[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

[Tarsonis]

Sounds like you need a refresher on what a right is.

"Then please, do pray tell, what are rights?"

A right is a moral entitlement. One doesn't earn them, one possesses them. A human right is a right predicated on the fact that one is a human being. Governments don't grant them, they can only protect or infringe upon them .


What you're describing is privileges. Privileges are earned and allowed at the behest of the Government.


The concept of human dignity is predicated on the concept that nobody gets to judge or decide the value of another persons humanity.

[Nova Anglo-Francia]

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.

Mayhaps, ambassador, if this was a resolution to in any way regulate Capital Punishment, instead of outlawing it completely. Does any of the member states who stand in support of this motion take into consideration the measured approach some of us may take to the death penalty? That it may be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, or repeat offenders of the very same?

I stand naturally to the death penalty being applied in discriminatory manners, for crimes a perpetrator may have only committed against a wayward and tyrannical state. The death penalty must exist as a deterrent to those who would attempt to rob their fellow citizens of their own lives and liberties.

As it stands, 'won't anyone think of the poor criminals' is not doing much to dissuade my stance on this resolution, and I am glad the voting bloc of the WA appears (at least for now) to stand with me.

[Tarsonis]

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.

Mayhaps, ambassador, if this was a resolution to in any way regulate Capital Punishment, instead of outlawing it completely. Does any of the member states who stand in support of this motion take into consideration the measured approach some of us may take to the death penalty? That it may be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, or repeat offenders of the very same?

I stand naturally to the death penalty being applied in discriminatory manners, for crimes a perpetrator may have only committed against a wayward and tyrannical state. The death penalty must exist as a deterrent to those who would attempt to rob their fellow citizens of their own lives and liberties.

As it stands, 'won't anyone think of the poor criminals' is not doing much to dissuade my stance on this resolution, and I am glad the voting bloc of the WA appears (at least for now) to stand with me.

Its amusing to me that people point to the Death Penalty as a deterrent despite all evidence to the contrary, but don't think of prison as a deterrent.

[Deosdora]

"Then please, do pray tell, what are rights?"

A right is a moral entitlement. One doesn't earn them, one possesses them. A human right is a right predicated on the fact that one is a human being. Governments don't grant them, they can only protect or infringe upon them .


What you're describing is privileges. Privileges are earned and allowed at the behest of the Government.


The concept of human dignity is predicated on the concept that nobody gets to judge or decide the value of another persons humanity.

"Alright, let's say you are entitled to rights. Rights were created to differentiate intelligent humans from animals. If you are to breach those very same rights that you are entitled to, that does not make you any different from an animal. You say the human rights of the criminals. I say, what about the human rights of the victims?"

[Nunavutialand]

"Then please, do pray tell, what are rights?"

A right is a moral entitlement. One doesn't earn them, one possesses them. A human right is a right predicated on the fact that one is a human being. Governments don't grant them, they can only protect or infringe upon them .


What you're describing is privileges. Privileges are earned and allowed at the behest of the Government.


The concept of human dignity is predicated on the concept that nobody gets to judge or decide the value of another persons humanity.

You lose your humanity as soon as you take a life needlessly. You lose your humanity when you torture those who you have taken perhaps a friend, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter from, when you laugh in the courtroom.
Humanity is the ability for empathy. Criminals that no longer display that by ignoring their crimes, or committing such a disgusting crime, lose that empathy prior to the crime, and following it that they have no empathy is a verifiable fact.
Human rights do not prohibit capital punishment so long as it respects the dignity of the person who is being executed. Nunavutialand uses the following methods that are quite humane due to their speed and effectiveness -
- FIRING SQUADRON
- LETHAL INJECTION
- BEHEADING

[Tarsonis]

A right is a moral entitlement. One doesn't earn them, one possesses them. A human right is a right predicated on the fact that one is a human being. Governments don't grant them, they can only protect or infringe upon them .


What you're describing is privileges. Privileges are earned and allowed at the behest of the Government.


The concept of human dignity is predicated on the concept that nobody gets to judge or decide the value of another persons humanity.

