[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Arasi Luvasa]

“Against. Our nation only has fifteen thousand people in it. This resolution would restrict us to hearing one capital case per 67 years,” says Inan. “Which is plainly ridiculous.”

"So you are a nation consisting of only a single city?"

[Essu Beti]

“Against. Our nation only has fifteen thousand people in it. This resolution would restrict us to hearing one capital case per 67 years,” says Inan. “Which is plainly ridiculous.”

"So you are a nation consisting of only a single city?"

“We have two cities, with 5 and 3 thousand people, and a number of towns and villages whose population numbers in the low hundreds,” explains Inan.

[The Palentine]

Has anyone made a "Ban on Capital Punishment 2: Electric Boogaloo" post yet?

Don't believe so.

No, but I'm stocked up for a pie fight if a shitstorm erupts.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"So you are a nation consisting of only a single city?"

“We have two cities, with 5 and 3 thousand people, and a number of towns and villages whose population numbers in the low hundreds,” explains Inan.

"I ask because the general definition of a city defines it as having at least fifteen-thousand residents, unless I am mistaken. Fifteen-thousand to fifty-thousand as I understand it."

[Essu Beti]

Inan shrugs. “It might be a translation issue. To us, a city is just a large town.”

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Regardless, I would think that this allows you one every year. Though another might need to confirm that reading."

[Essu Beti]

“I don’t see how that can be read into the proposal,” says Inan. “Nowhere does it say that there is a minimum of one per year.”

[Arasi Luvasa]

"If I am wrong, it would mean that your ridiculously small nation would have no capital cases per year. I do not imagine that you get a fraction of a case, or that unused cases pile up."

[Kenmoria]

“Against. Our nation only has fifteen thousand people in it. This resolution would restrict us to hearing one capital case per 67 years,” says Inan. “Which is plainly ridiculous.”

“Or, ban them altogether. This may not be such a bad thing, but it is a flaw in the proposal.”

[Jocospor]

The difference in the vote percentage is narrowing. The Delegate's Office continues to hope that more nations will support the case for the against faction.

[Ghost Land]

I was going to vote for this on my main/WA nation until I saw this gem:

any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year

While execution of innocent people is something that should be eliminated as quickly and thoroughly as possible, both in real life and in the NS world, this line here is a silly, arbitrary, and rather imposing limitation. The World Assembly shouldn't be able to dictate how frequently a nation executes people or why, so long as the grounds for execution are something that actually happened. If the people of a particular nation want to execute anyone who eats more than an ounce of cheese in a day, if they have proof of excessive cheese consumption, they should be allowed to execute those people.

As such, my main/WA nation voted against this proposal.

[Nova Trieste]

"It is one case per a million a year. If there is a case involving thirteen individuals, then all thirteen would be executed but it would only register as one case."

"Oh, that's sound more reasonable. But just to be sure, the WA Capital Divison will have jurisdiction over both military and civil investigations?"

[Bears Armed]

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla was watching the proceedings with sadistic glee. Chuckling to himself he pulled out his cell phone and dialed a number. A moment later he began to speak to his secretary Velma,
"Velma darling, please send up some Jaegermonsters with a couple carts of pies." He paused an took a peek at his mini bar before continuing, "And also send up three cases of my whiskeys. Thanks."
About 30 minutes later five Jaegermonsters brought in three carts of cream, custard, and fruit pies and set them up behind the Senator's desk.

The two junior personnel who are currently staffing the Bears' desk here reach into one of that desk's drawers, pull out & assemble a 'pie-catcher' (an 8'-long pole, at one end of which a circular frame holds the mouth of a padded bag wide open), and look hopeful.

^_^

_________________________________________________________________________________________

OOC

Please excuse my inexperience, but as I've still not received an answer:

How is this a "Strength: Mild" proposal? Surely this would be classified as at least "Significant" or even "Strong"?

From the GA Proposal Compendium (which I've been using to get a better sense of how GA proposals work):

A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant.

Looking at the examples laid out in that thread, surely restrictions on capital punishment and the creation of an international court that has near-complete jurisdiction over it would be a bit stronger than maritime transport law?

It's arguable. I'll see whether the rest of GenSec want to discuss this.

