ban the death penalty

[Noraika]

Nope.

[Araraukar]

"A death in prison is not "natural", nor does it simply "happen" to be in a prison."

If you die of a heart-attack on the street, is that any more natural than dying of heart-attack in prison?

[Bvriania]

Naw just lock them up for life. If they did something to deserve the death penalty, then they deserve to suffer till they die of old age.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

"As are you. You presume that my comments would prevent future legislation to better accommodate for the rights of prisoners, when such is clearly not the case. At present, legislation in such areas is insufficient-and since we are dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, my comments stand.

"You've defeated yourself, ambassador. Such legislation does not preclude such a movement to better the conditions of prisoners. So using the current deplorable state of prisons as a justification for using the death penalty makes no sense, as it can be addressed elsewhere. I can't even come up with an analogy for the nonsensical logic you are applying."

"Likely because it seems that you are unable to follow my logic. I am not arguing for the deplorable state of prisons being a justification for the death penalty-though I think such would be a perfectly reasonable argument-I am saying it is hypocrisy to condemn the death penalty while having no such condemnation for life imprisonment-and indeed, even a cheerful acceptance 'lock 'em up till they rot.' In our ideal situation, there would be neither a death penalty, nor life imprisonment-but, beyond that legislating such is not the responsibility of the world assembly-any attempt to ban the death penalty must also include a ban on life imprisonment."

"Which indicates a failure of the state, rather than a failure of regular punishment in favor of capital punishment. Another false dichotomy."

"Irrelevant. It does not matter that it is the failure of the state-what matters is that the punishment is such that it allows for such abuses so easily in the first place. The state could not do such without such a punishment."

"I can't even follow your line of thinking here, ambassador. You are arguing that, because life in prison might be terrible, execution is preferable as an option. I note that, if the situation is so terrible as to create that as an option, the fault lies with the state and not the alternative to execution. And you somehow think that the state's failure is irrelevant? You are literally arguing to kill the patient rather than cure the symptoms, just because the symptoms may or may not be awful. That is barbaric and absurd."

"Not at all. You are insisting that life in prison is inherently superior to death in every situation-an absurd argument, given the demonstrably horrid states of many prisons. You simply insist that life is always better, even if it is in such a situation as to be torturous. If you wish to make the lot of prisoners better, focus your efforts on reforming prisons, rather than this ban."

"I see you continue to, unable provide a sufficiently evidence-backed argument, resort to your earlier name-calling, and the baseless claim that any who would hold such a position must be ignorant-such has no place in civilized debate. A death in prison is not "natural", nor does it simply "happen" to be in a prison. The condemned in question was deliberately forced into a position that would result in their death in a certain manner and certain location. Such can be direct lethal injection, or the "life" sentence-the difference lies only in the amount of time, and the lack of physical action to cause the death immediately."

"Dying of natural causes, whether in prison, at home, or on a bloody space station, is still a natural death. The location, sans an environmental stimuli, doesn't change that. If somebody dies in prison because of a prison riot, that is not a judicially-sanctioned punishment. It was not the result of the government enforcing punitive action. Failing an explicit cause of death unrelated the the punishment, you have no evidence that being in prison is the cause of a natural death, whereas being the subject of an execution is an inarguable cause of death. Its rather the point, even.

"The location was forced upon the person. They were put into a situation in which they would die. It is as simple as that. The state decided to kill them, and merely decided to outsource the job to nature. The decision is made to kill them. Do you honestly deny this? The point of the life sentence is to have someone die in prison. In both cases, death is decided on-only the means differ."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Likely because it seems that you are unable to follow my logic. I am not arguing for the deplorable state of prisons being a justification for the death penalty-though I think such would be a perfectly reasonable argument-I am saying it is hypocrisy to condemn the death penalty while having no such condemnation for life imprisonment-and indeed, even a cheerful acceptance 'lock 'em up till they rot.' In our ideal situation, there would be neither a death penalty, nor life imprisonment-but, beyond that legislating such is not the responsibility of the world assembly-any attempt to ban the death penalty must also include a ban on life imprisonment."

