[GA - PASSED] Military Death Penalty Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Military Death Penalty Ban
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Qvait | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing the utility of GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban" in abolishing its application under most circumstances,

Concerned that the remaining applications of the death penalty are injurious and inhumane to people who are sentenced to death for crimes they may not have even committed,

Convinced that the death penalty is a draconian judicial punishment often used in the name of revenge and wrongfully rationalized as justice,

Appalled that exceptions can be made in the application of the death penalty,

Confident that alternative sentencing exists to produce fair and effective justice for victims of heinous crimes,

Determined to discontinue all remaining uses of the death penalty,

The World Assembly hereby,

  1. Abolishes the death penalty for all crimes under the purview of military law;
  2. Prohibits states from deporting persons to states that may seek the application of the death penalty against them;
  3. In regards to Article 2, an exception shall be provided for receiving states that enter into a lawful, written contract that assures the extraditing state that the persons in question shall not receive the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD]For[/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]17[/TD][TD]8[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]


"Military Death Penalty Ban" has passed 9,044 (60.2%) to 5,971 (39.8%).
 
Last edited:
IFV
Overview
This resolution seeks to prohibit the use of capital punishment for any crime tried under a military judicial code, as well as to prohibit deportations of individuals to jurisdictions that may utilize capital punishment against these deported individuals.

Recommendation
The practice of capital punishment is one that that the Ministry and the broader World Assembly community regards as reprehensible. Capital punishment has not been demonstrated to deter serious crimes, is disproportionately used against minorities and other disenfranchised populations as well as political dissidents, and horrifically has been employed against innocent persons for millennia. These same issues and disparities have also been demonstrated to be present in military tribunals and have permeated the enforcement of military judicial codes much like their civilian counterparts. As such, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the GA resolution at vote, "Military Death Penalty Ban".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against.

Reasoning: There is absolutely nothing that anyone can say that will convince me to vote for this proposal should it ever reach quorum. When someone commits genocide or other crimes against humanity, particularly on a massive scale, they have already crossed a line and are beyond the point of redemption. How can such a criminal be forgiven for having killed tens of thousands of innocent lives and brought suffering to many more? Why sentence such a criminal to life imprisonment when they have snuffed out the lives of their victims, of which there are many? I am not convinced that it will be a satisfactory punishment for such crimes. Just as they have deprived their victims their right to live, they should not be allowed to live out their lives, for they have forfeited that right.
 
Last edited:
John Doe Smith:
Against.

Reasoning: There is absolutely nothing that anyone can say that will convince me to vote for this proposal should it ever reach quorum. When someone commits genocide or other crimes against humanity, particularly on a massive scale, they have already crossed a line and are beyond the point of redemption. How can such a criminal be forgiven for having killed tens of thousands of innocent lives and brought suffering to many more? Why sentence such a criminal to life imprisonment when they have snuffed out the lives of their victims, of which there are many? I am not convinced that it will be a satisfactory punishment for such crimes. Just as they have deprived their victims their right to live, they should not be allowed to live out their lives, for they have forfeited that right.
Click to expand...
I recognize the reasoning from the Hammurabi order of legal thought, but I like to think that law after the rise of Christianity supersedes that. A human who has committed grave evil acts is not really punished when their life is snuffed out. Sure there may be fear or an instant of pain but that is momentary. A life of reflection on what they did is a lot more than just a moment of receiving what one gave. I think it is a fuller justice for one and also a greater response in the face of evil. Greater is gained still if the opportunity for a life of repentance is given to an evil actor. An eye for an eye is such a materialistic reading of the situation, but we humans are more than just an eye, or a heart, or just a biological system and judicial remedies should reflect that.
 
To add to what Wondo said, the death penalty is not a deterrent and it is not rehabilitative. As if someone who commits war crimes or genocide isn’t aware that they could be killed or executed at any moment. Executing such a person will also not bring the victims the closure that they need either. The death penalty does not achieve its stated aims.

