Capital Punishment?? (Draft)

[Absolvability]

...and will prevent the possibility of banning this outrage against human dignity.

Human dignity, in a shared sense, is an obscure concept that only works on paper. In order to provide for the greater human dignity we must eliminate those that trespass upon it. This is an economic and defensive stance. To say that the state should not have the authority to sentence dangers to society to death is to imply that cops shouldn't have guns. I'd really prefer not to argue these ideals with an idealist. I'm trying to be a realist, Ambassador. I find it very hard to believe that the death penalty will ever be abolished by this Assembly. You are unwilling to take a much needed step in the direction of what you find appealing because you fancy the idea of an abrupt leap to the other side. I do not think that this Assembly should endeavor to please everyone, but I do think compromising is important. The world is not perfect. We will not find perfect solutions. Finding middle-ground is necessary because every issue has two sides and we are not wise enough to establish absolute rights or wrongs. Things depend, Ambassador.

And what of miscarriages of justice ?

Fairness in Criminal Trials comes to mind. I have more faith in my judicial system, Ambassador. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and defend against possible appeal attempts, then what more do we need? Without removing all respect for the process?

So your Excellency believes there are justifications for murder ?

Indubidably.

Keep in mind, please, that I've only really been entertaining your definition of murder because it is your right to call things whatever you wish... provided I understand you... and I think I do. But please understand me, also.

not killing mind you, that is different in law, but murder ?

Precisely. It's different.

[Qumkent]

...and will prevent the possibility of banning this outrage against human dignity.

Human dignity, in a shared sense, is an obscure concept that only works on paper. In order to provide for the greater human dignity we must eliminate those that trespass upon it. This is an economic and defensive stance. To say that the state should not have the authority to sentence dangers to society to death is to imply that cops shouldn't have guns. I'd really prefer not to argue these ideals with an idealist. I'm trying to be a realist, Ambassador. I find it very hard to believe that the death penalty will ever be abolished by this Assembly. You are unwilling to take a much needed step in the direction of what you find appealing because you fancy the idea of an abrupt leap to the other side. I do not think that this Assembly should endeavor to please everyone, but I do think compromising is important. The world is not perfect. We will not find perfect solutions. Finding middle-ground is necessary because every issue has two sides and we are not wise enough to establish absolute rights or wrongs. Things depend, Ambassador.

And what of miscarriages of justice ?

Fairness in Criminal Trials comes to mind. I have more faith in my judicial system, Ambassador. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and defend against possible appeal attempts, then what more do we need? Without removing all respect for the process?

So your Excellency believes there are justifications for murder ?

Indubidably.

Keep in mind, please, that I've only really been entertaining your definition of murder because it is your right to call things whatever you wish... provided I understand you... and I think I do. But please understand me, also.

not killing mind you, that is different in law, but murder ?

Precisely. It's different.

It is extraordinary that someone writing a law regarding the punishment of criminals should have so frail a grasp of criminal law and its workings. By any standard execution is logically the same as a cold blooded assassination. The fact that states choose to pretend that it is not is an example of human duplicity and is an attempt to perfume a cadaverous stench of corruption and immorality.

Whatever rationalisation states may use, what they do when they execute criminals is murder. Armed police are not acting in the same way as the state when it executes when they are compelled to use their weapon, and indeed the argument your Excellency speciously used to justify murder actually does apply to use of firearms by police persons, namely that of self defence or defence of others, and this because such use occurs when direct and imminent threats to life are apparent and when no other means would prevent such threats from being actuated.

What your Excellency calls "compromise" we call apologism, in this case apologism for appalling barbarity and murder, would your Excellency advocate "compromise" with genocidaires because "it depends" ?

And as to trust in judicial systems, we are shocked that a delegation posing as "realist" would be so naive as to think that any man made system is not capable of failing or being corrupted, it is not a matter of presuming that court do not work, it is a matter of presuming that those who work in them will often make mistakes, and they do. It is hardly idealistic on our part to presume that a) human beings are capable of abject failure, and b) that the consequences of such failure in this case are grievous in the extreme.

We are disgusted that your Excellency could countenance making apology for this kind of monstrosity, and could compromise with the idea of the state becoming as much of a sociopath as those it executes.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

It is extraordinary that someone writing a law regarding the punishment of criminals should have so frail a grasp of criminal law and its workings.

I am only writing a law regarding one punishment of criminals. As such, I am discussing morality more than criminal law and its workings. Since this statute takes no official stance as far as "Yay or Nay." At any rate... criminal law works differently in each nation.

it is not a matter of presuming that court do not work, it is a matter of presuming that those who work in them will often make mistakes, and they do.

My courts do not often fail. As far as has been proven, they never fail. To suppose that they have is very realistic considering that we are limited to doing the best possible job we can, and that is never perfect. The same can be said for any man-made process. But, since we can do no better than our best, we need not worry about this negligible margin of error. I don't know much about your courts, Ambassador, in ours the burden of proof is upon the prosecution.

and this because such use occurs when direct and imminent threats to life are apparent and when no other means would prevent such threats from being actuated.

Since we're going to admit the possible faults in our court systems lets also address the possible faults in our prison systems. Is it not MORE than likely that a convicted criminal will continue to commit crimes in jail? Do you not care about this, because they will only be hurting other criminals? The death penalty IS self defense. Notwithstanding your naive adherence to pacifism.

What your Excellency calls "compromise" we call apologism

And might I say that you've been seen to compromise as scarcely as you've been seen to apologize.

would your Excellency advocate "compromise" with genocidaires because "it depends" ?

If you could only answer questions are creatively as you pose them, Ambassador, we wouldn't have any problems.

[Qumkent]

I am only writing a law regarding one punishment of criminals. As such, I am discussing morality more than criminal law and its workings. Since this statute takes no official stance as far as "Yay or Nay." At any rate... criminal law works differently in each nation.

And the law regarding punishment of criminals has nothing to do with criminal law ? Surely the honoured Ambassador could not have set himself on this course of action under such a gross misapprehension ?

As far as has been proven, they never fail.

This is either deceitful or deeply foolish. It is absurd to pretend that any nation's judicial system has never made an error such a system would be inhumanly perfect.

To suppose that they have is very realistic considering that we are limited to doing the best possible job we can, and that is never perfect. The same can be said for any man-made process. But, since we can do no better than our best, we need not worry about this negligible margin of error. I don't know much about your courts, Ambassador, in ours the burden of proof is upon the prosecution.

A "negligible margin of error" ? Is this what your Excellency calls the murder of innocent people ? The burden of proof being placed upon the prosecution in a criminal case is not some kind of total barrier to error, to presume that it is is astonishing.

Since we're going to admit the possible faults in our court systems lets also address the possible faults in our prison systems. Is it not MORE than likely that a convicted criminal will continue to commit crimes in jail? Do you not care about this, because they will only be hurting other criminals? The death penalty IS self defense.

This represents a failure to properly organise and fund one's prison system, and is not a justification for judicial murder.

Notwithstanding your naive adherence to pacifism.

The CSKU is not remotely pacifist, and an aversion to war has nothing to do with being opposed to judicial murder. The CSKU is the descendant state of the re-founded Mongol empire, pacifism has nothing to do with our stance, the right for human beings to live without the threat of being legally murdered by their government has everything to do with our position.

And might I say that you've been seen to compromise as scarcely as you've been seen to apologize.

We do not compromise with the legal justification of murder, and we have nothing to apologise for in not so doing.

If you could only answer questions are creatively as you pose them, Ambassador, we wouldn't have any problems.

Perhaps your Excellency would be wise to understand that often the best and only answer to a question ( one actuated by a faulty logic ) is to pose another question which points out the illogic of the original question.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Well then I won't be recieving your support either. Honestly, you keep saying the same shit over and over... most of which shows absolutely no signs of having taken into consideration anything I say. Debate with you is pointless. In fact, I'm starting to see that this body in general is incapable of doing anything other than charity work. Nobody knows how to compromise. Cliche phrases have been long-since developed to serve a variety of dismissive arguements. You want to scream holy murder, go right ahead. I'm tired of you using a flawed judicial system as a fundamental part of your arguement and then suddenly acting like a prison system is run by something greater than the very same humans with the very same intentions.

You are a computer without internet access, Ambassador. Very intelligent, but incapable of learning anything else.

