Capital Punishment?? (Draft)

[Absolvability]

Capital Punishment Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Dismayed at past attempts by this Assembly to prohibit Capital Punishment in any form. Recognizing that Capital Punishment is marginally unethical WHILE contesting that unreasonable criminals necessitate being dealt with unreasonably.

This proposal, therefore, seeks to express and define a fair duality between humane practices of and intentions for Capital Punishment and the affirmation of a nation's right to implement such measures.

Equally AFFIRMS each nation's right to abstain from such practices or implement them should they so choose.

Stipulates that Capital Punishment be exclusive to convicted murderers, rapists, severe repeat offenders with a history of being lethally armed, and those convicted of treason.

Confines the definition of treason, for the sake of this proposal only, to describe an assassination attempt on a government elected official or an attempt at overthrowing the national government. The latter of which is not to be construed to include any forms of demonstration or expression granted citizens internationally or nationally.

In case of Capital Punishment all convicted shall be entitled to a 1 month grace period, before the end of which they (or their lawyer/counsel,) shall be responsible for announcing any intentions of appeal. Once intentions have been announced due process shall take its natural course.

Hereby MANDATES that each nation must exercise the most humane method of Capital Punishment available to them.

Confines the definition of humane, for the sake of this proposal only, to mean "quick and painless."

Encourages nations to implement the most cost-efficient means of execution when such methods are still in accordance with other clauses.

Hereby FORBIDS mass public executions of any kind on the grounds that it is an inhumane and vengeful intention of Capital Punishment to be used to make an example to a vast audience.

DECLARES it an unalienable right of those sentenced to death that they may deny anybody from baring witness to their death that they wish, notwithstanding the legal need to have official witness.

MANDATES that methods of Capital Punishment be, when technologically possible, automated. Which is to say operated by a machine or a computer rather than a person.

ENCOURAGES nations to consider that, when human executioners ARE necessary, there should be more than one and neither should ever know who actually did the deed. (Example: Firing squad. Only one of the shooters has a bullet.)
Provided willing host countries can be found, nations are encouraged to find foreign prisons in which to house their otherwise death sentenced criminals.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Suggestion: A good grace period would be needed to allow appeals and further investigations.

[Ketrily]

Fantastic!!

But also putting down:
REVISE the need for executions, based upon Religious Based Offences, Much like, but not limited to, Islamic Shaira Hadd offences

[Absolvability]

Fantastic!! REVISE the need for executions, based upon Religious Based Offences, Much like, but not limited to, Islamic Shaira Hadd offences

Well, I'm glad you seem to like the 'overall' of this statute. I'm not sure I'd be willing to allow religious based offenses into the need for executions... unless you care to share with me some more specific detail.

Suggestion: A good grace period would be needed to allow appeals and further investigations.

Definately. Well, to some extent. I'll refine the wording later (after I examine whatever pre-existing legislation may exist in the way of appeals and whatnot,) but here's what I'm thinking...

"In case of Capital Punishment all convicted shall be entitled to a 6 month grace period, before the end of which they (their lawyer,) shall be responsible for announcing any intentions of appeal."

And I might go on to say that if they do opt for an appeal then this must be upheld by law. But I suspect there is a resolution somewhere that says such... and I'm now off to try and find it.

Oh, and as a side-note, I want to include in the proposal an affirmation of the rights of nations to abstain from capital punishment. This is probably unnecessary, but I don't want the context of the proposal to show evident preference.

[Ketrily]

I didn't put It very clearly, Did I?

Ok what I meant was:

REMOVE certain criteria that are punishable by execution including, but not entirely composed of:
~Religious based laws such as, but not just, Islamic Hadd offences
~Treason, unless such treason jepordizes the lives and rights of the people of such nation
~Petty Offences
~Critisizing the Government
~Blasphemy

[Absolvability]

I didn't put It very clearly, Did I?

