We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: CPL Capital Punishment Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2109
Description[?]:
| We propose the reintroduction of capital punishment for criminals where the guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt. We propose Capital Punishment for the following: 1: Serial or Repeat Murderers 2: Serial or Repeat Rapists Removing these criminals from our streets will be beneficial for our citizens. We have selected Capital Punishment only for serial Murderers/Rapists. This is because if the evidence points to the same person in more than one case, then the guilt is beyond all doubt. It is possible to convict the wrong man over one murder, but not if that man is guilty in both cases. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy with respect to the death penalty.
Old value:: The death penalty is illegal and is never to be applied.
Current: The death penalty is applied for capital crimes.
Proposed: The death penalty is applied for capital crimes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:07:46, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Killing people is wrong. No two ways about it. Just cos they have violated the life of others doesn't mean we have the right to do the same to them. It's not a two way street. State murder is pure hypocracy. Isn't the doctrine of 'turn the other cheek' better than 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'? If these moral reasons don't cure ya of the killin lust think about Justice -can you ever totally prove that they are guilty? Economics - executions and capital trials are way expensive (more so than jailling for life, perversely) National image -do you really want to look like a barbaric country? because that is what 'death penalty' suggests about a place to me. But really it all comes back to compassion, forgiveness, those sort of words that rightists have forgotten. Oh, and logic. Don't you think killing is wrong? Of course you do, or you wouldn't be proposing harsh punishment for murderers. But that makes you a murderer. Oh dear. I guess we are gonna have to kill you now. |
| Date | 19:23:27, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | A civilised society will take steps to defend the innocent. State authorised execution is not murder, it is execution. Serial Killers guilt are beyond all doubt. If the evidence points to them overwhelmingly twice, they will be guilty 100%. Retribution not only helps to clean the streets of men who have put themselves beyond rehabilitation, it also allows the victims families to receive 'closure'. OOC: Executions and Capital Trials are only more expensive in the US, where condemned men are allowed numorous appeals and reman of death row for many years. In the UK, defendents were only allowed one appeal, and were executed within months of being condemned, it was not that expensive. |
| Date | 20:05:37, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | But it was even less just. people were executed more than once who were later proved to be innocent. Even if only one in 1000 of the people put to death do not deserve it, it still cannot be justified. Would you be willing to kill innocent people for a sense of 'closure'? I think life imprisonment is enough closure. How have they put themselves beyond rehabillitation? They may regret their actions enough that they deserve to live. If you are against abortion under the premise that it kills people without their consent (a doubtful claim), how can you condone 'execution'. Just cos you are calling it something else doesn't mean it is any better. It doesn't mean you are not responsible for their death. In fact for cold bloodedly plotting their death. I would still call that murder. |
| Date | 20:36:09, September 09, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Actually, the issue of killing people without consent may have been mine; and by commiting the crime they have given consent to the punishment. |
| Date | 22:57:59, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | To LPE: We are talking about serial murdrers and rapists, we are talking about the lowest form of scum in our society. Anyone who plans a series of rapes or murders is beyond rehabilitation, one murder may be an accident, an act of passion etc, multiple murders indicates a cold blooded person who cannot live in a civilised society. |
| Date | 00:01:25, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | But that doesn't give YOU the right to kill them. That doesn't alter the absolute wrongness of killing. It is a terribly concieted kind of moral relitivism which allows you to kill them in the spirit of justice, while condemning their acts of killing as depravity. |
| Date | 11:23:04, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Bill: Anarch Anakrousite Reform Bill - Right to Die Proposed: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from patient and doctor. The LPE has supported his Bill. The LPE feels that it is right for people to commit suicide, and believes that this killing is somehow right. The CPL however believes that innocent lives should be protected, the most vile and depraved humans lives do not deserve to be protected. |
| Date | 13:39:37, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | If somebody is in unending pain and wants to die, and would commit suicide if they were able, then allowing them to ie is an act of mercy. In effect they are killing themselves, just with your help, and that is their choice. I dont think that suicide is inherently wrong, though in many cases it is foolish, selfish and thoughtless. Killing somebody else against their will, however, is just wrong. |
| Date | 13:47:38, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | "Killing somebody else against their will, however, is just wrong." Then we should punish those who kill people against their will. That is why we are proposing Capital Punishment. |
| Date | 16:25:17, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Yes we should punish them. But that doesn't mean we should kill them. |
| Date | 18:57:54, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Execute them, they have proved themselves beyond rehabilitation, especially if they are repeat offenders, ie they repeat their crime after leaving prison. |
| Date | 12:26:52, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | As there have been no new comments, we shall push this to vote. |
| Date | 12:28:58, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Nice debate there. pity more people didn't contribute their views though. |
| Date | 13:18:46, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | Yes is is annoying, but hey active parties do well, come election night ; ) |
| Date | 13:19:13, September 12, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the CPL Capital Punishment Bill |
| Message | The AAP is torn. We support the right to die for those terminally ill, and we believe that current court-sentencing is far too lenient. But, can we back a motion to introduce a death-penalty and still remain true to our roots in 'freedom'? Can we vote against it, and allow for the fact that re-offenders CHOOSE to remove the freedoms of others? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 168 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 13 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "We have a culture, a strong, vibrant, 'real' culture. Most of the outside world does not. They haven't bled enough for it." - Lászlo Nádašdy, former Deltarian nobleman |