So....What laws have been put in place to make sure that the World Assembly does not pick biased jurists/scientists. And what's stopping them from being paid off. Furthermore, will they be allowed to be from the nation/region in which the death sentence is being carried out?

WA committees such as this are assumed by default to be incorruptible & politically neutral, so that authors of proposals that use committees don't have to spend large chunks of those proposals explaining how the committees will work.

[Buckerino]

"The nation of Buckerino does not endorse capital punishment, but neither can we endorse the resolution here, for the bureaucratic nightmare it will bring and the power it gives to the World Assembly. The nation of Buckerino chooses to abstain from the resolution."

---

OOC:

There is legit and concerning argument for both sides.

On one hand, there has been more than one case of innocent being prosecuted to death, and even for those truly deserving of death penalty, the method of carrying out such punishments remained barbaric - using electricity, cyanide, hanging, injection and the sort, negating the moral argument of incarcerating a person for life.

On the other hand, should the criminal is proven with 100% certainty (though this is certainly nearly impossible - the forensics process involves a lot of inductive reasoning) that he/she has committed a truly atrocious crime deserving of lifetime imprisonment, and that the method of death penalty is only conducted in the most humanely manner, i.e. nitrogen gas chamber - then one could argue that death penalty is more moral than life sentence, resolving him from his suffering, which, is being robbed of freedom.

Continuing on with this moral argument - people given with heavy felonious punishment are now forever tainted. Most lose the rights to vote (criminal disenfranchisement), barred from working in certain industries and certainly reduces the probability of being employed, discriminated against in all facets of life. The felons walk out of the prison as a burden, incarcerated person, not a free one. There is valid argument as to whether this is more moral, fair or just than what the system provide.

Furthermore, on the nay argument, the resolution is written to provide WA with the final and only call for capital punishment, which on my opinion, is a huge no-no and also nightmarish in its execution. Even if dismissing the sovereignty argument - the WA is a hugely bureaucratic system that would take ages to go through with a request, furthermore - what is to say that the Division, as proposed is going to be as just or fair as the resolution put it to be?

On a side note - maybe capital punishment should be provided as an option to those given life sentence without parole - the rights to death have been granted in certain member state in the form of euthanasia, ranging from being limited only to terminal illnesses to more liberal stances like sufficient suffering.

[Gawdzendia]

OOC: I'm going to send in all 9,200 of my applications every year, without fault, even if I don't decide to carry through the execution.
I kind of enjoy one poor WA employee having to deal with the 25 requests for execution I'd submit each damn day.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I'm going to send in all 9,200 of my applications every year, without fault, even if I don't decide to carry through the execution.
I kind of enjoy one poor WA employee having to deal with the 25 requests for execution I'd submit each damn day.

(OOC: The idea of the clause banning executions to one per a million inhabitants was to reduce this sort of workload, but, considering the existence of FT nations with populations in the trillions, it won’t really work.)

[Xanthal]

I take a pause here from the debate to publicly pass on a message from the heads of my country's judiciary as requested.

*Riley reads from a tablet.* To the authors of the recent "Ban on Capital Punishment" proposal and their supporters. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the current series of WA actions and counter-actions regarding this issue, it is clear that there exists a very large faction of abolitionists within the World Assembly and, in combination with those delegations which support severe restrictions on judicial executions these Parties constitute at the least a near-majority. Therefore, in the interest of international cooperation in deference to the sensibilities of Parties and minimizing disruption for all stakeholders, this court petitions for a conference with one or more authorized state elements of Parties to determine a proper format for transfer of convicted persons who would otherwise be sentenced to death into jurisdictions willing and able to provide for their maintenance in accordance with international law, subject to conditions deemed acceptable and appropriate by the High Court and the Triumvirate. If no terms are reached, this message further serves as notice that unapproved jurisdictional transfers to Parties may take place to effect proper compliance with World Assembly laws when the proper care of a convicted person cannot be administered internally in a manner consistent with the laws and sensibilities of the Federation as a result of Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. Replies to be accepted via Telegram.

*Riley looks up, setting the tablet aside.* Then there are a bunch of signatures, et cetera. You know how things like that are.

[Demiurges]

Following up from my initial comments, I have now had the opportunity to read the proposal in detail and I have the following comments:

I will start by noting that in general, I am opposed to international criminal courts. They demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial systems of member states and are an unacceptable violation of national sovereignty. This is no less true for the court of appeals for capital cases established by this proposal ("the Division").

1. Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

As IA has made clear, s.1 is intentionally not a blocker. This proposal leaves open the possibility of the World Assembly banning capital punishment in future. In what sense, then, is this proposal a "compromise"? Why should any member state who supports the use of capital punishment vote in favour? What do we gain?

2. There shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases. To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year. For the purposes of avoiding confirmation bias in assessments, the Division shall not keep records of capital punishment procedures.

s.2 requires that member states not submit "more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year". As I mentioned earlier, this effectively prohibits smaller nations of less than one million people from using capital punishment. This constitutes unjust discrimination on the basis of member state population and is absolutely unacceptable. I have already pointed this out to IA but he does not seem to have addressed this issue.

Moreover, this limit is arbitrary. There could be legitimate reasons why a member state may need to exceed this limit. At the very least member states should be permitted to pay for the costs of handling the additional applications, rather than prohibiting them outright.

3. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.

s.3 requires that member states not "require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client." While I can understand the intent of this clause, it certainly needs to be clarified. As written it would likely prohibit law enforcement officials from demanding that the defendant comply with a legal search warrant or subpoena, if doing so would permit the government to acquire evidence which would compromise the defendant's defense.

4. Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
a. establish an office of a solicitor, specialised in the prosecution of capital cases, who shall conduct the prosecution of all capital cases within their jurisdiction,

s.4(a) requires the establishment of a single office for prosecuting capital cases. Why the micromanagement? The Division will have to review everything anyways.

c. provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,

s.4(c) requires that the defense be provided with "all evidence collected in the process of investigation". But there are valid limits to discovery, such as personally identifying information that is not material to the case. Such limits would be barred by this clause.

d. provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

s.4(d) requires that defendants have at minimum 1 year to review evidence against them. This is not ideal; these kinds of limits should be specific to the circumstances of the case, and one year might be much too long in some cases.

e. prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,

s.4(e) requires member states to "prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence". This is absurd. What if the evidence is judged to have been fabricated? It still has to be admitted and shown to a jury?

f. prove, such that there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence,

s.4(f) uses a standard of "doubt" rather than "reasonable doubt", which is impossible to reach. I have already pointed this out to IA but he did not address it.

Moreover, s.4(f) does not require member states to prove guilt; it instead requires them to provide that "there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt" on guilt. I'm not sure whether this is an equivalent or higher standard. Either way the wording is problematic and should be changed.

5. In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
a. member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,

s.5(a) seems to require an additional post-trial discovery period of up to 18 months: six months for the Division, prosecution, and defense each. What on earth is the point of this delay? Why isn't pre-trial discovery adequate? Why can't the evidence be examined concurrently?

6. Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method which is, upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.

s.6 would in some cases prohibit execution as a punishment for treason or similar crimes against the state, since these are not necessarily violent crimes. It would also prohibit execution of those who have only violently tortured and killed one person, as opposed to several. These are unacceptable limitations.

s.6 also requires the use of execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". IA gave as an example sedation followed by lethal injection. The problems with this approach are numerous. Some criminals want to be killed awake. Some states do not have access to the drugs used to perform lethal injections. And punishment in general need not and should not be painless. Unnecessary pain should be avoided, but it seems appropriate that a defendant should be awake for a sentence of death, which will necessarily involve some pain.

I think lethal injection in particular is also problematic insofar as it tends to medicalize and sanitize capital punishment. Capital punishment is not a medical treatment. It is an act of state violence, and the method should reflect this fact.

7. Member nations shall not extradite, except to World Assembly judicial institutions or jurisdictions without capital punishment, any person charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence. Nor shall any person be extradited to a place likely to commence judicial proceedings, which would contravene World Assembly legislation, against that person.

s.7 arbitrarily prohibits member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. Why this arbitrary limitation? Shouldn't it be enough that both nations respect the protections of this legislation?

8. No member nation shall carry out a capital sentence on any person which has not had their case record certified by the Division within the last year. Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before the Division has certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record, the defendant has exhausted all available appeals, or the Division has certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.

s.8 would permit a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not exhausting all available appeals, because then the Division could not certify the case.

