NationStates

As a nation that has not murdered a person in many hundreds of years I must say simply that you can not drag barbarians into the current century by law. Those that wish to murder their own will any how, be it by long winded and years of appeal or by quick action. The former I feel most distasteful though neither of the I can not swallow and have trouble speaking to nations that murder their own in either way.

Some people will view my use of the word murder as wrong but the law in my nation is that the "premeditated taking of a known individual's life" is murder. If that is not execution I don't know a better definition.

Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy, and often the taking of a vast number of lives, we shall enjoy watching them writhe feeblely as some nation utterly dominates them. And, as such, we also hereby claim the Mountains of Alba as a annexed colony of the Queendom of Ilharessa. If they wish to protest, they can note that the only protest that will do them any good requires their soldiers to violate their own law.

We will now begin to auction off the nation to anyone who wants to go in and have, as the saying goes, a 'good old-fashioned skeet shoot.'"

New Olwe wrote:

Central Slavia wrote:

New Olwe wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Do not drop it.
My nation would love to vote in this..

Then you aren't very evil.

Or dark, for that matter.

OOC: Yes he is. He recognises that the only one who has a right to take life is one that ignores the law

Whereas my nation, ironically enough one that is viewed as good, realizes that a proper execution should take weeks and be broadcast publicly? He's not as evil as me, I tell you.

Hmm go to read about the worst central slavian prison and you will change mind

Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy, and often the taking of a vast number of lives, we shall enjoy watching them writhe feeblely as some nation utterly dominates them. And, as such, we also hereby claim the Mountains of Alba as a annexed colony of the Queendom of Ilharessa. If they wish to protest, they can note that the only protest that will do them any good requires their soldiers to violate their own law.

We will now begin to auction off the nation to anyone who wants to go in and have, as the saying goes, a 'good old-fashioned skeet shoot.'"

War does not require the premeditated taking of a known individual's life. It requires premeditation of killing someone, but who that is is unknown until it happens.

Linux and the X wrote:

Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy, and often the taking of a vast number of lives, we shall enjoy watching them writhe feeblely as some nation utterly dominates them. And, as such, we also hereby claim the Mountains of Alba as a annexed colony of the Queendom of Ilharessa. If they wish to protest, they can note that the only protest that will do them any good requires their soldiers to violate their own law.

We will now begin to auction off the nation to anyone who wants to go in and have, as the saying goes, a 'good old-fashioned skeet shoot.'"

War does not require the premeditated taking of a known individual's life. It requires premeditation of killing someone, but who that is is unknown until it happens.

"I disagree on that matter; typically, you know the person is of a set of general qualities, generally those quantified with the concept of 'the enemy.' Since some murders involve the planning and killing of someone the murderer does not actually know except for a certain set of qualities they have, it can be argued that the set of qualifications does not have to be overly specific for it to be a case of them killing a known person. I'll also note the law in question, as the definition was quoted that I was responding to, failed to list to who the person is known," Velnayanis said. "In either case, it's a rediculous stance to take on murder when it can be turned around and used to make it impossible for you to fight."

I'm sure that, given that it would be interpreted by the Albanian government, it would be interpreted in such a way to permit defence against a foreign invader.

"I'm not so sure. For one thing, the way they talk about the death penalty and how those who use it are barbarians, there is some room to suggest that they may feel the same about warfare in general. In any case, they have yet to reply to our nonviolent annexation and sale of their nation, and it is not my fault if they do not clarify their laws enough it results in them getting taken over by a nation simply to show them how illogical a definition that is," the ambassadoress said. "Anyway, if you want, you can bid on them."

Ambridge County wrote:Again, I don't intend on submitting it. I would have appreciated feedback other than yea or nay -- suggestions as to how it can be improved and how any improvements could help change your mind, etc. But I guess I was asking for a bit much.

Sir, That was the point of at our disapproval voiced of this, we do not believe there is room for improvement as we believe the very idea is a bad one. It is not the place of the WA to force one particular set of judicial morals upon eveybody. This is truly an instance of where one size does not fit all. There is not an "improvement" to this which could change our mind.

The Mountains Of Alba wrote:Some people will view my use of the word murder as wrong but the law in my nation is that the "premeditated taking of a known individual's life" is murder.

So in your nation someone who wakes up in the morning and decides, "Today I'm going to kill some random stranger," and then does it, is not committing murder. That's good to know.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy...

Not true. Biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare deal with numbers far greater than "individual"... you probably just attempted to annex a nation with a mass-destruction arsenal larger than your entire population.

Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.

^ This.

Our nation has capital punishment,would look dimly at any trans national body trying to change our laws..

Ambridge County wrote:

NOTING that capital punishment is an abuse of human rights,

RECOGNIZING that discrepancies exist within the capital punishment system to the point where innocent individuals are executed,

RECOGNIZING that capital punishment has not been proven to deter crime,

HEREBY abolishes the act of capital punishment.

