Capital Punishment?? (Draft)

[Unibot]

There's no need to shout ambassador, we can hear you just fine.

Kuno looked across the room, "well "like" actually...."

There the 98 year old Stash Kroh Ambassador, Gloris "Thach" Balderdash, a thorny four foot tall, grey permed haired, elderly whippersnapper was slapping her much younger advisors with her purse. "What did he say?" she asked her advisors impatiently as she fiddled with her hearing aid, much to their displeasure.

[Absolvability]

-Antonius looked up, dismayed that, though the disturbance had been quieted, there did in fact seem to be some need of explaination for what had just gone on. Turning to his left, he beckoned an aid to his side... a stenographer, as it just turns out, and after recieving brief instruction took the transcript over to Ambassador Gloris Balderdash. Another intern took over the official duties, and Antonius returned attention forward.-

Ambassadors... since he was so kind as to get your attention, might I ask what are the general feelings of this proposal? It's presently lacking support... but I'm not dismayed. I'd like to continue working on possible alterations if it will be necessary.

I understand that many are either of the thinking that the death penalty should be abolished completely or that its regulation should be up to national sovereignty. I do not think an abolition of capital punishment would ever occur... to those who believe this might 'stand in the water of better legislation.'

I think the circumstances for capital punishment should be laid out by law. To assure that it is not used except for when a nation is most obviously acting in defense of its citizens. To assure that it is carried out humanely.

[Philimbesi]

Hereby AFFIRMS each nation's right to practice Capital Punishment.

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

How about AFFIRMS each nations right to practice or ban the use of Capital Punishment

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

So if a person robs banks multiple times we can execute them?

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

Fine with that, though I would change "(their Lawyer)" to "before the end of which they or their counsel." For nation's who allow self representation.

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.

An now I'm off the truck... citizens turning over state secrets that may or may not kill our armed forces members aren't covered as treason? I think to include one nation's definition of treason has no place here. Leave that up to the nation.

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."

Id rather give the nod to "Cruel and unusual, but humane would work."

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.

Are you stating that the WA should encourage Firing Squads over the other forms? I think the clause above this is the only one needed for this subject. This is useless rhetoric.

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.

Are you trying to forbid the viewing of all executions or just executions in a public square kind of environment?

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.

The only issue with this is in nations where a failure of the execution automatically commutes the sentence to life. As in the USoP, we will not have death penalties overturned because of a software failure.

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.)

Not an international concern.

Overall ambassador not bad for a start. Indeed better than some of the other issues you've brought before us. I appolgize in being lax in dissecting it.

[Absolvability]

How about AFFIRMS each nations right to practice or ban the use of Capital Punishment

I can combine the two if you think it would be more concise. That's the first 'pruning' I would've done, probably, if I had in fact been over the character limit.

So if a person robs banks multiple times we can execute them?

Well... basically, yes. But I am going to go back to that clause and define the 'severe repeat offenders,' as also being 'armed with deadly weapons.' How would you feel about that?

Fine with that, though I would change "(their Lawyer)" to "before the end of which they or their counsel." For nation's who allow self representation.

Counsel... lawyer... I don't think we need to be overly pedantic here. I intended to put "or their lawyer," so I think I'll do that.

An now I'm off the truck... citizens turning over state secrets that may or may not kill our armed forces members aren't covered as treason? I think to include one nation's definition of treason has no place here. Leave that up to the nation.

I narrow the definition of treason in this proposal for a very good reason. While it can mean what I've defined it to mean, it can also mean a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign of to one's state; the betrayal of a trust of confidence; breach of faith. I do not intend to give corrupt dictatorships the right to sentence their political prisoners to death. Nor do I want to let theocracies kill their religious prisoners.

As far as your example goes... I suppose, for the sake of giving it a label, you're talking about spies? To be more specific, you're probably talking about spies from YOUR nation, selling out YOUR nation. Even still, such a hypothetical almost demands some scenario of war. Or is a prerequisite for war. In which case, I'd very much like to leave this matter to the Prisoners of War Accord.

Are you stating that the WA should encourage Firing Squads over the other forms? I think the clause above this is the only one needed for this subject. This is useless rhetoric.

Well, if a firing squad can comply with the other encouragements, I am actually encouraging their use. I suppose you're right about the clause in question being mostly rhetoric though... I'll try to clean it up a bit, if not remove it entirely.

Are you trying to forbid the viewing of all executions or just executions in a public square kind of environment?

I'm definately trying to forbid the viewing of all executions. With the obvious exception of those needed to be present.

The only issue with this is in nations where a failure of the execution automatically commutes the sentence to life.

Well, that is definately for each nation to decide, don't you think? In my own nation we have no law such as that.

As in the USoP, we will not have death penalties overturned because of a software failure.

Then don't.

"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.)"

Not an international concern.

I disagree. It is as much a concern as the rest. I believe intentions for and practices of should be equally taken into consideration when thinking about humane methods of execution. For the same reason public executions should be outlawed. An executioner should neither recieve pleasure nor guilt from performing their duties. Though, this is only an encouragement, and relies upon technology not being sufficient enough to adhere to the clause about automated methods.

Overall ambassador not bad for a start. Indeed better than some of the other issues you've brought before us. I appolgize in being lax in dissecting it.

Thank you. No apology necessary... I have nothing but time, Ambassador. And there's certainly other important matters that need attention as well.

P.S.O.O.C.- I've edited the draft. It's already been submitted, like I said, but it's still very much a work in progress. I've been editing the original copy on page 1.

[Bears Armed]

As far as your example goes... I suppose, for the sake of giving it a label, you're talking about spies? To be more specific, you're probably talking about spies from YOUR nation, selling out YOUR nation. Even still, such a hypothetical almost demands some scenario of war. Or is a prerequisite for war. In which case, I'd very much like to leave this matter to the Prisoners of War Accord.

OOC: But the 'Prisoners of War Accord' doesn't cover wartime traitors, or spies, it only covers_

DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation

DEFINES a "civilian internee" as a civilian national of a belligerent nation present and held in an opposing belligerent nation at the outbreak of hostilities against whom no reasonable suspicion of espionage, sabotage, subversion or other criminal charges exists. The right to intern or not such persons remains the privilege of the nation in question

DEFINES a "military internee" as a member of a belligerent armed force of either hostile powers found present and held in a neutral or non-belligerent nation. This excludes escaped PoWs who have made their way to non-belligerent nations

[Absolvability]

OOC: Fuck. Read it wrong. Incidentally, you highlighted what I read wrong. I guess it made more sense to me for the Prisoners of War Accord to be talking about people that there WAS, in fact, reason to believe had participated in... yadda yadda.

IC: What I meant to say, Ambassadors, is that the matter of spies is better left to a more war-related proposal. War crimes, as we all know, are quite different from other crimes. I really wasn't trying to touch down on that particular issue... but I may have to... though I resent the fact that it WASN'T covered in past legislation. I think it certainly should've been.

[Philimbesi]

I believe that the more words and clauses you put in a law the more loopholes that can be found, but that is only my opinion.

So more concise is better. If for no reason that the I've noticed the longer the resolution the harder it gets to get it through.

I don't think we need to be overly pedantic here.

Pedantic no but you constantly fall for the line of thought that we will know exactly what you mean by what you write, placing their lawyer in the resolution makes it seem as though they have to use a lawyer to file the intention... or their lawyer works fine thank you.

Or is a prerequisite for war. In which case, I'd very much like to leave this matter to the Prisoners of War Accord.

Ambassador 007 there are several nations we are not current at war with who would love to get a glimpse at troop counts and other sesitive information, yes they are spies and some might be double agents, and their operations during war time or peace time is treason and should be an executable offense. No matter though as I know how to handle it should the law pass as written.

I'm definately trying to forbid the viewing of all executions. With the obvious exception of those needed to be present.

Then I'm opposed to this clause. I can understand not televising it, or holding it in public but the familes who request to be present should allowed to be present or at the least it should be left up to the nation. Families have said that it provides closure and we have no right to deny them that.

An executioner should neither recieve pleasure nor guilt from performing their duties.

Well unless they are forced into the position, which in the USoP we have banned, I really don't care if they receive pleasure from the act, and if they receive guilt from it, they should pursue a new line of work. We would support a clause banning other prisoners or non licensed (for lack of a better term) executioners, but don't feel as though the state of mind of the executioner is relevant or an international concern.

[Absolvability]

Ambassador 007 there are several nations we are not current at war with who would love to get a glimpse at troop counts and other sesitive information, yes they are spies and some might be double agents, and their operations during war time or peace time is treason and should be an executable offense. No matter though as I know how to handle it should the law pass as written.

