Should the Death Penalty be allowed in Asgardia?

Total number of votes: 190

13.2% Yes

60% No

2.6% Maybe

24.2% With Consideration

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 14:39 UTC

Should the Death Penalty be allowed in Asgardia?  

Should the Death penalty be allowed in Asgardia?

  Last edited by:  Mike Wazowski (Asgardian)  on Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 14:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 14:41 UTC

I believe the death penalty needs to be reinstated to Asgardia, I believe we need our own form of brexit

Aqu 03, 01 / Jan 3, 17 18:02 UTC

That was just honestly retarded beyond all expectations. You really should be proud.

First, grab yourself a dictionary, 'cause you needing it badly. Preferably for reading, but to be honest bludgeoning might be more appropriate. I really do hope you haven't bred.

There's no possible way to "reinstate" an a death penalty in Asgardia, because there never has been one. I find it incredibly unlikely to feature a death penalty, but you have just provided a really good excuse for having one.

We can never have "our own form of brexit" - For trivial reasons. Thus;

We are not Britain. Britain died with it's queen, Boudaccia, circa 61AD. After leading what remained of the celtic warriors from almost all tribes inhabiting the land in a final march against the invading Romans, and losing, the romans began systematic destruction of the tribes - up until about scotland where eventually Hadrian gave up and just built a wall. The tribal celts never reformed, and various geographical reigions rapidly devolved and ended up with dozens of monarchies, which was then eventually united under a single king of England.

Further, we are in no way associated or affiliated with the European Union. Ergo we cannot have any form of a cheap, catchy, distractionary contraction of "Britain" and "exit".

Aqu 05, 01 / Jan 5, 17 11:08 UTC

Fine, I will set up my own version of Asgardia

Aqu 05, 01 / Jan 5, 17 14:04 UTC

There's quite a lot of misguided stuff here.

EyeR is right: there has never been a death penalty in Asgardia, so it can't be 'reinstated'. 'Brexit' is specific to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU and is indeed irrelevant here.

But EyeR also says that 'Britain died with it's queen, Boudaccia, circa 61AD'. While EyeR may have intended to make some sort of vaguely nationalistic point here, the suggestion that Boudica was ever 'queen of Britain' is mistaken. Boudica was queen of a tribe called the Iceni, who lived in the area of what is now East Anglia. She was not 'British'. She was Iceni. Hers was one of a large number of tribes occupying what the Romans called 'Britannia'. It's also important to note that Boudica did not live in 'England'. That kingdom was only fully established in the tenth century - nine hundred years after Boudica died. England is named for the Angles, a wave of migrants (along with Saxons and Jutes, as well as the Norse and the Danes) who started to settle here after the Roman Empire withdrew its forces. Their influx pressed the existing residents - whom we now refer to as 'Romano-British' because they were largely citizens of the Roman province of Britannia - out into traditionally 'Celtic' areas: Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

'Britain', as a political entity, came into being with the unification of England (actually England and Wales under the banner of England) and Scotland in 1707. That formed the kingdom of 'Great Britain' (it should be noted that 'Great Britain' otherwise refers to the largest of the 'British Isles', and is a geographical term, rather than a political one. This is why the modern UK is called the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland': because Northern Ireland isn't in, or on, Great Britain). That was the first time 'Britain' was formally used as the name of a nation-state. So far from dying with an Iceni queen in AD61, Britain actually only came into being in 1707.

Nationalism and political objectives should not lead us to misrepresent history.

Aqu 05, 01 / Jan 5, 17 20:56 UTC

I at no point suggested boudaccia lived in England, and am well aware of the Iceni. As you accurately pointed out, "Britannia" which is what the Romans called "britain" was composed of mostly celtic tribes. If you had bothered to of read my post, this should of been made clear. It would of also been clear that the formation of "England" much later. Mostly because there was too little of the tribes left in existence.

I still maintain Britain died with the last person to lead it's natives in a unified action. They can call it "great britain" if they wish, but that makes it neither great or britain. You can write anything you like on a tin of beans, it doesn't change what you find when you open it.

Aqu 06, 01 / Jan 6, 17 11:28 UTC

@EyeR : "I at no point suggested boudaccia lived in England, and am well aware of the Iceni."

Okay.

"As you accurately pointed out, "Britannia" which is what the Romans called "britain" was composed of mostly celtic tribes."

Indeed.

"If you had bothered to of read my post, this should of been made clear."

Please, spare me the Internet-forum theatrics. If you disagree with something I've said then say so and correct me. This is how mature discussion works. Please don't try to imply that what the record above clearly shows that you said isn't what you said.

"It would of also been clear that the formation of "England" much later."

It would have been clear had you mentioned England. But as you pointed out above, you didn't. I did.

"Mostly because there was too little of the tribes left in existence."

