UN Proposal: Ban of Death Penalty

[Boktavia II]

Ban of Death Penalty

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
 

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Gigatron

Description: "The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments."

- Amnesty International

The death penalty means the triumph of vengeance over justice and violates the first right of any human being, the right to life. Capital punishment has never prevented crime. It is an act of torture and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A society that imposes the death penalty symbolically encourages violence. Every single society that respects the dignity of its people has to strive to abolish capital punishment.

We demand the universal abolition of the death penalty. In this respect, we call on citizens, states and international organizations to act so that:
• states ratify this UN Moratorium on an international and regional level.
• countries which have stopped executing people sentenced to death, remove the death penalty from their statute books.
• states which sentence to death persons who were juveniles at the time of the crime, end this blatant violation of the international law
• mentally disabled people cannot be sentenced to death
• no states having abolished or suspended executions extradite anyone to third countries still applying the death penalty, irrespective of guarantees that it would not be imposed.

[Sheynat]

I'm personally very opposed to the death penalty, but I hate resolutions that interfere with conservative's rights to run their country the way the way.

[Henneth annun]

We must stop it in every UN nation. Vote for it!

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, why is the UN trying to run our nations? Vote no on this and any other proposals where the UN tries to force their viewpoints on sovereign nations.

[Sheynat]

That's what I'm saying. I banned the death penalty in my nation, but this is just more of the UN forcing its will down people's throats. This one, however, is looking like it will be defeated. Last I checked, there were twice as many no votes as yes.

[Henneth annun]

I'm changingmy vote from Yes to no.

[Kellopalopalis]

The human rights of the world's citizens supersede the rights of a UN nation to govern itself. The Death Penalty is not a method, such as war, in which killing is lamentable, but instead a method in which killing is cold, calculated and cruel. We expend tremendous time and resources to invade sovereign nations whose dictators kill their own people, so why shouldn't the UN at least discourage the practice in it's more lawful states? (As far as I know, the most this UN resolution could do would be to discourage the Death Penalty. It has no real authority)

[Shinke]

While I said yes, Kellokallopalis, your reasoning is a bit flawed. While in the real World, the U.N. has very little actual power (they just look down at people and shake their heads), In this game, whenever a resolution comes to vote, its consequences are infact, enforced.

However, I do agree with all your other reasons.

[Kellopalopalis]

I haven't observed any resolution in the UN having any effect (except the telegram), the most glaring being the resolution that mandated the creation of an office of Secretary General. I could be wrong. If so, please enlighten me.

[Ambivila]

This proposal violates my basic rule: I will govern my own country without UN interference.

[Parthini]

The thing about the death penalty is that it rids the world of very bad people. If we just put people in jail or "rehabilitated" them, they could easily break out or fake it. Then they would be free to kill or do whatever horrors they want. If you use the death penalty, they are removed from society permanently. They can no longer kill. Society is safer without that person. As much as you want to complain about civil rights, it doesn't affect the world as a whole as environmental issues do. So therefore, the UN shouldn't be making dumb proposals like that.

GPP

***EDIT***

Sorry for the rant guys. I haven't been on in a while

***EDIT***

[Sheynat]

I agree that it removes some nasty, nasty people, who deserve to die. I'm only opposed to the death penalty because it also removes some mistakenly convicted people who never even kicked a puppy. I don't know why I'm posting this, I've already voted against the ban...

[3rd Armored Division]

I'm Catholic, and I take it from the Bible that we can't deal things in the manner of an eye for an eye. But there's another part of me, I just can't put my finger on what it is, that wants me to retain it-outside of the fact that this is a UN resolution. As for the resolution itself, I'm shooting it down.

[Heftig]

The right to live is the most basic human right and no country should have the opportunity to legally take it away from its citizens!

There is absolutely no reason for death penalty, no matter what the accused did.

Have a look at the reasons for punishment:
1. To rehabilitate/change the prisoner in a way that he is no danger to society anymore. -> No way this can be achieved by death penalty, because he is dead afterwards.

2. To make society a less dangerous place. -> This can definitely be achieved by death penalty, but think about some innocent people who have to pay the same price. Compare killing innocent citizens with a safe society on the one hand to having the convicted serve life terms, have a safe society AND giving them the opportunity to prove the judiciary wrong on the other hand.

3. General prevention: Deterrence of the public -> This can be achieved by death penalty, but as studies have shown, not to a greater degree than life time imprisonment. How else could you explain the comparably high rate of murder in the States. The murder rate should be much lower than in countries that don’t have death penalty, but it is definitely not.

4. Undermine the presence of law and to strengthen the public trust in the judiciary system: This can be achieved by death penalty, but not as well as with life imprisonment. If people hear of an innocent being executed –what always happens from now and then – the distrust in the judiciary system is being increased. Who trusts a system that kills its own innocent people?

5. Revenge: This is a good reason for death penalty. The victim’s relatives probably feel revenged to much a higher degree if the accused is being executed as if he has to serve a long term in prison. But is this really a good reason for capital punishment?...The feelings of the victim’s relatives? If so a country should think about introducing methods like they are being used in Saudi Arabia for example. Capital punishment publicly executed with the sword. If the relatives wish they might execute the verdict themselves. This is not far away from medieval society. In my opinion western democracies should have overcome the public demand of revenge a long time ago.

