Proposal: Right to Life

[Gimptown]

Hey, I'm pretty new, but wanted to submit a proposal. Any comments on this welcome before I do.

The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.

In this resolution, person is to mean a living human being from birth until death.

1) All World Assembly states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a World Assembly state.

2) All World Assembly states are to abolish death as a legal penalty.

3) A World Assembly state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:

a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. in to prevent the escape of a dangerous person lawfully detained;
c. in order to prevent an act of terrorism;
d. in order to prevent violent revolution;
e. when engaged in an act of war.

4) All actions under section 3 must comply with existing state and World Assembly laws.

5) If a World Assembly state does not provide national legislation for actions within section 3, any actions taken shall breach this Resolution.

[Tessaglia]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Tessaglia, I support this measure.

Respectfully,

HM Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

[The Emmerian Unions]

2) All World Assembly states are to abolish death as a legal penalty.

What about extremely dangerous criminals that should not be allowed to live?

5) If a World Assembly state does not provide national legislation for actions within section 3, any actions taken shall breach this Resolution.

Oh, How do you plan to accomplish this? With a WA military? The WA GETS no military.

[Cheztope]

I don't really know how it even works. What's the point of the resolutions?

[The Emmerian Unions]

I don't really know how it even works. What's the point of the resolutions?

[To screw with nation stats. Which is why I left the WA.]

[Rutianas]

Hey, I'm pretty new, but wanted to submit a proposal. Any comments on this welcome before I do.

We all start somewhere.

The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.

In this resolution, person is to mean a living human being from birth until death.

In theory, I agree. See further comments for why it's only 'in theory'

1) All World Assembly states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a World Assembly state.

Provided our people do not commit an act of treason against our Emperor, they have no need to fear that the Republic will end their life.

2) All World Assembly states are to abolish death as a legal penalty.

No. We cannot support this. We only have one crime which is an automatic penalty of death in the Republic. Treason. We do have a very strict judicial system in place to make certain of guilt before the sentence is carried out.

3) A World Assembly state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:

a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. in to prevent the escape of a dangerous person lawfully detained;
c. in order to prevent an act of terrorism;
d. in order to prevent violent revolution;
e. when engaged in an act of war.

Hmm. So, under this particular clause, criminals can simply be listed as revolutionaries, thus allowing the state to order the death penalty. Same with acts of treason. A nation could call them acts of a violent revolution or terrorism.

4) All actions under section 3 must comply with existing state and World Assembly laws.

You don't really have to mention WA laws. Mandatory compliance.

5) If a World Assembly state does not provide national legislation for actions within section 3, any actions taken shall breach this Resolution.

[/quote]

Woah! Wait! What? What's the point of having section 3 if you're going to force the nations to pass their own laws that say the same thing? I'm confused now.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Philimbesi]

Careful with your definitions of things. This body if full of nations who's inhabitants are not human.

[Absolvability]

In the Rogue nation we actually support the death penalty. We don't waste tax payer citations on rehabilitation for serial criminals, murderers, or rapists. It all comes down to morals, really. Now I can understand why death might seem immoral. On the other hand, it is our jobs to protect our citizens from people that DON'T follow this code of morals. We could also suggest that guns be illegal. But who is going to enforce this? Police officers. With guns, hopefully.

At any rate, it's an interesting concept.

e. when engaged in an act of war.

Here's where your morals lose me. In the most basic sense of war... one country is, in essense, accusing the other of commiting some 'crime.'

So really, you're using an International body to dictate what each nation may do with its prisoners... while, internationally, you condone murder. So to speak.

[Southern Confederate States (Ancient)]

The Armed Republic of Southern Confederate States, does not support this proposal. we have the death penalty and use it regularly. let Nations decide on the death penalty for themselves, don't try ban it in all WA member nations. we will fight for our right to use the death penalty with all means necessary, this is not a threat or promise, it is a fact.

[Wencee]

I must say, I would not support this action, while my Nation itself , has long ago in our history removed the so called 'death penalty' We do not wish force our views of the matter on other nations. So that said we will not approve this resolution should we see it up for delegate approval.