A. "Alright, let's say you are entitled to rights. Rights were created to differentiate intelligent humans from animals. B. If you are to breach those very same rights that you are entitled to, that does not make you any different from an animal. C. You say the human rights of the criminals. I say, what about the human rights of the victims?"

A. Human rights aren't created to differentiate intelligent humans from animals. Human rights are applicable to all human beings, regardless of intelligence. I.e, All members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

B. No, it doesn't. Breaching those rights does not make one forfeit them. Humanity is not predicated on human rights, human rights are predicated on humanity.

C. Yes, the victims rights were violated, but violating the rights of the criminals doesn't restore the rights of the victims, nor does it undo the crime. Lex Talionis leaves the whole world blind.

[Nunavutialand]

Mayhaps, ambassador, if this was a resolution to in any way regulate Capital Punishment, instead of outlawing it completely. Does any of the member states who stand in support of this motion take into consideration the measured approach some of us may take to the death penalty? That it may be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, or repeat offenders of the very same?

I stand naturally to the death penalty being applied in discriminatory manners, for crimes a perpetrator may have only committed against a wayward and tyrannical state. The death penalty must exist as a deterrent to those who would attempt to rob their fellow citizens of their own lives and liberties.

As it stands, 'won't anyone think of the poor criminals' is not doing much to dissuade my stance on this resolution, and I am glad the voting bloc of the WA appears (at least for now) to stand with me.

Its amusing to me that people point to the Death Penalty as a deterrent despite all evidence to the contrary, but don't think of prison as a deterrent.

You seriously believe prisons are deterring enough to those who wish harm to the people? When a murderer wants to kill someone, calculatedly, they will not be deterred by prison.
Those who can end a person's life... simply have no morals, a curse unto itself to those who have the ability to see the wrong they have done. Would prison deter them? Is the curse of living, knowing you killed someone, not a prison? When you murder someone you submit yourself into that prison, and prove you have no fear of that prison even prior to the crime.
Thus prison is merely a place, a second home, for those who kill.

[Tarsonis]

A right is a moral entitlement. One doesn't earn them, one possesses them. A human right is a right predicated on the fact that one is a human being. Governments don't grant them, they can only protect or infringe upon them .


What you're describing is privileges. Privileges are earned and allowed at the behest of the Government.


The concept of human dignity is predicated on the concept that nobody gets to judge or decide the value of another persons humanity.

You lose your humanity as soon as you take a life needlessly. You lose your humanity when you torture those who you have taken perhaps a friend, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter from, when you laugh in the courtroom.
Humanity is the ability for empathy. Criminals that no longer display that by ignoring their crimes, or committing such a disgusting crime, lose that empathy prior to the crime, and following it that they have no empathy is a verifiable fact.
Human rights do not prohibit capital punishment so long as it respects the dignity of the person who is being executed. Nunavutialand uses the following methods that are quite humane due to their speed and effectiveness -
- FIRING SQUADRON
- LETHAL INJECTION
- BEHEADING

Humanity is not a quality predicated on anything beyond being a human being, a member of homo sapiens sapiens. Any other predication opens the door for egregious humans rights violations. Every single atrocity in human history, is preceded by someone deciding another group of people are not human, or sub human, etc.

Humanity cannot be lost, it is innate to your being. Anyone who says otherwise is as bad as the people they condemn, for they commit the same violation. The only difference is their violation has the sanction of law.

[Gospel Power]

"The Free State of Nunavutialand strongly condemns this proposal as a violation of the sovereignty of states that approve the use of capital punishment thanks to its strong deterrent of criminals from performing heinous crimes such as murder, rape, terrorism and other crimes.
The Free State regulates the use of capital punishment to only those who cannot be rehabilitated. The Prison Service takes all measures to help convicted criminals serving their sentences to adapt to the real world. Consequently, in Nunavutialand, judges cannot hand out the death sentence on the first trial without approval from the Justice Minister. Only 4 people have been given the death sentence instantly in Nunavutialand since 1949, when the Capital Punishment Regulation Act was passed by the Raqui Vahut.
Furthermore, this proposal could be amended by regulating the use of capital punishment rather than banning it outright, in a way similar to Nunavutialand's laws.

