[PASSED] Military Death Penalty Ban

[GreaterFrance]

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."

An advanced society doesn't allow its population to live under the risk of seeing a criminal attack against true innocent people.

[The Greater Tulsa Area]

"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."

I find the claim that "most" war criminals are young soldiers who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time to be frankly ridiculous. Most war criminals are adults, who are fully aware of what they are doing. Would you tell me that Heinrich Himmler was a innocent young boy mislead by propaganda? Would you tell Soviet families that the German soldiers who burned villages alive and raped their way across Eastern Europe were just "reacting poorly" in a dangerous situation? Most war criminals know exactly what heinous crimes they commit, and they all deserve the wall.

[Daarwyrth]

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."

An advanced society doesn't allow its population to live under the risk of seeing a criminal attack against true innocent people.

"Ambassador, are you familiar with the concept of 'incarceration'? It means that individuals who pose a threat to society are removed from society, by being lawfully imprisoned. As such, any threat they pose is removed. Death is the solution of savages, advanced societies find alternatives."

[GreaterFrance]

An advanced society doesn't allow its population to live under the risk of seeing a criminal attack against true innocent people.

"Ambassador, are you familiar with the concept of 'incarceration'? It means that individuals who pose a threat to society are removed from society, by being lawfully imprisoned. As such, any threat they pose is removed. Death is the solution of savages, advanced societies find alternatives."

We all now that life imprisonment is very barely respected and that criminals soon or later get a chance to be reintroduced in society, as you even mentioned. Also, even, life imprisonment is by definition more expensive for a country than a death penalty applied to a criminal.

[Daarwyrth]

"Ambassador, are you familiar with the concept of 'incarceration'? It means that individuals who pose a threat to society are removed from society, by being lawfully imprisoned. As such, any threat they pose is removed. Death is the solution of savages, advanced societies find alternatives."

We all now that life imprisonment is very barely respected and that criminals soon or later get a chance to be reintroduced in society, as you even mentioned. Also, even, life imprisonment is by definition more expensive for a country than a death penalty applied to a criminal.

"Mhm. And you have the facts and figures to prove your claim to me right now, or am I expected to simply take you on your word? Or even better, are you going to tell me to find the facts and figures myself? No, no, my dear Ambassador, you made the claim, you provide the evidence.

So what, no one deserves a chance to atone? To redeem themselves? We simply write off everyone who has wronged in their life? Is that a world you want to live in, Ambassador? Where lives are taken without the slightest chance being given for someone to become better? To atone for their crimes? You crave ruthlessness, yet fail to see how easily you yourself could fall prey to it."

[GreaterFrance]

We all now that life imprisonment is very barely respected and that criminals soon or later get a chance to be reintroduced in society, as you even mentioned. Also, even, life imprisonment is by definition more expensive for a country than a death penalty applied to a criminal.

"Mhm. And you have the facts and figures to prove your claim to me right now, or am I expected to simply take you on your word? Or even better, are you going to tell me to find the facts and figures myself? No, no, my dear Ambassador, you made the claim, you provide the evidence.

So what, no one deserves a chance to atone? To redeem themselves? We simply write off everyone who has wronged in their life? Is that a world you want to live in, Ambassador? Where lives are taken without the slightest chance being given for someone to become better? To atome for their crimes? You yearn for ruthlessness, yet fail to see how easily you yourself could fall prey to it."

I could ask the exact same for when you told me that the risk of having an innocent executed was high. The risk of having a criminal reoffend is definitely higher.

Everyone in the world gets a chance: the birth, the life. If someone chooses to use his or her chance to kill someone, then this chance is consumed. No one is forced to be a criminal. And no one should be forced to support the existence of a criminal.

[Illu-chi]

I say NAY. This bans the right of governments to execute war criminals and many times it is just best to give someone the death penalty as it makes the nation safer and the criminal cannot reoffend if he is dead at the hands of the guillotine. This proposal also is a perfect example of world assembly overreach.

The ship of war only docks once the war criminals pay their dues in blood.

