NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Blackledge wrote:(OOC: Thing is, the challenges really aren't all that much. The GAO has no way to enforce payment of fines levied by the IAO. The only real meat to the resolution is getting other WA states to enforce sanctions, and given the sheer size of the WA and the diversity of its member-states there's no real way of making sure the right states (if any) are imposing sanctions. Some nations are even autarkies, so there's no pressure there. If roleplay takes into account that the WA can't force members out, then that's about it for consequences. The fines can stack up, but GAO can't enforce them, nations can't be expelled, and a violator may not have any sanctioners or even be in a position where sanctions matter. *shrugs*)

Ooc: except we presume the majority of WA members comply in good faith. So the presumption is that most of the members are sanctioning properly. While not all nations are coerced, all nations in noncompliance do face significant consequences. Frozen financial assets, no trade with Members, political and diplomatic pressure, exclusion from treaties...basically anything normal about international relations dissolves when you trigger sanctions. Shrugging those off as entirely ineffectual is silly.

OOC: I suppose I simply view assuming the actions of others to be poor roleplaying too. Given the divisiveness of the WA and the real life example of the difficulty of getting UN nations to work together, comply with some things, or even bother with even more than lip-service to resolutions, etc, it doesn't seem convincing. Especially given the NatSov types usually aren't the ones given to reply on others anyway. And the fact non-WA nations massively outnumber WA nations, so there's an open pool of commerce there. Again, *shrugs*

Blackledge wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: except we presume the majority of WA members comply in good faith. So the presumption is that most of the members are sanctioning properly. While not all nations are coerced, all nations in noncompliance do face significant consequences. Frozen financial assets, no trade with Members, political and diplomatic pressure, exclusion from treaties...basically anything normal about international relations dissolves when you trigger sanctions. Shrugging those off as entirely ineffectual is silly.

OOC: I suppose I simply view assuming the actions of others to be poor roleplaying too. Given the divisiveness of the WA and the real life example of the difficulty of getting UN nations to work together, comply with some things, or even bother with even more than lip-service to resolutions, etc, it doesn't seem convincing. Especially given the NatSov types usually aren't the ones given to reply on others anyway. And the fact non-WA nations massively outnumber WA nations, so there's an open pool of commerce there. Again, *shrugs*

Ooc: the premise of the shared roleplay collapses if you assume compliance is the minority. The WA cannot reasonably function otherwise. You can stick to your version, but dont expect cooperative roleplay if you do.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Blackledge wrote:OOC: I suppose I simply view assuming the actions of others to be poor roleplaying too. Given the divisiveness of the WA and the real life example of the difficulty of getting UN nations to work together, comply with some things, or even bother with even more than lip-service to resolutions, etc, it doesn't seem convincing. Especially given the NatSov types usually aren't the ones given to reply on others anyway. And the fact non-WA nations massively outnumber WA nations, so there's an open pool of commerce there. Again, *shrugs*

Ooc: the premise of the shared roleplay collapses if you assume compliance is the minority. The WA cannot reasonably function otherwise. You can stick to your version, but dont expect cooperative roleplay if you do.

OOC: Why cooperate when you can blitz your way through the other nation and take what you want? xD (joke)

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Blackledge wrote:OOC: I suppose I simply view assuming the actions of others to be poor roleplaying too. Given the divisiveness of the WA and the real life example of the difficulty of getting UN nations to work together, comply with some things, or even bother with even more than lip-service to resolutions, etc, it doesn't seem convincing. Especially given the NatSov types usually aren't the ones given to reply on others anyway. And the fact non-WA nations massively outnumber WA nations, so there's an open pool of commerce there. Again, *shrugs*

Ooc: the premise of the shared roleplay collapses if you assume compliance is the minority. The WA cannot reasonably function otherwise. You can stick to your version, but dont expect cooperative roleplay if you do.

OOC: The premise of good roleplay collapses if you make assumptions of what the effects of compliance and noncompliance would be in the first place in a world of the NS scale. Say I don't comply. What do you sell me that you won't anymore? What assets do I have in your nation? The fact is calling noncompliance without the outcomes someone who is pro-Resolution X wants for it "poor roleplaying" is nonsensical when the pool of commerce is this giant. At the end of the day, the WA comes off as rather toothless.

Blackledge wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: the premise of the shared roleplay collapses if you assume compliance is the minority. The WA cannot reasonably function otherwise. You can stick to your version, but dont expect cooperative roleplay if you do.

