ban the death penalty

[Holy German Realm]

No.

Stop being such a pansy and live with it.

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, our Great Republic believes that having a convict rotting in a cell for life is too much of a burden on taxpayers. For this reason, we are against this idea."

that is a logical fallacy, it actually costs more to execute an inmate than it does to house them for life.

OOC:
First of all, that's not what 'Logical Fallacy' means, the phrase you are looking for is 'Common Misconception'. Second, that only holds true if you;

• Utilize expensive/complex methods of execution, (E.G. Lethal Injection)
• Have a privatized medical system/contract out the production of lethal injections to a private company

In states which fail to meet even one of those criteria, it can be incredibly inexpensive. After all, a Bullet, Guillotine, or Gallows are all quite simple, and quite cheap; and if the chemicals used in the injection don't need to be acquired through private industries, it can also be made quite cheaply.

As for your 'draft'...

Overview: the death penalty is barbaric and outdated, and only 36 countries still use it today, with the exception of Saudi arabia, iran, us, ect.
Innocent people have the possibility of being executed, along with it just being cruel and unusual. That is why most countries today reject it.

THE ACT
article 1 : that the use of capital punishment thereof will be abolished throughout the world assembly and the countries associated with said world assembly.
article 2: that all inmates under sentence of death have their sentences commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
article 3 : that life without parole will serve as an alternative, and be a mandatory sentence for first degree murder ( capital murder ) ect.
article 4 : that countries failing to comply with guidelines shall be penalized through the act of condemning said countries.

Do keep in mind that this contradicts existing legislation, you'll have to repeal the Convention on Execution if you want to pursue this.
Also that referencing Real Life Events is illegal, and going to get it pulled, and the bit about condemnations might be a Metagaming/Game Mechanics Violation since the Security Council doesn't exist for the purposes of the General Assembly.

[Wallenburg]

that is a logical fallacy, it actually costs more to execute an inmate than it does to house them for life.

OOC:
First of all, that's not what 'Logical Fallacy' means, the phrase you are looking for is 'Common Misconception'. Second, that only holds true if you;

• Utilize expensive/complex methods of execution, (E.G. Lethal Injection)
• Have a privatized medical system/contract out the production of lethal injections to a private company

In states which fail to meet even one of those criteria, it can be incredibly inexpensive. After all, a Bullet, Guillotine, or Gallows are all quite simple, and quite cheap; and if the chemicals used in the injection don't need to be acquired through private industries, it can also be made quite cheaply.

OOC: Actually, the main source of expenses in killing a criminal tends to originate from the expensive legal process of sentencing someone to death. Due process isn't known to be cheap when one wrong decision can kill an innocent person.

Of course, that doesn't change that this proposal is illegal.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Actually, the main source of expenses in killing a criminal tends to originate from the expensive legal process of sentencing someone to death. Due process isn't known to be cheap when one wrong decision can kill an innocent person.

OOC:
Well, that has more to do with the quirks of RL Legal Systems, all that treating execution like a serious matter sort of thing.
Of course, here on NS, Court Costs may amount to exactly fuck-all, on both sides, and the courts themselves may or may not consider Execution something that requires significant consideration.
Something that the Imperium deals with fairly well. The WA Mandated 'second part' of the Trial amounts to checking whether or not the crime is to be punished with execution, and then executing them. The sole saving grace here is that it's reserved for things like Greater Treason, or War Crimes, where it is the only legal sentence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Something that the Imperium deals with fairly well. The WA Mandated 'second part' of the Trial amounts to checking whether or not the crime is to be punished with execution, and then executing them. The sole saving grace here is that it's reserved for things like Greater Treason, or War Crimes, where it is the only legal sentence.

OOC: Tinfect has only one sentence for high treason or war crimes?

[Tinfect]

OOC: Tinfect has only one sentence for high treason or war crimes?

OOC:
Technically, Greater Treason and War Crimes are both crimes, and categories by which crimes can be generalized, but yes. Imperial Courts have limitations on what the sentence can, at minimum, and at maximum, consist of, as an example, singular murder is anywhere from 12-20 years in a non-rehabilitation penitentiary, with the possibility of supplemental rehabilitation efforts at the discretion of the Court. If I remember correctly, many RL nations have something similar in place. But yes, War Crimes, and Greater Treason, are punishable only with execution.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

You think that locking someone in a cell, feeding them prison gruel, constant threat of physical or sexual assault, locked in a cage for year after year until they die is less barbaric than simply ending it there? Life imprisonment without parole is far worse.

my point is that the state should not have the right to take human life, we should just throw them in cells, and let them rot living a monotonous life.

OOC: That is not your point. Your point is that the state does have the right to take a human life-just that they have to take it by letting them die of whatever kills them while in the cell. Life in prison and capital punishment are both death sentences-one is just quicker.

[Separatist Peoples]

my point is that the state should not have the right to take human life, we should just throw them in cells, and let them rot living a monotonous life.

OOC: That is not your point. Your point is that the state does have the right to take a human life-just that they have to take it by letting them die of whatever kills them while in the cell. Life in prison and capital punishment are both death sentences-one is just quicker.