Only then will it have the backing of Nunavutialand, and at this time, in this proposal's current idiotic state, we will not support it and have no plans to amend that stance."
-Zekut Latas, Nunavutian Delegate at the World Assembly


"Should this resolution pass, I will have no problem with replacing capital punishment with sending criminals - who would otherwise be sentenced to death - to the at-this-time disused former prison colony on the island of Bikida, where I trust that the elements of nature will adeptly replace our current laws regarding capital punishments. However, as Minister of Justice, it is my duty to uphold justice, and leaving convicts on abandoned islands is not appropriately repaying their debt to whomever they have caused harm to. I trust that the member states of the World Assembly will oppose this valiantly."
-Sita Belet, Minister of Justice

Agree

[Nunavutialand]

C. Yes, the victims rights were violated, but violating the rights of the criminals doesn't restore the rights of the victims, nor does it undo the crime. Lex Talionis leaves the whole world blind.

It may not undo the crime, but it pays the price. And for killing a person, a price must be paid.
I repeat this example. Were your mother to be killed in front of you, by a murderer, would you not wish death upon the assassin?

Humanity is not a quality predicated on anything beyond being a human being, a member of homo sapiens sapiens. Any other predication opens the door for egregious humans rights violations. Every single atrocity in human history, is preceded by someone deciding another group of people are not human, or sub human, etc.

Humanity cannot be lost, it is innate to your being. Anyone who says otherwise is as bad as the people they condemn, for they commit the same violation. The only difference is their violation has the sanction of law.

You compare genocides of the innocent to executing criminals, which is both disgusting and degrading to the victims of those atrocities.
Humanity can be lost. Was it not lost by those who perpetrated the genocide of the Rohingya? Of the Rwandan Genocide?

[Tarsonis]

Its amusing to me that people point to the Death Penalty as a deterrent despite all evidence to the contrary, but don't think of prison as a deterrent.

You seriously believe prisons are deterring enough to those who wish harm to the people? When a murderer wants to kill someone, calculatedly, they will not be deterred by prison.
Those who can end a person's life... simply have no morals,

That is a statement of opinion, and in no way a statement of fact.

a curse unto itself to those who have the ability to see the wrong they have done.

IF they can see they've done wrong, that would suggest they have morals does it not?

Would prison deter them? Is the curse of living, knowing you killed someone, not a prison? When you murder someone you submit yourself into that prison, and prove you have no fear of that prison even prior to the crime.
Thus prison is merely a place, a second home, for those who kill.

Dude, have you ever been in prison? Ever had every aspect of your life controlled and violated, your identity reduced to a number?

Maybe in Norway prisons are spas (and incredibly effective) but prisons aren't fun, they're not happy places to live. This idea that prisons are just housing for criminals is complete bs.

[Deosdora]

A. "Alright, let's say you are entitled to rights. Rights were created to differentiate intelligent humans from animals. B. If you are to breach those very same rights that you are entitled to, that does not make you any different from an animal. C. You say the human rights of the criminals. I say, what about the human rights of the victims?"

A. Human rights aren't created to differentiate intelligent humans from animals. Human rights are applicable to all human beings, regardless of intelligence. I.e, All members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

B. No, it doesn't. Breaching those rights does not make one forfeit them. Humanity is not predicated on human rights, human rights are predicated on humanity.

C. Yes, the victims rights were violated, but violating the rights of the criminals doesn't restore the rights of the victims, nor does it undo the crime. Lex Talionis leaves the whole world blind.

"You said it yourself. You seperated all of the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the world. Doesn't that already makes the distinction that those rights are what seperate us from animals? Breaching those rights doesn't make you forfiet them? Yeah it just forfiets your humanity and your entitlement to any rights. As I've said before, rights were created as a distinction between humans and animals. It seperates the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the animal kingdom. What makes you think that people who doesn't respect other people's rights deserve to have their rights respected? Lex Talionis doesn't leave the world blind. It gives the people what they deserve."

[Tarsonis]

C. Yes, the victims rights were violated, but violating the rights of the criminals doesn't restore the rights of the victims, nor does it undo the crime. Lex Talionis leaves the whole world blind.

It may not undo the crime, but it pays the price. And for killing a person, a price must be paid.
I repeat this example. Were your mother to be killed in front of you, by a murderer, would you not wish death upon the assassin?