The certification provisions in s.8 also differ from the certification provisions in s.4(g). What does this mean, exactly? Is a member state permitted to request certification for the requirements in s.4(g), but not for the ones in s.8?

Does the expiry of certification after all year apply to all certification provisions, or just a subset? Why does certification expire in the first place, and why only after one year, given all of the opportunities for delay in this process? Can certification be renewed?

Is the Division even required to certify even if all conditions are met? Can it simply always decline certification, effectively banning capital punishment?

---

In summary, this is an awful proposal. It is absurdly long, needlessly complex, full of ambiguities, and seems designed to ban capital punishment in all but name. While I opposed UM's proposed ban on capital punishment, at least it was honest about its intent. That's more than I can say for this proposal.

We oppose.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Demiurges wholeheartedly agrees with Aurelia on this matter.

[The Rhenish League]

Following up from my initial comments, I have now had the opportunity to read the proposal in detail and I have the following comments:

I will start by noting that in general, I am opposed to international criminal courts. They demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial systems of member states and are an unacceptable violation of national sovereignty. This is no less true for the court of appeals for capital cases established by this proposal ("the Division").

1. Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

As IA has made clear, s.1 is intentionally not a blocker. This proposal leaves open the possibility of the World Assembly banning capital punishment in future. In what sense, then, is this proposal a "compromise"? Why should any member state who supports the use of capital punishment vote in favour? What do we gain?

2. There shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases. To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year. For the purposes of avoiding confirmation bias in assessments, the Division shall not keep records of capital punishment procedures.

s.2 requires that member states not submit "more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year". As I mentioned earlier, this effectively prohibits smaller nations of less than one million people from using capital punishment. This constitutes unjust discrimination on the basis of member state population and is absolutely unacceptable. I have already pointed this out to IA but he does not seem to have addressed this issue.

Moreover, this limit is arbitrary. There could be legitimate reasons why a member state may need to exceed this limit. At the very least member states should be permitted to pay for the costs of handling the additional applications, rather than prohibiting them outright.

3. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.

s.3 requires that member states not "require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client." While I can understand the intent of this clause, it certainly needs to be clarified. As written it would likely prohibit law enforcement officials from demanding that the defendant comply with a legal search warrant or subpoena, if doing so would permit the government to acquire evidence which would compromise the defendant's defense.

4. Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
a. establish an office of a solicitor, specialised in the prosecution of capital cases, who shall conduct the prosecution of all capital cases within their jurisdiction,

s.4(a) requires the establishment of a single office for prosecuting capital cases. Why the micromanagement? The Division will have to review everything anyways.

c. provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,

s.4(c) requires that the defense be provided with "all evidence collected in the process of investigation". But there are valid limits to discovery, such as personally identifying information that is not material to the case. Such limits would be barred by this clause.

d. provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

s.4(d) requires that defendants have at minimum 1 year to review evidence against them. This is not ideal; these kinds of limits should be specific to the circumstances of the case, and one year might be much too long in some cases.

e. prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,

s.4(e) requires member states to "prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence". This is absurd. What if the evidence is judged to have been fabricated? It still has to be admitted and shown to a jury?

f. prove, such that there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence,

s.4(f) uses a standard of "doubt" rather than "reasonable doubt", which is impossible to reach. I have already pointed this out to IA but he did not address it.

Moreover, s.4(f) does not require member states to prove guilt; it instead requires them to provide that "there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt" on guilt. I'm not sure whether this is an equivalent or higher standard. Either way the wording is problematic and should be changed.

5. In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
a. member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,

s.5(a) seems to require an additional post-trial discovery period of up to 18 months: six months for the Division, prosecution, and defense each. What on earth is the point of this delay? Why isn't pre-trial discovery adequate? Why can't the evidence be examined concurrently?

6. Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method which is, upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.

s.6 would in some cases prohibit execution as a punishment for treason or similar crimes against the state, since these are not necessarily violent crimes. It would also prohibit execution of those who have only violently tortured and killed one person, as opposed to several. These are unacceptable limitations.

s.6 also requires the use of execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". IA gave as an example sedation followed by lethal injection. The problems with this approach are numerous. Some criminals want to be killed awake. Some states do not have access to the drugs used to perform lethal injections. And punishment in general need not and should not be painless. Unnecessary pain should be avoided, but it seems appropriate that a defendant should be awake for a sentence of death, which will necessarily involve some pain.