[Absolvability]

It's nice to see that this proposal doesn't really have much support. It's a little absurd, if you ask me, and not strictly something the WA needs to be dictating.

If we're striving towards some obscure global definition of 'humane' with this proposal, let me say this: I suspect, if you were to ask them, that many prisoners would rather be put to death than live 70 years in a prison.

[Gimptown]

Amended proposal

The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.

In this resolution, person is to mean a living human being from birth until death.

1) All World Assembly member states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a World Assembly state.

2) A World Assembly member state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:

a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. to prevent the escape of any violent person lawfully detained;
c. to prevent an act of terrorism;
d. when engaged in a legal act of war;
e. as a legal penalty under existing state laws.

3) World Assembly member states with no existing legal penalty of death are prohibited from introducing the penalty.

4) Any World Assembly member state which repeals an existing legal penalty of death is prohibited from reintroducing the penalty at a later date.

[Fallafel]

How do you propose we detain dangerous escapees? More taxes? Some people don't have the luxury of 3 squares and a roof over their head. Why not execute people who have killed others? While I agree that people deserve the right to live, I also believe that the odds of a serial killer becoming rehabilitated are extremely low, and that if they can take peoples lives away they automatically give up their right to live period. Don't you think this world is corrupt enough with having to fear the worst for doing the worst? I believe people don't kill other people for that reason alone sometimes. Take away the death penalty, and their will be a lot more murdering going on.

~President Dolores --The Republic of Falafel

[Tessaglia]

How do you propose we detain dangerous escapees? More taxes? Some people don't have the luxury of 3 squares and a roof over their head. Why not execute people who have killed others? While I agree that people deserve the right to live, I also believe that the odds of a serial killer becoming rehabilitated are extremely low, and that if they can take peoples lives away they automatically give up their right to live period. Don't you think this world is corrupt enough with having to fear the worst for doing the worst? I believe people don't kill other people for that reason alone sometimes. Take away the death penalty, and their will be a lot more murdering going on.

~President Dolores --The Republic of Falafel

President Dolores,

I must respectfully disagree. The reason for prisons is to remove offenders from the general population thereby increasing the safety of the people. That being said, once a serial killer is caught and put in prison, the criminal justice system and the prison have fulfilled their obligation to promote, provide for, and foster public safety. By putting the offender to death, no cause if furthered and it becomes, pardon the expression, overkill.

If, as some nations argue, that the death penalty is decided by economics and taxes, then I fear for the morality of the world. Equating a life, no matter how evil, to a monetary amount is horribly saddening.

So, to sum up my rebuttal:

1. Removing the offender from the people fulfills the objective of increasing public safety.
2. Life should never equal economics.
3. Therefore, the death penalty is worthless and accomplishes no reasonable goal.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.

Respectfully,

HM Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

[Absolvability]

What was the point of this re-draft? Obviously not to satisfy me. Obviously not to satisfy nations controlled by sentient species other than humans either. I guess elves can have the death penalty? I'm jealous.

Furthermore, how do you explain condoning war? By calling it 'legal' war? Absurd.

[Philimbesi]

What's to stop my nation from declaring that since there is a level of terror involved with all violent crimes... all criminals are terrorists... So we can kill them.

[Anumia]

How long until someone mentions abortion in this proposal thread? Oops.

[Flibbleites]

How do you propose we detain dangerous escapees? More taxes? Some people don't have the luxury of 3 squares and a roof over their head. Why not execute people who have killed others? While I agree that people deserve the right to live, I also believe that the odds of a serial killer becoming rehabilitated are extremely low, and that if they can take peoples lives away they automatically give up their right to live period. Don't you think this world is corrupt enough with having to fear the worst for doing the worst? I believe people don't kill other people for that reason alone sometimes. Take away the death penalty, and their will be a lot more murdering going on.

~President Dolores --The Republic of Falafel

President Dolores,

I must respectfully disagree. The reason for prisons is to remove offenders from the general population thereby increasing the safety of the people. That being said, once a serial killer is caught and put in prison, the criminal justice system and the prison have fulfilled their obligation to promote, provide for, and foster public safety. By putting the offender to death, no cause if furthered and it becomes, pardon the expression, overkill.

If, as some nations argue, that the death penalty is decided by economics and taxes, then I fear for the morality of the world. Equating a life, no matter how evil, to a monetary amount is horribly saddening.

So, to sum up my rebuttal:

1. Removing the offender from the people fulfills the objective of increasing public safety.
2. Life should never equal economics.
3. Therefore, the death penalty is worthless and accomplishes no reasonable goal.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.

Respectfully,

HM Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites disagrees with you, we find capital punishment to be highly effective in preventing criminals from committing more crimes.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Gimptown]

Another draft to cover other species and provide stricter definitions of terrorism and war.

If your nation already legally has the death penalty, you would not lose that. But the resolution would prevent any new adoption of the death penalty in other states.

The resolution only covers persons who have been born. This resolution isn't going into a debate on abortion - the death penalty is a contentious enough issue for now!

The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.

In this resolution, person is to mean a living being, from birth until death, of any sentient species that controls, founded or inhabits a member state or non-member nation.

1) All World Assembly member states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a member state.

2) A member state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:

a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. to lawfully prevent an immediate act of terrorism;
c. to prevent the escape of any lawfully detained person convicted of a violent offence;
d. as a legal penalty under existing state laws.

3) Member states with no existing legal penalty of death are prohibited from introducing the penalty.

4) Any member state that repeals an existing legal penalty of death is prohibited from reintroducing the penalty at a later date.

5) This resolution does not apply to a member state engaged in a legally sanctioned act of war to defend the peace of their nation from invasion or aggression.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So, uh, now that the death penalty is perfectly legal under this statute, what is the point of the resolution? To punish non-death penalty nations and prevent them from reversing bad laws (clause 4)? Or to prevent nations from killing members of an invading army (which for some reason now is no longer an exemption)? I guess we'll just have to classify all enemy nationals as "terrorists," then.

(Which we already do, but all the same...)

[Secruss]

So, uh, now that the death penalty is perfectly legal under this statute, what is the point of the resolution? To punish non-death penalty nations and prevent them from reversing bad laws (clause 4)? Or to prevent nations from killing members of an invading army (which for some reason now is no longer an exemption)? I guess we'll just have to classify all enemy nationals as "terrorists," then.

(Which we already do, but all the same...)

Ditto.

[Arenhaldt]

The Principality of Arenhaldt official opposes this resolution, based upon the following arguments:

1. It is the opinion of this nation's governing body that this proposal is self-contradictory in the sense that it essentially states that all life is sacred, and yet lists exceptions to this, which does not follow suit with the original stated intent of this proposal. Either you hold the position that all life is sacred and should not be ended by any controllable means under any circumstances, or you do not. This is especially true because the arguments for the exceptions leave vast amounts of room for abuse and corruption.

2. The governing body of this nation has a completely different stance on the sanctity of an individual life within our borders. The governing body of this nation values the well-being of the nation as a whole over the well-being of single citizens. It is the goal of this nation to produce the ultimate society, and that the method for doing so lies in purging all negative traits from our gene pool. Within this nation, one must acquire a license to produce offspring, the issuance of which is dependent on extensive psychological testing, among other factors. If a person is found to be totally and irreconcilably unfit for society, then it is the policy of this nation to terminate that individual. On the contrary, however, this is not mandatory. The citizen in question may opt for permanent exile, provided that another nation explicitly agrees, in writing, to grant him citizenship. The citizen in question is allowed a 6-month grace period to find such a nation. The terms of this are completely up to the citizen and the nation in question, provided it meets the following criteria:
a)The agreement MUST sate that the governing body of Arenhaldt be given a copy of said agreement before either party signs, and that the signing will take place under the direct witness of an appointed representative of Arenhaldt, and that any changes made to the document after it has been signed will result in the immediate termination of the citizen in question, regardless of any other circumstances.
b)The agreement MUST state that the citizen in question must never set foot on Arenhi soil - unless the governing body of this nation specifically arranges for it - or else be subject to immediate termination.
c)The agreement MUST provide for the transportation of said citizen outside of Arenhi borders within 12 hours of the signing of said agreement, after which the citizen in question will be terminated.

