[PASSED] Military Death Penalty Ban

[Liberty and Unity]

Full Support. I cannot believe that in this day and age that the state has the power to take someone's life.

It is used on people who deserve to die, which are all the people I listed in the post above

[Liberty and Unity]

The death penalty is always bad and basically hypocricy on the part of the government. Full support.

It is needed. I can't believe that people want terrorists and pedophiles to live

[Liberty and Unity]

“inhumane to people who are sentenced to death for crimes they may not have even committed,”
Really? If you got sentenced the death penalty, you’d have to do something so heinous to get it. There is almost no false executions because of witnesses or surveillance technology. Example:
Let’s say some random person committed a Holocaust level killing where exorbitant numbers of innocent civilians are killed during a time of war. There is no people getting sentenced to death for a crime they didn’t commit because either A a surveillance drone caught them on tape or somebody witnessed the event and reported it.
If you got the death penalty, you did something so awful that you shouldn’t be allowed to even have a cell. There is no false executions. Do you know how hard it would be to plant false witnesses and testimonies to make a false accusation like this believable? Besides there’d always be video evidence in this day and age being how modernized or futuristic some nations in NS are. This is ridiculous.

Your a smart person

[Separatist Peoples]

The death penalty is always bad and basically hypocricy on the part of the government. Full support.

It is needed. I can't believe that people want terrorists and pedophiles to live

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

[Jedinsto]

"While I support the death penalty being used on the worst of human scum, we don't for the purposes of the World Assembly. Too many innocents and those who don't deserve to die are executed under oppressive regimes, a practice I will not allow to continue. If you see my discussion with the ambassador from Separatist Peoples, you will see this resolution addresses a loophole to conscript criminals to execute them at will. At the end of the day, does it really matter if they live or die, if they truly deserve to be executed? Even if it does, at the end of the day, does that outweigh the downsides of innocents and undeserving criminals being executed? I'll answer for you, no it does not. Full, strong, unwavering support."

[Navsland]

The Death Penalty, if not abused, would be a contributing factor to law and order in our very chaotic human society.
I would also like add that the death penalty in itself, while morally wrong, would help bring peace of mind to victims. Of course we can argue whether revenge justice really bring peace of mind (I believe its a mix of yes and no) to the victim, but at the very least it will bring closure. Understandably, the biggest concerns I've seen about the death penalty is rehabilitation and wrongful conviction. Both of which I completely understand, but I would like add my own opinion on these matters.

Rehabilitation. Human beings learn best from their mistakes, and I think most of us could agree on this. To err is human, and sometimes this could mean committing a crime, maybe out of desperation or to better improve their live etcetera etcetera. Forgiveness and rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system, but that is not to say we should forgive every crime committed under the sun. Heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide), especially when committed by people who knowingly commit such things for their own sake, should not be forgiven. Even more so if they do not feel any sense of remorse during the sentencing. You could use the argument that they had a rough childhood or that they are mentally disturbed, but the world is vast. If every mentally disturbed person or people with rough childhood were to succumb to their baser instinct then murderers and mass genocide would be a more common thing. Rehab should only be given to those of lesser crimes and to those who shown remorse for their actions or are forced to commit such a heinous crime because of very certain circumstances (i.e. blackmailed into killing etc).

Wrongful conviction. This is also another big argument why most would argue against the death penalty and I genuinely understand why. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen throughout the history of mankind where the death penalty had been arbitrarily applied to the innocent, either by corrupt individuals of power or blind justice. That is why I would propose that the death penalty be only applied to the most heinous of crimes, established with evidence, witnesses and physical proof, under the eyes of a third party watchdog, peered reviewed by government and non government groups, and all party to be held accountable for the sentencing should a foul death penalty occur. The cost will be high, way higher than just straight up incarceration. But I believe that it should be treated as negligible in the pursuit of true justice, as such a punishment would be literally taking a life a of a fellow human being.