OOC: The premise of good roleplay collapses if you make assumptions of what the effects of compliance and noncompliance would be in the first place in a world of the NS scale. Say I don't comply. What do you sell me that you won't anymore? What assets do I have in your nation? The fact is calling noncompliance without the outcomes someone who is pro-Resolution X wants for it "poor roleplaying" is nonsensical when the pool of commerce is this giant. At the end of the day, the WA comes off as rather toothless.

Ooc: this rationale is why we try to build incentives into WA law. Otherwise people would do exactly that. But, then, why bother roleplaying here if that's your position? What do you accomplish beyond irritating the regulars? Its inherently antagonistic and unproductive. Which is why we exclude those players generally speaking.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Blackledge wrote:(OOC: Thing is, the challenges really aren't all that much. The GAO has no way to enforce payment of fines levied by the IAO. The only real meat to the resolution is getting other WA states to enforce sanctions, and given the sheer size of the WA and the diversity of its member-states there's no real way of making sure the right states (if any) are imposing sanctions. Some nations are even autarkies, so there's no pressure there. If roleplay takes into account that the WA can't force members out, then that's about it for consequences. The fines can stack up, but GAO can't enforce them, nations can't be expelled, and a violator may not have any sanctioners or even be in a position where sanctions matter. *shrugs*)

Ooc: except we presume the majority of WA members comply in good faith. So the presumption is that most of the members are sanctioning properly. While not all nations are coerced, all nations in noncompliance do face significant consequences. Frozen financial assets, no trade with Members, political and diplomatic pressure, exclusion from treaties...basically anything normal about international relations dissolves when you trigger sanctions. Shrugging those off as entirely ineffectual is silly.

It's also true though that about 10 % of all nations are in the WA, possibly less.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: except we presume the majority of WA members comply in good faith. So the presumption is that most of the members are sanctioning properly. While not all nations are coerced, all nations in noncompliance do face significant consequences. Frozen financial assets, no trade with Members, political and diplomatic pressure, exclusion from treaties...basically anything normal about international relations dissolves when you trigger sanctions. Shrugging those off as entirely ineffectual is silly.

It's also true though that about 10 % of all nations are in the WA, possibly less.

Ooc: eh. Factor out puppets and that number drops. A lot.

Estado Novo Portugues wrote:(for religious nations that believe in salvation)

True, they won't get their mortal lives back. But if they're really innocent, they'll go to Heaven. And Heaven is much better than Earth, no?

Government policies should not be based on the assumption that any afterlife exists, much less the existence of a specific afterlife.

Demiurges wrote:

Grenartia wrote:That's why we make damn sure we have the hard evidence before we try to convict, and why our most severe punishment is life in prison.

Oh yes, because it's completely fine for a mass murderer, or a serial rapist, or a traitor leaking government information to an enemy nation, or a pedophile who kidnaps multiple children to get a life sentence where they are living, not contributing back to society, and worst of all are doing all this on tax payer dollars. Yes, let's increase taxes making citizens pay for an inmates natural lifespan to spend their lives in a room where they will never have to work, pay for room and board, and are given a base minimum of two square meals a day, aswell as functioning bathing facilities, all just so some people can claim they took the moral and ethical high ground. When the human body is infected with disease, the natural function is for a healthy body to do is to fight off and kill the infection, not to give it cuddles and go "its okay mister infection, we know you didn't mean any harm to us intentionally.".

Actually, our justice system focuses on rehabilitation, not retribution, and even those who cannot be rehabilitated are allowed to continue to contribute to society, simply in ways that are less risky for society. For example, serial child molesters are segregated away from the rest of society. They live in separate colonies where children are not allowed, where they make a positive economic contribution to society while not being a risk to it. As for the "taxpayer's dime" argument, our society no longer judges the worth of a person based on how much or how little money it takes to support them. Besides, the money used to provide for an individual is much less than the money that would be required to execute them (after taking the necessary legal procedings into account).

To continue your infection analogy, your treatment for a person with an infection seems to be to chop off the infected limb, even if only a small part of it is actually infected, and without regard for the healthy tissue being removed. Our treatment, on the other hand, is to directly and precisely target the infected area, doing as little harm to the surrounding healthy tissue as possible. Your nation would do well to learn from our example.

Inquisitiors wrote:This proposal doesn’t allow for flexibility and accountability in situations where the individual poses an active threat to society.

There is no case where an individual who poses an active threat to society inherently needs to be executed to eliminate the threat.