As you can see, this resolution lies in stark contradiction of the ideals of the Principality of Arenhaldt, and thus we must respectfully but firmly decline. Furthermore, we would like to point out that the reason our nation relocated to this region was because we were told that we would be afforded the freedom to practice our own systems within our borders, and this resolution would force us to do otherwise. If this resolution passes, Arenhaldt will heavily consider withdrawing from Equinox.

[Esternial]

On behalf of the Empire of Esternial, I vote against this proposition

Serial killers and what more are clinically insane and have no hope for a normal life.
They may appear to be, but the first sing of torture and pain they see, they fall back to murder and torture.
So, ask yourself this: Do you want to live in a nation, where you can walk the streets at night.
Or: A nation where you face possible death around every corner?

Law Enforcement is impiortant: Keep it that way!

Now I am on the subject, everyone should register a new penalty!
For the criminal youth: Transfer to high-security military base for 'education', so they may serve our country later on, instead of ruining it.

[Absolvability]

The citizen in question is allowed a 6-month grace period to find such a nation.

Well, I don't know how much I would've gone into that if I were you. You might not be in total compliance with The Right of Emigration... though, in all fairness, I do believe it is in the process of being repealed. Even still, I do not find your methods to be totally unreasonable.

The governing body of this nation values the well-being of the nation as a whole over the well-being of single citizens. It is the goal of this nation to produce the ultimate society, and that the method for doing so lies in purging all negative traits from our gene pool.

Now, considering the rest of what you said, I'm not sure I can agree with all of your means. I can CERTAINLY agree with the above, however, and applaud your efforts. In the Rogue Nation we believe in evolution. Which is to say, for the point at hand, we believe in natural selection. Unfortunately, whenever humans developed brains, instinct went right out the window. Now we don't go so far as to dictate to our citizens who can reproduce, but we DO endeavor to 'cull the herd,' so to speak.

In defense of serial criminals, it is HIGHLY possible that some sort of psychological disorder is the cause for their life of crime. Many disorders... chemical imbalances... what-have-you, such as depression, has been proven to be, in part, genetic. If a person proves that they have nothing good to contribute to society then there's no reason why they should be entitled to contribute at all.

Furthermore, why waste tax money on rehabiliation? Or a worse point still-- eternal imprisonment? In some nations it has been said that the chemicals required for euthenasia are more costly than shacking somebody up in jail for 30-odd years. First of all, I doubt that. Second of all, how much does a bullet cost?

Is a bullet inhumane? For who? The criminal? It's a quick enough way to die. If it looks messy, well, people shouldn't be allowed to watch anyway.

In todays world we've developed an over-zealous stylization of words like 'humane,' and 'politically correct.' As a governing body our job is to protect the citizens that will legally take advantage of the freedoms provided to them.

"An' ye harm none, do what ye will."

As a governing body we are not afforded this luxury! We must take action to ensure that, while everybody has the right to everything, they deprive others of nothing. We MUST support our high ideals with practical action!

"The way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation."

(OOC: I didn't include anything IC but just for reference-- the first quote is a wiccan/pagan saying, and the last one is Machiavelli.)

[Maerngau]

So, uh, now that the death penalty is perfectly legal under this statute, what is the point of the resolution? To punish non-death penalty nations and prevent them from reversing bad laws (clause 4)? Or to prevent nations from killing members of an invading army (which for some reason now is no longer an exemption)? I guess we'll just have to classify all enemy nationals as "terrorists," then.

(Which we already do, but all the same...)

Agreed.

Our vote would probably have gone to the first draft of the proposal, but with it teeth removed, we see this measure as a waste of time.