[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

by **Mandrakar** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:10 am

Greetings fellow WA members,
our small but growing nation is getting more and more telegrams about this issue. Since it seems many nations just don't read our replys we choose to answer here once and for all.

Mandrakar has voted FOR the Ban on Capital Punishment and will not change it's vote. We are an advanced society and find that such primitive measures should be a thing of the past. We find absolute no value in the taking of an intelligent lifeform and will fight (with non lethal weapons) to the ~~death~~ uh I mean to the conclusion to protect those lifes.

The Death Penalty has no value as a deterrant.
The Death Penalty will occasionally be applied to innocents which (with currenty technologies) is impossible to reverse.
The Death Penalty gives the criminal no chance to better him (or her) self.

So please leave our post office alone. If not we shall draft a resolution against sending out mass-mail to all members

by **The New California Republic** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:11 am

Kashida wrote:We are Against the Capital Punishment Ban for the reasons of ... roleplay purposes

OOC: That is the main reason that I am against this as well.

by **Kashida** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:14 am

Malsti

OOC bullshit, dinosaurs, A.I people, battlesuits, and zombies are part of the games mechanics AND DO CARRY WEIGHT no nation WA or otherwise can -de-canonize parts of a nations background there are no in game or in the WA that allow this that is 100% arbitrary bullshit

by **Malsti** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:16 am

Kashida wrote:Malsti

OOC bullshit, dinosaurs, A.I people, battlesuits, and zombies are part of the games mechanics AND DO CARRY WEIGHT no nation WA or otherwise can -de-canonize parts of a nations background there are no in game or in the WA that allow this that is 100% arbitrary bullshit

OOC: Okay, I think I am missing something here. What do you mean by this?

by **Blackledge** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:17 am

We are voting against this ban, as we do not find the proposal's arguments convincing or reasonable. We would be more supportive of a proposal to reexamine and limit the death penalty, however.

by **Kashida** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:19 am

Malsti wrote:

World Assembly resolutions are judged is - as we understand it - Modern Technology meaning of course, no matter how interestingly you have developed your society, arguments made against this resolution that rest on your nation and its access to technology far beyond our own do not really carry weight. Thank you once again for an insight into your society.

this is what im talking about

by **Malsti** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:35 am

Kashida wrote:
Malsti wrote:

World Assembly resolutions are judged is - as we understand it - Modern Technology meaning of course, no matter how interestingly you have developed your society, arguments made against this resolution that rest on your nation and its access to technology far beyond our own do not really carry weight. Thank you once again for an insight into your society.

this is what im talking about

OOC: I figured - please do not take this the wrong way as I really don't mean to offend but I couldn't understand the point you were making about it.

by **Kolm** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:37 am

United Massachusetts wrote:
(Image)
Ban on Capital Punishment
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts
Having already presented its rationale in GA 4XX,

Restating, however, that the death penalty institutionalizes a model of justice with only retributive value, a model inherently flawed in its assertion that violence and killing are best dealt with by more bloodshed,

Concerned that the use of capital punishment prevents nations from taking steps to correct errors in their legal process, the most grave and final sentence having already been delivered,

Believing that life sentences and other alternative punishments better provide criminals with the opportunities to repent for their wrongs and improve their habits,

Asserting that justice is best served without the death penalty, for it is cruel, condemns certain innocent people to death, and rejects the affirmation that all sapient life is valuable by its very existence,

The General Assembly, at long last, invoking its august power in this present session assembled, and by the advice and consent of its delegates and member nations, hereby:

Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.

Mandates that member nations commute any death sentences handed down within their jurisdiction, and instead determine through their legal processes an alternative punishment,

Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.

Co-authored by: Imperium Anglorum

Full Support!

by **Tarsonis** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:44 am

OOC: As an aside, can I just say I'm loving how close a decision this is. Can we get more of these types of bills that focus on polarizing issues? Really spices up the GA.

by **Tobiasia** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:48 am

We are voting FOR

Also I agree with Tarsonis, this is a much more fun vote than say some complicated pesticide bill that takes a week to get through the first paragraph

by **Blackledge** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:49 am

Tarsonis wrote:OOC: As an aside, can I just say I'm loving how close a decision this is. Can we get more of these types of bills that focus on polarizing issues? Really spices up the GA.

OOC: I concur. My vote is IC but were the gap any greater I would be tempted to use my vote to close it.

by **The New California Republic** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:54 am

Tarsonis wrote:OOC: As an aside, can I just say I'm loving how close a decision this is. Can we get more of these types of bills that focus on polarizing issues? Really spices up the GA.

OOC: They do come along every few months.

by **Cole Scoggins** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:56 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The WA doesn't have a 1-to-1 relationship with the stats (part of why the magical compliance argument based on stats is ridiculous, but whatever).

by **Jdnation4** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:01 am

capital punishment should not be banned :evil:

by **Minuda** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:11 am

Democratic Empire of Romania wrote:I am voting "For". Human dignity an rights is above all.