Well, maybe not. But I suspect I was at original fault, since I must not've put it very clearly in the proposal. I have incorporated into the text a list of crimes punishable by capital punishment. This is murder, rape, treason (see the proposal definition and please comment,) and severe repeat offenses of... anything that would lead to damn near eternal imprisonment that tax payers need not be responsible for.

"Stipulates that Capital Punishment be exclusive to convicted murderers, rapists, severe repeat offenders, and those convicted of treason.

Confines the definition of treason, for the sake of this proposal only, to describe an assassination attempt on a government elected official or an attempt at overthrowing the national government. The latter of which is not to be construed to include any forms of demonstration or expression granted citizens internationally or nationally."

Does this suffice? I hesitate to add a list of what CAN'T be punishable by capital punishment because it may be redundant.

[Malikov]

Wouldn't it be easier to send convicts of a dangerous nature (of which you've mentioned numerous times) that would receive life scentences, into exile? I know that my suggestion can be shot down easily, but I'm curious of your veiw on it.

[Absolvability]

Wouldn't it be easier to send convicts of a dangerous nature (of which you've mentioned numerous times) that would receive life scentences, into exile? I know that my suggestion can be shot down easily, but I'm curious of your veiw on it.

To say that I don't agree isn't at all to 'shoot you down.' I'd be more than happy to explain why I don't think that is a good idea.

First and foremost... you can't exactly expect criminals to remain in exile, can you? Especially not the especially dangerous ones that would merit a death penalty anyway. They'll either come back illegally... or, find a new place to call home and commit crimes in. While it may solve domestic problems sufficiently enough, I don't think relocating criminals solves much in the long run, or in the 'big picture' of the world.

Also... where would we send them? To be fair to you, I suppose you mean to imply some uninhabited land. In which case they'd either die anyway... or somehow manage to live a very free and independant life. To be perfectly frank with you, I don't think they're entitled to the latter.

[Rutianas]

Hereby MANDATES that each nation must exercise the most humane method of Capital Punishment available to them.

Confines the definition of humane, for the sake of this proposal only, to mean "quick and painless."

Recognizing that, ethics aside, it is most often economically sound to implement Capital Punishment. Therefore urging nations to consider a bullet to be just as quick and painless as a lethal injection. Noting that "quick and painless," should not imply to deny nations the right to use cost-efficient methods. Or to say that 'messy' implies pain.

Okay, just one comment. There may be nations that just plain don't have any possible way to comply. They may only have hangings and the like and not yet developed guns or lethal injections. What are they to do?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

Okay, just one comment. There may be nations that just plain don't have any possible way to comply. They may only have hangings and the like and not yet developed guns or lethal injections. What are they to do?

Well, directly to the point, the proposal states that they must make use of the MOST humane way available to them. So if they only have hangings... that's the most humane way. And this proposal would mandate that they administer the hangings humanely. Which is to say... not in public... and, if one could figure out a way, not have a single individual consciously 'pull the switch,' as it were.

More importantly than that last part, since it's only encouraged... there is a right way and a wrong way to hang people. Which is why I defined humane as simply "quick and painless." What looks gruesome is most often both quick and painless. It is not at all difficult to completely decapitate a body by way of hanging. I should think this would be extremely humane.

The point is... don't let them dangle and suffocate to death. It's easy enough to drop them from an extra foot or so, right?

[Rutianas]

Okay, just one comment. There may be nations that just plain don't have any possible way to comply. They may only have hangings and the like and not yet developed guns or lethal injections. What are they to do?

Well, directly to the point, the proposal states that they must make use of the MOST humane way available to them. So if they only have hangings... that's the most humane way. And this proposal would mandate that they administer the hangings humanely. Which is to say... not in public... and, if one could figure out a way, not have a single individual consciously 'pull the switch,' as it were.

More importantly than that last part, since it's only encouraged... there is a right way and a wrong way to hang people. Which is why I defined humane as simply "quick and painless." What looks gruesome is most often both quick and painless. It is not at all difficult to completely decapitate a body by way of hanging. I should think this would be extremely humane.