And thats why we outlawed vigilante justice, because the individual isn't fit to make those decisions. That's why we have courts.

Humanity is not a quality predicated on anything beyond being a human being, a member of homo sapiens sapiens. Any other predication opens the door for egregious humans rights violations. Every single atrocity in human history, is preceded by someone deciding another group of people are not human, or sub human, etc.

Humanity cannot be lost, it is innate to your being. Anyone who says otherwise is as bad as the people they condemn, for they commit the same violation. The only difference is their violation has the sanction of law.

You compare genocides of the innocent to executing criminals, which is both disgusting and degrading to the victims of those atrocities.

You're calling criminals animals, and sub human, just like those genociders did to the innocent civilians. I agree it is disgusting and degrading to all parties involved.

Humanity can be lost. Was it not lost by those who perpetrated the genocide of the Rohingya? Of the Rwandan Genocide?

No, it was not. They were evil, but still human.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"The Arcturan Federation is of the opinion that capital punishment does not bring justice, only more needless death. We shall vote in favor of this proposal."

"While I respect your passion on this issue, Ambassador, the World Assembly should not regulate this on a international scale. Many nations differ in belief from your own and it is unfair to force a set a foreign values on them. The issue of capital punishment should be left for each and every individual nation to decide - not for the World Assembly as a whole."

"So ambassador, you are of the opinion that international regulations should be repealed altogether? Some nations may believe religion to be a pox, others such as mine hold distaste for athiesm and abortion. These are regulated by international law. Furthermore should international law prohibiting religious sacrifice be repealed, perhaps also international law protecting equality based on sexuality or race or international law against torture. You will not that all these things infringe upon national sovereignty but are legitimate cultural practices. Torture has been viewed as a legitimate way to deter crime and enforce the law, yet it is currently illegal under international law. Many of the World Assembly's laws exist for the sole purpose of restricting national sovereignty in favor of individual human or sentient rights. This law follows the same practice, only this time round it is controversial because some nations value their authority over the lives of individual citizens, or perhaps because they value another nations authority over the human life lost because said nation enacts capital punishment."

You lose your humanity when you torture those who you have taken perhaps a friend, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter from, when you laugh in the courtroom.

"Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single person you execute is guilty? That is what is wrong with capital punishment, there is no way to undo it and justice systems cannot be adequate enough to rule out the possibility of innocents being convicted"

"You said it yourself. You seperated all of the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the world. Doesn't that already makes the distinction that those rights are what seperate us from animals? Breaching those rights doesn't make you forfiet them? Yeah it just forfiets your humanity and your entitlement to any rights. As I've said before, rights were created as a distinction between humans and animals. It seperates the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the animal kingdom. What makes you think that people who doesn't respect other people's rights deserve to have their rights respected?"

"In the context of the World Assembly, humanity almost certainly refers to sentience and meta-cognitivity. The ability to form rational thought and to reflect upon ones own thoughts. Humans, androids and a variety of other beings are capable of this and thus entitled to these rights regardless of what one may think of them."

[Nova Anglo-Francia]

Its amusing to me that people point to the Death Penalty as a deterrent despite all evidence to the contrary, but don't think of prison as a deterrent.

Whereas I find it amusing that there are some who think despite explicitly stating which crimes the death penalty is being applied to, that there aren't somehow other crimes where a prison is a completely reasonable deterrent.

If you wish to continue misrepresenting my argument, by all means.

[Nunavutialand]

You seriously believe prisons are deterring enough to those who wish harm to the people? When a murderer wants to kill someone, calculatedly, they will not be deterred by prison.
Those who can end a person's life... simply have no morals,

That is a statement of opinion, and in no way a statement of fact.

That is a statement of logic and reason -
Murderers are shunned in the real world, with the lack of job prospects and being effectively barred from socialising due to people not wanting to be associated with murderers.
While in a prison, they are given food, drink and the ability to exercise and enjoy life. But should that privilege be extended to a murderer? Someone who took that which they are revelling from another person?
This brings us to a moral dilemma. Give the murderer an effective death sentence by leaving them in the real world to fend for themselves (which likely will drive them into more crime), or bring a swift end to that. Capital punishment for murder is just that.

a curse unto itself to those who have the ability to see the wrong they have done.