Recently I'd have been made aware that, the costs of keeping an inmate on death row is more expansive than life imprisonment as a whole. I'm not sure how the American legal system works but wouldn't the cost be offset if the amount of appeals were limited to a fixed sum, unless there was insufficient evidence during the time of sentencing? In the UK for example, the condemned were separated from the general prison population in one of two 'condemned cells' located adjacent to the execution chamber. The sentenced inmates were given one appeal. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison. Wouldn't this speed up the process significantly and reduce the overall costs? I'm not sure if it would be cheaper than life imprisonment like this but I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper than the original cost of keeping inmates on the death row.

Also, to argue that the death penaly is not a good deterrence is, in my opinion, is a tad ridiculous. It is the same as saying the law itself does not serve as a deterrence, because crime are still being committed everyday. If that is the case what is the use of law? We might as well abolish the entire criminal code.

[Liberty and Unity]

It is needed. I can't believe that people want terrorists and pedophiles to live

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

The death penalty increases judicial security and eliminates the scum of humanity who deserve to die

[Liberty and Unity]

"While I support the death penalty being used on the worst of human scum, we don't for the purposes of the World Assembly. Too many innocents and those who don't deserve to die are executed under oppressive regimes, a practice I will not allow to continue. If you see my discussion with the ambassador from Separatist Peoples, you will see this resolution addresses a loophole to conscript criminals to execute them at will. At the end of the day, does it really matter if they live or die, if they truly deserve to be executed? Even if it does, at the end of the day, does that outweigh the downsides of innocents and undeserving criminals being executed? I'll answer for you, no it does not. Full, strong, unwavering support."

What about rapists? Pedophiles? Terrorists? I agree with the death penalty not being used on lower criminals. It should only be used against the worst of criminals, but if this resolution passes, then they will get the chance to wander the streets again, and they don't deserve that chance, they deserve a firing squad

[Liberty and Unity]

The Death Penalty, if not abused, would be a contributing factor to law and order in our very chaotic human society.
I would also like add that the death penalty in itself, while morally wrong, would help bring peace of mind to victims. Of course we can argue whether revenge justice really bring peace of mind (I believe its a mix of yes and no) to the victim, but at the very least it will bring closure. Understandably, the biggest concerns I've seen about the death penalty is rehabilitation and wrongful conviction. Both of which I completely understand, but I would like add my own opinion on these matters.

Rehabilitation. Human beings learn best from their mistakes, and I think most of us could agree on this. To err is human, and sometimes this could mean committing a crime, maybe out of desperation or to better improve their live etcetera etcetera. Forgiveness and rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system, but that is not say we should forgive every crime committed under the sun. Heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide), especially when committed by people who knowingly commit such things for their own sake, should not be forgiven. Even more so if they do not feel any sense of remorse during the sentencing. You could use the argument that they had a rough childhood or that they are mentally disturbed, but this world is vast. If every mentally disturbed person or people with rough childhood were to succumb to their baser instinct then murderers and mass genocide would be a more common thing. Rehab should only be given to those of lesser crimes and to those who shown remorse for their actions or are forced to commit such a heinous crime because of very certain circumstances (i.e. blackmailed into killing etc).

Wrongful conviction. This also another big argument why most would argue against the death penalty and I genuinely understand why. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen throughout the history of mankind where the death penalty had been arbitrarily applied to the innocent, either by corrupt individuals of power or blind justice. That is why I would propose that the death penalty be only applied to the most heinous of crimes, established with evidence, witnesses and physical proof, under the eyes of a third party watchdog, peered reviewed by government and non government groups, and all party to be held accountable for the sentencing should a foul death penalty occur. The cost will be high, way higher than just straight up incarceration. But I believe that it should be treated as negligible in the pursuit of true justice, as such a punishment would be taking a life a of a fellow human being.

Recently I'd have been made aware that, the costs of keeping an inmate on death row is more expansive than life imprisonment as a whole. I'm not sure how the American legal system works but wouldn't the cost be offset if the amount of appeals were limited to a fixed sum, unless there was insufficient evidence during the time of sentencing? In the UK for example, the condemned were separated from the general prison population in one of two 'condemned cells' located adjacent to the execution chamber. The sentenced inmates were given one appeal. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison. Wouldn't this speed up the process significantly and reduce the overall costs? I'm not sure if it would be cheaper than life imprisonment like this but I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper than the original cost of keeping inmates on the death row.

Don't forget pedophilia. Pedophilia should be a crime and should be treated as such

[Liberty and Unity]

The Death Penalty, if not abused, would be a contributing factor to law and order in our very chaotic human society.
I would also like add that the death penalty in itself, while morally wrong, would help bring peace of mind to victims. Of course we can argue whether revenge justice really bring peace of mind (I believe its a mix of yes and no) to the victim, but at the very least it will bring closure. Understandably, the biggest concerns I've seen about the death penalty is rehabilitation and wrongful conviction. Both of which I completely understand, but I would like add my own opinion on these matters.

Rehabilitation. Human beings learn best from their mistakes, and I think most of us could agree on this. To err is human, and sometimes this could mean committing a crime, maybe out of desperation or to better improve their live etcetera etcetera. Forgiveness and rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system, but that is not say we should forgive every crime committed under the sun. Heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide), especially when committed by people who knowingly commit such things for their own sake, should not be forgiven. Even more so if they do not feel any sense of remorse during the sentencing. You could use the argument that they had a rough childhood or that they are mentally disturbed, but this world is vast. If every mentally disturbed person or people with rough childhood were to succumb to their baser instinct then murderers and mass genocide would be a more common thing. Rehab should only be given to those of lesser crimes and to those who shown remorse for their actions or are forced to commit such a heinous crime because of very certain circumstances (i.e. blackmailed into killing etc).

Wrongful conviction. This also another big argument why most would argue against the death penalty and I genuinely understand why. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen throughout the history of mankind where the death penalty had been arbitrarily applied to the innocent, either by corrupt individuals of power or blind justice. That is why I would propose that the death penalty be only applied to the most heinous of crimes, established with evidence, witnesses and physical proof, under the eyes of a third party watchdog, peered reviewed by government and non government groups, and all party to be held accountable for the sentencing should a foul death penalty occur. The cost will be high, way higher than just straight up incarceration. But I believe that it should be treated as negligible in the pursuit of true justice, as such a punishment would be taking a life a of a fellow human being.

Recently I'd have been made aware that, the costs of keeping an inmate on death row is more expansive than life imprisonment as a whole. I'm not sure how the American legal system works but wouldn't the cost be offset if the amount of appeals were limited to a fixed sum, unless there was insufficient evidence during the time of sentencing? In the UK for example, the condemned were separated from the general prison population in one of two 'condemned cells' located adjacent to the execution chamber. The sentenced inmates were given one appeal. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison. Wouldn't this speed up the process significantly and reduce the overall costs? I'm not sure if it would be cheaper than life imprisonment like this but I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper than the original cost of keeping inmates on the death row.

Also, I highly agree. The Death Penalty should only be used for the worst of crimes and should only be considered if the person confesses or there is enough evidence and witness reports

[Straona]

It is needed. I can't believe that people want terrorists and pedophiles to live

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

Sorry but this isn’t a perfect world. Those who commit such heinous crimes during war or not such as mass murder don’t change. They deserve a firing squad

[Navsland]

Don't forget pedophilia. Pedophilia should be a crime and should be treated as such

I'll be honest. Pedophilia is kind of a grey area for me when it comes to applying the death penalty. My ideal version for the application of the death penalty only applies to heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide). Pedophilia, to my limited knowledge, is considered a mental illness, and should be treated as such. Applying the death penalty on pedophiliac would only serve to deter people from seeking help from trained professionals, even more so when pedophilia is already frowned upon(for lack of a better word). But then again, acting on your pedophilic impulse does almost always constitutes to rape. I don't know, I would probably need to give it more thought and read up on the subject before saying anything more.