For
 
I expect the author to resubmit this at some point, but until such time...Thread Locked.
 
This proposal has been resubmitted by the author. With a very slight wording change to active clause 3, I can see no point in a new thread. Thread Unlocked.
 
AGAINST. To those who have, and will be voting, I put forth 4 reasons why you should reconsider:

1. Yes, the person sentenced MAY be falsely accused, but the chances are extremely low.
2. The death penalty can be reserved only for heinous crimes, which have substantial evidence to prove so.
3. Death Penalty is a psychological deterrent. A lifetime sentence isn't enough, as notorious people have a chance to escape, dominate, or continue their trade in prisons.
4. 'the extraditing state that the persons in question shall not receive the death penalty.' - those who escape are usually those who know the consequences of the crimes they committed, and have enormous support and wealth behind them - which are usually stolen from the YOUR nation.
 
As it is right now, I reiterate my support for the proposal.

Mazdia:
1. Yes, the person sentenced MAY be falsely accused, but the chances are extremely low.
Click to expand...
The point of this legislation is to ensure that no one is killed for a false accusation.
Mazdia:
2. The death penalty can be reserved only for heinous crimes, which have substantial evidence to prove so.
Click to expand...
This contradicts your first point. You admit that a person may be falsely accused, and yet all heinous crimes surely have substantial evidence to prove they are guilty?
Mazdia:
3. Death Penalty is a psychological deterrent. A lifetime sentence isn't enough, as notorious people have a chance to escape, dominate, or continue their trade in prisons.
Click to expand...
This argument is well worn-out. Those whose crimes may subject them to the death penalty - mass murderers, war criminals, drug kingpins - already have death as a consequence of their actions. They fully expect to die for what they've done, whether it's by the hand of justice or not - if your prisons are a better alternative to that, isn't that only a boon? And if your issue is with them escaping or continuing their trade in prisons, you have a chance to address that, as opposed to murdering a person.
Mazdia:
4. 'the extraditing state that the persons in question shall not receive the death penalty.' - those who escape are usually those who know the consequences of the crimes they committed, and have enormous support and wealth behind them - which are usually stolen from the YOUR nation.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the point you're making here. How is a criminal escaping related to ensuring that the extradition of criminals to a state that has the death penalty are not subjected to the death penalty?
 
Last edited:
Westinor:
As it is right now, I reiterate my support for the proposal.


The point of this legislation is to ensure that no one is killed for a false accusation.

This contradicts your first point. You admit that a person may be falsely accused, and yet all heinous crimes surely have substantial evidence to prove they are guilty?

This argument is well worn-out. Those whose crimes may subject them to the death penalty - mass murderers, war criminals, drug kingpins - already have death as a consequence of their actions. They fully expect to die for what they've done, whether it's by the hand of justice or not - if your prisons are a better alternative to that, isn't that only a boon? And if your issue is with them escaping or continuing their trade in prisons, you have a chance to address that, as opposed to murdering a person.

I don't understand the point you're making here. How is a criminal escaping related to ensuring that the extradition of criminals to a state that has the death penalty are not subjected to the death penalty?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if I haven't put across my point clearly:

My first point says that the % of the falsely accused sentenced to a death penalty is really low. We can make some reforms to ensure the % goes down like no.2:

My 2nd point says that the death penalty should be reserved only for heinous cases (genocide/terrorism) which DO have clear evidence of the person being guilty, i.e. they were recorded on CCTV or by a lot of witnesses while gunning down civillians or planting bombs.

The death penalty CANNOT be passed UNLESS there is clear evidence.

And my 3rd point still stands. If there is clear evidence of them being guilty and they are indifferent to death, then rehabilitating a druglord or a mass murderer is only a drain of resources - I find it better to rehabilitate a robber or drunk driver in the same prison cell.
 
Last edited:
Against.