"Eradicating life in prison would leave states with no means by which of containing criminals of a particular caliber. Obviously, locking them up until they rot, as you put it, is not desirable, but not every prisoner can be rehabilitated. This is still worlds better than killing them and washing your hands of the blood by far. I don't see why a ban on life imprisonment would be in any way necessary. In fact, there is no reason why they should not, because, as I've pointed out and you've ignored, the two are fundamentally different. One earns being imprisoned through committing a particularly heinous crime, generally by killing somebody. We hold the act of ending a life to be such an anathema to modern society that it is one of our greatest crimes. Do you not see the utter hypocrisy of killing them in turn?"

"Not at all. You are insisting that life in prison is inherently superior to death in every situation-an absurd argument, given the demonstrably horrid states of many prisons. You simply insist that life is always better, even if it is in such a situation as to be torturous. If you wish to make the lot of prisoners better, focus your efforts on reforming prisons, rather than this ban."

"It is. One can always be released, after all, from prison, if not via parole, then certainly via pardoning. Even if this is a functional impossibility, there are any number of social interactions available with the general population, isolation being considered a form of torture. Current law regarding civil freedoms often fail to make exceptions for prisoners, so they are even granted a measure of freedom of expression, and are certainly protected from abuse. Is it a glorious life? Hardly. But it is worlds better than facing a certain death.

"Fortunately, prison reform can be done at the same time as a ban on capital punishment, so using "HURR, Life in prizon is much worse!" is hardly a fitting response in light of that."

"The location was forced upon the person. They were put into a situation in which they would die. It is as simple as that. The state decided to kill them, and merely decided to outsource the job to nature. The decision is made to kill them. Do you honestly deny this? The point of the life sentence is to have someone die in prison. In both cases, death is decided on-only the means differ."

"Where one dies is irrelevant. It is not a boating accident if one has a heart attack on a boat. It is no less natural to die of old age in your home than in prison. You are confusing cause and location, which is strange considering how wildly different the two concepts are. Just because a life will eventually run out in prison does not make it a death sentence, because the action of actually killing an individual is not the cause, directly or indirectly, of the state. That is the fundamental mistake you are making, and it is an utterly elementary one."

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

"Eradicating life in prison would leave states with no means by which of containing criminals of a particular caliber. Obviously, locking them up until they rot, as you put it, is not desirable, but not every prisoner can be rehabilitated. This is still worlds better than killing them and washing your hands of the blood by far. I don't see why a ban on life imprisonment would be in any way necessary. In fact, there is no reason why they should not, because, as I've pointed out and you've ignored, the two are fundamentally different. One earns being imprisoned through committing a particularly heinous crime, generally by killing somebody. We hold the act of ending a life to be such an anathema to modern society that it is one of our greatest crimes. Do you not see the utter hypocrisy of killing them in turn?"

"I do-which is why I am against killing them via life in prison, which is merely a way to 'wash our hands' of the death while still condemning them to it-a society of Pontius Pilates. You insist that life imprisonment is 'worlds better' than killing them, without giving any reason as to why. Again, you continue to deny that there are any situations in which horrid prison conditions are worse than death for the prisoner."

"It is. One can always be released, after all, from prison, if not via parole, then certainly via pardoning. Even if this is a functional impossibility, there are any number of social interactions available with the general population, isolation being considered a form of torture. Current law regarding civil freedoms often fail to make exceptions for prisoners, so they are even granted a measure of freedom of expression, and are certainly protected from abuse. Is it a glorious life? Hardly. But it is worlds better than facing a certain death.

"Fortunately, prison reform can be done at the same time as a ban on capital punishment, so using "HURR, Life in prizon is much worse!" is hardly a fitting response in light of that."

"A pathetic dodge. Life in prison without parole is clearly what we are speaking of here. Would you like to know one of the social interactions available within a prison? Rape. Physical abuse. Mental and verbal abuse. A social interaction is in no way inherently desirable."

"I have provided specific examples for how life in prison can be substantially worse than simply shuffling off the mortal coil-and you have done nothing. If anyone was to be the target of your infantile argument, it should be yourself, for you continue to blindly insist on your point regardless of any actual facts."

"Where one dies is irrelevant. It is not a boating accident if one has a heart attack on a boat. It is no less natural to die of old age in your home than in prison. You are confusing cause and location, which is strange considering how wildly different the two concepts are. Just because a life will eventually run out in prison does not make it a death sentence, because the action of actually killing an individual is not the cause, directly or indirectly, of the state. That is the fundamental mistake you are making, and it is an utterly elementary one."