[Qumkent]

Well then I won't be recieving your support either. Honestly, you keep saying the same shit over and over... most of which shows absolutely no signs of having taken into consideration anything I say. Debate with you is pointless. In fact, I'm starting to see that this body in general is incapable of doing anything other than charity work. Nobody knows how to compromise. Cliche phrases have been long-since developed to serve a variety of dismissive arguements. You want to scream holy murder, go right ahead. I'm tired of you using a flawed judicial system as a fundamental part of your arguement and then suddenly acting like a prison system is run by something greater than the very same humans with the very same intentions.

You are a computer without internet access, Ambassador. Very intelligent, but incapable of learning anything else.

Foul language and insults do not make up good persuasion honoured Ambassador. We are not here to learn at the feet of the world renowned wiseman, the Ambassador for Absolvability, indeed is anyone ? We are here to present the position of the government of the Prince of Qumkent. Your Excellency seems to think that we should be swayed by frail arguments used to justify the unjustifiable, why ?

We did not by the way imply that any prison system no matter how well organised or funded could completely eliminate the commission of crimes amongst criminal inmates, but this still cannot justify the state becoming as immoral and debased as those it presumes to incarcerate.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Foul language and insults do not make up good persuasion honoured Ambassador.

I've ceased to believe you can be persuaded.

We are not here to learn at the feet of the world renowned wiseman, the Ambassador for Absolvability, indeed is anyone ?

You can learn from a fool too.

We are here to present the position of the government of the Prince of Qumkent.

There's another one of those dismissive arguements I was talking about. I refuse to believe, considering the tone and vehemence of your arguements, that you take anything other than blather back to your own nation. Throwing around the word murder, like you do.

Your Excellency seems to think that we should be swayed by frail arguments used to justify the unjustifiable, why ?

It is not unjustifiable. I have been trying to explain why. You are the one implementing FRAIL arguements. Throwing around words with intentionally one-sided connotations. Arguing on the very most circumstantial and hypothetical grounds for any point I happen to make... in order to render them moot, and your conscious clean.

I support the death penalty. I support abortion. I support suicide. You say that none of this has anything to do with religion... I say you're a fool. We must unshackle ourselves from some unrealistic view of morality and begin operating as best we can with what is available to us. What makes life so damned precious, anyway? Especially the life of a murderer? We must treat them humanely so that we are not defiled by immoral actions. This does not include the preservation of their decidedly offensive life.

I maintain that capital punishment is self defense. As such, it is justifiable.

We did not by the way imply that any prison system no matter how well organised or funded could completely eliminate the commission of crimes amongst criminal inmates,

You didn't say so but you did imply it... by chalking the problems I mentioned up to a lack of organization and funding. Don't worry, Ambassador, I didn't take you seriously. I am well accustomed to your previously described dismissive nature.

but this still cannot justify the state becoming as immoral and debased as those it presumes to incarcerate.

Have you no inner scale? Can you not balance a greater good? Isn't it mathematically... morally... and most OBVIOUSLY better to commit one more "murder" in order to stop someone that has proven to be a continued threat to society? Granted, Ambassador, in a perfect world such things wouldn't be necessary. I know of no such world.

[Urgench]

I support the death penalty. I support abortion. I support suicide. You say that none of this has anything to do with religion... I say you're a fool. We must unshackle ourselves from some unrealistic view of morality and begin operating as best we can with what is available to us. What makes life so damned precious, anyway? Especially the life of a murderer? We must treat them humanely so that we are not defiled by immoral actions. This does not include the preservation of their decidedly offensive life.

I maintain that capital punishment is self defense. As such, it is justifiable.


Have you no inner scale? Can you not balance a greater good? Isn't it mathematically... morally... and most OBVIOUSLY better to commit one more "murder" in order to stop someone that has proven to be a continued threat to society? Granted, Ambassador, in a perfect world such things wouldn't be necessary. I know of no such world.

Our "inner scale" as you put warns us that the state must be directly answerable to the people, and that to give the state the right to murder its citizens is a very dangerous proceeding indeed. Execution bears no similarity to self defence as defined by most sensible laws, and cannot be defined as anything other than murder, to pretend otherwise is an attempt to salve the guilt of those who support this vengeful and barbaric practice.

