[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

[Doarhus]

The right of the individual supersedes all others, including the right of a sovereign nation to determine its political course.

Thus, the individual's natural and inalienable right to life must hold more value over the sovereign nation's legal right to exercise punishment. This is in line with Resolution #23 which bans slavery and human trafficking, as it is anathema to the natural and inalienable right to liberty.

It is recognized that criminal acts must be punished in order to deter such actions in the future. However, recognizing that each individual has the capacity to contribute to society given the proper tools and instruction, these punishments must allow for the rehabilitation of said individuals. Capital punishment completely removes this avenue of rehabilitation, and thus must be disallowed as a form of punishment.

[German Holy Roman Empire]

one of many who I know will not comply with this proposal.

No nations do not comply with GA legislation. The game mechanism forces them to comply.

Yeah this bills soooooo getting repealed asap

[Doarhus]

I’m still unsure about why this bill is needed. It’s my choice wether or not to execute a criminal and I refuse to have to cater to those who break the law.

This line of thinking is dangerously limited. It is essentially the same argument pushed by those who support slavery.

"It's my RIGHT to choose whether or not to allow slavery!"

No. Your rights do not extend over the rights of others, even those who have broken the law. Slaves have the right to liberty, and criminals have the right to life. Punishments must allow for rehabilitation, and capital punishment removes that completely.

[Doarhus]

"It is ironic you say that for this but not for abortion."

Fetuses of humans are just that: fetuses, not yet humans. Therefore, the right of the human woman to her own body takes precedence.

[Ru-]

This might finally be the point where the WA has overreached just a bit too far out of our proper business (international trade, enviromental standards, and global peacekeeping.) and into purely national soverignity for our member bases's very forgiving taste. We'll just have to see how this close vote turns out in the end. A little surprised people are standing up against this, but quite pleased at the resistance.

We have already outlined our objections earlier in the drafting phase of this proposal and won't bother repeating them here. But needless to say, Ru will be voting against.

We hope that a message will be sent that compromise is needed, and we can soon have a common sense regulation of capital punishment, like we had in our perfectly adequete resolution which never should have been repealed for the sole purpose of trying an arrogant and risky stunt like this in the first place.

[German Holy Roman Empire]

I’m still unsure about why this bill is needed. It’s my choice wether or not to execute a criminal and I refuse to have to cater to those who break the law.

This line of thinking is dangerously limited. It is essentially the same argument pushed by those who support slavery.

"It's my RIGHT to choose whether or not to allow slavery!"

No. Your rights do not extend over the rights of others, even those who have broken the law. Slaves have the right to liberty, and criminals have the right to life. Punishments must allow for rehabilitation, and capital punishment removes that completely.

So I should just allow for higher crime rates and bloated prison systems? I see your point however Prisoners, unlike Slaves, aren’t being wrongfully imprisoned or executed especially if they commit mass terror, murder, pedophellia, rape, and etc

Some people cannot be rehabilitated and can not or even refuse to reintergrate into society. Sometimes there is a need to execute criminals.

Meanwhile Slavery, which is wrong in every way shape and form, does have moral and ethical wrong doings. Slavery is via force, it was the criminals choice to commit the crime and so it should be their nations choice wether or not to deliver punishment upon them.

[Jocospor]

Now, here's an interesting thought:

What if a member nation condemned an individual to desertion on an inhospitable island for life?

As it stands, this ban on capital punishment cannot be enforced. Against, as are all sensible delegates and member nations.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I have voted FOR to support the repeal of crime and punishment by united massachusetts believing that the justice system can err and that poor people can be accidentally get executed by having an inadequate attorney and that it ends up depriving life.

However, receiving the amount of attention it has attracted and two large campaigns at the world assembly, i will be reviewing this issue at hand and for the moment will be undecided until i examine the arguments presented by other WA members.

[Jocospor]

Now, here's an interesting thought:

What if a member nation condemned an individual to desertion on an inhospitable island for life?

As it stands, this ban on capital punishment cannot be enforced. Against, as are all sensible delegates and member nations.

Oh, another thought:

This resolution seeks to counteract the right of a nation state to govern freely. Theocracies may well believe that punishment by death is a just course of action, depending on their religious foundations.