The Death Penalty when utilized in a way that suits its purpose (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide) is by far the most efficient way to administer true justice to the victims of such crimes. There is no justice done when we allow such a criminal to get away scot-free or jailed in prison indefinitely, especially the latter. I have seen many a times where once the criminal has passed a certain age, such as growing too old or acquiring an incurable disease, where they allowed freedom. This people do not deserve the same freedom and privileges afforded to any other law-abiding citizen solely because they have committed the crime knowingly, without remorse. It is too good of a punishment for them to waste their life away, locked in a cell, wasting the taxpayer's money and a government's time and effort just to keep them alive.

I would like to ask our fellow TNPers, what is the point in keeping these criminals alive? If the death penalty is taken away, the next harshest punishment would be life imprisonment, right? So what is the point of keeping these criminals alive if they are just going to be locked away forever? Rehabilitation could be possible, but if they are rehabilitated should we just let them go? If so, then where is the justice? Rehabilitation should only be allowed for lesser crimes, not crimes against humanity.

Also, for the naysayers that claims the death penalty is an overrated deterrence, I would like to remind such an argument would mean that the entire criminal justice system as a whole would then be an overrated form of deterrence. With so many laws in place in our civilized world, one would think that crime would stop. But yet, crime still runs amok on a day to day basis. That is why we should have a deterrence so great, so when a criminal of such heinous crime appears, we can show that the punishment will be just as severe.

Understandably, we have to touch on the fact that the death penalty can easily be abused. I will not deny this; the death penalty has been abused multiple times by multiple civilizations throughout the history of mankind.
So I would proposed an alternative: The Death Penalty should only be applied with credible amount evidence, peered reviewed by multiple agencies, government and non-government, with a third party watchdog to make sure that it will not be easily abused and that all sentencing of the death penalty will be held accountable by all involved in the case should a foul death penalty occur. Criminals should as always be treated as Innocent until Proven Guilty.

I personally think that such an alternative would be far more expansive than most punishments handed out to criminals, but seeing as how this punishment is literally taking the life of a fellow human, such a cost should be consider negligible in the pursuit of true justice.
 
Last edited:
Against- The death penalty is mostly a quick process. The most common death penalty is the Lethal Injection. The Lethal Injection most of the time is a Painless And Quick death. Life Imprisonment is pointless since the Government is paying money to keep the criminal in jail for life. Why do we have to pay money to someone who could be a Mass Murderer,Terrorist,etc.
Please take this into account before voting.
 
Dirtha:
Against- The death penalty is mostly a quick process. The most common death penalty is the Lethal Injection. The Lethal Injection most of the time is a Painless And Quick death. Life Imprisonment is pointless since the Government is paying money to keep the criminal in jail for life. Why do we have to pay money to someone who could be a Mass Murderer,Terrorist,etc.
Please take this into account before voting.
Click to expand...
1) Killing people solves nothing and is wrong.
2) People can be reformed.
3) Innocents can be convicted and sentenced to death. It’s rare, but not impossible and that’s unacceptable,
 
Suppose you are dealing with someone whose crimes are beyond redemption, and doesn't want to be reformed. What then should be done with this individual?
 
@Comfed
1. Killing people is not wrong. If someone is taking someone hostage, You can shoot the person who is taking the person hostage to save the person‘s life.
2.So you are saying you would let a terrorist out of prison just be you think he/she changed
3.Taking more precautions to make sure that doesn’t is better than taking the Death Penalty away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nev
Dirtha:
1. Killing people is not wrong. If someone is taking someone hostage, You can shoot the person who is taking the person hostage to save the person‘s life.
Click to expand...
That’s different, because it saves a person’s life.
Dirtha:
2.So you are saying you would let a terrorist out of prison just be you think he/she changed
Click to expand...
No. I’m arguing against the death penalty, not punishment in general.
Dirtha:
3.Taking more precautions to make sure that doesn’t is better than taking the Death Penalty away.
Click to expand...
No precaution beyond maybe DNA evidence is 100% certain and often no DNA evidence exists. And even when it does, see 1
 
For. The arguments against this proposal, frankly, hold pretty much zero merit.
 