I think lethal injection in particular is also problematic insofar as it tends to medicalize and sanitize capital punishment. Capital punishment is not a medical treatment. It is an act of state violence, and the method should reflect this fact.

7. Member nations shall not extradite, except to World Assembly judicial institutions or jurisdictions without capital punishment, any person charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence. Nor shall any person be extradited to a place likely to commence judicial proceedings, which would contravene World Assembly legislation, against that person.

s.7 arbitrarily prohibits member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. Why this arbitrary limitation? Shouldn't it be enough that both nations respect the protections of this legislation?

8. No member nation shall carry out a capital sentence on any person which has not had their case record certified by the Division within the last year. Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before the Division has certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record, the defendant has exhausted all available appeals, or the Division has certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.

s.8 would permit a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not exhausting all available appeals, because then the Division could not certify the case.

The certification provisions in s.8 also differ from the certification provisions in s.4(g). What does this mean, exactly? Is a member state permitted to request certification for the requirements in s.4(g), but not for the ones in s.8?

Does the expiry of certification after all year apply to all certification provisions, or just a subset? Why does certification expire in the first place, and why only after one year, given all of the opportunities for delay in this process? Can certification be renewed?

Is the Division even required to certify even if all conditions are met? Can it simply always decline certification, effectively banning capital punishment?

---

In summary, this is an awful proposal. It is absurdly long, needlessly complex, full of ambiguities, and seems designed to ban capital punishment in all but name. While I opposed UM's proposed ban on capital punishment, at least it was honest about its intent. That's more than I can say for this proposal.

We oppose.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"I couldn't have put it into better words! These are basically the reasons why the Rhenish League has decided to vote against this."

[Xanthal]

It appears the majority still stand against even this obfuscated attempt at a ban, yet a few delegates wielding hundreds of votes each threaten to subvert the will of the members of this World Assembly.
Current popular vote: 2849-3030 (AGAINST)
Current delegate vote: 4756-3670 (FOR)
Current total vote: 7605-6700 (FOR)

OOC: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_de ... /council=1

[Kenmoria]

It appears the majority still stand against even this obfuscated attempt at a ban, yet a few delegates wielding hundreds of votes each threaten to subvert the will of the members of this World Assembly.
Current popular vote: 2849-3030 (AGAINST)
Current delegate vote: 4756-3670 (FOR)
Current total vote: 7605-6700 (FOR)

OOC: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_de ... /council=1

(OOC: If a region doesn’t like how their delegate is voting, it’s their responsibility to remove that person from power. Plenty of RL countries can have the popular vote differ from the actual result due to quirks in the system, NS is no different.)

[Xanthal]

OOC: If a region doesn’t like how their delegate is voting, it’s their responsibility to remove that person from power. Plenty of RL countries can have the popular vote differ from the actual result due to quirks in the system, NS is no different.

OOC: And in those RL countries do people object when it happens? Consider this my contribution to WA realism.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

It appears the majority still stand against even this obfuscated attempt at a ban, yet a few delegates wielding hundreds of votes each threaten to subvert the will of the members of this World Assembly.
Current popular vote: 2849-3030 (AGAINST)
Current delegate vote: 4756-3670 (FOR)
Current total vote: 7605-6700 (FOR)

OOC: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_de ... /council=1

This popular vote is close

[Tsuzu]

Who has the 1000 sockpuppets that voted 30 hours ago all at once?

[Hetsamo]

This proposal brought before the General Assembly is a travesty of justice. In essence (that is, under the guise of an act to protect 'innocent' people from capital punishment), murderers, rapists, and terrorists will be allowed to live after committing heinous crimes. The disrespect for victims and their families emanates from Imperium Anglorum with a seething hatred. Say for instance that a man rapes and kills a woman who also happens to be pregnant (the victim, NOT THE PERPETRATOR is the true Innocent one). Apparently he's set free to live even though he violated her right to live. Allowing these evil offenders the right to live is repugnant to the morality of NationStates, and the world at large. I call upon every nation to take into consideration the rights of victims and their families, and allow capital punishment to continue.

Thank you,

Hetsamo