"Ignoring my point does not make you seem intelligent. When the state declares a life sentence, they declare that that person is to die in prison. That is the meaning of the term. The sentence is to die. You have shown yourself unable of even comprehending the definition of the term."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I do-which is why I am against killing them via life in prison, which is merely a way to 'wash our hands' of the death while still condemning them to it-a society of Pontius Pilates. You insist that life imprisonment is 'worlds better' than killing them, without giving any reason as to why. Again, you continue to deny that there are any situations in which horrid prison conditions are worse than death for the prisoner."

“I would love to have you cite a few that are not in direct violation of extant World Assembly law, ambassador.”

"A pathetic dodge. Life in prison without parole is clearly what we are speaking of here. Would you like to know one of the social interactions available within a prison? Rape. Physical abuse. Mental and verbal abuse. A social interaction is in no way inherently desirable."

“Because those are the only interactions available, right? Are you really going to dissolve the entirety of individual interaction during incarceration to a few tired stereotypes? There is potential for significantly more by virtue of the wide range of emotional capacity individuals are capable of. I don’t even need to cite that, because we, by merely existing, are proof of that.”

"I have provided specific examples for how life in prison can be substantially worse than simply shuffling off the mortal coil-and you have done nothing. If anyone was to be the target of your infantile argument, it should be yourself, for you continue to blindly insist on your point regardless of any actual facts."

“I haven’t needed to, because your entire argument functions off a flawed logical belief. The entire axiom of WA ethics have been that death is an ultimate harm, as we have found so many ways to limit how much of it nations can cause. I accept that life in prison is, in fact, a harm. I also accept that dying is a harm. I accept that dying is a more significant harm, because it is literally the ending of one’s existence. Short of any religious bullshit you want to contrive to argue that, death is the ending of an individual in the most final of ways, and it is an ending that biology has made an imperative to avoid. At all costs, as we can see in any number of situations where individuals live with an utterly appalling quality of life, individuals seek to avoid that finality. I haven’t needed to cite anything because this is an implicit understanding of entire fields of ethics. The Hippocratic Oath and modern medical ethics has us insisting that nearly any kind of quality of life is superior to death. Even the hardiest of existential philosophers balk at the suggestion that dying is better than continuing to exist, even if they are also willing to argue that existence itself is a net harm.

“You’ll forgive me, ambassador, if I take your points about prison conditions being worse than life and turning my nose up at their stench, because that is a load of horseshit when those problems can be easily addressed, and in many cases already have been. I invite you to cite what conditions, specifically, one can create in a prison that are not in violation of extant law.”

"Ignoring my point does not make you seem intelligent. When the state declares a life sentence, they declare that that person is to die in prison. That is the meaning of the term. The sentence is to die. You have shown yourself unable of even comprehending the definition of the term."

“The sentence is to live out one’s life in prison. The sentence is to be incarcerated. There is no sentence of death, because the state does not, in this way, control the means of death, merely the location. How do you keep insisting on this? Your understanding is entirely divorced of any semblance of reason. Passing a life sentence involves directing an individual to spend the rest of their life incarcerated. Death will come in its own course, not through a needle or electric chair, or a noose or gun. A death penalty involves directing the time and place of the individual’s demise, it does not leave the means up to natural cause.”

OOC: I feel like I have to dig out one of my JD textbooks on criminal law and send them to you. This is asinine sophistry even by GA standards.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I feel like I have to dig out one of my JD textbooks on criminal law and send them to you. This is asinine sophistry even by GA standards.

OOC: Hey! That medal belongs to me!

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

“I would love to have you cite a few that are not in direct violation of extant World Assembly law, ambassador.”

"Any situation in which guards are corrupt, or understaffed, or simply in a nation in compliance with standards, where one person is targeted by other prisoners.

“Because those are the only interactions available, right? Are you really going to dissolve the entirety of individual interaction during incarceration to a few tired stereotypes? There is potential for significantly more by virtue of the wide range of emotional capacity individuals are capable of. I don’t even need to cite that, because we, by merely existing, are proof of that.”

"The callousness that causes you to dismiss such horrors as "stereotypes" is appalling. Human existence is a tale of heroism, yes-but also countless atrocities, yet you seem to deny the very existence of the latter."