The point is... don't let them dangle and suffocate to death. It's easy enough to drop them from an extra foot or so, right?

Thank you for clarifying this. Naturally, I have issues with this, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. I will not be supporting this.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

Thank you for clarifying this. Naturally, I have issues with this, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. I will not be supporting this.

Forgive me if I'm incorrect... but I believe I have reviewed your comments on the other proposal regarding Capital Punishment. I should think the first problem you would've had with my version is that it outlaws public displays. Would you care to discuss that with me?

As far as the rest of your comments, if I recall, you said that people caught attempting to assassinate members of your government... and/or imperial family (I really forget how you put it exactly,) were captured... convicted... and publicly executed. All in a matter of seconds, I think you said.

Are you aware that you're in violation of past resolution "Fairness in Criminal Trials?"

Also... please, discuss this with me. I'm curious what you may have to say, whether or not I can get your support.

[Rutianas]

Thank you for clarifying this. Naturally, I have issues with this, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. I will not be supporting this.

Forgive me if I'm incorrect... but I believe I have reviewed your comments on the other proposal regarding Capital Punishment. I should think the first problem you would've had with my version is that it outlaws public displays. Would you care to discuss that with me?

As far as the rest of your comments, if I recall, you said that people caught attempting to assassinate members of your government... and/or imperial family (I really forget how you put it exactly,) were captured... convicted... and publicly executed. All in a matter of seconds, I think you said.

Are you aware that you're in violation of past resolution "Fairness in Criminal Trials?"

Also... please, discuss this with me. I'm curious what you may have to say, whether or not I can get your support.

Oh, they're not captured. They're just convicted and shot by their own actions at attempting to murder a member of the Imperial Family. It's that or let them be torn to pieces sitting in jail, or on the way to court, or sitting in court, by very angry people that may end up as a mob out for blood. Now, which would be the more humane method there?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

Oh, they're not captured. They're just convicted and shot by their own actions at attempting to murder a member of the Imperial Family. It's that or let them be torn to pieces sitting in jail, or on the way to court, or sitting in court, by very angry people that may end up as a mob out for blood. Now, which would be the more humane method there?

I apologize, Ambassador. It was I who went off topic... I wanted to ask a question, but really shouldn't have. I never intended it to be the meat of your response. I'd much rather discuss this proposal than pretend to know anything about your court or jail systems. Also, whether or nor you're in compliance with past resolutions has no bearing upon my demeanor towards you.

[Rutianas]

I apologize, Ambassador. It was I who went off topic... I wanted to ask a question, but really shouldn't have. I never intended it to be the meat of your response. I'd much rather discuss this proposal than pretend to know anything about your court or jail systems. Also, whether or nor you're in compliance with past resolutions has no bearing upon my demeanor towards you.

Oh, we're in compliance. I had my aide do a bit of research on this. A situation like I described is considered self defense by our laws (which I believe you claimed to know nothing about our court system, so how could you possibly know if we are in compliance or not) as the Palace Guard are considered an extension of the Imperial Family. They are perfectly capable of eliminating an imminent threat and call it self defense.

Taking that into consideration, it appears that we would not have any potential problems with this passage:

Hereby FORBIDS public executions on the grounds that it is an inhumane and vengeful intention of Capital Punishment to be used to make an example to a vast audience or to provide comfort to a congregation of victims' relatives.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Absolvability]

Oh, we're in compliance. I had my aide do a bit of research on this. A situation like I described is considered self defense by our laws (which I believe you claimed to know nothing about our court system, so how could you possibly know if we are in compliance or not) as the Palace Guard are considered an extension of the Imperial Family. They are perfectly capable of eliminating an imminent threat and call it self defense.

I already apologized once. Can we move on?

Taking that into consideration, it appears that we would not have any potential problems with this passage: ...........

I'm glad you don't disapprove of that passage. I like that part very much. May I ask what you do have problems with?

[Rutianas]

I already apologized once. Can we move on?

I was just setting the record straight that we were not in non-compliance.