Do you see that there is really no need for capitol punishment?

Concerning the text of the current resolution:

- states which sentence to death persons who were juveniles at the time of the crime, end this blatant violation of the international law
- mentally disabled people cannot be sentenced to death

Another poorly written resolution: If a country abolishes the death penalty there is absolutely no need for these two points…

Even though the resolution lacks consistence I encourage everybody to vote: YES!

[Parthini]

Heftig said:

3. General prevention: Deterrence of the public -> This can be achieved by death penalty, but as studies have shown, not to a greater degree than life time imprisonment. How else could you explain the comparably high rate of murder in the States. The murder rate should be much lower than in countries that don’t have death penalty, but it is definitely not.

Actually not all of the States allow capital punishment. I know they do here in Texas. They don't in most of the northern states. So, in order to get more proof you would have to see the crime rates in states that use the death penalty as opposed to ones that don't.

GPP

[Kellopalopalis]

Parthini said:

Actually not all of the States allow capital punishment. I know they do here in Texas. They don't in most of the northern states. So, in order to get more proof you would have to see the crime rates in states that use the death penalty as opposed to ones that don't.

GPP

States with the death penalty have higher murder rates

***I found murder rates of each state from a source that cited the US census. I did the math of averaging murder rates.
The average murder rate of a state that practices the death penalty: 6.3/100,000 ppl
The average murder rate of a state that does not practice the death penalty: 3.5/100,000 ppl

[Sheynat]

Where did you read that? I understood that states with the death penalty had neither higher nor lower murder rates. And I'd bet that if you looked real close at whatever study you're citing, it would count justifiable homicide, which includes execution itself, which means of course they're going to have a higher murder rate.
*Again, did it count justifiable homicides? Justifiable homicides are often counted among the murder rate, and hanging states tend to also be gun states, where it's easier to blast somebody in self defense, or because he just raped that lady, or because he's wearing a Yankees hat and you hate the Yankees...I think that's more the availabilty of guns in those states than execution.

[stinkyhippies]

Heftig said:

The right to live is the most basic human right and no country should have the opportunity to legally take it away from its citizens!

There is absolutely no reason for death penalty, no matter what the accused did.

Have a look at the reasons for punishment:
1. To rehabilitate/change the prisoner in a way that he is no danger to society anymore. -> No way this can be achieved by death penalty, because he is dead afterwards.

If it has been determined that a criminal has no intention of reforming, such as repeated convictions or a truly deviant crime, then this is a waste of time. As nice as it would be to "fix" a criminal, he/she needs to want to change. I am not going to toss my tax dollars into multi-million dollar facilities to house prisons for 20-50 on the off-chance that a career criminal might decide to change. Even if the dyed-in-the-wool criminlas DO change in prison it usually is well after they have adopted an institutionalized mindset, and been there a looooong time... and what good are they to society if they are let go then, eh?

2. To make society a less dangerous place. -> This can definitely be achieved by death penalty, but think about some innocent people who have to pay the same price. Compare killing innocent citizens with a safe society on the one hand to having the convicted serve life terms, have a safe society AND giving them the opportunity to prove the judiciary wrong on the other hand.

Yes, occasionally a person innocent of the crime they are convicted for is executed or put on death row. Can you provide more than 5 examples of it? No. There is the case of several in Chicago, but the governor did that because he did not want to see men die because of the improper behavior of some DA's... something he could easily have done with a stay until a probe was completed and appeals made. Government and life are hard things to enact, and some innocents may be lost... but how much good could be done with the money currently being pumped into the penal system to store hardened maniacs and thugs?

3. General prevention: Deterrence of the public -> This can be achieved by death penalty, but as studies have shown, not to a greater degree than life time imprisonment. How else could you explain the comparably high rate of murder in the States. The murder rate should be much lower than in countries that don’t have death penalty, but it is definitely not.[/unquote]
Apples and oranges. Murder is higher here... and that's an effect of the US position on gun-ownership. If you take out the immense numbers of murders by firearm, you will see our murder rates are abotu the same as those in other countries. Let's just put that aside, and concentrate on your statement that we have about the same murder rates... why not kill the condemned and not have to PAY FOR THIER USELESS LIVES for 20-50 years? Maintains the peace as it is, and costs less.

4. Undermine the presence of law and to strengthen the public trust in the judiciary system: This can be achieved by death penalty, but not as well as with life imprisonment. If people hear of an innocent being executed –what always happens from now and then – the distrust in the judiciary system is being increased. Who trusts a system that kills its own innocent people?

More reason to advertise the executions MORE. People understand mistakes can be made. No system is perfect. Public trust in the justice system is NOT being eroded by the very rare execution of an innocent person. It is being eroded by the revolving door effect of every moron in prison being allowed a dozen appeals, getting off on technicalities and being released on parole or work release no matter thier crime because of prison overcrowding. If we executed those convicted of multiple heinous crimes, a lot of that goes away, winning far more trust than the occasional mistake loses.