IF they can see they've done wrong, that would suggest they have morals does it not?

That is why the death penalty is given to those who cannot see they have done wrong.

[Nunavutialand]

Humanity can be lost. Was it not lost by those who perpetrated the genocide of the Rohingya? Of the Rwandan Genocide?

No, it was not. They were evil, but still human.

Only biologically.

[Deosdora]

"While I respect your passion on this issue, Ambassador, the World Assembly should not regulate this on a international scale. Many nations differ in belief from your own and it is unfair to force a set a foreign values on them. The issue of capital punishment should be left for each and every individual nation to decide - not for the World Assembly as a whole."

"So ambassador, you are of the opinion that international regulations should be repealed altogether? Some nations may believe religion to be a pox, others such as mine hold distaste for athiesm and abortion. These are regulated by international law. Furthermore should international law prohibiting religious sacrifice be repealed, perhaps also international law protecting equality based on sexuality or race or international law against torture. You will not that all these things infringe upon national sovereignty but are legitimate cultural practices. Torture has been viewed as a legitimate way to deter crime and enforce the law, yet it is currently illegal under international law. Many of the World Assembly's laws exist for the sole purpose of restricting national sovereignty in favor of individual human or sentient rights. This law follows the same practice, only this time round it is controversial because some nations value their authority over the lives of individual citizens, or perhaps because they value another nations authority over the human life lost because said nation enacts capital punishment."

You lose your humanity when you torture those who you have taken perhaps a friend, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter from, when you laugh in the courtroom.

"Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single person you execute is guilty? That is what is wrong with capital punishment, there is no way to undo it and justice systems cannot be adequate enough to rule out the possibility of innocents being convicted"

"You said it yourself. You seperated all of the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the world. Doesn't that already makes the distinction that those rights are what seperate us from animals? Breaching those rights doesn't make you forfiet them? Yeah it just forfiets your humanity and your entitlement to any rights. As I've said before, rights were created as a distinction between humans and animals. It seperates the Homo genus from all of the other genus in the animal kingdom. What makes you think that people who doesn't respect other people's rights deserve to have their rights respected?"

"In the context of the World Assembly, humanity almost certainly refers to sentience and meta-cognitivity. The ability to form rational thought and to reflect upon ones own thoughts. Humans, androids and a variety of other beings are capable of this and thus entitled to these rights regardless of what one may think of them."

"Aha. I see a naive one here. A good king can make a country prosper under his rule. A great king can make the country prosper for a thousand years. Do you know why? Because people like you are what we refer as a good king. People who decide through their morality first before any other factors. A great king is someone who acts only upon the benefit and the prosperity of his country. To be a great king, there are a lot of things you need to throw away. One of those is your humanity. In the stead of the victims, I'm willing to be dragged into hell for all the things I've done as long as I have been able to serve justice to those who broke the law. Yes, sometimes the innocent dies due to the capital punishment but think, other than those few innocent people, you were able to rid the country of its pests. You were able to protect the lives of people those criminals would've destroyed after imprisonment."

[Nunavutialand]

You lose your humanity when you torture those who you have taken perhaps a friend, a mother, a father, a son or a daughter from, when you laugh in the courtroom.

"Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single person you execute is guilty? That is what is wrong with capital punishment, there is no way to undo it and justice systems cannot be adequate enough to rule out the possibility of innocents being convicted"

"I would ask you, esteemed Ambassador, if all the inmates in your prisons were guilty, but then I recalled that if they were not, your prisons would not be filled with gamblers rather than your police forces doing productive things like detaining actual criminals."

[Arasi Luvasa]

"I would ask you, esteemed Ambassador, if all the inmates in your prisons were guilty, but then I recalled that if they were not, your prisons would not be filled with gamblers rather than your police forces doing productive things like detaining actual criminals."

"Can you make amends with those who have been wrongly executed, it certainly can be done in my country. The death penalty is however irreversible."

good king can make a country prosper under his rule. A great king can make the country prosper for a thousand years. Do you know why? Because people like you are what we refer as a good king. People who decide through their morality first before any other factors. A great king is someone who acts only upon the benefit and the prosperity of his country.