As of 8:51 PM EDT, this proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Assuming it is not withdrawn or ruled illegal, it will take the floor at Thursday’s Major Update in just over a day,
 
St George:
For. The arguments against this proposal, frankly, hold pretty much zero merit.
Click to expand...
The arguments for and against the proposal are repeated endlessly on most cable news channels, newspapers and magazines, Twitter and Facebook, so not repeating again.
 
Comfed:
That’s different, because it saves a person’s life.
No. I’m arguing against the death penalty, not punishment in general.
No precaution beyond maybe DNA evidence is 100% certain and often no DNA evidence exists. And even when it does, see 1
Click to expand...
1. Taking a life, whether it is to save someone or to deal just punishment, is the same. No matter how much we would like to justify this action, it would still be morally wrong as this action requires us to literally end a living being for no other reason than to satisfy our take of justice. One man's justice is another's injustice, no matter the reason behind it.

2. The Death penalty, in my opinion, should be seen as a quick and just punishment. And I might argue it to be less painful for the criminal as well, if were to bring ethics into account. Imagine being locked away in a cell with no purpose but to waste your life away. Life imprisonment is just that. To live and to have no purpose would be no worse than death itself, at least death is quicker and less painful.

3. DNA evidence in itself is not full 100% proof of a crime either. We have seen it many a times where DNA has been used on people who have no connection to the crime whatsoever(see this article). Of course that is not say that DNA evidence is not trustworthy, but I feel it should be treated as it is, just a single piece of evidence, alongside any other type of evidence to the crime in equal value.

I would also like add that the death penalty in itself, while morally wrong, would help bring peace of mind to victims. Of course we can argue whether revenge justice really bring peace of mind (I believe its a mix of yes and no) to the victim, but at the very least it will bring closure. Understandably, the biggest concerns I've seen about the death penalty is rehabilitation and wrongful conviction. Both of which I completely understand, but I would like add my own opinion on these matters.

Rehabilitation. Human beings learn best from their mistakes, and I think most of us could agree on this. To err is human, and sometimes this could mean committing a crime, maybe out of desperation or to better improve their live etcetera etcetera. Forgiveness and rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system, but that is not say we should forgive every crime committed under the sun. Heinous crimes (i.e. murder, assault, kidnapping, arson, armed robbery, rape, terrorism, and genocide), especially when committed by people who knowingly commit such things for their own sake, should not be forgiven. Even more so if they do not feel any sense of remorse during the sentencing. You could use the argument that they had a rough childhood or that they are mentally disturbed, but this world is vast. If every mentally disturbed person or people with rough childhood were to succumb to their baser instinct then murderers and mass genocide would be a more common thing. Rehab should only be given to those of lesser crimes and to those who shown remorse for their actions or are forced to commit such a heinous crime because of very certain circumstances (i.e. blackmailed into killing etc).

Wrongful conviction. This also another big argument why most would argue against the death penalty and I genuinely understand why. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen throughout the history of mankind where the death penalty had been arbitrarily applied to the innocent, either by corrupt individuals of power or blind justice. That is why I would propose that the death penalty be only applied to the most heinous of crimes, established with evidence, witnesses and physical proof, under the eyes of a third party watchdog, peered reviewed by government and non government groups, and all party to be held accountable for the sentencing should a foul death penalty occur. The cost will be high, way higher than just straight up incarceration. But I believe that it should be treated as negligible in the pursuit of true justice, as such a punishment would be taking a life a of a fellow human being.

The Death Penalty, if not abused, would be a powerful deterrence and contributing factor to law and order in our very chaotic human society.
 
Last edited:
Kinda weird how people voted against Protecting Sapient Life but gladly support this. Oh well. For.
 
St George:
There is zero evidence to support this view and plenty of peer reviewed studies to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my last statement there was not meant as a fact. I'm not quoting statistics in that statement whatsoever. It was actually me trying to say that "IF" the death penalty is not abused, it could serve as a powerful deterrence and contributing factor to law and order.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top