[Neo-Routhengard]

The World Assembly Delegate of Neo-Routhengard, Michel Nicole Demetrius, which is also the king of the nation, read the proposal with concern. As he wad reading it, there also came a letter from the delegate from Imperium Anglorum demanding that the measure be passed, citing some studies from the planet Earth that capital punishment was not feasible to reduce crime. After some minutes of tgought, the King rose from his seat, and stated his concerns. "Although the proposal to end capital punishment is indeed reasonable, and the Kingdom had ended capital punishment on all crimes save some cases where the execution of powerful terrorists, seditionists, and evil operatives of the neighboring Demirand, Yamikaze and Asherinthe, would free the nation of internal threats, threats powerful enough to render the inexistence of the Kingdom due to both their physical powers and the influence that could come from that physical power; I strongly suggest voting against this measure, as it would rob the nations' discretion in deciding what is right for their countries. It is not only a matter of scientific approach, as some religions and beliefs endorse capital punishment, and passing such a resolution would rob them of their right on their religion. As for Neo-Routhengard, it will comply when the resolution is passed, commuting the forementioned terrorists' sentence to a confinement in the Great Dungeons, guarded by the most elite Dragon Guards of Neo-Routhengard, but I would try to dare you to try to imprison them within your prisons without them breaking free and wreaking havoc and devastations into your nations. I'll bet a million Xanthousites that they will destroy your country within a day."

[Neo Centrosia]

IC:
"The nation of Neo Centrosia explicitly reserves it's right to execute those who have committed the utmost atrocities against the state and citizenry, and it is the will of the Emperor this right remain our reservation, for our nation, for our people. The World Assembly has no right to impose such restrictions upon our nation, or any nation. As such, we reject this proposal vehemently." - Crown Prince Arkan V.

OOC:
This proposal outright restricts the ability of players to roleplay as, or play as the nation they want to be and is an attempt to impose RL politics to a political simulator that has comedic effect. It seems that the author of this thread has a very personal argument against the death penalty that, in the real world is entirely valid however, as far as gameplay is concerned, is restrictive to the playerbase as a whole. Therefore, it is my belief that this proposal should never have been proposed in the first place.

Think about how your proposal will effect other players before asserting your political stance in everything. It's a game, after all.
Other people want to play around with comedically oppressive dictatorships.

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

Now, here's an interesting thought:

What if a member nation condemned an individual to desertion on an inhospitable island for life?

As it stands, this ban on capital punishment cannot be enforced. Against, as are all sensible delegates and member nations.

Oh, another thought:

This resolution seeks to counteract the right of a nation state to govern freely. Theocracies may well believe that punishment by death is a just course of action, depending on their religious foundations.

That's the first time I agree with the CCD

[Minuda]

Dear members of the WA,
I for one, am strongly against the banning of Capitol punishments. Several ideas that I am talking about below support why I chose this.

1. The first argument made is that you can't undo the deaths of someone that was innocent, while yes, I agree to this, framing someone that was innocent for something as huge as the death penalty would likely end up in something as them being either labeled insane (As they would literally not be able to tell the truth) and therefore they would be kept alive, also note that if they somehow did manage to not be labeled insane during that, and were put on death row, the actual culprit would have been vastly superior than our knowledge, and thus us finding out that it was another culprit should be blamed to the lack of funding and work done by our legal systems and police force, not our punishments.

2. Claiming that it's for human rights is absurd, did the murderer think about human rights and morals when he stabbed the victim to death? Did the school shooter think about the lives of the innocent kids when they put holes through them? Did the bank robber think about the families that were going to be affected when he shot the hostage? I'll tell you what, no. They didn't so why give them the chance to live when the families of the innocent wouldn't want that, why let the culprit live when they knew exactly what they were doing, that they knew that the actions they planned to take were wrong? Like it's said, the mentally insane can be forgiven because they themselves weren't at fault, but to say that NOBODY on death row should have been at immense fault when they committed their crimes is ridiculous. Why let them live when it takes away from your money, when the people don't want the person to, when they deserved a fate such as death. And don't get started on how letting them live is more 'humane' the amount of mental suffering life-long prison causes would MAKE them want to die rather than continue with the seemingly endless suffering.

3. The last biggest argument I can make about this is that the Capitol punishment has no effect on determining or deterring crime...
Well for starters, you are right, but only HALF right. The issue with determining how effective Capital punishment is that the only info you can be given comes from what happened DURING the act, and not before. Tell me, how many times have you seen a backstory on how the murder prepared his crimes and his Morales for doing so? that's right, I bet you can't think of any, why? Because usually the criminal doesn't say stuff like that, they're asked about, but all they would bring up is Morales, or how they got the stuff needed to commit the crime, not how they though of it. To word it better, Capitol punishment is a great unknown, because you can't prove if they thought about it when planning their crimes, you can only prove how it didn't work when people committed death row crimes. Or in other words: You can only prove when somebody committed a Capitol crime, not when somebody thought around the crime. So to take this possible deterrence, this more humane way to remove the scum of the earth that shouldn't have been allowed to exist after what they may have done, and simply remove the law, some complex crimes become a whole lot easier.