Well... maybe I don't have to tinker with war crimes. I suppose I can remove the restrictions on the proposal's definition of treason. Sufficient anti-discrimination and freedom of expression legislation exists in this Assembly, I hope, to protect against this becoming the abused loop-hole that I previously described. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just the same.

Then I'm opposed to this clause. I can understand not televising it, or holding it in public but the familes who request to be present should allowed to be present or at the least it should be left up to the nation. Families have said that it provides closure and we have no right to deny them that.

I'm sure that families have said that it provides closure. What else would they say, Ambassador? Are you seriously wanting to use such biased testimony on behalf of your arguement? There is a thin line between revenge and justice. That line is drawn by intentions. Nobody in the process should recieve pleasure to any degree. Knowing that a prisoner has died provides just as much closure as having seen it. The only purpose watching serves is to satisfy some warped sense of revenge. This may seem to be a fairly intangible arguement, Ambassador, and I apologize for that. But this is a proposal wrapped very tightly in morality, and I will not submit on this point. Public executions are barbaric.

[Philimbesi]

I'm sure that families have said that it provides closure. What else would they say, Ambassador? Are you seriously wanting to use such biased testimony on behalf of your arguement? There is a thin line between revenge and justice. That line is drawn by intentions. Nobody in the process should recieve pleasure to any degree. Knowing that a prisoner has died provides just as much closure as having seen it. The only purpose watching serves is to satisfy some warped sense of revenge. This may seem to be a fairly intangible arguement, Ambassador, and I apologize for that. But this is a proposal wrapped very tightly in morality, and I will not submit on this point. Public executions are barbaric.

You can't govern people's feelings as much as you'd like to Ambassador. I can agree with banning public executions where those not involved with the offense, or where a fee is paid to watch. They are cruel and unusual, but if this is left in as a full ban in this or any new versions of this law we will actively campaign against it and should it pass we will openly defy it.

[Absolvability]

You can't govern people's feelings as much as you'd like to Ambassador.

To say that this is an issue of morality isn't to say that I want to govern people's feelings. I believe it is entirely reasonable for relatives of a victim to want to see an execution take place. This is precisely why they wouldn't. To say that we can't govern people's feelings is not to say that the government should provide every convenience, no matter how inhumane. Furthermore, psychologically speaking (though I am no expert,) I do not believe this form of 'closure' is at all beneficial to any party involved.

I can agree with banning public executions where those not involved with the offense...

Families are not involved with the offense. They have strong emotions regarding it... but that isn't the same. Otherwise anybody who watches some heartfelt news report on tv would have a right to attend the execution. I do not see a distinction between the two. Sometimes, in legal matters, we MUST set compassion aside... and almost ALWAYS when it comes to justice.

but if this is left in as a full ban in this or any new versions of this law we will actively campaign against it and should it pass we will openly defy it.

That's a comment that really shouldn't have been said. I continue to welcome your contributions to this discussion. I think the fact that you intend to openly defy this proposal, even if it makes it so far, is testimony to the fact that you really aren't open to having your mind changed. In which case... what is REALLY the point of all this? I don't mean to say that you should 'just give up,' but are you even considering what I say? That isn't the point, I suppose... but lets not be so extreme? Until the time comes, at any rate.

[Philimbesi]

Sometimes, in legal matters, we MUST set compassion aside... and almost ALWAYS when it comes to justice.

We have set aside compassion, during the trial, we allowed the convicted a fair trial, we allowed an impartial jury of his peers to convict him and an impartial judge handed out the sentence of death, we've allowed him an impartial process of appeals and that he had the ability to take advantage of, we even allowed him to take this matter all the way to our high court. His justice is therefore completed, and we are going to execute him in a way so as not to be cruel or unusual, (which by the way doesn't include him tied to a pole in a court yard facing 10 men with rifles only one of which is loaded), He even has the chance that should it fail, he wouldn't have to go through the process again. He's had his compassion and we our justice.

aren't open to having your mind changed.

Much like if I had said.

and I will not submit on this point

right? Ambassador these debates aren't for you to convince me your line of thinking is correct, they are for us to give you our line of thinking. Which I have do what you may with it. The truth is we will still allow family members who wish to witness the proceeding to watch them. As much as we will still allow the family of the convicted to witness (albeit in a different room) to ensure that all goes humanely.

Once again we are not speaking of public square executions, we are talking of controlled environment, private facility executions.