Okay... but why should you apply that to those that most certainly didn't for others, 'treat others the way you want to be treated' is a real moral y'know, and if their going to kill people you should be allowed to return the favor and end them. Why give morals to those that don't deserve it. It's one thing if they were insane, it's another if they knew what they did exactly yet you choose to forgive them over 'humanitarian rights'.

by **Minuda** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:20 am

Blackledge wrote:We are voting against this ban, as we do not find the proposal's arguments convincing or reasonable. We would be more supportive of a proposal to reexamine and limit the death penalty, however.

Yes, I would agree on terms that restricted or banned the usage of more torturous executing methods. Things such as the electric chair, while effective It is painful, the syringe and fire squads are good examples of a light execution, though both have a small tendency to backfire and the pain suffered from that should never be felt. Sure, the execution method of chopping their head and hanging are good methods, but both cause alot more suffering, considering how willing the person is resisting, and how strong the executioner is. But the one thing I would absolutely say no to would be gassing. to make someone die of oxygen loss could definitely be considered inhumane (no matter how much of it you may have in your weapon stockpiles) But that's all I could really say, and after this the WA is going to need some time to recover after this debate ends. Especially is the 'Nay' side pulls out of the WA like they say they are. (Including me) but that's it.

by **Nova Anglo-Francia** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:21 am

It appears the wing of the Ethics Police who dominate the drafting arm of the General Assembly are at it again, this time in favour of murderers, rapists, and terrorists.
There are certain crimes against society where the only fitting punishment is the offenders ultimate removal from said society. I am wholeheartedly opposed to legislation that imposes upon the sovereignty of individual member nations, but this is the first time such an egregious example has made me consider WA membership in its entirety.

I urge any state who relies on their own legal system and not the whims of the General Assembly to determine crime and punishment to vote against this resolution.

by **The Earth Systems Alliance** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:26 am

Arasi Luvasa wrote:
The Earth Systems Alliance wrote: If however, one innocent individual is wrongly executed, however unlikely that is, we build a statue in their honour and call they become an honored individual, who has the utmost respect." said Ambassador Irons.

"I fail to see how this corrects the injustice, all you have ended up doing is creating a monument to your own incompetence while congratulating yourselves on being compassionate. It is exactly the possibility of this situation which should be stamped out."

OOC: Is there anything detailing what exactly human/sentient rights are in the world of Nationstates? At the moment, human rights seems somewhat nebulous and connected primarily to RL.

"Accidents must be rectified, the least we can do is honor the citizen who stayed loyal to the law and lived their life with merit, an example to all citizens. But as already said, the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted are minimal."
-Ambassador Irons

OOC: There is the Civil Rights Act buried somewhere

by **Sperio** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:30 am

“Although United Massachusetts means well, the option of capital punishment should be left up to individual nations to decide for themselfs.

by **Thyerata** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:34 am

The Earth Systems Alliance wrote:
Arasi Luvasa wrote:
"I fail to see how this corrects the injustice, all you have ended up doing is creating a monument to your own incompetence while congratulating yourselves on being compassionate. It is exactly the possibility of this situation which should be stamped out."

OOC: Is there anything detailing what exactly human/sentient rights are in the world of Nationstates? At the moment, human rights seems somewhat nebulous and connected primarily to RL.

"Accidents must be rectified, the least we can do is honor the citizen who stayed loyal to the law and lived their life with merit, an example to all citizens. But as already said, the chances of someone being wrongfully convicted are minimal."
-Ambassador Irons

OOC: There is the Civil Rights Act buried somewhere

OOC: The The Charter on Civil Rights - basically the NS version of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights - though their equivalence is not very good...

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:00 am

Democratic Empire of Romania wrote:I am voting "For". Human dignity an rights is above all.

"Speciesist!"

Hrrafe Redsmith,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

by **Malsti** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:00 am

Nova Anglo-Francia wrote:It appears the wing of the Ethics Police who dominate the drafting arm of the General Assembly are at it again, this time in favour of murderers, rapists, and terrorists.
There are certain crimes against society where the only fitting punishment is the offenders ultimate removal from said society. I am wholeheartedly opposed to legislation that imposes upon the sovereignty of individual member nations, but this is the first time such an egregious example has made me consider WA membership in its entirety.

I urge any state who relies on their own legal system and not the whims of the General Assembly to determine crime and punishment to vote against this resolution.

Nonsense ambassador. The WA has the right and indeed the duty to promote human rights. In this instance, legislating to protect innocents sentenced to death and attempting to rectify the resulting corruption and damage done to the legal systems of such nations with capital punishment.

by **Integralists Of Brazil** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:00 am

Ambassador Plínio Salgado stands up and says:

"We are against the Ban on Capital Punishment, because even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. By his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life."

by **Meme Star** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:03 am

We the Citizens and Goverment of memestar full disagree with this

by **VW53Aland** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:23 am

I am shocked to find out that on this moment, a majority is apparently in favour of capital punishment. :shock:

We are all human beings. We all have our flaws. We all make mistakes. The death penalty will not correct that.
Even more so, if someone is executed for a crime they didn't commit, the government has innocent blood on their hands (and should therefore be executed? Where will this end? With the last man standing?)

Even as leaders of great countries, we still do not have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't.

Capital punishment MUST be banned! How could someone in their right mind be against this?!

[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

Who is online