Our position is perfectly realistic and comes from no idealism on our part, the state should not murder, and should not be given the power to wield the power of life and death over it's citizen, this is because it radically redraws the power map placing the citizenry at the mercy of a state which can decide to murder them if it chooses, and can do so for reasons of its own. Power should reside with the citizen, not with the state. The state cannot realistically be trusted to use such power when it is capable of corruption or negligence.

Life is precious to those living it, and we would challenge the honoured Ambassador to be so careless of their own life were they to face their mortality.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Our "inner scale" as you put warns us that the state must be directly answerable to the people,

Agreed. You don't mean to say that the state is directly answerable to criminals though, do you?

Execution bears no similarity to self defence as defined by most sensible laws, and cannot be defined as anything other than murder, to pretend otherwise is an attempt to salve the guilt of those who support this vengeful and barbaric practice.

Self-defense, as you seem to want it so narrowly defined, entails an immediate and violent response to an equally violent attack. Unfortunately, as far as the legal system goes... we must CONVICT somebody of their crime before sentencing them. This is why the honored Ambassador of Urgench... or wherever the hell you're from these days... can't seem to get it through his head that even a delayed reaction is still DIRECTLY precipitous of the criminal's own threat to society. It is indeed self-defense, and I feel no guilt.

this is because it radically redraws the power map placing the citizenry at the mercy of a state which can decide to murder them if it chooses, and can do so for reasons of its own.

And the state can also detain a citizen if they so choose. Or... doesn't your nation have any laws, Ambassador? Again, your hypocrisy exists in the fact that you consider the most severe punishment for a criminal to be subject to a different set of laws than the less severe. I don't think you consider taking a criminal to jail to be kidnapping, do you? But you consider capital punishment to be murder. Hmm.

At any rate, if this proposal were to pass, a nation could not actually do so for reasons of its own. But you're so busy screaming holy murder that you refuse to see how this legislation would benefit your own point of view. You'd rather hold out for a resolution that will never come.

Power should reside with the citizen, not with the state. The state cannot realistically be trusted to use such power when it is capable of corruption or negligence.

There you go getting circumstantial and hypothetical again. Aren't citizens ALSO capable of corruption and negligence? That isn't at all to the point... but, sometimes, I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell you're getting at anyway.

[Qumkent]

Agreed. You don't mean to say that the state is directly answerable to criminals though, do you?

Do criminals cease to become citizens in Absolvability as well as face the prospect of being murdered by their own government ?

Self-defense, as you seem to want it so narrowly defined, entails an immediate and violent response to an equally violent attack. Unfortunately, as far as the legal system goes... we must CONVICT somebody of their crime before sentencing them. This is why the honored Ambassador of Urgench... or wherever the hell you're from these days... can't seem to get it through his head that even a delayed reaction is still DIRECTLY precipitous of the criminal's own threat to society. It is indeed self-defense, and I feel no guilt.

No what you are describing honoured Ambassador is cold bloodedly calculated and vengeful murder, no amount of contortion and self deceit on your part will make it otherwise.

And the state can also detain a citizen if they so choose. Or... doesn't your nation have any laws, Ambassador? Again, your hypocrisy exists in the fact that you consider the most severe punishment for a criminal to be subject to a different set of laws than the less severe. I don't think you consider taking a criminal to jail to be kidnapping, do you? But you consider capital punishment to be murder. Hmm.

The State has a duty of care toward it citizens, it removes dangerous criminals from the midst of the general public to protect the public from these individuals, and at the behest of the people.

At any rate, if this proposal were to pass, a nation could not actually do so for reasons of its own. But you're so busy screaming holy murder that you refuse to see how this legislation would benefit your own point of view. You'd rather hold out for a resolution that will never come.

How on earth does a statute which codifies a protection of the state's right to commit murder benefit our position ?

There you go getting circumstantial and hypothetical again. Aren't citizens ALSO capable of corruption and negligence? That isn't at all to the point... but, sometimes, I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell you're getting at anyway.

Perhaps your Excellency cannot understand us because you are to busy attempting to formulate ever more contorted and specious ways of defending an indefensible position.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Perhaps your Excellency cannot understand us because you are to busy attempting to formulate ever more contorted and specious ways of defending an indefensible position.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, you are failing miserably at drawing the most logical conclusion to your own arguements.

