[PASSED] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

[Separatist Peoples]

It is unjust to impose a disproportionate punishment on someone.

Exactly. That is why Kant believes murders must be executed.

OOC: Kant believes thusly because it imposes the very punishment upon the criminal as was imposed upon the victim, but Kant doesn't take into consideration that the anticipation of knowing one is about to die for long periods is present for the criminal but not for the victim. The anticipation and the execution combined are, together, an excessive punishment if we apply the logic for why murderers deserve execution.

That said, Kant is often driven in his writings to make overly symmetrical logical constructs that reflecting on it's contents. I never thought much of his work.

[Araraukar]

OOC: but Kant doesn't take into consideration that the anticipation of knowing one is about to die for long periods is present for the criminal but not for the victim. The anticipation and the execution combined are, together, an excessive punishment if we apply the logic for why murderers deserve execution.

OOC: In real life maybe. But in NS the wait needn't be years or decades. Sure, the convicted can appeal, but you don't have to allow unlimited appeals, nor take years to look through them, if you have an effective system.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: but Kant doesn't take into consideration that the anticipation of knowing one is about to die for long periods is present for the criminal but not for the victim. The anticipation and the execution combined are, together, an excessive punishment if we apply the logic for why murderers deserve execution.

OOC: In real life maybe. But in NS the wait needn't be years or decades. Sure, the convicted can appeal, but you don't have to allow unlimited appeals, nor take years to look through them, if you have an effective system.

OOC: Another strike against execution, then. To add to the irreversibility of the sentence, states can limit, or eliminate, appeals against the sentence, which leaves the wrongfully accused with even less options. And since I hold that any system that claims to be infallible, even in Roleplay, to be propaganda at best and a steaming hunk of godmoding crap at worst, I can't see how this is better. Even if the wait isn't years or decades, but days or weeks, that is a significant stress. Entire thematic elements in stories and media are based around the torment that is knowing your precise time of death. Its one of the most common existential horror tropes I know, so I can't see dismissing that as trivial.

[Araraukar]

OOC: the torment that is knowing your precise time of death.

OOC: So by your logic the person should be executed right after trial, to minimize their suffering. Or not be told when exactly they're going to die.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: the torment that is knowing your precise time of death.

OOC: So by your logic the person should be executed right after trial, to minimize their suffering. Or not be told when exactly they're going to die.

OOC: no, by my logic, execution should be banned. Neither of those would really eliminate the anticipation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So by your logic the person should be executed right after trial, to minimize their suffering. Or not be told when exactly they're going to die.

OOC: no, by my logic, execution should be banned. Neither of those would really eliminate the anticipation.

OOC: If the main torment, according to your argument, lies in the anticipation of death, then immediate execution would remove that "torture" and thus render the - assuming it was murder they were convicted of - "life for life" fair again.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Unjustly" implies "without justice", yet if someone has had a fair trial and has been found guilty beyond any doubt, and has then been condemned to death, then as they justly die, justice will have been served.

It is unjust to impose a disproportionate punishment on someone.

"And what is 'disproportionate'? Are you saying that, as you do here:

Okay. If you're a Kantian, you should support this repeal and, then, a replacement that bans capital punishment in all cases but murder.

"That one must commit murder to deserve execution? What if someone attempts murder but fails? Do they then get rewarded for being bad at being bad? Or what if someone has already been given a prison sentence but continues to escape from prison? Should they be put back into prison only to escape again? Or what if someone commits a non-murder crime that is so horrific only the death penalty would be fitting?"

Exactly. That is why Kant believes murders must be executed.

OOC: Kant believes thusly because it imposes the very punishment upon the criminal as was imposed upon the victim, but Kant doesn't take into consideration that the anticipation of knowing one is about to die for long periods is present for the criminal but not for the victim. The anticipation and the execution combined are, together, an excessive punishment if we apply the logic for why murderers deserve execution.

OOC:
What about in cases where the victim did know they were going to be killed (like in hostage situations gone bad)? Wouldn't that then make execution the most appropriate punishment?

This line of argument also fails because life in prison is clearly not proportional to murder. I would argue that execution is a more fitting punishment, even if the suffering is greater than the victim's, merely because there is no punishment where the suffering would be exactly equal and it is unfair to cause less suffering on the murderer than they inflicted on the victim.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
What about in cases where the victim did know they were going to be killed (like in hostage situations gone bad)? Wouldn't that then make execution the most appropriate punishment?

This line of argument also fails because life in prison is clearly not proportional to murder. I would argue that execution is a more fitting punishment, even if the suffering is greater than the victim's, merely because there is no punishment where the suffering would be exactly equal and it is unfair to cause less suffering on the murderer than they inflicted on the victim.

