Quite simply, the tl:dr of the matter is I maintain that a death sentence is a primative response to a problem we've failed in solving. Therefore, in the cases where rehabilitation is unfeasible, long term incarceration is the natural direction to lean towards - after acknowleging that exile to deep space is just a slightly slower death sentence, return to Earth equates to dumping our problems on them and is unfeasible for anything beyond the initial joining. I further maintain that in solving the issues that are presented with providing for long term mass residential facilities in the current environment will also provide for feasibilty to construct, operate and maintain detention/correctional facilities in space also.

In opposition Brandon7 maintains that this is impractical, based on literally no evidence and continually making false assumptions based on poor or dated research, and that instead money should instead be spent on an island - the natural step for space habitation - which as well as hosting housing for 200 specially selected people would also support a booming tourist industry and still somehow manage to fit prison facilites on without actually doing a feasibility study on the concept or things like what would potentially attract the tourists or how to actually attribute the funds involved with making any of it happen.

There is little anger in my posts. I can be angry, and you will be sure to know of it when it happens. For determining facts vs opinion, the interwebs is littered with information and it would be wise to make good use of it, and check the reliability of the sources.

You two do realize this topic was about punishment of corruption, not islands, right? That was the other thread you two were doing battle within.

No, I wasn't aware this topic was concerning punishment of corruption. The title of the thread wasn't a clue at all. Neither was the content of my first paragraph, or the second.

I apologize to you and to Brandon7.

I had hoped that by bringing to your attention the fact that you two seem to take over several threads with your incessant back-and-forth that you might re-evaluate the methods you use to communicate. I realize now that my hope was in error.

I will see myself to other threads that have not yet been taken over by such rancor.

As a new nation we need to learn from the error of others in order to succeed. Corruption is in one way or another the reason of majority of mankind problems, so, seed the fear in the heart of the corrupts from the beginning!

Just a suggestion..

Your "suggestion",: MasterCh, seems to me barbarian.

State sponsored murder is something I hope Asgardia will never endorse. The taking of a human life is never an acceptable standard solution to a problem.

This is what I talk about, Bjorn Schrammel. +1 for the comment.

Read also this said by Niko Partanen:

I see few problems in death penalty: 1) How we can change the penalty for death person if we see, person was wrongly accused?

I'm relatively new to the site so please forgive me if i post similar things as those who have already posted i was just reading through the docs page that had proposed items for the constitution and thought a rewording / reiteration or perhaps an entirely new approach would be something to consider.

as far as crimes go I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime however one thing that I saw suggested multiple times doesn't appear as though it would work. If Asgardia ever takes off and is recognized as an actual nation I severely doubt that they will willingly accept murderers, rapists and the likes being sent back to terra firma in fact I'm certain that their home nations would most likely scoff at the attempt. perhaps set up a separate block or mine where they must earn their food and other amenities through labor with no access to the rest of the society.

If you kill, harm a child, or rape some one separate them to work. give them no luxuries, no contact, just work. If they don't work they don't eat.

If they steal, dine and dash, or damage property then make them work to pay off the debt. not as heavy handed as removing the thieves hand nor as light as a fine or stint in a cell.

If they are using drugs not approved by the country then send through a rehab treatment and make them do public service.

Prisons and cells should for the most part be unused unless the person proves that they are truly unfit for society in any way. they should not be shoved into over crowded cell blocks to live in the system with possibility of being released only to further spread the violence that initiated the issue in the first place. prisons should be used sparingly. an attempt at a new way of thinking should be offered alongside paying off the debt that any damages may have incurred.

The obvious problem with a death penalty is the cases where this is wrongly applied - and there is much evidence of this happening - as it is difficult to undo such an act. This IMHO is a strong enough reason to do away with it altogether. "Wasting" resources keeping a few people(max predicted, over a few hundred thousand that makes the current population) seperated from the main population is far more acceptable than wrongful termination. Termination as a default response is at best primative.

The concept of a death penalty for corruption itself is a little extreme. Remove them of the position, certainly. Some form of "punishment" might be good to apply, but "rehabilitation" seems the more logical choice. Corruption is certainly something that should be removed - preferably from being present in the model at all. Transparency of every stage should help to eliminate. Something like a governmental model of direct democracy would make things like "corruption" difficult to achieve in terms of governmental operations - it'd be difficult and cost-ineffective to attempt to bribe or subvert the larger population.

Attempts to "rule" via fear, coercion, or misinformation will not likely result in the outcome most would be happy with. Use of such techniques are not commonly deployed by those who would have your best interests at heart and should instantly raise distrust in those capable of thinking.

If you kill, harm a child, or rape some one separate them to work. give them no luxuries, no contact, just work. If they don't work they don't eat.

Enforced labour is defacto slavery - definitely not a progressive concept. Considering the levels of automation currently are capable of performing most menial labour tasks, then by the time this would be applicable it's questionable what "work" would exist for them to do, making them do it just for the sake of it's them doing it doesn't strike me as a particular mature response and further it's questionable if they can be trusted to perform said task. Try to force me to do something and I'd be seeking ways to make it break itself preferably killing you in the process, with no regard to my own life as if things are that bad it's already over. What ever the outcome is, it's certainly not going to be what you're expecting. There's nothing I cannot weaponise. People placed into desperate sutiations will do desperate things. Quite how to ensure slavery is another thing - withholding food would likely represent a human rights violation, and with space generally things like access to life support systems and food are likely to be considered default rights, and provided - to prevent people hoarding all the air/water/food etc and metering it out for profit. Again, desperate people, desperate things - you can't let people in space suffer from desperation, ever, or it'll never work. You'll have things like the great toilet paper wars of 2150, where neighbour kills neighbour for toilet paper as they the only ones with some left and isn't sharing after it'd spent some time acting as a currency and they've hoarded it. If avoiding the concept of a death penalty for the ethical and moral dillema it brings then attempting to causing death by starvation as a tool to ensure compliance against their wishes should be an equally unacceptable route to follow.