"I have provided specific examples for how life in prison can be substantially worse than simply shuffling off the mortal coil-and you have done nothing. If anyone was to be the target of your infantile argument, it should be yourself, for you continue to blindly insist on your point regardless of any actual facts."

“I haven’t needed to, because your entire argument functions off a flawed logical belief. The entire axiom of WA ethics have been that death is an ultimate harm, as we have found so many ways to limit how much of it nations can cause. I accept that life in prison is, in fact, a harm. I also accept that dying is a harm. I accept that dying is a more significant harm, because it is literally the ending of one’s existence. Short of any religious bullshit you want to contrive to argue that, death is the ending of an individual in the most final of ways, and it is an ending that biology has made an imperative to avoid. At all costs, as we can see in any number of situations where individuals live with an utterly appalling quality of life, individuals seek to avoid that finality. I haven’t needed to cite anything because this is an implicit understanding of entire fields of ethics. The Hippocratic Oath and modern medical ethics has us insisting that nearly any kind of quality of life is superior to death. Even the hardiest of existential philosophers balk at the suggestion that dying is better than continuing to exist, even if they are also willing to argue that existence itself is a net harm."

'Yet I hear, ever so often, in cases of the WA's protection of death in the cases of abortion, that if the parent is unable to care for the child, if the child is mentally disabled, etc. etc., that perhaps death is preferable-yet not here."

"Tell me, Ambassador, were you unhappy before you were born? Did you fear, hurt, suffer? Take your atheistic example-in it, if there is no afterlife, then death is simply a release from suffering, and joy. Nonexistence. If, by your own standard, one's life produces net negative utility in prison, then, by your own standard, death is rationally preferable."

“You’ll forgive me, ambassador, if I take your points about prison conditions being worse than life and turning my nose up at their stench, because that is a load of horseshit when those problems can be easily addressed, and in many cases already have been. I invite you to cite what conditions, specifically, one can create in a prison that are not in violation of extant law.”

"If they could be so easily addressed, why have you not done so? Seems either a lack of desire, or ability."

“The sentence is to live out one’s life in prison. The sentence is to be incarcerated. There is no sentence of death, because the state does not, in this way, control the means of death, merely the location. How do you keep insisting on this? Your understanding is entirely divorced of any semblance of reason. Passing a life sentence involves directing an individual to spend the rest of their life incarcerated. Death will come in its own course, not through a needle or electric chair, or a noose or gun. A death penalty involves directing the time and place of the individual’s demise, it does not leave the means up to natural cause.”

"You have used a euphemism-nothing more. "To live out one's life", means to die. You strike the nail after this-the death penalty is directing the time and place of the individual's demise-and there is the only difference. You have condemned them to death in both cases-in one, you are simply being more specific as to the circumstances of it."

OOC: I feel like I have to dig out one of my JD textbooks on criminal law and send them to you. This is asinine sophistry even by GA standards.

OOC: You literally do not understand that the life sentence means "to stay in prison until you die." That is just appalling.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You literally do not understand that the life sentence means "to stay in prison until you die." That is just appalling.

OOC: Not always. Especially in real life.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: You literally do not understand that the life sentence means "to stay in prison until you die." That is just appalling.

OOC: I'm not going to respond to the rest of the bilge you posted, because this is just going in circles in an already illegal proposal, but this I can address OOCly. If life in prison was the same as the death penalty, it would be banned in nations where the death penalty exists. Judges, prosecutors, and politicians across the world recognize a fundamental difference between the two. That you don't because of a bit of inane sophistry is, at the end of the day, your problem, not mine. You don't have to stand in the rain to get wet.

Any judge would laugh at your bizarre interpretation until he or she cried.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: You literally do not understand that the life sentence means "to stay in prison until you die." That is just appalling.

OOC: I'm not going to respond to the rest of the bilge you posted, because this is just going in circles in an already illegal proposal, but this I can address OOCly. If life in prison was the same as the death penalty, it would be banned in nations where the death penalty exists. Judges, prosecutors, and politicians across the world recognize a fundamental difference between the two. That you don't because of a bit of inane sophistry is, at the end of the day, your problem, not mine. You don't have to stand in the rain to get wet.

Any judge would laugh at your bizarre interpretation until he or she cried.