It's a bit weak now, but input would be appreciated. I probably won't submit it; it's more of a run-through than anything else.

While in theory the Quelesian delegation supports the goal of the abolition of capital punishment, we think that this resolution has little chance of passage, and there are likely more pressing areas of concern to which to devote our attention.

However, as far as improvements are concerned, maybe something like this:

The World Assembly,

DEFINING "capital punishment" as the deliberate killing of a prisoner by an agent or agents of the state, and "execution" as the act of capital punishment;

RECOGNIZING that some crimes are heinous enough to produce as a natural reaction in others the desire to kill the perpetrator;

CONVINCED, however, that the deliberate killing of one person by another should be done only when absolutely necessary for the defense of self or others, and that unnecessary killing by the state is an abuse of human rights;

ASSERTING that the killing of an unarmed, unresisting prisoner by state agents is not necessary for the defense of self or others by any reasonable definition;

FURTHER ASSERTING that no nation that practices capital punishment can be certain that it has not executed innocent persons;

NOTING WITH DISMAY that many individuals have been proven to be innocent after their executions, and that many others have been exonorated while awaiting execution;

NOTING FURTHER that capital punishment has never been proven to be a more effective deterrent from crime than a sentence of life imprisonment;

hereby REQUIRES all member states to immediately cease all capital punishment and to prohibit capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

You may want to consider dropping the deterrent bit, in my opinion.

New Olwe wrote:Whereas my nation, ironically enough one that is viewed as good, realizes that a proper execution should take weeks and be broadcast publicly? He's not as evil as me, I tell you.

Honored Ambassador, do you mean to imply that your nation engages in the torture of prisoners in violation of WA resolutions #9, Prevention of Torture, and #62, For the Detained and Convicted?

New Olwe wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Do not drop it.
My nation would love to vote in this..

Then you aren't very evil.

Or dark, for that matter.

You fail to see that execution is NOT evil.
Why execute a criminal when you can let them rot in a castle dungeon for all eternity?
Execution frees the prisoner from all pain and suffering.

BrightonBurg wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.

^ This.

Our nation has capital punishment,would look dimly at any trans national body trying to change our laws..

Why are you in the WA then -_-

New Olwe wrote:

Ilharessa wrote:Velnayanis just grinned viciously. "Well, since we now know that the Mountains of Alba have outlawed their people going to war, since war outright requires 'premeditated taking of a known individual's life' when it comes to the enemy...

Not true. Biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare deal with numbers far greater than "individual"... you probably just attempted to annex a nation with a mass-destruction arsenal larger than your entire population.

"Once again, you are not considering the full implications of what you are saying. The use of those weapons, under the definition of murder provided by them, would technically qualify their deployment as mass-murder and, potentially, as genocide. Now, most nations tend to outlaw the former, and I doubt this one is any different, with each individual death as a result of mass-murder typically counting as yet another murder charge the person who commits it must answer for.

For fun, note that the definition of genocide, as provided by resolution number 38, actually make deploying such weapons against us, who are an identifiably unique group of people with a small population in a limited area and who have yet to take a single military action in this matter, genocide. As such, it is automatically illegal for them to do so and, as such, signs them up for a number of problems that are automatically enforced against them.

Secondly, the use of microscopic biological weapons, and even the owning of them except for certain limited purposes, is banned by resolution number 65. As such, they cannot even own those with intent to use them, let alone actually use them.

Note that we have not, at any moment, actually taken a single military action. The entirety of this annexation attempt is being made nonmilitarily, using the World Assembly itself as the forum of annexation, and can be dealt with by the nation to be annexed. It mainly serves to point out to them how their stance on the issue is based upon a badly worded law that can be easily used against them and cause them to lose their nation. As such, since there is no military action involved, they really have no justification for a military reply.

Now, do you have any other challenges?"

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

New Olwe wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Do not drop it.
My nation would love to vote in this..

Then you aren't very evil.

Or dark, for that matter.

You fail to see that execution is NOT evil.
Why execute a criminal when you can let them rot in a castle dungeon for all eternity?
Execution frees the prisoner from all pain and suffering.

Utter BS
Everybody dislikes dying, it is a basic instinct.
Living in a jail is way better most of cases

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

BrightonBurg wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.

^ This.

Our nation has capital punishment,would look dimly at any trans national body trying to change our laws..

Why are you in the WA then -_-

Oh, I was wondering how long it would be before this tired old twaddle came up. Being a Yes-Lemming is NOT a requirement of membership in the WA. WA members are permitted, in case you had not noticed, to disagree with drafts and proposals, and are permitted to voice that opinion, and to vote "no" on those resolutions they disagree with or that they believe would adversely effect their nation. "If you don't like it, leave" is about as ignorant a statement any ambassador could make.

The most likely way in which this proposal would pass if, and I have to stress the "if," you were to spin the issue in different light (e.g. : Proposing to make life imprisonment the maximum punishment for criminals).