"My nation is a theocracy, and I am but one of many archbishops. The Patriarch is the de-facto head of the country but we are ruled by God. Our king is greater than you, and his kingdoms shall reign eternal. Besides, what does the killing do that life imprisonment will not? Save resources? If you are adequately trying the individual you are executing, that should be a great drain on the system with many retrials and attempts to rehabilitate the individual.

other than those few innocent people

"The primary focus of a justice system should be the protection of innocents, not punishment of criminals. The state sanction killing of an innocent individual is utterly indefensible and a complete failure of the justice system. There is a reason people have a mantra of 'better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent punished' in some regard or another."

[Deosdora]

"I would ask you, esteemed Ambassador, if all the inmates in your prisons were guilty, but then I recalled that if they were not, your prisons would not be filled with gamblers rather than your police forces doing productive things like detaining actual criminals."

"Can you make amends with those who have been wrongly executed, it certainly can be done in my country. The death penalty is however irreversible."

good king can make a country prosper under his rule. A great king can make the country prosper for a thousand years. Do you know why? Because people like you are what we refer as a good king. People who decide through their morality first before any other factors. A great king is someone who acts only upon the benefit and the prosperity of his country.

"My nation is a theocracy, and I am but one of many archbishops. The Patriarch is the de-facto head of the country but we are ruled by God. Our king is greater than you, and his kingdoms shall reign eternal. Besides, what does the killing do that life imprisonment will not? Save resources? If you are adequately trying the individual you are executing, that should be a great drain on the system with many retrials and attempts to rehabilitate the individual.

other than those few innocent people

"The primary focus of a justice system should be the protection of innocents, not punishment of criminals. The state sanction killing of an innocent individual is utterly indefensible and a complete failure of the justice system. There is a reason people have a mantra of 'better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent punished' in some regard or another."

"Then can you make amends for those who were wrongly accused and imprisoned for life? What then? Then that also means your justice system is also a failure, does it not? You gave an innocent man a fate worse than death, so how does your justice system failing feels? Rehabilitation? Works for drug users but generally doesn't for killers. Yeah, we should rehabilitate serial killers and rapists! Remember this, when humanity went down the wrong path, the entity who wiped out the planet except for noah and his family was God himself. Just remember that."

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Can you make amends with those who have been wrongly executed, it certainly can be done in my country. The death penalty is however irreversible."



"My nation is a theocracy, and I am but one of many archbishops. The Patriarch is the de-facto head of the country but we are ruled by God. Our king is greater than you, and his kingdoms shall reign eternal. Besides, what does the killing do that life imprisonment will not? Save resources? If you are adequately trying the individual you are executing, that should be a great drain on the system with many retrials and attempts to rehabilitate the individual.



"The primary focus of a justice system should be the protection of innocents, not punishment of criminals. The state sanction killing of an innocent individual is utterly indefensible and a complete failure of the justice system. There is a reason people have a mantra of 'better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent punished' in some regard or another."

"Then can you make amends for those who were wrongly accused and imprisoned for life? What then? Then that also means your justice system is also a failure, does it not? You gave an innocent man a fate worse than death, so how does your justice system failing feels? Rehabilitation? Works for drug users but generally doesn't for killers. Yeah, we should rehabilitate serial killers and rapists! Remember this, when humanity went down the wrong path, the entity who wiped out the planet except for noah and his family was God himself. Just remember that."

"And if God sees us as having gone down the wrong path, he may do so. He can judge without error, we humans cannot. Besides, scripture also stands against capital punishment. Look at the situation with the woman who was found guilty of cheating, a crime punishable by stoning. Jesus actions there hint to only those of flawless morals having the moral right to kill another even when they commit a crime."

"Oh yes, we are able to make amends with those falsely imprisoned. Setting these individuals free and compensating them for their suffering. Furthermore if they are unable to find work, our government takes an active role in repairing damages done to their financial security. What can you do to make amends with those you have killed?"

[Deosdora]

"Then can you make amends for those who were wrongly accused and imprisoned for life? What then? Then that also means your justice system is also a failure, does it not? You gave an innocent man a fate worse than death, so how does your justice system failing feels? Rehabilitation? Works for drug users but generally doesn't for killers. Yeah, we should rehabilitate serial killers and rapists! Remember this, when humanity went down the wrong path, the entity who wiped out the planet except for noah and his family was God himself. Just remember that."

