Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:09 am
So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them. Taxpayers won't be happy. Why should our single coin be wasted on these kinds of people?
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Capa Virieglia wrote:So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them.
Capa Virieglia wrote:So, basically we have to keep our prisoners in the cells, feed them, comfort them. Taxpayers won't be happy. Why should our single coin be wasted on these kinds of people?
. As is clear, the Constitution expressly envisages an exception to this right. Section 22bis contains our procedural rules on the death penalty, which in relevant part are as follows(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 22bis, every person has the right to life. The State shall not arbitrarily deprive any person in its jurisdiction of their lives, except as provided in Section 22bis. It shall have an active duty to protect life of any person within its jurisdiction, including the lives of its armed forces when on deployment.
(2) Subject to section 22bis, the State may not derogate from, limit, or restrict this right in any way. Furthermore, it is subject to the “eternity” provisions in Part V of this Constitution
. Later provisions of that Section establish fundamental guarantees to proect the rights of those against whom the State is seeking sentence of death - for example, the Prosecution must prove aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is an automatic right of appeal to an Autonomous Supreme Court or the Federal Supreme Court, depending on who sentenced the defendant. We believe that these provisions provide robust protections of an accused person's rights.(1) Sentence of Death shall be a competent penalty in criminal matters, subject to the provisions of subsequent paragraphs in this section.
(2) a Court may only impose sentence of death for the following offences:
(a) Murder
(b) Crimes against humanity
(c) War crimes
(d) Genocide
The offences listed in subsubsections (b) to (d) shall be justiciable in the State, solely at the Federal level, due to the State’s obligations enumerated in section 20, and the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Consequently these offences are part of the Federal criminal law, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8(3)(d) and the Parliament’s powers therein. As such, Parliament may not repeal any jurisdiction in respect of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perchance, have you read GA 2?
Thyerata wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Perchance, have you read GA 2?
*Matthew reads GAR 2*
*Matthew shrugs* So?
OOC: I know that, for game mechanics purposes, Resolutions are instantly binding and I don't doubt that, but I think there is a growing trend for RPing non-compliance...
Wallenburg wrote:Thyerata wrote:
*Matthew reads GAR 2*
*Matthew shrugs* So?
OOC: I know that, for game mechanics purposes, Resolutions are instantly binding and I don't doubt that, but I think there is a growing trend for RPing non-compliance...
OOC: No, there isn't. At the very least, try to actually be creative, instead of saying "lol, fuck off I do what I want".
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wallenburg wrote:OOC: No, there isn't. At the very least, try to actually be creative, instead of saying "lol, fuck off I do what I want".
OOC: to clarify, creative as in creative compliance and generating interesting roleplay. Not just coming up with new and innovative ways to say "but we don't do this." I can spend all day coming up with justifications about why one ignores resolutions. Its dead easy. Creative compliance or generating good roleplay? Thats tricky.
Capa Virieglia wrote:This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.
Capa Virieglia wrote:This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.
Capa Virieglia wrote:This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.
Capa Virieglia wrote:This ain't "furtherment of human rights", this should be called "Ban mercy of clean death." Cause this is what it is.
Quantipapa wrote:I said I support this. So make sure this meets quorum.
United Massachusetts wrote: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,