Xanthal wrote:

Grenartia wrote:How isn't it? While yes, somebody who has been falsely imprisoned won't get that time back, they have the rest of their lives back, and their freedom. Someone who has been falsely executed gets neither. Seems like the former is inherently infinitely preferable to the latter, ethically speaking.

If your moral code is simply "more life = better," sure. But what about quality of life? Xanthal does not believe that life's inherent value outweighs all other considerations. We believe that a person who is suffering deserves the right to end her life. We believe that a person deserves the right to end a life inside them to preserve her own prospects and freedoms. We believe that it is a waste to pour endless resources into keeping the heart of a brain dead patient beating. It is a logical extension of this line of thought that a life to be lived out in incarceration may be better not lived.

Our societies mostly agree. Where they seem to differ, however (other than the "pour endless resources part"), is in that we cannot see how the detriment to length and quality of life caused by execution can ever be less than the detriment to quality of life caused by imprisonment. Perhaps your prisons are different, but our prisons are not hellholes.

Arasi Luvasa wrote:"You assume that we do not sympathize with the victim because we do not wish to cause more bloodshed in their name? Have you asked the victim if they want to cause further bloodshed or is it just to satisfy your conscience?"

OOC: I've actually gone on record as telling my mother (my next of kin) that if I'm ever murdered, I do not want the suspect to be executed, and that she should oppose any attempt to do so. I don't want any blood to be spilt to "avenge" the spilling of my blood, even if the person whose blood is being spilt actually did kill me.

Hogwarts Pride wrote:Minister McCall rises from his seat and addresses his colleges

We must also remember that some people cannot be reformed and are too dangerous to be allowed to live. These people don't care about human life or how their victims suffered, they only understand one thing, and that's violence. We in Hogwarts Pride see what these murders and rapists truly are... scum to be hung from the gallows. They forfeited their right to live when they inflicted their heinous crimes on the innocent.

There's no such thing as a person who is too dangerous to be allowed to live. Rather, your problems are subpar prison security, and corrupt guards and administrators.

The Earth Systems Alliance wrote:"Why is this still being debated?",sighs Ambassador Irons.
"The Capital Punishment is a necessity and those nations who dare call others who practice it "barbarians" they are mere pretenders whose criminals are still running lose and are afraid to arrest them cause "muh feelings"."says the Ambassador, ironically.

Is the good ambassador attempting to use "Reals over feels" in this argument? That's quite laughable, considering the only real argument the pro-revenge-killing camp has are appeals to feelings.

Also, our criminals aren't "running lose", and we are far, far, far away from being "too afraid to arrest them". Perhaps, before making blanket statements, you could learn a thing or two about the countries you're speaking about, ambassador.

"Some lives need to be taken, because these people are irredeemable.

It is the firm belief of the Allied Worlds of Grenartia that all persons have the ability to be redeemed.

They are traitors, rapists, murderers. One may wonder, when does this end. I answer them when there is no more crime, when people can live without fear and not lose their parents to some thug with a gun. I have read stories on other nations that don't have the Capital Punishment, and it sickens me that those people are ruled by indecision and cowardice.

You shall find neither of those qualities in our government, ambassador.

The Capital Punishment serves as a means of example.

Then its done a piss-poor job of being an example if you have to use it more than once.

That if a citizen breaks the law by committing one of the aforementioned crimes, neither the state nor the honest tax payer will house them in a prison cell."
He cracks a little smile
"When Earth united under the Alliance, monarchs and corrupt officials tried to stop this. When they were revealed, the world uproared. The monarchs and the corrupt officials were presented before a court. Some said we should execute them, that their greed and lust cost the lives of millions. Instead, we put them to work. They built with their own hands roads, homes, bridges. And they begged for the Capital Punishment. They redeemed themselves, so we granted it to them. Now, the Alliance has come a long way from being a corrupt state. There were those of the royals who didn't work. They were killed, they served their purpose as messengers. They were criminals, traitors of the people and the Republic. And they were treated as such. They had become a threat, and they were dealt with. To those nations that support the Ban, I tell this: your will is weak, because it can't take a strong decision against criminals. But when a deviant, for example, rapes and kills your family, will you still be pro-ban?"

My people have a saying, in times like this: Cool story, bro.

As for your question, I still would be. Such individuals almost always have severe psychological defects that must be studied, so as to learn how to correct the defects in the future. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. And you cannot pick the mind of a dead man.

Ambassador Jimbo Barnes stands up "I have a question for those of you who voted for this, What would you do if someone were to do something like shooting up a stadium, businesses, even a school? Do you just throw them into jail, tell them that was bad, then spend the tax money from the victims family on feeding and taking care of that spawn of Satan? Or do you do what that person deserves and executes for the lives lost. I would hope the answer is obvious."