5. Revenge: This is a good reason for death penalty. The victim’s relatives probably feel revenged to much a higher degree if the accused is being executed as if he has to serve a long term in prison. But is this really a good reason for capital punishment?...The feelings of the victim’s relatives? If so a country should think about introducing methods like they are being used in Saudi Arabia for example. Capital punishment publicly executed with the sword. If the relatives wish they might execute the verdict themselves. This is not far away from medieval society. In my opinion western democracies should have overcome the public demand of revenge a long time ago.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda, DIDN'T. If you have this mentality, you have never had a relative raped, murdered or hooked on drugs. You've never had a child in your family molested. It's all well and good to say 'revenge is immature, something from the less civilized past', but its also naive. Yes, naive. A majority of the world wants a final closing to the ordeals they face. How can my uncle look his 14-yr old daughter in the eye, and tell her for certain she is safe, if the guy who raped her last year is eligible for parole before she is 18? If the law doesn't address the feelings of the victims, it is not doing it's job. After all, why is crime prosecuted? It's not because we all like to watch it on Court TV, it's because crime creates a negative emotion... one that often can be assuaged and laid to rest with a more final closing to that traumatic part of the victim's life.

Do you see that there is really no need for capitol punishment?

Not in all cases, but hell yes I do.

Concerning the text of the current resolution:


Another poorly written resolution: If a country abolishes the death penalty there is absolutely no need for these two points…

Even though the resolution lacks consistence I encourage everybody to vote: YES!

If it's poorly written, lacks consistancy and violates the right of a country to rule itself as it's people see fit... WHY VOTE FOR IT? Just because some of us feel all huggy towards humanity in general. I'm really liberal, but I don't see any need to keep useless non-members of society on a government-funded dole. I say vote NO! until the resolution in question addresses every part of the issue, is well-written, and doesn't DEMAND a country change it's values to be part of the UN.

/rant

[Kellopalopalis]

Stinky said:

Yes, occasionally a person innocent of the crime they are convicted for is executed or put on death row. Can you provide more than 5 examples of it? No.

I could provide more than 5 examples if I wasn't about to leave. People aren't occasionally mistakenly convicted, they are often. DNA evidence has exhonerated...much more than 5. These are the people whose confessions were beaten out of them.
[/quote]It is being eroded by the revolving door effect of every moron in prison being allowed a dozen appeals, getting off on technicalities and being released on parole or work release no matter thier crime because of prison overcrowding.[/quote]
The appeals will continue as long as the death penalty is practiced. It is much more practical and cheap to sentence someone to life without parole. Why kill someone if you have to? The reason prisons are overcrowded is ceratinly not because of the few who commit heinous crimes, but because of all the people convicted in drug related crimes.
[/quote]It's all well and good to say 'revenge is immature, something from the less civilized past', but its also naive. Yes, naive. A majority of the world wants a final closing to the ordeals they face. How can my uncle look his 14-yr old daughter in the eye, and tell her for certain she is safe, if the guy who raped her last year is eligible for parole before she is 18? If the law doesn't address the feelings of the victims, it is not doing it's job. After all, why is crime prosecuted?[/quote]
It is well and good. It would be naive for me to say revenge is easy to get over, but it would be right of me to say that revenge is wrong.

[Glione]

I believe that the death penalty is a fair, just and acceptable form of punishment for the crimes of murder and rape. The death penalty means that there is one less murderer and rapist out on the street. As it has been stated before, life in prison allows the chance for parole and escape.

No system of justice is perfect, therefore mistakes WILL be made from time to time, but the number of successful convictions, in most cases, outweighs that of wrongful convictions. Sure it can be expensive, but really, is there any need for 3-5 different chemicals and alcohol to put one to death when one bullet or one blade to the neck would do?

The Empire of Glione actively uses the death penalty. Also, again as others have stated before, the UN is imposing it's own rule against our nations. If we aren't careful, the UN could become a mass empire.

The Empire of Glione's official position is against this resolution.

[RichfieldMN]

This should be a slam dunk, any state that advocates the use of the death penalty is barbaric and inhumane.

The use of the death penalty is no better than the criminal who murders, to take a life is murder.

Any justice system can imprison someone without a chance of parole, meaning life in prison means life ...

Using the death penalty for rape means that the rapist might as well kill the person he rapes as he will die anyway..

Vote Yes.

If we say the United Nations should not intefere in our sovereign rights is saying that the UN should not exist, as all issues intefere in our sovereign rights, If you don't like the issue vote NO but don't vote NO on semantics

[Parthini]

The UN should be regulating things that affect the whole community, not just single nations. Making proposals for the environment I can deal with. That affects the whole world or more than just a single nation. However, all of these controversial proposals about abortion, prostitution (how the hell did that get passed anyways?), the 40 hour work week, and the death penalty don't affect anything outside of the nation that does the opposite of what the UN wants. Most of these proposals are just a bunch of liberals trying to enforce their ideas on the NS community.

GPP

[Boktavia II]

By going with the majority, I will vote No on this proposal.