[Absolvability]

His justice is therefore completed,

There's the problem right there. Justice does not belong to anybody nor should it be attributed to any individual. But if we want to consider the matter to apply to the convicted... then let me say that his justice is not completed until his sentence has been carried out. Which has as much to do with capital punishment as it does with imprisonment. A prisoner has the right to turn down a visitor, correct? I'm asking you personally, Ambassador, because I'm not sure if this is covered in any past resolutions.

Therefore... though you obviously wouldn't agree entirely, would you support an alteration to this proposal to the effect that, "a death sentenced man has the right to deny anybody from viewing his execution that he likes,"?

Ambassador these debates aren't for you to convince me your line of thinking is correct, they are for us to give you our line of thinking.

I have been as inflexible as you on this matter, I'll admit. I disagree with the above, however, because it is entirely the point of debate to provide arguements that, if done correctly, should persuade people to a certain point of view. Isn't that what we're here for? The fact that most politicians are unrelenting can better be attributed to the human factor than to the goal of debate.

This very proposal is intended to be, to some extent, a compromise. I think it would be every bit as resoundingly stupid to abolish the death penalty entirely as it would be to force every nation to implement it. That does not at all imply to me that this topic shouldn't be handled, however.

[Philimbesi]

a death sentenced man has the right to deny anybody from viewing his execution that he likes,"?

It would be better, but still leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's open for abuse, much more open for abuse than simply allowing families to be there.

[Absolvability]

It would be better, but still leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's open for abuse, much more open for abuse than simply allowing families to be there.

Abused how, and by whom? I want to declare it a right of privacy... a right of humanity, more to the point... to choose who may bare witness to your death. An unalienable right, I mean to say. I'm not sure how one convicted to death might be seen to abuse this.

[Philimbesi]

It would be better, but still leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's open for abuse, much more open for abuse than simply allowing families to be there.

Abused how, and by whom? I want to declare it a right of privacy... a right of humanity, more to the point... to choose who may bare witness to your death. An unalienable right, I mean to say. I'm not sure how one convicted to death might be seen to abuse this.

Take for example the case of a serial killer who wants to cause further pain and anguish to the family of the victims by not allowing them the closure of seeing justice served. But then never mind, because you don't believe that closure is possible, so why should that matter. The rights and feelings of the convict obviously are more dear then the rights and feelings of the innocent.

[Absolvability]

in⋅no⋅cent  /ˈɪnəsənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-uh-suhnt] Show IPA
–adjective 1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive

Seriously, how can you persist that somebody who desires to view another humans execution is innocent? Legally... I mean, I'm not saying that it is a crime, but isn't it immoral? Inhumane? If only in intent or motive.

"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."

It is not so much a matter of what the convicted deserves as what we, as supposedly a more moral people, should not infringe upon. We are ending their life. That is decidedly enough, don't you think? That we can leave revenge and malice out.

Take for example the case of a serial killer who wants to cause further pain and anguish to the family of the victims by not allowing them the closure of seeing justice served.

You say this constitutes abuse... I say you didn't read what I said correctly. This is the right I'm proposing to give to the convicted. You skew it... well, no, you provide a legitimate example... but it is largely conjecture. It pre-supposes a criminals mindset and, more importantly, assumes the wrong mindset of a victims' relatives to be correct. Whatever the serial killer intends... it should not render pain to deny someone from witnessing a death. If they were allowed in the court room they had already seen justice served. What is more personal... and an invasion of privacy as well as humanity... is to demand to see their death without express consent of the convicted. To relish it.

Meanwhile... if a convicted man has been in communication with the relatives of his victim... or if his own family would like to watch, then he could just as easily allow it. Allow it for the right reasons.

[Philimbesi]

You speak of privacy, do you have personal showers in your prisons? Bathrooms? Are cells searched, are prisoners searched? Logs kept of vistors and phone calls? USoP Citizens are able to carry guns... should convicts also have that right? A convict forfeits some those rights when they break the law.

You will not convince me that the feelings and the motives of someone who committed a crime so heinous as to require them being killed are more important that the feelings and motives of a law abiding citizen. Really you think I should care if someone who's killed or raped people is embarrassed? You think that compassion for the families of those who are affected by those animals is less important the the feeling of the animals who chose to impart their will on them. The families shouldn't at least be offered some form of solace. Honestly the theraputic value of witnessing it is questionable, that I will concede, but the families have suffered enough, they should be afforded at least a chance at closure.

None the less this is pointless you won't convince me and I won't convince you. You continue to champion the rights and feelings of the criminals in your midst, I'll side with those who haven't seen fit to commit a crime. I'll reiterate that regardless of the passing of this law nothing will change in the USoP in the current execution practices.