New Jibby wrote:Ambassador Jimbo Barnes stands up "I have a question for those of you who voted for this, What would you do if someone were to do something like shooting up a stadium, businesses, even a school? Do you just throw them into jail, tell them that was bad, then spend the tax money from the victims family on feeding and taking care of that spawn of Satan? Or do you do what that person deserves and executes for the lives lost. I would hope the answer is obvious."

It is not necessary to execute someone for such crimes as long as you think it's justice

"My dear friend, i must ask you to elaborate"

New Jibby wrote:Ambassador Jimbo Barnes stands up "I have a question for those of you who voted for this, What would you do if someone were to do something like shooting up a stadium, businesses, even a school? Do you just throw them into jail, tell them that was bad, then spend the tax money from the victims family on feeding and taking care of that spawn of Satan? Or do you do what that person deserves and executes for the lives lost. I would hope the answer is obvious."

"It is, they will be tried in court and sentenced to an appropriate length of jail time if convicted. We are not willing to stain the souls of our citizens by killing on their behalf."

New Jibby wrote:"My dear friend, i must ask you to elaborate"

It's already enough to sentence someone away how does execution bring justice yes it brings pains to victims but if someone were to kill me or my friend would it warrant someone to kill him on my behalf?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Blackledge wrote:OOC: The premise of good roleplay collapses if you make assumptions of what the effects of compliance and noncompliance would be in the first place in a world of the NS scale. Say I don't comply. What do you sell me that you won't anymore? What assets do I have in your nation? The fact is calling noncompliance without the outcomes someone who is pro-Resolution X wants for it "poor roleplaying" is nonsensical when the pool of commerce is this giant. At the end of the day, the WA comes off as rather toothless.

Ooc: this rationale is why we try to build incentives into WA law. Otherwise people would do exactly that. But, then, why bother roleplaying here if that's your position? What do you accomplish beyond irritating the regulars? Its inherently antagonistic and unproductive. Which is why we exclude those players generally speaking.

OOC: I'm replying to what I've seen be said. I understand the attempt to build incentives in WA law, I'm simply pointing out that the repeated "not good roleplaying" thing I've seen said here every time someone says their nation doesn't want to follow a resolution is itself antagonistic and unproductive. And that's the last I'll say on that.

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:

New Jibby wrote:"My dear friend, i must ask you to elaborate"

It's already enough to sentence someone away how does execution bring justice yes it brings pains to victims but if someone were to kill me or my friend would it warrant someone to kill him on my behalf?

"You as a delegate for an independent sovereign state should have the competence to understand that the death penalty is in most cases not given for murder. In Nunavutialand, we would only execute someone were they to murder with methods that deliberately induce torture in the victim, and then afterwards show no remorse for their crime. 74 people have been executed since 2010 in Nunavutialand for crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism."

It's already enough to sentence someone away how does execution bring justice yes it brings pains to victims but if someone were to kill me or my friend would it warrant someone to kill him on my behalf?[/quote]

"Murdering one person isn't as big a number as 10, In the nation i represent you'll get executed for murdering 10 or more people, One isnt the worst that could happen. And thats the thing every nation has different execution laws and standards, i mean sure the nations who execute people who jaywalk should be restricted, but other nations only execute the people who truly deserve it."

New Jibby wrote:Ambassador Jimbo Barnes stands up "I have a question for those of you who voted for this, What would you do if someone were to do something like shooting up a stadium, businesses, even a school?

Apprehend them, try them, convict them, sentence them appropriately to the crime, and attempt to rehabilitate them. Why do you ask?

Do you just throw them into jail, tell them that was bad, then spend the tax money from the victims family on feeding and taking care of that spawn of Satan? Or do you do what that person deserves and executes for the lives lost. I would hope the answer is obvious."

Your appeals to feelings of revenge are lost on those of us who are civilized. Revenge killing does nothing productive. Maybe you would have a point if executing the person who committed the crime magically made it as if the crime never happened, but it doesn't. And even if it did, you'd still have the issue of finding the person who actually committed the crime.

Grenartia wrote:...we cannot see how the detriment to length and quality of life caused by execution can ever be less than the detriment to quality of life caused by imprisonment. Perhaps your prisons are different, but our prisons are not hellholes.