[Daarwyrth]

"Mhm. And you have the facts and figures to prove your claim to me right now, or am I expected to simply take you on your word? Or even better, are you going to tell me to find the facts and figures myself? No, no, my dear Ambassador, you made the claim, you provide the evidence.

So what, no one deserves a chance to atone? To redeem themselves? We simply write off everyone who has wronged in their life? Is that a world you want to live in, Ambassador? Where lives are taken without the slightest chance being given for someone to become better? To atome for their crimes? You yearn for ruthlessness, yet fail to see how easily you yourself could fall prey to it."

I could ask the exact same for when you told me that the risk of having an innocent executed was high. The risk of having a criminal reoffend is definitely higher.

Everyone in the world gets a chance: the birth, the life. If someone chooses to use his or her chance to kill someone, then this chance is consumed. No one is forced to be a criminal. And no one should be forced to support the existence of a criminal.

"Evasion to my request, how predictable. You claim all these things to be true, you say words such as "everyone knows", and yet facts and figures seem to be too daunting a task for you to provide. I believe that says sufficiently enough about your position and how gravely mistaken you are in your viewpoints. But that is your right, to make mistakes. I won't wrote you off, Ambassador, simply because you have dug your heels into a morally reprehensible position. Daarwyrth believes in Second chances, and so too shall you have yours.

Oh, and here is a source for you to read, Ambassador. Oh, and here is another. And oh, a third one."

[Daarwyrth]

The ship of war only docks once the war criminals pay their dues in blood.

"Spare us your jingoistic ideologies, Ambassador, they impress no one."

[Daarwyrth]

The ship of war only docks once the war criminals pay their dues in blood.

"Spare us your jingoistic ideologies, Ambassador, they impress no one."

[GreaterFrance]

I could ask the exact same for when you told me that the risk of having an innocent executed was high. The risk of having a criminal reoffend is definitely higher.

Everyone in the world gets a chance: the birth, the life. If someone chooses to use his or her chance to kill someone, then this chance is consumed. No one is forced to be a criminal. And no one should be forced to support the existence of a criminal.

"Evasion to my request, how predictable. You claim all these things to be true, you say words such as "everyone knows", and yet facts and figures seem to be too daunting a task for you to provide. I believe that says sufficiently enough about your position and how gravely mistaken you are in your viewpoints. But that is your right, to make mistakes. I won't wrote you off, Ambassador, simply because you have dug your heels into a morally reprehensible position. Daarwyrth believes in Second chances, and so too shall you have yours.

Oh, and here is a source for you to read, Ambassador. Oh, and here is another."

https://oip.org/en-bref/la-prison-perme ... s%20%C2%BB. Here is a piece of proof that a huge majority of criminals after being liberted come back to prison less than 5 years after their liberation (63% in France, 66% in USA for example). If you wish to take a such risk for your population then it's your choice, it's not mine. We are here in a debate and every opinion should be respected and not bashed.
Also sorry but it is not a mistake to think differently from you.

[Daarwyrth]

"Evasion to my request, how predictable. You claim all these things to be true, you say words such as "everyone knows", and yet facts and figures seem to be too daunting a task for you to provide. I believe that says sufficiently enough about your position and how gravely mistaken you are in your viewpoints. But that is your right, to make mistakes. I won't wrote you off, Ambassador, simply because you have dug your heels into a morally reprehensible position. Daarwyrth believes in Second chances, and so too shall you have yours.

Oh, and here is a source for you to read, Ambassador. Oh, and here is another."

https://oip.org/en-bref/la-prison-perme ... s%20%C2%BB. Here is a piece of proof that a huge majority of criminals after being liberted come back to prison less than 5 years after their liberation (63% in France, 66% in USA for example). If you wish to take a such risk for your population then it's your choice, it's not mine. We are here in a debate and every opinion should be respected and not bashed. It is not a mistake to think differently from you.

"It is my right to consider your opinion morally reprehensible, just as much as it is your right to have it. Unless you mean to imply that I only get to have an opinion if I agree with you?

I respect that you have an opinion, Ambassador. I simply find its content reprehensible and morally wrong.

When I last checked, Daarwyrth has a very low crime rating, and oh, by the Seas! We have abolished the death penalty the moment our nation gained independence nearly three centuries ago. As you can see, Ambassador, violence and death are not the solution to every problem."