Take this for example, Say someone is planning to rob a bank, this is how their planning might go if they took Capital crime into consideration... (Again, impossible to prove whether people did take it into account because no one talks about it)
"Alright, so say we shoot the hostage, if we somehow managed to still be convinced to be arrested what then?" "Probably death row..." "Alright, so perhaps that should be a last resort then?" "Yeah, but assuming all goes well we shouldn't have to worry."

Now take a possible interpretation if they took a lack of capitol punishment into the factor.
"Alright, so say e shoot the hostage, if we somehow managed to still be convinced to be arrested what then?" "Life sentence still... They can't kill you, in fact, why should we plan to keep them alive in the first place, it's not as if the punishment is going to get any worse." "That is true, why run the risk of being 911'ed when we can simply eliminate the people in the building, it'll save us a lot of time and even if we do get arrested later it's not as if they can do anything worse..." That's the point I'm trying to make, and if you wanted the icing on top, yes, terrorist groups would be able to free their friends in a well planned prison break and the worse that can happen when they get caught, whether that be after or before they can commit another atrocity is be thrown back into jail. Yet it would be harder to break someone out if you had a timer on how long you had to save your terrorist buddy. What would have been until death to get your friend out has been changed to a few weeks, a month, or maybe even a year.

So you tell me, Is the Capitol punishment really in-humane? Does it really have no effect when it comes to planning crimes? Is it the rule at fault when you somehow manage to label an innocent under a Capitol class crime? Is letting those that showed no remorse to the people they may have slaughtered not worth you showing no remorse back? Should you be letting the WA even be deciding who gets to live in your country no matter what they did. I thus, encourage you to say 'Nay' or change yours if you only saw it from the 'For' p.o.v.

Sincerely,
Minuda

[Sacara]

-snip-

Great to hear you voted nay!

I recently sent out a telegram to all World Assembly member nations outlining why they should vote no. If you have not yet, please read it.

[New Bremerton]

OOC: I only just joined NationStates and the World Assembly very recently, and this happens. How am I supposed to condemn errant dictatorships and liberate oppressed regions now, not to mention endorse and be endorsed by other nations in my region?

IC: Once again, the Republic of New Bremerton would like to reiterate its strong opposition to attempts by the World Assembly to interfere in the inner workings of member states, least of all progressive, liberal democracies such as ourselves that have a high regard for the rights of our fellow human being, including the right of victims and their loved ones to see justice done for crimes committed. As IA themselves have stated, this resolution is perhaps the most divisive in the World Assembly's history. If passed, it will serve only to weaken the legitimacy of the international body and possibly lead to a mass exodus of up to half of all its member states, including New Bremerton. It will leave vulnerable regions at further risk of being invaded by bad actors, and condemnations of some of the worst human rights violators will carry far less weight.

This is nothing less than a tyranny of the majority. As another member state has stated, while the WA does indeed have the legal right to act as a world government, it ought not to do so, as it would go against the spirit of global unity and undermine respect for the rights of minorities, both member states at the international level and minorities residing within the borders of certain, unsavory member states and non-member states.

We are not talking about protecting the rights of pregnant women to have an abortion, or the rights of innocent children to be vaccinated against life-threatening illnesses. We are dealing with the worst of the worst that our species has to offer. Those who commit genocide and mass murder, particularly of defenseless children, simply deserve to die, deterrent or no deterrent. This is about justice above all else. The vast majority of New Bremertonians hold this view. If this resolution passes, we will humbly hold out in the hope that another member state introduces a repeal resolution, of which we would no doubt be voting in favor. If, even then, the WA cannot be saved, then New Bremerton, along with thousands of other member states, will resign our membership with immediate effect.

As yet another member state pointed out, WA delegates hold extensive sway in votes such as these. We urge all member states to contact their regional delegates to urge them to vote against this unprecedented attack on our freedoms and way of life.

For more details, please read our earlier dispatch dated Aug. 14, 2018 and written in response to the repeal of an earlier resolution paving the way for the current one now at vote: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344

[Jocospor]

Oh, another thought:

This resolution seeks to counteract the right of a nation state to govern freely. Theocracies may well believe that punishment by death is a just course of action, depending on their religious foundations.

