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: Capital Punishment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative 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: February 2896
Description[?]:
| .. |
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 | 12:57:33, February 17, 2010 CET | From |  Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Madam Speaker, this return to barbarism is not wanted nor desired in Hutori. |
| Date | 14:30:53, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the simple fact is that those who commit capital crimes should face the death penalty. The CLP's claim of barbarism is ridiculous and they are going against deserved punishment for those who break the law. |
| Date | 15:58:44, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Madam Speaker, we oppose the death penalty on two grounds, both principled and pragmatic. Principle wise, the taking away of another's life is morally repulsive, whatever the circumstances. Are we, Madam Speaker, to become an "eye for an eye" society? Furthermore, until the day when we can say with an absolute 100% certainty that a certain individual committed a crime, then we should shudder at the thought of taking away life. On grounds of pragmatism, Madam Speaker, the appeals procedure essential to ensure that the death penalty is not issued arbitrarily will cause great financial burden to the state, enormous burdens on the court and a criminal system that is stagnant. Madam Speaker, it cannot be allowed. |
| Date | 16:16:47, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Madam Speaker, we can accept the CLP's moral difference to the Death Penalty - it is understandable in todays world to have differing opinions. We disagree however with their absurd claim about the claims of their so called pragmatism Madam Speaker. How can it cause a huge financial burden on the state when the method of death can be resolved by something cheap e.g. Non-public firing squad. Again it cannot cause enormous burden on a court because the Death Penalty decision will be chosen by a jury during the fair trial of the accused. |
| Date | 16:50:11, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Rt Hon Duchess Thompson MP: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to quote something my predecessor, the Rt Hon Duke Major, said in response to the Justice System Act 2868, introduced by the NSP. It is particularly pertinent to this case, where those proposing the bill argue that it will reduce burdens, which, in itself, is the "absurd claim": "We are also surprised, Mr Speaker, to see that the NSP believe that reintroducing the death penalty will reduce the burden on the legal system. This suggests one of two things. Either the NSP believe that the death penalty should be applied arbitrarily, without a good legal process to ensure the guilt of the individual, or they simply fail to understand that, in most legal systems, the death penalty actually increases the burden. Most democracies would strive as much as possible to ensure that the individual is definitely guilty. There would be a great length of initial court proceedings, followed by an almost automatic right to have the case reviewed and appealed. The burden and time length would therefore increase dramatically. We worry, Mr Speaker, that despite this, it may actually be the first case that is the intention of the NSP." So there we have it, Madam Speaker, either the HNP just misunderstand the situation, or, in some sinister situation, they actually wish to see the penalty applied arbitrarily. |
| Date | 16:53:54, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Capital Punishment |
| Message | Quote to be found: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=274837 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 177 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 214 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair." - Niccolo Machiavelli |