[Liberty and Unity]

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

Sorry but this isn’t a perfect world. Those who commit such heinous crimes during war or not such as mass murder don’t change. They deserve a firing squad

Exactly

[Liberty and Unity]

Don't forget pedophilia. Pedophilia should be a crime and should be treated as such

I'll be honest. Pedophilia is kind of a grey area for me when it comes to applying the death penalty. My ideal version for the application of the death penalty only applies to heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide). Pedophilia, to my limited knowledge, is considered a mental illness, and be treated as such. Applying the death penalty on pedophiliac would only serve to deter people from seeking help from trained professionals, even more so when pedophilia is already frowned upon(for lack of a better word). But then again, acting on your pedophilic impulse does almost always constitutes to rape. I don't know, I would probably need to give it more thought and read up on the subject before saying anything more.

I see your point. If a pedophiliac acts upon his or her pedophilic impulses, they deserve death. But if they don't, they deserve professional mental help.

[Junitaki-cho]

GAR#84 does address one part of this, and I appreciate your pointing it out, but doesn't rule out the receiving country simply disregarding the contract. GAR#443 does deal with this nicely, but I can't help but be concerned about the upcoming repeal attempts and what that would mean having this on the books. It's a troubling implication to sign into law even if it's currently inert.

I think GAR#84 still has a deficiency in dealing with this, as clause 3 simply requires that receiving states enter into a lawful written contract, not that the contract be followed through. A nation wishing to partake in creative compliance can technically follow this resolution and also GAR#84 by divulging the fate of the victim (not forced disappearance), enter into a written contract with said receiving nation, and then let the nation violate it. The sending nation can then use as justification that it's not their fault since the receiving nation violated it anyway, and presumably sue the nation for show.

Good point. I don't like the problems this opens up, but that's still tentatively covered by #443. If anyone repeals that, we're going to need some more detailed extradition legislation in a hurry.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

The death penalty increases judicial security and eliminates the scum of humanity who deserve to die

"No, it does not. The falliable nature of court proceedings merits a punishment that is reversible. Execution is not reversible."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Some of us value the integrity of judicial process over mere revenge."

Sorry but this isn’t a perfect world. Those who commit such heinous crimes during war or not such as mass murder don’t change. They deserve a firing squad

"This is not an argument I made, ambassador. Perfection is irrelevant to my claim. Now, would you like to respond to the salient point made, or would you prefer to attack arguments I didn't make?"

[Navsland]

The death penalty increases judicial security and eliminates the scum of humanity who deserve to die

"No, it does not. The falliable nature of court proceedings merits a punishment that is reversible. Execution is not reversible."

That is why establishing credible, physical evidence, alongside witnesses or camera recordings are required for a punishment of this magnitude. It should be peered reviewed by government and non government groups, and be done so under a third party watchdog to ensure no foul play. And if a foul death penalty were to occur, all related to the sentencing should be held accountable. This should also help ensure that the death penalty is not needlessly applied to every single case.

[Straona]

Sorry but this isn’t a perfect world. Those who commit such heinous crimes during war or not such as mass murder don’t change. They deserve a firing squad

"This is not an argument I made, ambassador. Perfection is irrelevant to my claim. Now, would you like to respond to the salient point made, or would you prefer to attack arguments I didn't make?"

Alright I won’t attack, if you’re point was on the integrity of the judicial process then I can understand. However we’re talking about the death penalty involving the military which in turn involves war criminals. They will never change. Those who commit such heinous acts don’t deserve a trial. People who had connections to such criminals can get one (Nuremberg reference). The death penalty doesn’t necessarily always involve revenge. That would be honor killing which you guys axed even if that was someone else’s culture. War criminals don’t get someone’s petty vengeance enacted upon them. They’re tried before the military and if death penalty is chosen is purely based on crimes committed during a time of war.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is not an argument I made, ambassador. Perfection is irrelevant to my claim. Now, would you like to respond to the salient point made, or would you prefer to attack arguments I didn't make?"

Alright I won’t attack, if you’re point was on the integrity of the judicial process then I can understand. However we’re talking about the death penalty involving the military which in turn involves war criminals. They will never change. Those who commit such heinous acts don’t deserve a trial. People who had connections to such criminals can get one (Nuremberg reference). The death penalty doesn’t necessarily always involve revenge. That would be honor killing which you guys axed even if that was someone else’s culture. War criminals don’t get someone’s petty vengeance enacted upon them. They’re tried before the military and if death penalty is chosen is purely based on crimes committed during a time of war.

"As the author of nearly all the World Assembly laws on warfare, I feel uniquely qualified to respond, ambassador. Most war criminals are young soldiers who react poorly in a dangerous situation. Most are jumpy soldiers who shot at the wrong target, or panicked at the wrong time. Many took a shortcut or did not verify information. Some are deliberately mislead by officers or dogma. They are unquestionably criminals. They are also enduringly capable of rehabilitation. And those who are not are equally well removed from the public by incarceration as they would by execution. Compounded by the tendency of military tribunals to engage in victor's justice when trying enemy combatants, this is easily one of the worst arguments in favor of the death penalty one can make."

[GreaterFrance]

Death Penalty does apparently not reduce crime, but it has at least one big advantage, it is that the cost of a criminal care is not supported anymore by the nation population. I personally understand and agree with people who tell that they don't want to pay to take care of someone who killed people.
It also allows to banish the risk of having a such person liberated, person who could kill again.

We need death penalty.

[Astrobolt]

Death Penalty does apparently not reduce crime, but it has at least one big advantage, it is that the cost of a criminal care is not supported anymore by the nation population. I personally understand and agree with people who tell that they don't want to pay to take care of someone who killed people.
It also allows to banish the risk of having a such person liberated, person who could kill again.

We need death penalty.

"Ambassador, you should be aware that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment, because when a person's life is on the line, longer trials and more experts are needed to ascertain guilt. Furthermore, banning the death penalty allows us to remove the risk of executing an innocent person, something that will always remain should this punishment remain permitted."

[Daarwyrth]

Maria vyn Nysen sighs loudly upon hearing and reading all the commentary. "So much desire and yearning for unnecessary violence, death and revenge... is that really what we want to embody? That one sapient being believes themselves to have the just right to end that of another? Why do so many crave to see blood flow, instead of rehabilitation succeed? Honor-based violence, death penalties, bloody retributions... why? It’s not necessary when there is an alternative. Does a war criminal deserve to pay for their deeds? Absolutely, but not by lowering ourselves to their level.

It was my pleasure to advise my Queen to move to a vote 'for' the Military Death Penalty Ban, and to see my nation's vote registered as 'for'. If we aspire to be an advanced society, we need to behave like an advanced society, not like a bunch of bloodlusting savages."

[GreaterFrance]

Death Penalty does apparently not reduce crime, but it has at least one big advantage, it is that the cost of a criminal care is not supported anymore by the nation population. I personally understand and agree with people who tell that they don't want to pay to take care of someone who killed people.
It also allows to banish the risk of having a such person liberated, person who could kill again.

We need death penalty.

"Ambassador, you should be aware that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment, because when a person's life is on the line, longer trials and more experts are needed to ascertain guilt. Furthermore, banning the death penalty allows us to remove the risk of executing an innocent person, something that will always remain should this punishment remain permitted."

Of course death penalty should happen ONLY if we are certain that the judged person is the criminal what is mostly what happens.

[Daarwyrth]

"Ambassador, you should be aware that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment, because when a person's life is on the line, longer trials and more experts are needed to ascertain guilt. Furthermore, banning the death penalty allows us to remove the risk of executing an innocent person, something that will always remain should this punishment remain permitted."

Of course death penalty should happen ONLY if we are certain that the judged person is the criminal what is mostly what happens.

"Ah, yes, because the justice system is the embodiment of flawless perfection and impossible fallibility. It is easy to say "only if we are really sure", but how can you be really sure? There is no way to be infallibly certain whether someone is innocent or not. History has given us many cases of that."