The State has a duty of care toward it citizens, it removes dangerous criminals from the midst of the general public to protect the public from these individuals, and at the behest of the people.

First underlined point: Self defense??? Duh. At least as I've been describing it.
Second underlined point: Lets assume that democracies use the death penalty too, okay? I assure you... we do.

So what do we have here. The state has a duty to protect law abiding citizens from those that are proven dangerous. Okay... we agree.

We did not by the way imply that any prison system no matter how well organised or funded could completely eliminate the commission of crimes amongst criminal inmates,

We also agree that a criminal may continue to endanger others even when eternally imprisoned.

Do criminals cease to become citizens in Absolvability as well as face the prospect of being murdered by their own government ?

We agree that criminals are citizens, and therefore also deserve protecting.

At what point, Ambassador, do you fail to see the need for a PERMANENT solution to an individual's violence? At what point do they become such a burden upon society that it should AT LEAST be a nation's sovereign choice to kill them? IN DEFENSE OF ITS CITIZENS.

[Qumkent]

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, you are failing miserably at drawing the most logical conclusion to your own arguements.

It is not logical that the state should be able to murder people.

First underlined point: Self defense??? Duh. At least as I've been describing it.

But the state isn't defending itself when it murders a criminal. If a citizen killed an their attacker this would be self defense. Imprisonment is not self defense since the state is not defending itself from the criminal, it is protecting the citizenry as a precaution.

There are logical positions which argue that the only crime which a state may choose to defend itself from with the use of the ultimate sanction is treason, since in this case the State is actually defending itself, we can follow that logic but we do not agree with it's conclusion. Or at least we suggest that though the state must defend itself it must also be merciful.

So what do we have here. The state has a duty to protect law abiding citizens from those that are proven dangerous. Okay... we agree.

No the state has a duty to protect all of its citizens, we never made your qualification about only the law abiding being deserving of protection.

We also agree that a criminal may continue to endanger others even when eternally imprisoned.

yes and we simply believe that the state must do it's best to prevent this, the fact that it may fail to do so does not give it the right to commit murder.

At what point, Ambassador, do you fail to see the need for a PERMANENT solution to an individual's violence? At what point do they become such a burden upon society that it should AT LEAST be a nation's sovereign choice to kill them? IN DEFENSE OF ITS CITIZENS.

How is the state defending its citizens if it has the right to murder them ? The state operates in this situation not as protector but as oppressor. The State cannot prevent all and every instance of harm to individual citizens and the death penalty certainly does not make that possible, the fact that it may fail to protect every citizen at all times does not mean that the state should have the right to murder.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

I wish you'd have the patience to read what I wrote as a whole before you begin formulating your response. Specifically in case of that last post, I was trying to put together a bit of a puzzle for you. Most of your comments for, as example, clause B were answered by clause C. Seriously, you speak of logic... but you can't follow a perfectly linear arguement.

It is not your inflexibility in changing your stances on the over-all that annoy me, Ambassador, it is your staunch adherence to your own perspective on even the most minor of details.

[Qumkent]

I wish you'd have the patience to read what I wrote as a whole before you begin formulating your response. Specifically in case of that last post, I was trying to put together a bit of a puzzle for you. Most of your comments for, as example, clause B were answered by clause C. Seriously, you speak of logic... but you can't follow a perfectly linear arguement.

It is not your inflexibility in changing your stances on the over-all that annoy me, Ambassador, it is your staunch adherence to your own perspective on even the most minor of details.

We have followed your argument ( in so much as it can be followed ) and we have answered it. Your responses to our argument, which you call logical, were filled with lacunae and logical leaps based on no solid imperatives, your steps were from A to D to G to X, not A to B to C e.t.c. If your position cannot be answered in what you think of as logic honoured Ambassador it is because you have posed an illogical argument and your logic is flawed.

It is clear we shall never agree on this point, and since in our case that would require us to believe that the state should be able to murder its citizens, we accept that further debate with your Excellency on this matter is futile. Shall we agree to disagree ?


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Agreed. You know, in a masochistic way, I enjoy debating with you.