Ultimately, even if this were to pass, there would be no way of enforcing it on any level. Prisons are run by individual nations and are not subject to international pressures unless the host nation allows it, take for example the United States prison system.

Grays Harbor wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

BrightonBurg wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.

^ This.

Our nation has capital punishment,would look dimly at any trans national body trying to change our laws..

Why are you in the WA then -_-

Oh, I was wondering how long it would be before this tired old twaddle came up. Being a Yes-Lemming is NOT a requirement of membership in the WA. WA members are permitted, in case you had not noticed, to disagree with drafts and proposals, and are permitted to voice that opinion, and to vote "no" on those resolutions they disagree with or that they believe would adversely effect their nation. "If you don't like it, leave" is about as ignorant a statement any ambassador could make.

He said he doesn't want any trans national body trying to change our laws, being part of the WA means your laws may be changed by a trans national body. I never said ONCE that you have to say yes OR no.
God jumping to conclusions much.
READ the posts...

A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.

Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.

I think you stated my beliefs on the issue wonderfully. I believe that human rights come over sovereignty. If a nation does not want to be subject to the resolutions of the WA, they are free to resign. Genocide is prohibited, slavery is prohibited; people complained when those resolutions were put up to a vote. But good always trumped evil.

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:He said he doesn't want any trans national body trying to change our laws, being part of the WA means your laws may be changed by a trans national body. I never said ONCE that you have to say yes OR no.

And all BrightonBurg said was that they would look dimly at the WA for trying to change the laws regarding capital punishment. I suggest you follow your own advice.

quote]God jumping to conclusions much.
READ the posts... [/quote]

Ambridge County wrote:

Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.

I think you stated my beliefs on the issue wonderfully. I believe that human rights come over sovereignty. If a nation does not want to be subject to the resolutions of the WA, they are free to resign. Genocide is prohibited, slavery is prohibited; people complained when those resolutions were put up to a vote. But good always trumped evil.

That may be true, but genocide and slavery are issues that can be international in nature, whether or not a nation can execute its criminals is not an international issue.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Provisional Ireland wrote:A government should be better than those they deem criminal. Just because they kill someone doesn't mean you have to kill them back. General population prison is usually a worse punishment, anyway. And to all the nations who are saying "you're just not doing it right, it deters when we [insert intentionally grizzly means of killing someone]", go ahead and keep up your fantasy. Anyway, human rights mandates don't violate national sovereignty. To any nations saying that the right to life is no human (or sentient, if that helps) right, then make your case when there's an argument over the resolution, and vote against it. Anyway, this post is for no desire to argue, just to try to help out the nation who is drafting this resolution.

"So you would rather we trade one cruelty, that of executing them with a number of bullets through the head, for another cruelty that is much more long-term and ultimately prolongs any suffering they may have?" Velnayanis asked. "Face facts, ambassador. Locking someone away in a cage for the rest of their life is cruel, no matter how you try to dress it up as being full of bunny rabbits who excrete rainbows and lilacs. Locking a person away for life like that can even, quite possibly, cause a psychological issue that slowly erodes their mental state until they're no better than dead anyway. And, worse, it leaves them in a scenario where their only options are escape, suicide, or slowly rotting away mentally until their body finally gives them the mercy of giving out so they can enjoy the only true peace of soul they will be granted. If anything, I would argue it to be a bigger violation of human rights to do this to a sentient being. It is bad enough that some nations dare do this to great predators. Even you outright admit that leaving them alive is far worse.

If you do not like it when people challenge your reasoning, you probably shouldn't put it within this arena. This is a place of discussion and debate. Part of how the process works is by bringing up points of challenge and points of problem... and, sometimes, by simply saying it will not work. And for someone who states no desire to argue, you certainly made it a point to let loose a very long argument.

In any case, I am sorry that some of us would rather treat our murderers and similar criminals as though they are sentient, thinking beings who have proven they have no place in society and who's escape back into it we are not willing to risk rather than as some wild animal you caught out on safari and decided to keep as a prize. We always assumed that what you call 'human rights' means treating them as though they're people."

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:

BrightonBurg wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:opposed. drop it. Do not push your personal morals onto other nations.

^ This.

Our nation has capital punishment,would look dimly at any trans national body trying to change our laws..

Why are you in the WA then -_-

Oh, I was wondering how long it would be before this tired old twaddle came up. Being a Yes-Lemming is NOT a requirement of membership in the WA. WA members are permitted, in case you had not noticed, to disagree with drafts and proposals, and are permitted to voice that opinion, and to vote "no" on those resolutions they disagree with or that they believe would adversely effect their nation. "If you don't like it, leave" is about as ignorant a statement any ambassador could make.

He said he doesn't want any trans national body trying to change our laws, being part of the WA means your laws may be changed by a trans national body. I never said ONCE that you have to say yes OR no.
God jumping to conclusions much.
READ the posts...

Not jumping to any conclusions, I read your glib little statement. Get over it.