Again, we're not going by length. If length is your measure of morality then of course execution is always going to lose out to life imprisonment. As far as quality goes, a dead person has no quality of life, positive or negative. Prison, however, is generally negative: even if you go to grand effort and expense to make your prisons a palace, it's still only a gilded cage. The Federation's stance is that a life lived in a cage with no real expectation of release is one of poor quality. No life is better than a poor life. In other words, the same logic which applies to the other scenarios I mentioned.

Xanthal wrote:

Grenartia wrote:...we cannot see how the detriment to length and quality of life caused by execution can ever be less than the detriment to quality of life caused by imprisonment. Perhaps your prisons are different, but our prisons are not hellholes.

Again, we're not going by length. If length is your measure of morality then of course execution is always going to lose out to life imprisonment. As far as quality goes, a dead person has no quality of life, positive or negative. Prison, however, is generally negative: even if you go to grand effort and expense to make your prisons a palace, it's still only a gilded cage. The Federation's stance is that a life lived in a cage with no real expectation of release is one of poor quality. No life is better than a poor life. In other words, the same logic which applies to the other scenarios I mentioned.

We are well aware that a gilded cage is still a cage. However, we dispute that prison is inherently a worse quality of life than death, and we dispute that life in prison is even remotely equivalent in terms of QoL impact to having a painful terminal illness. Having no life, especially when that state has been imposed from the outside, rather than chosen willingly, is worse than life in prison, especially a Grenartian prison.

Grenartia wrote:We are well aware that a gilded cage is still a cage. However, we dispute that prison is inherently a worse quality of life than death, and we dispute that life in prison is even remotely equivalent in terms of QoL impact to having a painful terminal illness. Having no life, especially when that state has been imposed from the outside, rather than chosen willingly, is worse than life in prison, especially a Grenartian prison.

That it's open to dispute is the point; I'm not the one trying to force everyone else to fall in line with my government's opinion here. Since this proposal has been pushed almost entirely on a moral argument rather than a practical one, if the absolute nature of the moral high ground it claims to occupy is in question the core of its justification is in doubt as well.

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, believe that the primary purpose of recompense for crimes should be rehabilitative and not punitive. Looking to nations like Norway as an example of how rehabilitation and humane treatment of criminals may be effectively achieved, and being proponents of humane treatment for ALL including criminals, i.e. We do not believe that it is meet to destroy two persons' lives for the taking of one life, hereby vote FOR this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajyasya

Xanthal wrote:

Grenartia wrote:We are well aware that a gilded cage is still a cage. However, we dispute that prison is inherently a worse quality of life than death, and we dispute that life in prison is even remotely equivalent in terms of QoL impact to having a painful terminal illness. Having no life, especially when that state has been imposed from the outside, rather than chosen willingly, is worse than life in prison, especially a Grenartian prison.

That it's open to dispute is the point; I'm not the one trying to force everyone else to fall in line with my government's opinion here. Since this proposal has been pushed almost entirely on a moral argument rather than a practical one, if the absolute nature of the moral high ground it claims to occupy is in question the core of its justification is in doubt as well.

Where was my government's moral high ground and justification on this issue in serious dispute?

Arasi Luvasa wrote:

Deosdora wrote:The Great Emperor of the Holy Empire of Deosdora sits on his chair, drinking the most expensive of wines.

"Capital Punishment is something necessary. Why? Because there are people who do not deserve to live. People who have committed heinous crimes. I will not waste the money my citizens worked hard for and payed as taxes to keep those scums alive. If anything, capital punishment is a form of mercy. Because if there were no capital punishment, barren islands will be full, prisoners will go and starve. Catch my drift?"

"And you have the authority, the right to say who those people are? with all your flaws and lacking qualities?"

"As a leader of a nation, yes I do."

Nunavutialand wrote:

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:It's already enough to sentence someone away how does execution bring justice yes it brings pains to victims but if someone were to kill me or my friend would it warrant someone to kill him on my behalf?

"You as a delegate for an independent sovereign state should have the competence to understand that the death penalty is in most cases not given for murder. In Nunavutialand, we would only execute someone were they to murder with methods that deliberately induce torture in the victim, and then afterwards show no remorse for their crime. 74 people have been executed since 2010 in Nunavutialand for crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism."

"Yes I do understand that. Capital punishment ican be employed for those kinds of acts. But the phrasing of what the person I quoted implied it referred to a more conventional crime.

Grenartia wrote:Where was my government's moral high ground and justification on this issue in serious dispute?

Ambassador, I don't even know what your government's position on this issue is. This isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of general principle.