With regards to prison populations, especially with the "rehabilitation" option being generally favoured I'd not expect a significant (<2% of population) requirement for short term cell usages and a much much lesser (<0.01% of population) requirement to utilise long term/indefinitely. Sensibly, such facilities should be remotely isolated from residential faciilites. By building specific facilities for we should result severely in excess of our requirements. This excess could potentially be rented to Earth, although that may raise some headaches with defining if they should actually be in prison - rules of one country do not apply in another, and many corrupt systems regularly detain without reasonable cause. The physical remoteness of such facilities should provide for mitigation of escape opportunity, which is ideal for long term incarciration.

@Phicksur,

Now, you have seen what I have been putting up with!

Asgardia should never use something so utterly ineffective as the death penalty. It is only a penalty if the person sentenced to it cares about living and since Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street. It makes sense to have a place on world that is under Asgardian juridstiction to send those folks for rehabilitation and if possible reintegration back into Asgardian society. Housing people of a corrupt nature anywhere on the space station that will eventually be in orbit is too risky and potentially places the lives of the citizens at stake

@Phicksur,

Now, you have seen what I have been putting up with!

Asgardia should never use something so utterly ineffective as the death penalty. It is only a penalty if the person sentenced to it cares about living and since Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street. It makes sense to have a place on world that is under Asgardian juridstiction to send those folks for rehabilitation and if possible reintegration back into Asgardian society. Housing people of a corrupt nature anywhere on the space station that will eventually be in orbit is too risky and potentially places the lives of the citizens at stake.

@EyeR,

Are you done? Cause I am, so, from now on just leave me be. We do not need your unwarranted hostility

Are you done? Cause I am, so, from now on just leave me be. We do not need your unwarranted hostility

Um, whut?

If you say so.

Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street

Asgardia has more potential to build facilities to house criminals before it has potential to build facilities to account for it's population. One of them is going to be a much smaller number. Elseways there was specific intent to avoid account for such. So there will be ability to house criminals "right from jump street" unless specific intent was otherwise. The outer space treaty suggests there's not going to be a world under Asgardian jurisdiciton. By having a facility that is seperated from the citizens residential facility there is no risk to common citizens.

No death penalty. We must avoid instances that allow corruption, avoiding the factors that produce corruption. Solo eliminando los factores que producen la corrupción se puede eliminar la corrupción. El instinto del hombre desde su gestación es aprovechar las oportunidades en medio de dificultades economicas o medicas. Si eliminamos estos factores, eliminamos la corrupción. Sin hablar de la educación.

Done "right" money isn't a factor. Certainly not if we can consider sensible mass residence of the stars.

Deportation to country of origin - as previoulsy covered in this and similar threads - is only a viable concept for those that actually have a country of origin - what happens when they've been born in Asgardia?

Justice depends on the crime, I'd say when it comes to Asgardian law or legal processes why not let the citizenry decide what punishment they should have?
For example you get someone who has stolen a wallet the citizens have a vote with a selection of punishments from 2 weeks in jail, 3 months in jail, a year in jail, and so on for about 10 levels of severity, each with revocation of Asgardian citizenship at the end of the sentence, murder however especially premeditated gets life in jail no excuse, manslaughter or accidental but preventable (negligent homicide) death gets a less serious sentence.
You then let the people decide by electronic voting their choice of punishment, but ask for responsible voting, it not only puts the fear of God into any wannabe criminal it also gives the people (who sometimes have more common sense than judges) the final say in the criminals final reward for his activities.
Of course the more severe the crime the different options will be but if ALL criminals know what the final choices are going to be they then have to decide if the time is worth doing the crime?
You then really don't need judges after they have decided the punishments for crimes, and it then becomes a popular activity for those citizens who both have the time (gives the retired and unemployed or stay at home something to contribute to) and gives a confidence boost as those who will feel they have had a say in the day to day running of the community as a whole, but yes you will get those who want to hang someone for transgression no matter how small but I think that people will be sensible in the long run. But one idea I have had regarding my own idea is that evidence must be provided and all involved should be subject to lie detection (regardless of position, be-it criminal/victim/witness), and it should be clear that all crimes will be investigated and should reported (in the case of rapes or familial assaults if it not reported promptly it can't be acted on) and that any false statement leading to waste of police/legal resources must be punished as well.
The biggest concern I have is that any potential criminals will use the "Human Rights" excuse for not accepting their punishment, I believe that if any criminal wants to commit any act they need to realise they are infringing on the "Human Rights" of their victim and any act against said victim negates the criminals "Human Rights" excuse when punishment is issued.

There is another thread about death penalty where I explained my stance on it. So, NO! Corruption in higher ranks is more damaging and should be handled heavier the higher up it occurs but it should suffice to strip the culprit of rank and office, to compensate for damage done, jail time and maybe deportation. Never is such a person to be trusted with any official job again.