"By that logic, all life is, inevitably, a death sentence. That's an idiotic logic to rely on. Prison is about more than just punishing the guilty."

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

OOC: That is not your point. Your point is that the state does have the right to take a human life-just that they have to take it by letting them die of whatever kills them while in the cell. Life in prison and capital punishment are both death sentences-one is just quicker.

"By that logic, all life is, inevitably, a death sentence. That's an idiotic logic to rely on. Prison is about more than just punishing the guilty."

"The government is, in both cases, taking an action that will result in the condemned dying in a manner different than what would be considered "natural causes." In both, the government has announced its intention that the condemned will be removed from society until they are dead. They are, in those respects that matter most, the same."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The government is, in both cases, taking an action that will result in the condemned dying in a manner different than what would be considered "natural causes." In both, the government has announced its intention that the condemned will be removed from society until they are dead. They are, in those respects that matter most, the same."

"Only to a child. One can still live a fulfilling life in prison. Certainly, one can still live, which puts off the inevitability of death. Such as it is, as one can still have experiences worth experiencing, even in prison, the two are not functionally the same. If nothing else, capital punishment offers no option for rehabilitation, cannot be reversed in the case of judicial error, and does not serve as anything but a tool to hold over the heads of would-be offenders. It is a tool designed to be feared by the population, and it's use is little better than terrorism. Life imprisonment accomplishes the same cordoning off of society without the judicial finality of an execution nor the same existential horror of state abuse. The two are not comparable in any possible way by rational adults. Pretending that lawful incarceration and execution are comparable is barbaric."

[Southern Astrania]

We suggest that you stop with this intrusion on International Sovereignty upon Our Empire, we are vastly more superior and stronger, and will continue to use Executions, and life without parole as a punishment for Major Crimes Within Southern Astrania, and her allies.

[Separatist Peoples]

We suggest that you stop with this intrusion on International Sovereignty upon Our Empire, we are vastly more superior and stronger, and will continue to use Executions, and life without parole as a punishment for Major Crimes Within Southern Astrania, and her allies.

"Erm...are you threatening me, ambassador, or the author? Because that makes a very serious difference in the kind of response you're likely to get."

[Narland]

we need to pass a resolution to ban the death penalty worldwide. It is outdated and barbaric, there are also other alternatives to this, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Even though most countries have banned, some countries still use it, and that is a disgrace.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with every aspect. I agree in a stop to the death penalty but for entirely different reasons, and that it be only temporary.

The death penalty will be outdated when people murdering people is outdated--I do not foresee that happening any time soon. What is barbaric is the thought that a person can murder another human being in cold blood and not have to pay the ultimate price for it. Giving the unrepentant murderer a permanent time out as though this were kindergarten is beyond reason and as unreasonable as returning to unlawful cruel and unusual punishments--which should never be on the table for discussion. It is a disgrace that some countries do not adhere to the concepts of justice and approbation (in the legal sense) well enough to have a death penalty.

That being said, I believe in a moratorium on the death penalty until the easy fabbing of evidence, falsifying of evidence and railroading that have become commonplace be stopped, and people doing it be severely punished. Some of these corrupt law enforcement, judges, and prosecuting attorneys need to see the other side of the prison bars of the innocent lives they have destroyed because of their deluded and bad behaviour. Returning to strictly adjudicating law instead of adjudication public policy is a must.

Going back to having the punishment fit the crime is needed. Torts have become misdemeanors, misdemeanors have become felonies, and felonies are being used as a tool to skiffle dissent--especially against the poor and disadvantaged. The madness must stop. Once the courts are reformed so that the concept of "better to let several guilty go free than to condemn one innocent man" instead of "throw everything at the accused and see what sticks" is returned to, the better of all nations will be.

Until then there is too much of a chance that an innocent person will be executed. Support instead legislation for the advancement of Judicial reform for justice in all nations. No justice no peace. etc.

[Grays Harbor]

We suggest that you stop with this intrusion on International Sovereignty upon Our Empire, we are vastly more superior and stronger, and will continue to use Executions, and life without parole as a punishment for Major Crimes Within Southern Astrania, and her allies.

You would be well advised not to threaten our allies. Seriously.


comparison

[THE GALACTIC FEDERATION OF ANONYMOUS]

No.

Stop being such a pansy and live with it.

Amen

[Nochov]

I would support expanding the death penalty to cover more crimes in the countries that have it, and implementing it in those that don't. Rehabilitation has proven unreliable and relapse happens far too often. Additionally, life imprisonment is a tremendous burden on the taxpayers. Is it fair to punish the innocent taxpayers to keep some criminal scum somewhere alive? I think not.

[West-East Timor]

It doesn't have to be barbaric. My nation hasn't abolishes the death penalty, but you can choose how you want to die. Would you call it barbaric to peacefully fall asleep without any pain while cuddling your favourite teddy bear?

[Narland]

No teddy bears in Narland. We do have Cthulu, Dimensional Shambler, and Gibbering Horror Plushies to cuddle.