I'm glad you don't disapprove of that passage. I like that part very much. May I ask what you do have problems with?

Did I say that? I said we wouldn't have any potential problems with it. Not that I didn't disapprove of it.

One passage that I will say I do agree with is that it should be done by computer or machine where possible.

The Republic just does not like restricting a nation's right to capital punishment. Of course, we wish it were not necessary, but even we must admit that there are times rehabilitation just doesn't work.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Osgarna]

Despite my belief that capital punishment is always barbaric regardless of how humanely it is carried out, this proposal has my support. However, somewhat in line with Malikov's comments, perhaps it should include some provision urging nations to extradite prisoners who would otherwise be executed to other nations that would be willing to keep them imprisoned or continue to attempt to rehabilitate them whenever the option is available.

[Absolvability]

However, somewhat in line with Malikov's comments, perhaps it should include some provision urging nations to extradite prisoners who would otherwise be executed to other nations that would be willing to keep them imprisoned or continue to attempt to rehabilitate them whenever the option is available.

I don't know. To be honest, I don't like the idea of exiling these sorts of prisoners. I've explained why. I'd very much like to hear the other side of the arguement, if you wouldn't mind.

To say I don't want to include it in my proposal isn't to say that it wouldn't be allowed, mind you. This proposal does not really take a side on whether or not Capital Punishment should be legal. Therefore what you mentioned remains a perfectly viable option for anybody that would like to do such. I don't want to put it into this legislation simply because, even if only 'encouraged,' it would take some small effect... and I think it would generate more opposition than support. Sending prisoners away sounds all well and good until we consider that, recipricolly, we'll be accepting prisoners of other countries into our own nations.

[Bears Armed]

And sending traitors away, when they might well end up in (and being treated very well in) the nations on whose behalf they committed their crimes, would just be bloody stupid!

[Urgench]

We could not support, under any circumstances, a law which enabled other states to execute our citizens who may have commited crimes in foreign states.

This law is deeply revolting in its ambivalence to judicial murder, and seems to apologise for the state's right to take the life of a citizen. This is utterly unacceptable to us.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

The proposal is not at all apologetic. Nor does it take a stance on whether or not the death penalty should be legal. What it does do... or tries to do...
"This proposal, therefore, seeks to express and define a fair duality between humane practices of and intentions for Capital Punishment and the affirmation of a nation's right to implement such measures."

[Urgench]

The proposal is not at all apologetic. Nor does it take a stance on whether or not the death penalty should be legal. What it does do... or tries to do...
"This proposal, therefore, seeks to express and define a fair duality between humane practices of and intentions for Capital Punishment and the affirmation of a nation's right to implement such measures."

To call any kind of judicial murder "humane" is to pretend that it can ever be moral, it cannot, that is the apology.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

To call any kind of judicial murder "humane" is to pretend that it can ever be moral, it cannot, that is the apology.

I'll apologize for this, if you'd like. The proposal won't. The proposal defines humane as being "quick and painless." The proposal also explains that, however unethical, unreasonable people necessitate being dealt with unreasonably. This is not an apology. It is an affirmation.

Considering the proposal affirms your right not to use the death penalty... I'd think you would support implementing the rest into nations that do, in fact, use it.

[Urgench]

To call any kind of judicial murder "humane" is to pretend that it can ever be moral, it cannot, that is the apology.

I'll apologize for this, if you'd like. The proposal won't. The proposal defines humane as being "quick and painless." The proposal also explains that, however unethical, unreasonable people necessitate being dealt with unreasonably. This is not an apology. It is an affirmation.

Considering the proposal affirms your right not to use the death penalty... I'd think you would support implementing the rest into nations that do, in fact, use it.

So if the honoured Ambassador wrote a resolution which made it legal for states to choose to infibulate all of their female population or indeed to choose to ban that disgusting practice instead they would expect us to support such a statute would they ?

Why would support a resolution which makes it legal for the state to choose to become a murderer, and which allows are citizens to be murdered by other states ?


Yours,