Not at all. In fact the tribes gradually unified, first under Roman dominion, and later settlers - the aforementioned immigrant Anglo-Saxon tribes - subsequently unified to form the Kingdom of England.

"I still maintain Britain died with the last person to lead it's natives in a unified action."

Then you maintain wrongly, since it objectively did not. A thing that does yet exist - in this case a political entity called 'Britain' - cannot die.

Boudica's action against the Romans was not a unified action by Britain. Far later actions under the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and variously including Ireland and later Northern Ireland) objectively were.

"They can call it "great britain" if they wish, but that makes it neither great or britain."

'Britain' is the name the country has adopted for itself. It is meaningless to insist that it is not 'really' Britain - just as it would be meaningless to claim that France is not 'really' France because it (very roughly) used to be Gallia.

As for 'great', as I've already explained, that term used in the context of the UK describes the size of the island amongst the 'British Isles', not the presumed merit of the nation.

"You can write anything you like on a tin of beans, it doesn't change what you find when you open it."

Schrödinger might argue that one. But still, in future it might be simpler to just say what you mean, rather than relying on oblique (and apparently not fully thought out) historical allusions to make a modern-day political point.

Aqu 06, 01 / Jan 6, 17 17:32 UTC

"It would have been clear had you mentioned England. But as you pointed out above, you didn't. I did. "

So then I quite obviously must of imagined typing:

The tribal celts never reformed, and various geographical reigions rapidly devolved and ended up with dozens of monarchies, which was then eventually united under a single king of England.

and by extension, my delusions are what continues to provide for timestamped evidence to the contrary? as opposed to the logical recording of inputted data provided by computer technologies.

Please, spare me the Internet-forum theatrics. If you disagree with something I've said then say so and correct me. This is how mature discussion works. Please don't try to imply that what the record above clearly shows that you said isn't what you said.

Again. Paying attention - possibly learning to read - is muchly advised. It will prevent you from making further intentionally false statements easily disproven. This isn't an attempt at "forum theatrics", it's to prevent you embaressing yourself(and by association, me) publicly further by failing to engage your mind. Like the originator of the post that spawned this unproductive tangent. Disagreement with statements or with any points of view are welcomed, even encouraged as this might give rise to me requiring to think for once - but to suggest they never occured isn't something to be tollerated. Especially as you so rightly point out, the record clearly shows otherwise. If you could of been bothered to read.

Boudaccia's actions against the Romans was indeed unified, by most of the tribal folks of britan, as they all grouped together to face the common enemy, and as their number vastly exhausted already, formed under one leadership in order to represent the greatest chances of success as they collectively buried various symbolic objects of leadership and valued personal posessions to keep it from the Romans in the likely chance they fail. Pretty much the only people who didn't go off to fight being those unable or unwise for combat. That's about as close as the entire country got to working towards a common goal for quite some time. What was left after this time wasn't so much as unified under the Romans, but catagorically wiped out anything that refused to convert to the Roman invaders, with forced genetic dilution being the order of the day - Boudaccia being kept alive long enough to witness this happening to her daughters - and other practices involving sadistic persecution over the comming decades. Taken a look at genetic markers associated with the celts distributed around the population recently? I suspect not... With all the warriors fallen, the tribal elders executed, their ways and customs systematically erradicated, there was not enough of the culture - let alone genetics - existent to reform when the Romans left. Hence the Anglo-Saxon settlers.

If I woke up tomorrow, and Français had suddenly taken to calling itself "Gallia" I wouldn't start refering to it as "Gaul" - It'd still be "Français" no matter what they called it. And maintaining the previous label of "Français" is just as meaningless as introducing it's previous incarnation that hasn't been used in centuries. Your point being?

Schrödinger isn't likely to argue much, his principle being the act of observing adjusts the state, not the act of labeling.

  Updated  on Aqu 06, 01 / Jan 6, 17 17:40 UTC, Total number of edits: 5 times
Reason: Formatting fail

Aqu 06, 01 / Jan 6, 17 18:10 UTC

@EyeR :

Sigh

The post I originally put together conceded a couple of points, defended a couple of others, raised a couple of new issues, and went on for paragraphs. But most of all, like most of our discussion, it served no useful purpose for the forum at all.

Hence:

Congratulations, you win. Well done. Britain died in AD61 and history is whatever you say it is.

Carry on, then.

  Updated  on Aqu 06, 01 / Jan 6, 17 21:49 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Aqu 17, 01 / Jan 17, 17 20:42 UTC

Well, that was a very interesting tangent for no really good reason, but can we get back to the main point? The majority of us here believe that there should be no death penalty in Asgardia. That being said, I think that we shouldn't entirely rule it out, even if we never use it. We never know what tools we may need in the future.

Hopefully, in the future, the death penalty will be this strange, legal relict that we never really needed.

Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 20:17 UTC

EyeR, we get it, you think you're the smartest person on the boards. Now if you could get that big ol' brain to stick to the topic at hand, that would be great.

Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 20:28 UTC

The death penalty will be an extremely useful tool in this kind of environment, as the crime will be extremely limited, the population will be relatively small and everybody will have the means to witness cases made by both sides and vote if need be.

The first question one must take into consideration for this nation is, what kind of crime will there be? There will be extremely limited crimes of substance degeneracy, however crimes of sexual degeneracy may flourish. There will be very little petty thievery because of the close community. Crimes like fraud, larceny, and other finance related transgressions I expect will be fairly common. Considering we have the entire planet from which to draw more quality recruits, I think we should use the airlock, yes the death penalty, quite liberally. It will be a privilege to be come a member of this nation and a betrayal of that is a betrayal to everybody who will ever live there. The other option will be deportation. There most certainly should be no prison or jail in this nation. Small crimes like petty theft should be treated as a parent would discipline its child, with a spanking, or lashings perhaps. I believe these incentives will ensure that there will be very very little crime, and when there is, it will be dealt with swiftly. Once a court has proven a crime committed, all members should have a vote between deportation or death sentence, for small crimes the punishment can be set related to the smallness of the crime I believe, or after the small crime is proven to have occurred, there could be a vote on the extent of the punishment. For small crimes there are many options really, but for anything beyond petty theft, soliciting sex, (That's the prostitute him/herself I am speaking of, not the pimp, that is a large crime) a fistfight, and a few others there should only be two options, deportation or death.

Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 21:24 UTC

Death penalty shouldn't be a tool at all. It should be a punishment reserved for the most grievous of crimes, if at all. It certainly shouldn't be left up for people to vote for. People voted in Trump. People voted Brexit.

I'm for the penalty itself, but restricted for sure. When there absolutely no doubt that the person charged has committed a crime worthy of the penalty (Murder, premeditated and not accidental manslaughter), then it should be put in place. Otherwise other punishments will do.

Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 21:53 UTC

The answer is yes. Now here is why.

  1. no prison facilities available.
  2. Being a sovereign nation we can not just send people back to earth unless we have a paid for prison system to place them in.
  3. Say the offense was murder. What is the punishment? 6 months on a ankle monitor and allowed to resume normal life? What is the appropriate punishment for a SPACE COLONY?
  4. If the penalty is death there is no need for elaborate contraptions like lethal injection, just airlock them. It will be quick and humane form of death.
  5. Anarchy. If say someone goes on a killing spree there will be blood lust. We all come from different backgrounds, from different judicial systems and different punishments. Some will want death even if there is no death penalty and emotions will take hold. You could end up with riots, work stoppages, etc. because no thought has been given to what the punishment for an offense should be.

  6. Again what do you do with someone who kills his/hers spouse? Kills a child? Kills a co-worker? What will the punishment be? Banishment from Asgardia? Well some will say send them back to the country they came from. Wait a second are we offering dual citizenship or are we our own country? I would expect those that move to Asgardia to renounce their citizenship and accept that of Asgardia. Unless we are rich enough to pay a private prison to contain our criminals sending them back to earth is improbable. It would be like America send its serial killers to France.


Mod Edit: Corrected formatting into numbered list. From each line being H1

  Last edited by:  Jason Rainbow (Global Admin, Global Mod, Asgardian)  on Aqu 19, 01 / Jan 19, 17 21:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Format correction

Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 21:57 UTC

Absolutely not. Death penalties have no place in a modern criminal justice system.

The risk of executing innocent people is minuscule, but even a minuscule risk in this gross miscarriage of justice is too much. If we truly believed in the fundamental values of justice, and in the value in procedural justice than this is not a penalty our legal system should have within its books for punitive action. I say this because errors are made all the time in criminal trials, whether we like it or not. We'd need a 'perfect' criminal justice system to ensure beyond any doubt there would be no errors made during criminal trials and investigation where the death sentence is what the prosecution is seeking. Having a perfect trial, perfect evidence and completely competent representation for individuals facing the death penalty is simply impossible. These flaws are inherent to criminal justice systems. Due to the risk we may end up executing even one innocent person, I am completely against this policy in its totality.

To the arguments about deterrence to the commission of especially heinous crimes, I believe personally as a progressive society we can seek deterrence elsewhere that is not through the state depriving one of their life. I view the death penalty as an outdated and barbaric form of deterrence. We must seek deterrence in the form of depriving them of their freedom - incarceration for life. But even then, even for the worst of offences, we should seek to rehabilitate these individuals and put them to use for the state through the utilization of the best scientific rehabilitation processes.

  Last edited by:  BAO HA (Asgardian)  on Aqu 18, 01 / Jan 18, 17 22:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time