OOC: If a state deliberately creates a state of anguish or anxiety of that degree to simulate the conditions of the original crime, I would argue they're violating WA laws regarding torture, as it is being done deliberately, with malice aforethought. In a hostage situation, though, victims don't always know they are going to die. They cooperate because they feel it is the best way to avoid exactly that. The best comparison I can come up with as a real crime would be a kidnapping and torture, Criminal Minds kind of crime, but deliberately matching the suffering of the victim in the punishment would, again, cross into the realm of torture.

What we're talking about at this point is retribution. There is no justice in an act performed with the intent to seek revenge, and we, as members of civilized society, ought to rise above that thinking.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
What about in cases where the victim did know they were going to be killed (like in hostage situations gone bad)? Wouldn't that then make execution the most appropriate punishment?

This line of argument also fails because life in prison is clearly not proportional to murder. I would argue that execution is a more fitting punishment, even if the suffering is greater than the victim's, merely because there is no punishment where the suffering would be exactly equal and it is unfair to cause less suffering on the murderer than they inflicted on the victim.

OOC: If a state deliberately creates a state of anguish or anxiety of that degree to simulate the conditions of the original crime, I would argue they're violating WA laws regarding torture, as it is being done deliberately, with malice aforethought.

That's a ridiculous line of argument. Execution is clearly not torture, and if it was, you couldn't even send a criminal to prison because of the 'mental anguish' that would result from being locked away. All criminal punishments necessarily inflict suffering on the criminal and are done so purposefully.

In a hostage situation, though, victims don't always know they are going to die.

But they sometimes do. In those cases execution would be most fitting.

What we're talking about at this point is retribution. There is no justice in an act performed with the intent to seek revenge, and we, as members of civilized society, ought to rise above that thinking.

I don't argue from a Kantian perspective, not in real life or in character. In character, the Excidian argument is that punishment is meant to reduce crime by either getting criminals off the streets or disincentivizing breaking the law. Prison gets violent criminals off the streets, but wastes resources, which are very limited in space. Hence execution of violent criminals, which permanently prevents them from committing further crimes and uses very little resources.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's a ridiculous line of argument. Execution is clearly not torture, and if it was, you couldn't even send a criminal to prison because of the 'mental anguish' that would result from being locked away. All criminal punishments necessarily inflict suffering on the criminal and are done so purposefully.

OOC: it's a good thing that isn't what I was arguing. A state deliberately inflicting mental torment by telling the incarcerated when and how they are going to die with the deliberate intention of compounding the punishment is torture. Incarceration by itself, or even waiting for an execution without the malice aforethought of deliberately inflicting that anxiety, wouldn't be. No more so than accidentally running over a child in a car is child abuse. There is a vast difference between incarceration and waiting to die. So much so that it's a popular literary trope.

I don't argue from a Kantian perspective, not in real life or in character. In character, the Excidian argument is that punishment is meant to reduce crime by either getting criminals off the streets or disincentivizing breaking the law. Prison gets violent criminals off the streets, but wastes resources, which are very limited in space. Hence execution of violent criminals, which permanently prevents them from committing further crimes and uses very little resources.

OOC: if the WA's primary concern in legislation was efficacy of rule, we would not protect a number of civil rights that are otherwise troublesome to a government. A government would operate much more easily without having to ensure freedom of speech or assembly from it's troublemaking demographics, or a free and fair trial when dealing with the same. The WA's priority has always placed individual well-being above such concerns except where otherwise impossible.

[Araraukar]

OOC: it's a good thing that isn't what I was arguing. A state deliberately inflicting mental torment by telling the incarcerated when and how they are going to die with the deliberate intention of compounding the punishment is torture. Incarceration by itself, or even waiting for an execution without the malice aforethought of deliberately inflicting that anxiety, wouldn't be.

OOC: I'm confused. You've literally argued that knowing beforehand when you're going to die is so torturous that it, added on top of the death penalty, makes death penalty "disproportionate punishment". And now you're okay with it? How do you differentiate between "malice in telling the convicted when they're going to die" and "no malice in telling the convicted when they're going to die"?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's a good thing that isn't what I was arguing. A state deliberately inflicting mental torment by telling the incarcerated when and how they are going to die with the deliberate intention of compounding the punishment is torture. Incarceration by itself, or even waiting for an execution without the malice aforethought of deliberately inflicting that anxiety, wouldn't be.

OOC: I'm confused. You've literally argued that knowing beforehand when you're going to die is so torturous that it, added on top of the death penalty, makes death penalty "disproportionate punishment". And now you're okay with it? How do you differentiate between "malice in telling the convicted when they're going to die" and "no malice in telling the convicted when they're going to die"?

ooc: Clearly the solution is to ban executions, as neither is terribly acceptable. But I was drawing a comparison between how one, being deliberate, is worse than the other, which was not. I was not considering one acceptable and the other unacceptable.

