as bad faith by the parliament, and rejected on that basis, regardless of the parliament's actual opinion on the death penalty.

I for one object strenuously to being told that I can only obtain a mortgage if I also insure my car with the same company. What you are trying to do here is the same type of manipulation and it is unacceptable. We need to be able to express our opinions and choose for ourselves and according to our manifestros on each of these two issues independently. If you are not willing to put the proposals seperately then it may fall to us to do so. However we recognise your prior claim on raising these issues and are willing to allow you time to correct your error of judgement.

This seems a bit premature to me. Shouldn't we deal first with matters relating to how Parliament will function before we embroil ourselves in controversial issues?

The motion on parliamentary procedures (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484) obtained an absolute majority. There was nothing to be gained by waiting for others to accept or reject the proposals when they had already been carried. No this is not premature. We do not wish to emulate RL parliaments and take three months to decide anything. We prefer to keep the parliament active.

This seems a bit premature to me. Shouldn't we deal first with matters relating to how Parliament will function before we embroil ourselves in controversial issues?

Not really... We've sorted out the basics of how Parliament should work, so it seems like time to put it into practice.

To those who voted 'Nay', out of curiosity, would you have voted 'Yay' had this proposal dealt solely with opposing the death penalty? Bearing in mind that the purpose of this thread is to decide whether the matter should be brought before Parliament, and not whether or not you personally oppose the death penalty.

I would have voted in favour of both these issue being brought to parliamentary debate if they were seperate issues. Yes.

Please remember folks that this is just a debate proposal.

If you do not wish to seperate these issues, then fine. However it is likely that any bill presented that ties the death penalty in any way to another issue will be regarded as bad faith by the parliament, and rejected on that basis, regardless of the parliament's actual opinion on the death penalty.

I for one object strenuously to being told that I can only obtain a mortgage if I also insure my car with the same company. What you are trying to do here is the same type of manipulation and it is unacceptable. We need to be able to express our opinions and choose for ourselves and according to our manifestros on each of these two issues independently. If you are not willing to put the proposals seperately then it may fall to us to do so. However we recognise your prior claim on raising these issues and are willing to allow you time to correct your error of judgement.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. I'll wait a little longer to see what other MPs think, then I'll consider doing as you suggest. I'll admit that I didn't anticipate this proposal having two aspects would be a problem. However, as you well know for having visited our Party fora, it was not intended as "manipulation".

In the meantime, I will take the matter back to my Party for consideration.

Not really... We've sorted out the basics of how Parliament should work, so it seems like time to put it into practice.

To those who voted 'Nay', out of curiosity, would you have voted 'Yay' had this proposal dealt solely with opposing the death penalty? Bearing in mind that the purpose of this thread is to decide whether the matter should be brought before Parliament, and not whether or not you personally oppose the death penalty.
You need to restrain your curiosity. Until this issue is voted up or down, it's a violation of Robert's Rules of Order to discuss ( in this thread at least ) how MPs would vote on the issue hypothetically.

You need to restrain your curiosity. Until this issue is voted up or down, it's a violation of Robert's Rules of Order to discuss ( in this thread at least ) how MPs would vote on the issue hypothetically.

Exactly what I would have said.

(OK it's not, but thank goodness Eutrusca is familiar with Robert's Rules of Order and I am not. :))

(OK it's not, but thank goodness Eutrusca is familiar with Robert's Rules of Order and I am not. :))

Which are what, exactly? I've never heard of them. Why do they apply here?

By the way, my question was aimed at helping me decide whether to withdraw this proposal and submit two new ones in this place. I'm willing to wait, as you say, but AB and a few others might not be happy about that. ;)

I would vote to bring both issues in your proposal before parliament if they were to be dealt with seperatly, yes.

I agree with Santa Barbara and Alien Born on this. I'm afraid that I must in good conscience vote "nay".
agreed

That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned; and, further, that all suspects of any misdeed or crime, in addition to the right to life, be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.
well i voted yay. i believe in the fundamental right to life, and the death penalty is a direct contradiction to that.
the right to a fair trial (and subsequent appeal, why not) is an important aspect of any just society, imho.


This seems a bit premature to me. Shouldn't we deal first with matters relating to how Parliament will function before we embroil ourselves in controversial issues?
i, for one, had no idea this would be so controversial. i would have thought the right to life to have been more universally accepted than this :(

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments. If nothing has changed by tomorrow, I'll withdraw this proposal and submit it as two seperate ones.