"And if God sees us as having gone down the wrong path, he may do so. He can judge without error, we humans cannot. Besides, scripture also stands against capital punishment. Look at the situation with the woman who was found guilty of cheating, a crime punishable by stoning. Jesus actions there hint to only those of flawless morals having the moral right to kill another even when they commit a crime."

"Oh yes, we are able to make amends with those falsely imprisoned. Setting these individuals free and compensating them for their suffering. Furthermore if they are unable to find work, our government takes an active role in repairing damages done to their financial security. What can you do to make amends with those you have killed?"

"Hahahahaha mere sophistry. Oh really? How will you even know they were falsely imprisoned IF you imprisoned them in the first place. Doesn't that mean that they went through intricate and extensive investigation and were still found guilty even though they were not. It's easy to speak of making amends. Finding out that you need to make amends makes it harder. Please, do not drag your failing justice system to some more mud."

[Arasi Luvasa]

"The bar for imprisoment is rarely as high for that of execution. Besides that, there will of course remain parties intrested in the release of individuals and new technology or evidence pertinent to the case may come to light. if innocents are executed, this becomes a moot point as there is absolutely nothing that can be done."

[Xanthal]

Now that people are actually paying attention to the subject, I think it's an opportune moment to reiterate some of my earlier statements on this resolution, condensed for brevity, with a few minor additions to address points brought up since. To wit:

The "every life has value, therefore ending life is always wrong" argument is a powerful one, but not practical and- Xanthal argues- not morally correct. Does not a person in intolerable pain with no hope of relief deserve the right to die? Should not the braindead patient stuck full of tubes in the hospital bed be allowed to pass on? Do not the pregnant have the right to control their own bodies, even at the expense of a new life growing inside them? Why, then, should the WA force life upon those for whom living means being stripped of liberty, dignity, and- dare I venture- hope?

I find the idea that financial compensation or anything else could be considered to "reverse" a prison term callously mercantile and morally craven, and the notion of retaining the ability to "make amends" (whatever that means) is an even weaker argument: we are to keep our prisoners alive as long as possible in the event that- should they ever be exonerated- we'll have the opportunity to apologize to them? Forgive me for saying so, but that sounds like a mercy for the jailers, not the jailed. Miscarriages of justice are always regrettable, and every effort should be made to prevent false convictions, but attempting to build a system of sentencing around the fantasy that the past can be undone is absurd.

Certainly rehabilitation is a noble goal, and a temporary detention can be necessary to this effort, but when rehabilitation isn't possible I object to the bizarre understanding of certain parties that a lengthy prison sentence with no realistic expectation the condemned will emerge healthier or with a contribution to society outweighing his criminal tendencies is somehow more merciful than ending his life. Merciful to whom? To the individual who is now to suffer through this captivity with his rights and freedoms stripped away, either for the rest of his life or only to be cut loose with prospects no better than they were when he began his sentence? Or to the society which now must live in apprehension of this individual's return? And should it be found, after some time, that he was not a criminal to begin with, what would have been the greater mercy- a quick and painless death, or the years or decades of confinement with their consequences to be forever lived with? While I'm sure that granting a longer period of opportunity to repent is a valid argument for nations governed by religious law, those of us with secular governments are concerned with making this plane of existence a better one for our people, not with ensuring their admittance to heaven.

To ban executions rather than addressing the systems of so-called justice which stand upon base desires for retribution and discredited theories of deterrence is not a humanitarian position, it is simple dogma and the Federation rejects it as such. Much more productive would be an effort by the World Assembly to move its members away from a punitive judiciary philosophy and toward a positive, forward-looking model of justice in which the heinousness of the offense is not so important as finding the best possible outcome for the injured, the convicted, and the society in which both reside.

If a nation wishes not to implement executions as a form of judicial remedy the Federation fully supports their right to make that decision, but for all the reasons explained above we do not believe it necessary or prudent to compel others to forbid the practice. Therefore this delegation remains OPPOSED to a ban on capital punishment.