OOC: The occurence of one dataset in one country, is not indicative of a systematically recurring pattern. Recidivist numbers in the Netherlands for example have been dropping, and surprise, surprise, we don't have the death penalty! This source is from 2019, but since there is no English version, I can only provide it in Dutch. Google translate should give you a rough indication of what is said in it. And yes, I live in the Netherlands, so I am very much aware of what is happening in my country.

[GreaterFrance]

https://oip.org/en-bref/la-prison-perme ... s%20%C2%BB. Here is a piece of proof that a huge majority of criminals after being liberted come back to prison less than 5 years after their liberation (63% in France, 66% in USA for example). If you wish to take a such risk for your population then it's your choice, it's not mine. We are here in a debate and every opinion should be respected and not bashed. It is not a mistake to think differently from you.

"It is my right to consider your opinion morally reprehensible, just as much as it is your right to have it. Unless you mean to imply that I only get to have an opinion if I agree with you?

I respect that you have an opinion, Ambassador. I simply find its content reprehensible and morally wrong.

When I last checked, Daarwyrth has a very low crime rating, and oh, by the Seas! We have abolished the death penalty the moment our nation gained independence nearly three centuries ago. As you can see, Ambassador, violence and death are not the solution to every problem."

I was refering to how you considered that I was mistaken in my viewpoint, not how you consider my opinion.
I want to ensure safety to my nation. I don't think this is reprehensible and morally wrong to want GreaterFrench people to live safely. In GreaterFrance we practice death penalty and our crime rate is nearly equal to 0. No one in my country is willing to abolish it.

[Daarwyrth]

"It is my right to consider your opinion morally reprehensible, just as much as it is your right to have it. Unless you mean to imply that I only get to have an opinion if I agree with you?

I respect that you have an opinion, Ambassador. I simply find its content reprehensible and morally wrong.

When I last checked, Daarwyrth has a very low crime rating, and oh, by the Seas! We have abolished the death penalty the moment our nation gained independence nearly three centuries ago. As you can see, Ambassador, violence and death are not the solution to every problem."

I was refering to how you considered that I was mistaken in my viewpoint, not how you consider my opinion.
I want to ensure safety to my nation. I don't think this is reprehensible and morally wrong to want GreaterFrench people to live safely. In GreaterFrance we practice death penalty and our crime rate is nearly equal to 0. No one in my country is willing to abolish it.

"Ambassador, if I want to consider your opinion a mistake, then i absolutely have that right, in no small part to World Assembly laws giving me that right. If you don't consider your opinion as a mistake, then frankly that is your problem, but also your right. However, you don't have the right to tell me what I can consider as a mistake and what not, even if it is your own opinion. But, we digress from the topic at hand.

Judging from how the vote is proceeding, your nation is in a minority. Your people will have to adapt to the new status quo, and consider a different approach, rather than holding tightly to your current approaches to solving the problem of crime (of which there are plenty, mind you). The majority of this international body does not seem to share your viewpoint and position, after all."

[Illu-chi]

The ship of war only docks once the war criminals pay their dues in blood.

"Spare us your jingoistic ideologies, Ambassador, they impress no one."

The Constitutional monarchy of illu-chi(If you wondering illu-chi does not have a monarchy but did a long time ago) has a very peaceful foreign policy and let's other nations deal with their issues. The illu-chian people may supply a side in a war with weapons or manpower, but the government will not give any support to warring nations. The illu-chian government will only go to war if it is necessary to preserve the illu-chian peoples safety and rights so we are not jingoistic.

[Daarwyrth]

"Spare us your jingoistic ideologies, Ambassador, they impress no one."

The Constitutional monarchy of illu-chi(If you wondering illu-chi does not have a monarchy but did a long time ago) has a very peaceful foreign policy and let's other nations deal with their issues. The illu-chian people may supply a side in a war with weapons or manpower, but the government will not give any support to warring nations. The illu-chian government will only go to war if it is necessary to preserve the illu-chian peoples safety and rights so we are not jingoistic.

"The language you used was indicative of the opposite, Ambassador. I suggest you leave out the bloodthirst in the future, to create a different image of your nation and people."

[GreaterFrance]

I was refering to how you considered that I was mistaken in my viewpoint, not how you consider my opinion.
I want to ensure safety to my nation. I don't think this is reprehensible and morally wrong to want GreaterFrench people to live safely. In GreaterFrance we practice death penalty and our crime rate is nearly equal to 0. No one in my country is willing to abolish it.

"Ambassador, if I want to consider your opinion a mistake, then i absolutely have that right, in no small part to World Assembly laws giving me that right. If you don't consider your opinion as a mistake, then frankly that is your problem, but also your right. However, you don't have the right to tell me what I can consider as a mistake and what not, even if it is your own opinion. But, we digress from the topic at hand.

Judging from how the vote is proceeding, your nation is in a minority. You'll have to collectively adapt to the new status quo, and consider a different approach, rather than holding tightly to your current approaches to solving the problem of crime (of which there are plenty, mind you). The majority of this international body does not seem to share your viewpoint and position, after all."

You can consider an opinion bad but not a mistake, it means in that case that you consider that if people do not agree with you then it is a mistake, so you want people to have the same opinion. Maybe it is not the way you see that, but it is what is reflected.
Also it is not because a majority wants something that this something is the best, but that's the purpose of a vote. Also indeed there are plenty of ways to solve the problem of crime and death penalty is one of them, life imprisonment is not the only solution.

[Daarwyrth]

"Ambassador, if I want to consider your opinion a mistake, then i absolutely have that right, in no small part to World Assembly laws giving me that right. If you don't consider your opinion as a mistake, then frankly that is your problem, but also your right. However, you don't have the right to tell me what I can consider as a mistake and what not, even if it is your own opinion. But, we digress from the topic at hand.

Judging from how the vote is proceeding, your nation is in a minority. You'll have to collectively adapt to the new status quo, and consider a different approach, rather than holding tightly to your current approaches to solving the problem of crime (of which there are plenty, mind you). The majority of this international body does not seem to share your viewpoint and position, after all."

You can consider an opinion bad but not a mistake, it means in that case that you consider that if people do not agree with you then it is a mistake, so you want people to have the same opinion. Maybe it is not the way you see that, but it is what is reflected.
Also it is not because a majority wants something that this something is the best, but that's the purpose of a vote. Also indeed there are plenty of ways to solve the problem of crime and death penalty is one of them, life imprisonment is not the only solution.

"And here you again try to tell me what I can and can't do, Ambassador. If that is how you want to continue this discussion, then I will not partake in it. I believe you to be mistaken, based on the evidence and arguments you have provided me with. That is absolutely my right, just as it is yours to consider me mistaken. Yet somehow, I am not the one telling others what they can and can't consider or think. You, currently, are. Take a moment to reflect on that, Ambassador.

The death penalty is not a solution befitting of an advanced civilization, and you have failed to provide evidence and arguments to prove to me otherwise."

[Illu-chi]

The Constitutional monarchy of illu-chi(If you wondering illu-chi does not have a monarchy but did a long time ago) has a very peaceful foreign policy and let's other nations deal with their issues. The illu-chian people may supply a side in a war with weapons or manpower, but the government will not give any support to warring nations. The illu-chian government will only go to war if it is necessary to preserve the illu-chian peoples safety and rights so we are not jingoistic.

"The language you used was indicative of the opposite, Ambassador. I suggest you leave out the bloodthirst in the future, to create a different image of your nation and people."

It is not bloodthirst but the best means to an end of a conflict. War criminals are best dead in order to lower a chance of war with the same nation again.

[Daarwyrth]

"The language you used was indicative of the opposite, Ambassador. I suggest you leave out the bloodthirst in the future, to create a different image of your nation and people."

It is not bloodthirst but the best means to an end of a conflict. War criminals are best dead in order to lower a chance of war with the same nation again.

"I suggest you take a look at the definition of 'bloodthirst' in a dictionary, Ambassador. The language you use and used seems to be indicative of an eagerness to kill and display violent behaviour."