[Bears Armed]

a death sentenced man has the right to deny anybody from viewing his execution that he likes,"?

It would be better, but still leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's open for abuse, much more open for abuse than simply allowing families to be there.

OOC: There may well be nations in which executions must be observed by an official of specific rank in order to be legal. (RL example: in England, for a long time, in the absence of either the monarch or the Lord Chancellor it had to be the local Sheriff because they were the Crown's representative in matters of justice within their county... although latterly, I think, the law was changed to give the governor of the relevant prison this responsibility instead...) Allowing the sentenced person to deny that person access to viewing the execution and you're allowing them to block the execution.
Well, okay, only unless & until the nation changes the law requiring that official's presence, but why should it have to do so?

[Absolvability]

OOC: There may well be nations in which executions must be observed by an official of specific rank in order to be legal. (RL example: in England, for a long time, in the absence of either the monarch or the Lord Chancellor it had to be the local Sheriff because they were the Crown's representative in matters of justice within their county... although latterly, I think, the law was changed to give the governor of the relevant prison this responsibility instead...) Allowing the sentenced person to deny that person access to viewing the execution and you're allowing them to block the execution.

OOC: Yea, I thought that was going to be Philimbesi's concern. I noticed that in the beginning... got side-tracked, but plan to change it to defend against the very example.
"... notwithstanding the legal need to have Official witness."
And I only specify legal need because, as per the rest of the proposal, executions are encouraged to be automated. I see no reason why another 'machine' couldn't be set up to monitor the life signs of the convicted.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

You speak of privacy, do you have personal showers in your prisons? Bathrooms? Are cells searched, are prisoners searched? Logs kept of vistors and phone calls?

For the most part these are all safety measures, wouldn't you agree? By the time the man is strapped in, as it were, I think safety ceases to be a concern.

USoP Citizens are able to carry guns... should convicts also have that right? A convict forfeits some those rights when they break the law.

A convict does not forfeit his right to be protected by the law. Sufficient measures are merely taken to secure that others are protected from him.

You will not convince me that the feelings and the motives of someone who committed a crime so heinous as to require them being killed are more important that the feelings and motives of a law abiding citizen.

That's not at all what I'm trying to convince you of, Ambassador Youlkin. I'm trying to convince you that justice, by definition, shows preference neither way. Which isn't to say that rights are thrown around randomly... but to say that each person is granted the same rights in their time of death.

I'm not a religious man, Nigel, but some things are sacred.

[Philimbesi]

This as is the case most of our debates slowly spiraling into a flurry of posts saying absolutely nothing pertinent.

Our official position is that we support the banning of public spectacle executions, but oppose the banning of the victims families from the proceedings.

[Absolvability]

Our official position is that we support the banning of public spectacle executions, but oppose the banning of the victims families from the proceedings.

Officially, Ambassador, is this enough for you to oppose the proposal entirely?

[Philimbesi]

Our official position is that we support the banning of public spectacle executions, but oppose the banning of the victims families from the proceedings.

Officially, Ambassador, is this enough for you to oppose the proposal entirely?

As we have stated, if it were included we would campaign against it, and (for the first time since joining this body two years ago), actively defy the resolution, by allowing families of the victims who wish to view the execution the ability to do so, and further denying the "right" of the accused the ability to restrict those viewing the execution.

Yes it's a deal breaker Ambassador.

[Absolvability]

I only asked because at some point you seemed to imply that this change:

"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."

...might appease you, though leaving you with a bad taste.

Well, I'm upset not to have your support, but shall certainly move on without you. Whatever your own track-record is, Ambassador, I'm witnessing as late many respectable delegations in open defiance of resolutions and/or leaving the Assembly. I suppose this is neither here nor there... but, incidentally, it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

[Philimbesi]

I only asked because at some point you seemed to imply that this change:

"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."

...might appease you, though leaving you with a bad taste.

Well, I'm upset not to have your support, but shall certainly move on without you. Whatever your own track-record is, Ambassador, I'm witnessing as late many respectable delegations in open defiance of resolutions and/or leaving the Assembly. I suppose this is neither here nor there... but, incidentally, it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm only responsible for and to my people Ambassador, I can't speak for the others. Good luck.