OOC: I'm also not much of a supporter of LWoP. Dying does not intrinsically hurt and from a utility standpoint, certainly beats some kind of existence where your autonomy is being stepped upon forever. The problem with the death penalty is really its permanence and the fact that it cannot be undone.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm not going to respond to the rest of the bilge you posted, because this is just going in circles in an already illegal proposal, but this I can address OOCly. If life in prison was the same as the death penalty, it would be banned in nations where the death penalty exists. Judges, prosecutors, and politicians across the world recognize a fundamental difference between the two. That you don't because of a bit of inane sophistry is, at the end of the day, your problem, not mine. You don't have to stand in the rain to get wet.

Any judge would laugh at your bizarre interpretation until he or she cried.

OOC: I'm also not much of a supporter of LWoP. Dying does not intrinsically hurt and from a utility standpoint, certainly beats some kind of existence where your autonomy is being stepped upon forever. The problem with the death penalty is really its permanence and the fact that it cannot be undone.

OOC: I'm with you there, but practically, you're not going to get both passed in the WA. One is, by virtue of any measure of common sense, infinitely worse. IRL, my singular complaint about capital punishment is it's reversibility.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

OOC: You literally do not understand that the life sentence means "to stay in prison until you die." That is just appalling.

OOC: I'm not going to respond to the rest of the bilge you posted, because this is just going in circles in an already illegal proposal, but this I can address OOCly. If life in prison was the same as the death penalty, it would be banned in nations where the death penalty exists. Judges, prosecutors, and politicians across the world recognize a fundamental difference between the two. That you don't because of a bit of inane sophistry is, at the end of the day, your problem, not mine. You don't have to stand in the rain to get wet.

Any judge would laugh at your bizarre interpretation until he or she cried.

OOC: So, your opinion, then, is that all governments are perfect, and perfectly rational, and if they have not passed a certain law, that such a law is automatically not a good one? Give me a break. Politics exists for a reason-people disagree, and because a position is not widely adopted does not in any way mean that it is wrong.

[Excidium Planetis]

"This resolution is illegal, and it sucks. I refuse to devote any more effort into arguing against it until ypu manage to repeal 'Convention on Execution'. In the meantime, we'll just continue to execute violent criminals the tried and true way: robotic guns."

[Shazbotdom]

Can we just file this under Section 8 and burn it?

[NewVinlandia]

The Volkstag of NewVinlandia proposes an alternative. Something along the lines of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBWC2p_T738

But since it's Confederate's motion, they have to put up the land for it

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: If you and SP want to debate death penalty OOCly, I suggest going to NSG and making a thread there.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

*snip*

OOC: If you and SP want to debate death penalty OOCly, I suggest going to NSG and making a thread there.

OOC: Less about the death penalty and more about a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic definition of "life in prison without parole", but, in any case, I have no desire to stir up a debate that will lead nowhere with someone who, willfully or no, does not understand the basic terms.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

The Confederacy of the Greater Siriusian Domain would like to recommend that the World Assembly cease wasting their time with the ambassador of the Confederate Provinces of the Colonies until said ambassador can properly articulate his viewpoint and write a proper proposal that does not conflict with existing legislation.

[Nickel Empire]

We just train them to be gladiators and let them take care of each other that way.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Less about the death penalty and more about a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic definition of "life in prison without parole"

OOC: That's not always what "life sentence" means, mind you, especially in the civilized Western countries.

There's barely a proposal on this thread, and the author hasn't posted since posting that, so I'm not entirely certain why the argument is still on-going. If the OP comes back, then we might have something to discuss.

[Unified Heartless States]

no

Agreed, I'm happy not passing such a bill.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

OOC: Less about the death penalty and more about a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic definition of "life in prison without parole"

OOC: That's not always what "life sentence" means, mind you, especially in the civilized Western countries.

There's barely a proposal on this thread, and the author hasn't posted since posting that, so I'm not entirely certain why the argument is still on-going. If the OP comes back, then we might have something to discuss.

OOC: My argument is that locking someone in jail until they die is the death penalty. You can say that "life sentence" does not always mean that, but that is literally simply semantics.

[Araraukar]

OOC: My argument is that locking someone in jail until they die is the death penalty. You can say that "life sentence" does not always mean that, but that is literally simply semantics.

OOC: Well, often "life sentence" is something like 30-40 years, so unless you only lock up people in their 40's and 50's, it's hardly death sentence.