That's the first time I agree with the CCD

We're not stark raving mad, you know - contrary to popular opinion, we know.

[Minuda]

-snip-

Great to hear you voted nay!

I recently sent out a telegram to all World Assembly member nations outlining why they should vote no. If you have not yet, please read it.

Oh I have, I actually replied as well

[Sacara]

IC: Once again, the Republic of New Bremerton would like to reiterate its strong opposition to attempts by the World Assembly to interfere in the inner workings of member states, least of all progressive, liberal democracies such as ourselves that have a high regard for the rights of our fellow human being, including the right of victims and their loved ones to see justice done for crimes committed. As IA themselves have stated, this resolution is perhaps the most divisive in the World Assembly's history. If passed, it will serve only to weaken the legitimacy of the international body and possibly lead to a mass exodus of up to half of all its member states, including New Bremerton. It will leave vulnerable regions at further risk of being invaded by bad actors, and condemnations of some of the worst human rights violators will carry far less weight.

This is nothing less than a tyranny of the majority. As another member state has stated, while the WA does indeed have the legal right to act as a world government, it ought not to do so, as it would go against the spirit of global unity and undermine respect for the rights of minorities, both member states at the international level and minorities residing within the borders of certain, unsavory member states and non-member states.

We are not talking about protecting the rights of pregnant women to have an abortion, or the rights of innocent children to be vaccinated against life-threatening illnesses. We are dealing with the worst of the worst that our species has to offer. Those who commit genocide and mass murder, particularly of defenseless children, simply deserve to die, deterrent or no deterrent. This is about justice above all else. The vast majority of New Bremertonians hold this view. If this resolution passes, we will humbly hold out in the hope that another member state introduces a repeal resolution, of which we would no doubt be voting in favor. If, even then, the WA cannot be saved, then New Bremerton, along with thousands of other member states, will resign our membership with immediate effect.

As yet another member state pointed out, WA delegates hold extensive sway in votes such as these. We urge all member states to contact their regional delegates to urge them to vote against this unprecedented attack on our freedoms and way of life.

For more details, please read our earlier dispatch dated Aug. 14, 2018 and written in response to the repeal of an earlier resolution paving the way for the current one now at vote: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344

I would like to commend you on your support to this fight, and your thoughtful dispatch. You articulate your beliefs in a simple, easy to read manner that is rarely seen. Keep up the good work.

[German Holy Roman Empire]

-snip-

Great to hear you voted nay!

I recently sent out a telegram to all World Assembly member nations outlining why they should vote no. If you have not yet, please read it.

I read your telegram

I agree with every bit of it.

Although we got some huge campaigns for and against it now.

How to unify the crowds on the against column......

[Neo-Routhengard]

OOC: I only just joined NationStates and the World Assembly very recently, and this happens. How am I supposed to condemn errant dictatorships and liberate oppressed regions now, not to mention endorse and be endorsed by other nations in my region?

IC: Once again, the Republic of New Bremerton would like to reiterate its strong opposition to attempts by the World Assembly to interfere in the inner workings of member states, least of all progressive, liberal democracies such as ourselves that have a high regard for the rights of our fellow human being, including the right of victims and their loved ones to see justice done for crimes committed. As IA themselves have stated, this resolution is perhaps the most divisive in the World Assembly's history. If passed, it will serve only to weaken the legitimacy of the international body and possibly lead to a mass exodus of up to half of all its member states, including New Bremerton. It will leave vulnerable regions at further risk of being invaded by bad actors, and condemnations of some of the worst human rights violators will carry far less weight.

This is nothing less than a tyranny of the majority. As another member state has stated, while the WA does indeed have the legal right to act as a world government, it ought not to do so, as it would go against the spirit of global unity and undermine respect for the rights of minorities, both member states at the international level and minorities residing within the borders of certain, unsavory member states and non-member states.

We are not talking about protecting the rights of pregnant women to have an abortion, or the rights of innocent children to be vaccinated against life-threatening illnesses. We are dealing with the worst of the worst that our species has to offer. Those who commit genocide and mass murder, particularly of defenseless children, simply deserve to die, deterrent or no deterrent. This is about justice above all else. The vast majority of New Bremertonians hold this view. If this resolution passes, we will humbly hold out in the hope that another member state introduces a repeal resolution, of which we would no doubt be voting in favor. If, even then, the WA cannot be saved, then New Bremerton, along with thousands of other member states, will resign our membership with immediate effect.