[Qumkent]

I can't satisfy your question, Ambassador. I will however say that Pacifism would be an ideology in accordance with your views (in this context, at least,) though I can't think of any nations that depend upon it for their form of government. Even still, I don't think Pacifism should be banned. Or the opposite of Pacifism... which I can't think of a name for. In short, I think it would be over-stepping WA bounds to ban Capital Punishment, though not totally illegal as you so kindly pointed out. Also I doubt such an extremist policy in either direction would ever be adopted.

Whether or not your Excellency thinks banning capital punishment, Judicial or often extrajudicial murder, is a good thing or not. What matters is that this resolution copper fastens the ability of member states to take the lives of their citizens, and will prevent the possibility of banning this outrage against human dignity. By what authority does any government claim the right of supreme sanction over the life of an individual human being regardless of their crimes ? The state has a duty to protect its citizens, all of them, so by all means incarcerate a dangerous person who may represent a threat to others, but they have as much right to be protected and treated with basic decency as anyone else. Our disgust and contempt for their crimes does not rob them of their humanity.

And what of miscarriages of justice ? It is an appalling rationalisation to say " if some innocent people are executed it is worth it if we can murder the truly guilty ". Would this rationalisation be of any comfort to your Excellency if you found yourself falsely found guilty of a capital offence ?

This is where our views of what is or isn't immoral differ. I'm not very religious, for starters. Which isn't to say that I suspect you to be... simply that, I don't consider 'life' to be some god-granted-gift that everybody should be able to practice in their own way. I do however believe in natural law... and, in the simplest form, that "everybody is entitled to everything so long as they deprive others of nothing." The principals of most laws make an attempt to uphold this ideal.

Religion has nothing to do with this. Two factors inform our position, firstly if the state has the right to take the lives of its citizens in this manner it becomes the arbiter not only of justice but of life itself. The law is a malleable instrument which if secured the right over life and death becomes a monstrous weapon of oppression. The second factor is common sense, how can it be immoral for citizens to take one another lives if the state may take a citizen's life if it wishes ? The citizen is called murderer, thus we call capital punishment "judicial murder" because logically that is exactly what it is.

In such case as a convicted criminal has proven himself (repeatedly,) to deprive others of their freedoms... whether it be the freedom to live... to not be raped, stolen from, or whatever else, the nation must step it to some extent. Perhaps this goes no further than eternal imprisonment. That is fine.

It is more than fine, it is the only moral and sensible thing to do.

On the other hand, perhaps a nation considers it immoral to make tax payers financially responsible for those that they are being protected against. Or, since particularly dangerous criminals may make escape attempts, it might be decided to eliminate the danger permanently. I consider these to both be forms of self-defense. If by 'self' you'll allow me to include a nation taking care of its citizens. And I definately think the law-abiding citizens should be shown preference.

So a persons life ( perhaps an innocent person's life ) is worth no more than a few greasy units of currency, how on earth can such a rationalisation be moral honoured Ambassador ?

Murder because the state takes this life in cold blood and with malice of forethought,

Cold blood? Malice? While not banning Capital Punishment, I think this proposal does a fine job of eliminating any enjoyment that could be taken by exercisers of such practices. Many people do not like their jobs, Ambassador. I don't think it's fair to assume that a nation enjoys killing its criminals. Sometimes they consider it necessary, however.

The terms "cold blood" and "malice of forethought" have a legal meaning, we were not talking about enjoyment. Our point is that judicial murder shares the exact same characteristics as a preplanned and cold bloodedly organised assassination which if the state found itself in any moral court, in the dock, could never use the justification of self defence since it would have never been in peril and would instead have the executed in its power and at its mercy and then still decided to murder them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The hypothetical of you shooting me is not a question. It is a fact. Now if we started debating the reasons of why you'd shot... I'm sure that would indeed 'depend.' I said the aforementioned answer to apply to broad cases, such as this proposal addresses. I do not think it should cover the specific example that you brought up... which is, basically, the very circumstances that the broader spectrum depends upon.

So your Excellency believes there are justifications for murder ? not killing mind you, that is different in law, but murder ?

You use vengeance, perhaps, because it is such a severe topic. Do you consider imprisonment to be vegeance, or justice? I submit that the severity of punishment is based upon the severity of offense... not any intentions on behalf of the executioner. Or, at least, that's what this proposal desires to stimulate.

The purpose of execution is vengeful and barbaric. The purpose of life imprisonment should be to protect society from an imminent danger and to reflect the severity of the crime, this is just. Murder sanctioned by the state is not just, it is oppression.


Yours,