[Nepleslia]

-snip-

"And here you again try to tell me what I can and can't do, Ambassador. If that is how you want to continue this discussion, then I will not partake in it. I believe you to be mistaken, based on the evidence and arguments you have provided me with. That is absolutely my right, just as it is yours to consider me mistaken. Yet somehow, I am not the one telling others what they can and can't consider or think. You, currently, are. Take a moment to reflect on that, Ambassador.

The death penalty is not a solution befitting of an advanced civilization, and you have failed to provide evidence and arguments to prove to me otherwise."

Might I suggest taking “a moment to reflect” on what you just stated, Ambassador? You chastised the GreaterFrance ambassador for “telling others what they can and can’t consider or think” and then turned around and dictated to them what their nation - not yours, theirs - can and can’t do by asserting that “the death penalty is not a solution befitting of an advanced civilization.”

The irony, in my opinion, speaks for itself.

[GreaterFrance]

You can consider an opinion bad but not a mistake, it means in that case that you consider that if people do not agree with you then it is a mistake, so you want people to have the same opinion. Maybe it is not the way you see that, but it is what is reflected.
Also it is not because a majority wants something that this something is the best, but that's the purpose of a vote. Also indeed there are plenty of ways to solve the problem of crime and death penalty is one of them, life imprisonment is not the only solution.

"And here you again try to tell me what I can and can't do, Ambassador. If that is how you want to continue this discussion, then I will not partake in it. I believe you to be mistaken, based on the evidence and arguments you have provided me with. That is absolutely my right, just as it is yours to consider me mistaken. Yet somehow, I am not the one telling others what they can and can't consider or think. You, currently, are. Take a moment to reflect on that, Ambassador.

The death penalty is not a solution befitting of an advanced civilization, and you have failed to provide evidence and arguments to prove to me otherwise."

You told me what I couldn't do, I only answered to what you told me. You told me I didn't have the right to criticize the way you consider my opinion what is not really telling you what to do. Because I insist, telling people that they do a mistake while thinking differently from you is not right, it is not telling you what to do when I say that, it is only an observation.
You didn't show evidences either actually. It was not really compelling and didn't show anything conretely relatable. And you know why? Because there are evidences that prove what we defend and some others that prove the total contrary. There is absolutely no actual truth about this topic, only ways of considering the matter and what is the most important risk. You base your "crime policy" on life imprisonment and society reintroduction, it costs more, it makes your population undergo a potential reoffend but you don't kill potentially innocent people, I wish to expose criminals to death penalty, there is a risk of "death-penalting" an innocent but no risk for the population anymore and no more cost. You made your choice, I made mine and this is on these basis that people should choose and not more considerations.

[Illu-chi]

It is not bloodthirst but the best means to an end of a conflict. War criminals are best dead in order to lower a chance of war with the same nation again.

"I suggest you take a look at the definition of 'bloodthirst' in a dictionary, Ambassador. The language you use and used seems to be indicative of an eagerness to kill and display violent behaviour."

The illu-chian government and military does not support violence but sees it as necessary to show the population of the losing side that they were wrong and to make the population understand they lost. What you call bloodthirst I call the end to a conflict of interest and I know what bloodthirst means.

[Jedinsto]

"I suggest you take a look at the definition of 'bloodthirst' in a dictionary, Ambassador. The language you use and used seems to be indicative of an eagerness to kill and display violent behaviour."

The illu-chian government and military does not support violence but sees it as necessary to show the population of the losing side that they were wrong and to make the population understand they lost. What you call bloodthirst I call the end to a conflict of interest and I know what bloodthirst means.

Executing the opposition in a war to show them that they're wrong? "Yes, we ended the lives of our PoWs, we are right, you are wrong." What type of logic is that? This is literally just saying that murdering somebody is morally right. That's no stretch.

[Daarwyrth]

"I suggest you take a look at the definition of 'bloodthirst' in a dictionary, Ambassador. The language you use and used seems to be indicative of an eagerness to kill and display violent behaviour."

but sees it as necessary to show the population of the losing side that they were wrong and to make the population understand they lost

"The very definition of 'bloodthirsty', Ambassador, is embodied by your own words."