As yet another member state pointed out, WA delegates hold extensive sway in votes such as these. We urge all member states to contact their regional delegates to urge them to vote against this unprecedented attack on our freedoms and way of life.

For more details, please read our earlier dispatch dated Aug. 14, 2018 and written in response to the repeal of an earlier resolution paving the way for the current one now at vote: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344

That, I heartily agree of. And another thing, if this measure is passed, I will try to extradite a handful of my death row criminals in the nations who agreed for the proposal. They would see why King Michel II Nicole for all his leniency in dealing punishments decided to execute them. They are, like, Marvel villains in both their strength and atrocity.

[Minuda]

OOC: I only just joined NationStates and the World Assembly very recently, and this happens. How am I supposed to condemn errant dictatorships and liberate oppressed regions now, not to mention endorse and be endorsed by other nations in my region?

IC: Once again, the Republic of New Bremerton would like to reiterate its strong opposition to attempts by the World Assembly to interfere in the inner workings of member states, least of all progressive, liberal democracies such as ourselves that have a high regard for the rights of our fellow human being, including the right of victims and their loved ones to see justice done for crimes committed. As IA themselves have stated, this resolution is perhaps the most divisive in the World Assembly's history. If passed, it will serve only to weaken the legitimacy of the international body and possibly lead to a mass exodus of up to half of all its member states, including New Bremerton. It will leave vulnerable regions at further risk of being invaded by bad actors, and condemnations of some of the worst human rights violators will carry far less weight.

This is nothing less than a tyranny of the majority. As another member state has stated, while the WA does indeed have the legal right to act as a world government, it ought not to do so, as it would go against the spirit of global unity and undermine respect for the rights of minorities, both member states at the international level and minorities residing within the borders of certain, unsavory member states and non-member states.

We are not talking about protecting the rights of pregnant women to have an abortion, or the rights of innocent children to be vaccinated against life-threatening illnesses. We are dealing with the worst of the worst that our species has to offer. Those who commit genocide and mass murder, particularly of defenseless children, simply deserve to die, deterrent or no deterrent. This is about justice above all else. The vast majority of New Bremertonians hold this view. If this resolution passes, we will humbly hold out in the hope that another member state introduces a repeal resolution, of which we would no doubt be voting in favor. If, even then, the WA cannot be saved, then New Bremerton, along with thousands of other member states, will resign our membership with immediate effect.

As yet another member state pointed out, WA delegates hold extensive sway in votes such as these. We urge all member states to contact their regional delegates to urge them to vote against this unprecedented attack on our freedoms and way of life.

For more details, please read our earlier dispatch dated Aug. 14, 2018 and written in response to the repeal of an earlier resolution paving the way for the current one now at vote: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344

That, I heartily agree of. And another thing, if this measure is passed, I will try to extradite a handful of my death row criminals in the nations who agreed for the proposal. They would see why King Michel II Nicole for all his leniency in dealing punishments decided to execute them. They are, like, Marvel villains in both their strength and atrocity.

Why do that? Simply leave like the rest of us are proposing, if the WA is going to control our governments for us then let us show them how divided they are when over half of them leave. Don't wait for the impossible, as the a controversy such as this would only mean that those that were in the majority will ban hammer the repeals, thus making it permanent, this is especially true when part of the loosing side would leave. Making the remaining group much smaller than a now inflated majority, the more that leave the bigger the opposition is, ultimately don't wait for the repeal, the 'fors' wont allow it to even exist pass a theory.

[Angea]

Absolutely no support. I choose the way I enforce the law in my nation and right now the law is Perfectly ok.

[Lanion Mon]

Citizens of the world we are currently faced with a very controversial topic there are those among us who seek to undermine your sacred institutions and your very government, surely you will not bend the knee to these globalist dogs so easily, the use of capital punishment goes back millennia if not further it has been a integral part of human history. Whilst nation states is not the real world and its citizens simply being lines of codes representing a number surely even in their digitized state they deserve the right to be free of international tyranny that is the world assembly and its "compliance" laws, Never have i seen such a slanderous misuse of the word for we are not given the freedom despite being in the WA to reject its choices. Surely the interest of the people come before the authoritarian demands of a organization as corrupt and biased as the WA. Which is why i Lanion Mon propose a boycott, should the ban on capital punishment look likely to pass i propose we leave the WA on mass, assuming we cannot secure victory through our trustful delegates, if not only to save our selves from the WA's tyranny but to openly reject and defy its hold over our nations. No longer shall the demands of the filthy WA hold sway over the lives of your citizens. with that said i wish to only say one more thing

INDEPENDENCE FOREVER AND DEATH TO THE WA AND ITS DRACONIAN LAW!!!