[Christian Democrats]

I'd prefer for us to shift back toward the question at hand:

Is it right for the General Assembly to give nations the "right to execute" people for any crime whatsoever?

[New Dukaine]

Repeal "Convention on Execution" was passed 9,937 votes to 8,435.

You did it again CD. Great job

[Excidium Planetis]

Repeal "Convention on Execution" was passed 9,937 votes to 8,435.

Following new legislation in Excidium Planetis, only one trial is required in cases where the death penalty is a possible sentence.

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond enters the chamber with a newspaper, its headline reading "Adolescent Executed on Charges of Treason". He looks over at the authoring ambassador.

"Congratulations, Ambassador, your resolution has passed. Now pregnant women and six-year old children can be executed in any member nation."

[Excidium Planetis]

That's a ridiculous line of argument. Execution is clearly not torture, and if it was, you couldn't even send a criminal to prison because of the 'mental anguish' that would result from being locked away. All criminal punishments necessarily inflict suffering on the criminal and are done so purposefully.

OOC: it's a good thing that isn't what I was arguing. A state deliberately inflicting mental torment by telling the incarcerated when and how they are going to die with the deliberate intention of compounding the punishment is torture.

And then, if a court gives a 20 year prison sentence instead of a 10 year sentence, that would be a deliberate compounding of punishment, and therefore torture by your definition. So it would be nearly impossible to punish anyone. As I said, all punishment is deliberate infliction of 'mental torment'.

Incarceration by itself, or even waiting for an execution without the malice aforethought of deliberately inflicting that anxiety, wouldn't be.

I merely said execution would be a more fitting punishment for murderers who made their victims aware of their hour of death. I never said it would be deliberately given out in such cases.

But, let's say that a murderer did commit such a crime. If giving the death penalty to the murderer was deliberately chosen as a fitting punishment, and that makes it torture, what punishment could be given out? Giving the murderer life in prison would be an infliction of mental anguish deliberately chosen because it was worse than, say, community service. If you take the stance of 'it is torture because it was chosen to be a more severe punishment', then any sentence you give out can be construed to be torture.

There is a vast difference between incarceration and waiting to die. So much so that it's a popular literary trope.

So is the anguish of life in prison. But we aren't seriously using it being a literary trope as an argument against the death penalty, are we?

OOC: if the WA's primary concern in legislation was efficacy of rule, we would not protect a number of civil rights that are otherwise troublesome to a government.

Indeed. And those civil rights are protected by law enforcement and the judicial system, which sometimes must use the death penalty to protect those civil rights.

The WA's priority has always placed individual well-being above such concerns except where otherwise impossible.

Excidium Planetis' priority has always placed the individual rights of citizens above the individual rights of convicted criminals. Indeed, nearly all societies do this, since placing individuals in prison or community service or a rehabilitation program limits the individual freedom of the criminal. In this case, Excidian citizens have a right not to be sexually assaulted, so rapists are executed to prevent repeat offenses. Execution ensures that violent criminals never commit a crime again, something no other method of punishment does. Execution also eliminates the resource usage of the criminal, ensuring that law abiding citizens continue to have enough oxygen to survive.

[Christian Democrats]

Repeal "Convention on Execution" was passed 9,937 votes to 8,435.

You did it again CD. Great job

Thank you!

We are grateful to all nations that approved or voted for our proposal to upend the so-called "right to execute," and we look forward to backing new legislation that will either abolish capital punishment or limit its use to the most heinous crimes. At present, we find ourselves drawn to On Execution but are willing to throw our support behind any proposal that is similarly restrictive or more restrictive.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: the torment that is knowing your precise time of death.

OOC: So by your logic the person should be executed right after trial, to minimize their suffering. Or not be told when exactly they're going to die.

OOC: Wasn't there a very early (like episode 1 or 2) STNG story about that? I mean we were so close to having Wesley killed right there on the spot for stepping on the grass.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: So by your logic the person should be executed right after trial, to minimize their suffering. Or not be told when exactly they're going to die.

OOC: Wasn't there a very early (like episode 1 or 2) STNG story about that? I mean we were so close to having Wesley killed right there on the spot for stepping on the grass.

I saw that episode, and I believe he was still guaranteed due process.

Shut up Wesley, you have diplomatic immunity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Wasn't there a very early (like episode 1 or 2) STNG story about that? I mean we were so close to having Wesley killed right there on the spot for stepping on the grass.

I saw that episode, and I believe he was still guaranteed due process.

Shut up Wesley, you have diplomatic immunity.

Heh, if you want to have a opinionated guide to it? http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t109.php

[Wrapper]

Damn you people for reminding me that this ridiculous episode ever existed. And with that, let's get back on topic and never speak of this again. Please.