I agree that the removal of the death penalty AND fair trials should be a part of the same bill, since the right to appeal and the death penalty contradict each other. For example, there is now evidence that the last person hung in the UK could have been innocent. If she was in jail, she could have cleared her name. However she cannot clear her name since she is as dead as a doornail.

Therefore, the death penalty contradicts the idea of appeal.

Our 'exclusive exit poll' shows that the MPs want it as a seperate bill and the People want it as one bill. In these circumstances, would Parliament discuss it?

Our 'exclusive exit poll' shows that the MPs want it as a seperate bill and the People want it as one bill. In these circumstances, would Parliament discuss it?

Parliamentary procedures are very clear on that matter. It needs to be approved by nine MPs.

By the way, Aylestone, Holy Land of Palestine, you are not MPs. Your 'Yea' votes as MPs will not be counted.

I support this proposal and agree with the interpretation given on the issue by the Rt. Hon. Members of the UDCP. The right to life and to appeal are united.

Should the proposal reach quorum then I shall look forward to tackling these legal issues in a single piece of legislation. Should this fail I shall likewise support the drafting of this important legislation in two separate bills.

There is, however, one assurance I would like to have from the Rt. Hon. Member Arridia and that is an assurance that any proposal regarding the justice system shall not contain any reference to trial by jury, which I feel directly contradicts the idea of fair trial being proposed. I hope the Rt. Hon. Member will forgive me this small provision based on content.

On a point of Order, I would suggest placing the ‘non-MP’ poll first in future votes to avoid certain… illiterate… people from distorting the results.

Figures corrected for illiteracy

Yea MP - 6 : Ariddia, DHomme, Knootoss, New Burmesia, Pure Metal, Skinny87

Nay MP - 7: Alien Born, Crimson Sith, Eutrusca, FairyTInkArisen, Melkor Unchained, Moleland, Santa Barbara

Abstain MP - 0

Yea Non MP - 9 Aylestone, Holy Land of Palestine, Cowcatuate, Glitziness, Green israel, Kulladal, Quillonia, Saxnot, Taverham high

Nay Non MP - 7 Arogance1, Athenian Oppression, Blu-tac, Hodgin, Taxes are a bad idea, The Amazon Desert, Umbrice

No Opinion Non MP - 3 Delator, Xanaz, Zouloukistan

Those players in red are requested not to vote as MPs in the future as they are not elected members.

Bumped to give Ariddia a chance.

And I agree with the entire text. Both against the death penalty and for fair trials for anyone.
Yea.

Just a question. Where Do I submit proposla for debate/preliminary voting?

Well, it seems that if I wait longer I may reach quorum, but I promised I would withdraw it today, so I will. I still feel that the two aspects of the proposal complement one another, and that, as has been pointed out, there can be no such thing as a "fair trial" that imposes the death penalty - because it is irreversible if later evidence comes up, and because there is always the risk of executing an innocent person.

However, I hereby withdraw this proposal. I will resubmit it as two seperate proposals in just a few minutes.

Can i submit a proposal?

There is, however, one assurance I would like to have from the Rt. Hon. Member Arridia and that is an assurance that any proposal regarding the justice system shall not contain any reference to trial by jury, which I feel directly contradicts the idea of fair trial being proposed. I hope the Rt. Hon. Member will forgive me this small provision based on content.


I can assure the Rt. Hon. Member that the proposal does not and shall not contain any such reference, and I thank the Rt. Hon. Member for raising this particular point.

The amended proposals may be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427658) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427659).

Can i submit a proposal?

Any Member of Parliament may submit a proposal.

Any particular palce?

Any Member of Parliament may submit a proposal.

Specifically, these are the rules regarding proposal outlines:


1. Any delegate may post a debate proposal outline, with a public poll asking if the proposal is of interest to the parliament.
2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one third (9) of the parliament it is to be debated.
3. The outline is then fleshed out into a full proposal and a debate started by the posting of this proposal within three days of the outline reaching quorum, or immediately on the completion of the previous debate, whichever is later.
4. If there is more than one debate proposal queued priority shall be established by the date and time of posting the outline proposal.

So, Shall i just post it, and linky it back here?

So, Shall i just post it, and linky it back here?

Yup, go ahead!

My proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427667)