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

"Listen," says Ambassador Irons, "this resolution and its supporters have their heart in the right place but some people are irredeemable, mass murderers, terrorists, traitors and rapists. We can't keep them locked up forever nor can we set them free after what they did. This resolution aims to do good, without question, but it undermines our right of self-government, our people become nothing more than puppets to a select few bureaucrats within the Assembly. An old philosopher once said in a tale; Zeus, one of the Gods of Old, gave Hermes the political merit. The Messenger asked how should he give them to humanity, to a few, like they had divided work and proficiency, or to all. Zeus told him all must have it and if one does not show respect to the people and the law repeatedly, he ought to be executed."
The Ambassador takes a sip of water, and continues
"These people did exactly that, they disregarded the Law and disrespected their fellow citizens, by committing crimes of terror, rape or murder. Certainly, there are those people who did it by accident, but these people are treated differently than the serial killer, the terrorist or the rapist who did what they did willingly. Criminals must be made to see the error of their ways, assuming the crime was committed only once. But if they fail to do so, by repeatedly breaking the law again and again, they become a threat to others and to themselves and no punishment will ever succeed in showing them their errors. We elect our governments to lead us and provide order and stability within our nations. Those people become a threat to order and security, and just like any threat, they must be dealt. The Alliance asks all nations who support the ban to consider what I just said. Some nations will never become like you and that's the good thing about it. We are all unique in some way and you try to take something that defines and shapes us. We are not all perfect, our ways might not be considered the best in your eyes, but it is who we are. We have our merits and flaws, whether that's on our cusine or our laws.

Reconsider your stance on this issue."

[Kyoki Chudoku]

The following is entirely in-character. Please consider it as such.

---

Aozora Chiyumi stepped forth to make the Chudokuren case. Behind her were Kiku, the head of diplomacy, Hanabi, the head of security, and Naosu, the head of medical affairs. Aozora sighed before she began to speak.

“It’s really disappointing I even have to say this. I mean, yeah. Not everyone is as extreme as us. But I think we can all agree some people are just beyond help. And so, this resolution will basically force us to pay for years, decades even, to keep people alive who deserve worse than death for their heinous crimes? Do you want me to preserve defilers, murderers, those who distribute poison and those who do all three at once? Spend resources that could go to, I don’t know, education or healthcare or military stuff, on keeping those undeserving traitors alive?”

Kiku was the next to speak. Her voice was far less aggravated. “It has become obvious that the World Assembly wishes to test its reach. This proposal fails to account for extreme scenarios, or even common ones. It seeks to preserve life. But if succeeds only in preserving rising crime rates in many nations across the world. Not all countries can even afford to keep their prisoners effectively alive. This proposal fails to account for such circumstances. It also fails to provide nations any inexpensive alternatives to execution. “

Naosu spoke next. Her voice was detached. “Some individuals lack the neurological functions necessary to operate correctly in society. Many such maniacs may commit crimes of the worst degree. Their elimination provides wounded families with comfort and knowledge that their greatest fear is no longer an enemy that must be faced. However, as long as we keep prisoners of such nature alive, there is a small chance they can escape and cause irreparable trauma or fatality. The solution to this is execution. If this solution is prohibited, there will be constant fear of such events. This is no humane method of treating citizens. This is a method the innocent are punished and the guilty rewarded.”

Finally, was Hanabi, who failed utterly to conceal her seething hatred for the very concept. “People deserve to die! Some of them painfully! Some of them less painfully! If you take that away, go ahead, take away all weapons across the world. That’s what’s next. Innocents get caught up in many things! Wars! Investigations! Criminal attacks! Yes, there is a small chance of being wrong. Guess what? Millions of innocents die to other things! Crime being one of them. Exceution removes criminals from circulation. It punishes them, as they deserve. It is abhorrent to even consider letting some of those treacherous psychos stay alive at our expense!”

Aozora stepped before her associates. “For these reasons, I’m voting against this stupid resolution, and I urge everyone else to do the same. I don’t want to get all slippery-slope on everyone, but think about it. This passing sets a precedent. One we don’t want. And even with that aside, it’s an awful idea to force this idiocy on all members of the organisation. If it does pass, I see a rather massive loss to its member count approaching...”