Pis 15, 01 / Feb 12, 17 18:33 UTC

Re: Should the Death Penalty be allowed in Asgardia?  

Absolutely not. The very basis of the death penalty on earth, I believe, is taken out of the bible with the "eye for an eye" mentality. Too many laws in most countries are taken from a religious pretext and, although some are justifiable, we cannot condone killing our brothers and sisters in any sense. If our goal is to create a nation free from persecution and percieved borders then we cannot adapt a system which is largely unfair and unjust to a majority of the population, with a few exceptions, and where corruption is rampant on a global scale. Maximum punishment should be some form of exile reserved for only the extreme cases. As the great Gandhi so eloquently put it, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the world blind"

Pis 15, 01 / Feb 12, 17 18:38 UTC

@ Tradeinc....The death of one innocent is unacceptable in any situation.

Leo 04, 01 / Jun 21, 17 09:03 UTC

Absolutely not.

Banishment could be a way better option

Leo 06, 01 / Jun 23, 17 09:48 UTC

No, I think that Death Penalty can be replaced with forced works or exile.

About financial crime, I think  we can take out up to quite all money or property from guilty

Leo 07, 01 / Jun 24, 17 05:56 UTC

The presence of the Death Penalty is the main reason criminals resist with deadly force, knowing the alternative.

Having said that, there are many things worse than the "Death Penalty" and we do not have a "no cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Constitution - so.... chemical castration, electroshock, horses and ropes to break limbs, loss of hands (Sharia Law, not knocking it... I have known ppl that make me long for it everywhere).  

As a multi-religious community, we must understand that the RIGHT to kill someone is a RELIGIOUS RIGHT, and we have actually enacted that in the present constitution in a legal guarantee, without LIMITS.  So... yes - the present Constitution DOES ALLOW THE DEATH PENALTY.

In fact, per current law, justifiable homicide is still protected as an inalienable right in Title 76 Section 76-8 and 76-9 of the United States member State Oklahoma (Constitution and Statutory Laws), for certain crimes (child abduction for perpetual concealment)... so... as far as inalienable rights go... be aware before you use those words what they mean in English when you draft a contract.  

Or else... Rules.  We got'z to have some more Rulez Round Hyere.

Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 23:50 UTC

The death penalty with respects to the current Asgard Constitution is a non-sequitur.

There are fines and restrictions of access..there are not prisons or beatings. There are not killings. The death penalty is antithetical to demilitarization, so is a strong policing force. If something really bad happens, citizenship will be disbanded and the offender will be left to the laws of their other allegiances.

Dude above me doesn't understand that killing is not a religious right. He just might ascribe to one of the middle eastern religions. In those regions, speaking against the dominant religion is a worse crime than beating your 12 year old wife for not wearing her hat. 

  Last edited by:  BRB1983 (Asgardian)  on Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 23:56 UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: na

Vir 05, 01 / Jul 20, 17 10:45 UTC

(google traduction, not sure of the result, so excuse me)

It is an endless debate, mixing philosophy, ethics, justice, etc. And I think it will be up to the people to make that decision democratically.

For my part, I am against it.

And I think that a nation wishing to set an example, wishing to prove to humankind that it is possible to evolve into an era of union and peace, should logically be against it. But again, the debate is not simple ...

I think it is mainly a traditional gesture, a residue of a pre-civilization legal system, an anthropological taboo. That is why there is little convincing justification for the death penalty: it is not a rational approach to put someone to death: it is the failure of reason.

France is a country exemplified by many others in the struggle for the abolition of this penalty.

We must leave the discussion on instincts, on "good", on "evil", and return to this state of fact that abolition is a chosen paradigm that has resulted in a political decision. If one wants to describe certain political phenomena by instincts, one falls into a dead end. And historically, it is a step backwards, a decision that can not be justified. I do not see history as a great continuous progress, but some decisions to go back are terrible ...

One can understand the need to express oneself, freedom of expression is not a question in France. But we chose to live in a society governed by politics and not by nature. Rather than reason, it would be necessary to explain the utility: why do we bring to justice a father of a family who avenges himself for a crime committed against his daughter? It's terrible, it's unfair, but it lives in this society and unfortunately its codes can not satisfy everyone. This is why the explanatory process must be stopped, otherwise the political decision is de-legitimized.

We decided to refuse to use enforcement to regulate the legal framework. What more can be said ? That it is a choice of civilization.

This is why it can not be said that the countries practicing the death penalty are barbarous countries: barbarism is arbitrary.

France, for example, does not apply the death penalty, but indirectly leaves people starving in the streets, and this is close to barbarism ...

Conversely, some countries apply flogging penalties, for example. It can not be considered barbaric, because it is a penalty that is directly part of the legal system of these countries ...

It can be seen that a debate can not find a real "final point".

I think that it will have to be a voted decision, which everyone will then have to assume the consequences, whether for or against, in a democratic way ...

Vir 08, 01 / Jul 23, 17 04:36 UTC

In severe cases the death penalty should be implemented. We don't need murderers and rapists in our nation. We need to keep our people safe.

Vir 11, 01 / Jul 26, 17 18:44 UTC

Well if an actual space station ever happens you won't need an official death penalty. If you hurt me or my family I'll simply push you out of an airlock. Justice served.

Vir 18, 01 / Aug 2, 17 22:39 UTC

Yes or forced labor for the rest of life.

Sco 15, 01 / Sep 24, 17 13:44 UTC

I agree with the notion that death penalty is allowed in Asgardia.  ATSN  would be a very sophisticated nations in every ways, so would the crimes be.

Sag 12, 01 / Nov 16, 17 16:20 UTC

Absolutely not. Simply no. Asgardia is the next stage of human development. This means an evolution of he way humanity thinks. As Asgardians we must break free of the barbaric constructs that have ruled our race for generations. Think of it this way, A criminal cannot live out there punishment if they are executed. Breaking the law should require you to do the time. Execution is an easy way out. I 100% am completely against it. 

Cap 12, 01 / Dec 14, 17 18:39 UTC

No death penalty - ever - no matter the crime or how "sure" the facts of the case seems to be.

I agree that people convicted of a crime  - not sure how we are going to do that yet, but let's assume we manage to have a standard of not-crime/crime - should serve the community as payback for the damage ( in whatever way )  the crime has inflicted on the community.

Pis 01, 02 / Jan 29, 18 21:39 UTC

Hell no ! And I'm very happy to see that a big majority of voters (in this topic) are against it !

Vir 19, 02 / Aug 3, 18 13:08 UTC

Let me start with saying I voted yes, reasons being simple, we can't afford a huge prison system, if a crime is purposefully committed against society the logical penalty for a space nation should be death as such a crime could easily endanger all life in that community.

Now, I won't argue with all of you that vote no and if we do not adopt it that's also good.  In that case I can, if I seem a person a threat to society, push the person in question out of the airlock myself, then argue self defense in court without being afraid of being put to death for that action if I lose the trial.