[Separatist Peoples]

It doesn't have to be barbaric. My nation hasn't abolishes the death penalty, but you can choose how you want to die. Would you call it barbaric to peacefully fall asleep without any pain while cuddling your favourite teddy bear?

"Yes. Because the death penalty is inherently fallible from a judicial perspective, and because the only reason it exists is because it is a tool that can cow political enemies into capitulation. It is a tool for silencing political opposition, and the World Assembly has a vested interest in removing those tools from a state's repertoire."

[Mendelian Conglomerate]

I'm going to make a grand suggestion that you end this now, because continuing and trying to pass this is not going to be good for you... not a threat, just a warning.

[Neo Skandinavien]

I would support expanding the death penalty to cover more crimes in the countries that have it, and implementing it in those that don't. Rehabilitation has proven unreliable and relapse happens far too often. Additionally, life imprisonment is a tremendous burden on the taxpayers. Is it fair to punish the innocent taxpayers to keep some criminal scum somewhere alive? I think not.

This is not something for the World Assembly to discuss, this is something that each nation should debate and decide for themselves.

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

"The government is, in both cases, taking an action that will result in the condemned dying in a manner different than what would be considered "natural causes." In both, the government has announced its intention that the condemned will be removed from society until they are dead. They are, in those respects that matter most, the same."

"Only to a child. One can still live a fulfilling life in prison. Certainly, one can still live, which puts off the inevitability of death. Such as it is, as one can still have experiences worth experiencing, even in prison, the two are not functionally the same. If nothing else, capital punishment offers no option for rehabilitation, cannot be reversed in the case of judicial error, and does not serve as anything but a tool to hold over the heads of would-be offenders. It is a tool designed to be feared by the population, and it's use is little better than terrorism. Life imprisonment accomplishes the same cordoning off of society without the judicial finality of an execution nor the same existential horror of state abuse. The two are not comparable in any possible way by rational adults. Pretending that lawful incarceration and execution are comparable is barbaric."

"You speak as if every national believes in rehabilitation, provides for revisions in the course of judicial error, and has basic decency in the accommodations of their prisons. One may well have experiences worth experiencing in prison-one may also have their life turned into a living hell, abuse driving them to the point where they would wish for such a penalty-such an outcome is possible even in "enlightened" nations, and certainly in those who already have records of human rights abuses."

"They still remain death penalties, in both cases. "Life" in prison has the possibility to be better, and the possibility to be worse-but it is simply another means of carrying out the exact same punishment."

[Separatist Peoples]

"You speak as if every national believes in rehabilitation, provides for revisions in the course of judicial error, and has basic decency in the accommodations of their prisons.

"Extant World Assembly law provides for situations of judicial error. If such an error occurs, nations must redress it. One cannot redress an execution beyond a hollow apology. That states have such barbaric accommodations in their penal facilities is not an indictment of execution, it is an obvious sign that the rights of criminals to be held to a humane standard needs to be protected by future legislation. You are pushing a false dichotomy, ambassador."

One may well have experiences worth experiencing in prison-one may also have their life turned into a living hell, abuse driving them to the point where they would wish for such a penalty-such an outcome is possible even in "enlightened" nations, and certainly in those who already have records of human rights abuses."

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

"They still remain death penalties, in both cases. "Life" in prison has the possibility to be better, and the possibility to be worse-but it is simply another means of carrying out the exact same punishment."

"No, it is not. If you cannot see the difference between having one's life ended artificially and immediately and having one's life ended as the conclusion of a natural process, then I daresay you lack the objectivity or intellectual honesty to serve as an adequate debater in these halls, ambassador. The two are very different at every level, starting with the fact that one is an immediate end of life through deliberate action on behalf of the state, and one is merely a natural death that happens to be in a prison."

[The Constitutional Republic of Freedonia]

"You speak as if every national believes in rehabilitation, provides for revisions in the course of judicial error, and has basic decency in the accommodations of their prisons.

"Extant World Assembly law provides for situations of judicial error. If such an error occurs, nations must redress it. One cannot redress an execution beyond a hollow apology. That states have such barbaric accommodations in their penal facilities is not an indictment of execution, it is an obvious sign that the rights of criminals to be held to a humane standard needs to be protected by future legislation. You are pushing a false dichotomy, ambassador."

"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.

One may well have experiences worth experiencing in prison-one may also have their life turned into a living hell, abuse driving them to the point where they would wish for such a penalty-such an outcome is possible even in "enlightened" nations, and certainly in those who already have records of human rights abuses."

"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."

"They still remain death penalties, in both cases. "Life" in prison has the possibility to be better, and the possibility to be worse-but it is simply another means of carrying out the exact same punishment."

"No, it is not. If you cannot see the difference between having one's life ended artificially and immediately and having one's life ended as the conclusion of a natural process, then I daresay you lack the objectivity or intellectual honesty to serve as an adequate debater in these halls, ambassador. The two are very different at every level, starting with the fact that one is an immediate end of life through deliberate action on behalf of the state, and one is merely a natural death that happens to be in a prison."[/quote]

"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."

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"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."

"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.