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: Victim Defense Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: November 2044
Description[?]:
In the event of an act of terrorism, or crimes against humanity, innocent victims are always cruelly butchered for no fault of theirs. With this bill, we stand in to support them and share their outrage by demanding that such people should never be spared. |
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 not applied, except for terrorism, treason and crimes against mankind.
Proposed: The death penalty is not applied, except for terrorism, treason and crimes against mankind.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | We fundamentally oppose any form of capital punishment. |
Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Yes. The state has no right to murder. It would be morally no better than anyone murderer. |
Date | 01:33:38, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | What about the rights of victims? If you violate their right to live, you forfeit the right to your own life. You cannot set the same standard for a mass murderer as for a one-time killer. If both get the same punishement (life) then justice has not been done. |
Date | 10:26:41, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | That is a matter of opinion, not fact. The question you need to ask is do you wish to punish or have revenge. They are not the same thing. Once the state murders people what about their right as a victim? Why should a murderer get an easy way out? What do you do about the inevitable mistakes? |
Date | 12:26:17, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | We oppose this bill, and agree with Labour. The criminals must be punished properly, death is the easy way out!
Aside from that, how can we prove absolute guilt? |
Date | 20:59:23, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | That is also an important point. It is more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them. |
Date | 23:31:46, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Read the bill- i'm only advocating the death penalty for genocidal maniacs...the ones who've already been proved guilty...so giving the death penalty will actually work out cheaper in this case then keeping such people alive. |
Date | 23:34:29, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Furthermore, which part of my statement is opinion? I'd be grateful if you could point that out...since I have some trouble understanding what you're saying...
The murderer is not going to get an easy way out...he is getting life which I presume you find satisfactory for people who commit far worse.
|
Date | 23:39:11, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Justice depends on having different standards for different crimes. If I steal a purse -I should go to jail. But what if I kill someone? Shouldn't I go in for longer? Or would say that both should be treated equally? |
Date | 00:00:41, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | A murderer should quite definately receive a much longer sentence with much lower chances of parole. Certainly murders who are paroled after serving a sentence should remain on licence for the rest of their lives. |
Date | 00:04:22, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | To answer your other points:
"If both get the same punishement (life) then justice has not been done." is a matter of opinion. Whether we agree with you or not that is a subjective statement as are any based on the idea of desrving a sentence.
We are advocating that all criminals found guilty should be punished by a prison term - to have ones liberty removed and remain alive is a daily sentence that would last as long as the sentence.. Death is a one of punishment.
|
Date | 04:17:07, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Those who commit crimes "worthy" of capital punishment, often seek the death penalty as a way out. Death should only be used in very extreme cases. By allowing these people to be dead, they cannot serve the time for the crime; they cannot be made responsible for their crimes against humanity. |
Date | 10:13:37, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Nobody could argue that Hess did anything but suffer throughout his long, long sentence. |
Date | 12:35:04, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | I wouldn't execute hitler. The death penalty is hypocracy by the state in the extreme, no matter what the crime. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? in jail these people will not have a chance to hurt others again, so what will we gain through killing them other than a notion of 'justice'? |
Date | 17:40:26, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | The point is not "opinion" but in fact fundamental to jurisprudence. To be 'just' a punishment must match the crime. You wouldn't send a 5year old to jail for stealing lollypops. But if she was a pickpocket and had stole a lot of money, she would be in much deeper trouble. It is silly and unjust, to suggest that in both situations we shall act as though we are dealing with equally serious offenses and demand the same level of treatment. |
Date | 17:42:56, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | PE- I'm arguing that the death penalty only be applied in extreme cases ...I hope that answers your question. |
Date | 17:48:00, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | If you agree that murder should be punished more than theft ...then how can you support the same standard for those who kill one and those kill many ? In that case you're saying that these are equally serious. What kind of party would look into the faces of millions of jewish refugees and say that? I wouldn't. |
Date | 17:51:57, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Death is the ultimate penalty - life is more like a taxpayer funded vacation. You've got to keep the bastard alive, ffeed him, clothe him, give hime shelter, and make sure he gets a good amount of exercise and medicine so that he doesn't fall sick or something..... |
Date | 21:45:33, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | It is cheaper than the death penalty and who said that they had to serve their sentence in a hotel? We would say that the murder of one person is as serious a crime as the murder of many. To deprive someone of their life is as serious a crime as you can get and so the state should not commit such a crime either. |
Date | 22:35:44, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | The State merely enforces the law of the social contract. Every democracy assumes that men created a civil order by ceding some of their freedoms, including the freedom to use force, to the State. Since you agreed to such punishment beforehand, for such a crime, it is perfectly legitimate for the State to enforce those rights against you. |
Date | 22:55:58, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Go for it. I think we have all said everything we are going to :) |
Date | 14:52:46, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | PP, you have totally missed our point. We are not trying to avenge the crimes these people commit, merely punish them. the difference is that when avenging something, you must do as you were done by - the worse the crime, the worse the revenge. Punishment, however, doesnt necessarily work like that. Other factors have to be taken into account, and a maximum punishmet, ie. life is not a vilation of justice. It is necessary to keep the punishment humane, because if the punishment is not humane, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE! because you yourself are commiting the crimes against humanity you are legislating to punish. |
Date | 21:03:06, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Before this closes may I say that was a good debate. |
Date | 23:08:06, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Haha, that's amusing. I'm the throw vote. Yes, it has been a good debate. It's been such a good debate I don't know which way to throw this. |
Date | 02:31:27, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | my way?? remember the electorate respects people who are tough on crime! |
Date | 03:12:08, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | LPE, let us agree to disagree...I think I already answered your questions, so there is no ned to repeat myself.. |
Date | 05:17:41, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | No, since we voted against the death penalty before, we won't flip-flop. We'll hold to our previous stance, even if it's unpopular. Whether it actually IS unpopular is less certain anyways... |
Date | 00:29:37, May 01, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Victim Defense Act | Message | Yes, it was a good debate, but it would have been even better if I got more support...;) |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
Vote |
Seats |
yes | Total Seats: 55 |
no | Total Seats: 112 |
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
Random quote: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud |