SENATE BILL: Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment (Sent to Regions)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator you have 24 hours to advocate for this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Judiciary Committee unanimously recommended this, yadda yadda yadda.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Since TJ is no longer a sitting senator, I don't know whether or not he'll be around to fight for this proposal.

So, as the new Whig in town, I feel obliged to say that I'm completely on-board with this amendment. Atlasia should not be in the business of endorsing or permitting any form of human death. It's about time we formalized this stance as it relates to capital punishment.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I can tell I won't be winning this fight, but nothing will ever convince me that abolishing the death penalty is a good idea.

[tmthforu94]

When I first began Atlasia, we tried doing this (I think Franzl and I were the ones who really pushed it), but multiple times we failed.

I hope that this is the time we break through and finally get this passed.

[Donerail]

It is a refreshing break to see liberty greatly expanded by an action of this body.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This should be a matter that the regions should handle. With that I'm in agreement with Senator Ben. While I'm a advocate of rehabilitation when it comes to offenders, captial murders should be put to death. The parameters of when the death penalty is used should be enumerated and clear. It should'nt be a common event but it shouldn't be entirely eliminated.

[Sbane]

I support this amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Let me put it this way -- while I affirm that it is important for the government to enforce the rule of law and carry out justice to those who violate those laws, capital punishment simply is not a way to do so morally or practically.  A human life should only be taken by means of self-defense.  Yet, the death penalty is simply not a valid exercise of self-defense because they occur long after the offense has been committed.  The ability the government to infringe on one's inalienable right to life is not only hypocritical in nature, but presents an overreach of power.  On that -- what if, say, an executed individual is later found to have been innocent of the crime that landed them in their situation?  A person who's serving a life sentence in prison can easily be released, but a life can never be restored.

I would also like to point out to some numbers regarding the high cost of the death penalty.  Interestingly, the federal average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about eight times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought.  The state of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.  If we pass this amendment, not only would we be asserting our support for individual rights, but therein would lie the opportunity to reduce part of our budget or invest more funds in finding practical ways to deter criminal activity and penalize offenders.

[Frodo]

I would support this on condition that the amendment in question only affect federal prisoners on death row -the regions can make their own decisions in regard to prisoners held in regional penitentiaries. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yankee, is your rule still in place with TJ no longer in office?  I don't think tabling it is necessary at this point since he has already defended the amendment in the Committee and there has been a number of arguments for it posted here.

[TJ in Oregon]

I will advocate for this from retirement if the Honorable PPT will grant me a response be it a few hours beyond the expired time limit.

Senators,

This body has spent countless threads (and hours) discussing whether or not conscription should be banned by our constitution even though it is not in force. I would like to initiate a discussion for this body (and hopefully the Atlasian public) to consider: putting into our constitution a ban on a much more drastic use of government against an individual, capital punishment, even though like conscription it is not in force in Atlasia at this time.

First, capital punishment is more costly to the government because it requires a vast number of appeals and litigation that life imprisonment does not lead to. The argument that it somehow saves money just isn't true.

Capital punishment where implemented has not been shown to be a crime deterrent. Rarely if ever does a man decide not to murder someone because he fears lethal injection more than life imprisonment. It acts as an instrument of revenge against a criminal, be him a murder or not is still a person, to satisfy a thirst for vengence. It does not protect a community against violence, rather it increases the violence by killing someone else. If the government can take a man's life in a civilian court where society could be protected as well with him behind bars, what can it not take? Of all the injustices in our world, a lack of respect for life, and a lack of a right to life in our constitution, is the greatest. The largest violation against life in our nation today is the multitude of legal abortions done daily; however, we are so beholden to our political divisons that no constitutional protection of life in a general sense can be achieved. But that does not mean we cannot reach across our lines to work to foster a culture of life in whatever small means we can agree upon. Building an unlikely consensus is the lifeblood of a competent political culture and I believe that we are no so starkly divided that agreement on this amendment cannot be achieved.

I believe this is a measure that can and should be passed in this by our senate and by the Atlasian public.

Thank you for your time and consideration as I begin my ride off into the sunset of retirement from the Senate.

[Redalgo]

I enthusiastically support this legislation and do hope that it has the votes to pass.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is going to need a new sponsor. Who wants it?

Yankee, is your rule still in place with TJ no longer in office?  I don't think tabling it is necessary at this point since he has already defended the amendment in the Committee and there has been a number of arguments for it posted here.

No, non-Senators can't sponsor legislation, so no I am not going to follow through here. A litte BK style screw the rules, I have....  Now if that weren't the case I would because here is the problem with your argument. The whole purpose of this is force the sponsors to be present at the beginning of the debate. So "other people" defeats the purpose. As for his posts on the committee, if he were to post a link to them, I would think it should suffice, but if someone else does then no. It is all about force the sponsor's presence to be made in the thread from the beginning of the debate.

It is good that you realize that one doesn't have to be PPT to enforce this policy. In fact, since it uses the tabling procedures, anyone could enforce it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'll volunteer for sponsorship.

This is going to need a new sponsor. Who wants it?

Yankee, is your rule still in place with TJ no longer in office?  I don't think tabling it is necessary at this point since he has already defended the amendment in the Committee and there has been a number of arguments for it posted here.

No, non-Senators can't sponsor legislation, so no I am not going to follow through here. A litte BK style screw the rules, I have....   Now if that weren't the case I would because here is the problem with your argument. The whole purpose of this is force the sponsors to be present at the beginning of the debate. So "other people" defeats the purpose. As for his posts on the committee, if he were to post a link to them, I would think it should suffice, but if someone else does then no. It is all about force the sponsor's presence to be made in the thread from the beginning of the debate.

It is good that you realize that one doesn't have to be PPT to enforce this policy. In fact, since it uses the tabling procedures, anyone could enforce it.

I don't question the motive behind your rule, I'd just hate to table a bill in the middle of a good debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll volunteer for sponsorship.

This is going to need a new sponsor. Who wants it?

Yankee, is your rule still in place with TJ no longer in office?  I don't think tabling it is necessary at this point since he has already defended the amendment in the Committee and there has been a number of arguments for it posted here.

No, non-Senators can't sponsor legislation, so no I am not going to follow through here. A litte BK style screw the rules, I have....   Now if that weren't the case I would because here is the problem with your argument. The whole purpose of this is force the sponsors to be present at the beginning of the debate. So "other people" defeats the purpose. As for his posts on the committee, if he were to post a link to them, I would think it should suffice, but if someone else does then no. It is all about force the sponsor's presence to be made in the thread from the beginning of the debate.

It is good that you realize that one doesn't have to be PPT to enforce this policy. In fact, since it uses the tabling procedures, anyone could enforce it.

I don't question the motive behind your rule, I'd just hate to table a bill in the middle of a good debate.

I do too, but if it didn't hurt so much, it likely wouldn't be as effective. Of course the understanding behind it is that it needs a second to get pushed through. Therefore forgiveness is always available if no one seconds. That is what happened with Seatown. However, if a true offender has just dropped off the map and doesn't post or do anything on a bill for several days, I would think seconds would be coming out of the wood work. It is kind of the inverse of the expulsion, with the difference being that default action here is the postive one until motivated otherwise by their actions to procede with trashing the bill, instead of being negative action until someone gives a convincing enough excuse to obtain forgiveness by enough Senators to survive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 48 hours to object to Scott's assumption of sponsorship. Damn, I should have asked Nathan to get this started.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote as soon as Scott assumes sponsorship, in about 20 minutes?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sure.

[tmthforu94]

Hopefully this finally passes at the regional level - I've never understood the "this should be left to the regions" argument. Human rights is a federal issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Sbane]

Aye

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay