Regarding Senator Bellaron's Proposal

Do you remember where you were, or how you came to learn about the execution of Anvent Enturrer? Did you watch it live, were you there, or did you catch a clip later? To bring up his name as Senator Bellaron did recently, is to call up those feelings, not just the facts.

I remember where I was. I was seventeen, and I watched the broadcast at home, though we could have had quite a view. We didn’t go because my mother was vehemently against the logistics of the event. It was a statement that someone involved in any way wasn’t making an appearance. My mother likes statements, and this was hers: “While his death should at least entertain us, a performance is not a democracy.”

The president, who was there to preside, could have incited a riot at his own rally. There could have been injuries, if not just being careless with the president’s safety, which my mother wanted nothing to do with. After being promised what they were, a crowd that size would have certainly rushed the platform to tear him apart themselves, had something gone wrong and the planned mechanism failed. Under normal circumstances performances are a dance between technical experts and a performer - who are always experts themselves.

But, I wasn’t struck by the lack of wisdom of inciting a mob to violent action - the democratic participation of a mob that hinged on something that had even the remote possibility of not working correctly - it was the point that performances, as she pointed out with some rhetoric, really aren’t particularly democratic under normal circumstances. It bothered me for a long time, in a way that I found difficult to articulate. So much of our lives are entertainment, though the Federation thinks it is entirely free. This is taken so much for granted that the president saw fit to make his show also something the population could participate in. But there’s a reason professionals rarely do this. What bothered me really was that in our entertainment, we found our replacement for the comfort of a dictator. But, in the end, I think I still feel it’s for the best.

When you are young, you process what is going on as best you can. You try to make sense of it, as if it already must make sense. Sometimes, you can convince yourself that it does. And when you can’t, I think that’s when you become an activist.

As an adult, I’m more bothered by idea we have executions anymore at all, let alone public ones, or ones meant to manipulate public opinion at a time when the president was serving what many thought of as an improper second term.

While my thoughts are informed by my understanding of logistics and what entertainment generally is used for, I think more saliently, capital punishment harkens to our lesser moments, as a Federation, rather than its best. It lacks vision, and it lacks idealism.

Treason is a serious crime. Generally, it is not a crime of circumstance, nor is it usually a crime of moral misunderstanding - It is not in a moment of weakness or ignorance, that you betray the safety of your people to a hostile power. By the time you have anything of value to betray, your fellows are not just your neighbours, but people that are trusting you to keep them safe. These things are in fact part of what makes a crime like this considered to be so serious. Because of the nature that treason has, it’s hard to argue that rehabilitation, as an ideal, has any relation to someone who acted in such an egregious, self-serving way. Education, generosity or punishment are unlikely to change the mind of someone who knew what they were doing, and did it anyway, perhaps thinking they would get away with it through the power they already hold.

That said, Bellaron’s proposal covers all capital punishment. Different societies handle crime in different ways. Each planet, and even each country has created different measures for what deserves capital punishment, and they will still have that right. My feeling to this, which I think may be hitting a nerve, is that there needs to be an acknowledgement of fault by governments outside of those crimes such as treason - crimes that depend on the actor having no other causes but self-centeredness and greed.

The idea that ‘bad’ people, criminals, are born bad is an outdated idea that we already know is false. Criminals are bred by circumstance and governments need to take responsibility for creating or maintaining those circumstances, and for mitigating these circumstances wherever they can. For the remainder that are truly mentally unwell, we should mix sympathy with our fear, and committing someone to death, or sometimes worse, simply for existing seems wrong, even as it also feels confusing to know what to do about it otherwise, in a practical sense. Not knowing what else to do is not a particularly strong reason to end a life, even one that we don’t, or can’t, understand.

Senator Faron Shu’s reaction is, in fact, an overreaction, and likely just to cause a scene for his cause (being a good spokesperson). Banning capital punishment would not in fact affect the situation on Chandille that he and most pundits, are referring to - but it may have the effect of opening up the issue to debate. But further, nor would it even affect Chandille’s governance of capital punishment itself, necessarily.

For the purposes of Bellaron’s proposal, which I should mention is broader than his original proposal years ago, indicates a growing weariness of the public towards destruction. A lot has happened since I was seventeen. We are in a difficult, historical time, and that Bellaron has floated an even more lenient proposal should be commended, and one assumes, reflects the attitudes of his constituents. Unlike a performance, that is a democracy.

Just the idea that a democracy works is a vote for idealism. Just the idea that many planets could work together is a vote that we can stay visionary, and improve the lives of each, without having to wait for benevolent dictators or gamble for enlightened monarchs. When I consider a large change such as this one, especially those at the Federal level, I consider more often than my own feelings if the change serves idealism; if it serves to cull destruction or encourage the best in us.


In YC111, I was still in Hueromont, working as a detective under an Old City precinct. I was at work when it happened - we had the news up on the holostream. It seemed like a given that we’d be watching it, but at the same time, it was so surreal. Victims of unrelated crimes and witnesses making statements passing through had to see it, at least out of the corner of their eye. I can’t imagine it put them at ease. I don’t think it put us at ease, either. We normally had the sound on, just low, so we could tune it out if we needed. That time, it was muted and on closed captions. No one needed to discuss that choice beforehand or afterwards.

I’ve never really been pro capital punishment. I remember being ambivalent toward it as a kid, with a kid’s honest logic - Death is Bad, Always - but it solidified after I entered academy, and I learned the full length of nonviolent options an officer is supposed to exhaust when apprehending a threat. If we can’t trust individuals with the choice of life and death, if we can’t trust mobs with the right of life and death, I never saw the logic in trusting a state composed of both.

Something seems twisted in elected representatives holding control over life and death as one of several responsibilities associated with their position, like some perverse side note. At the same time, an elected representative whose sole domain is the decision between life and death seems infinitely worse. A performance is not a democracy, no, and neither is death.

Worse then, that Fioritan decided as a head of state to allow the mob that choice, to mix that tenuous boundary between mob rule and measured democratic governance. I wonder to this day: what if they had remained silent? If that crowd had not said a word, would Fioritan have been forced to shout Eturrer to death himself, alone, while all else bore witness? Or would he have tried to legitimise his bastardisation of democracy and nullified the sentence? It’s a pointless question, since the crowd did make themselves complicit, and as angry as the public had been, it was impossible they would have chose otherwise. I wonder, too, if Fioritan had even considered it. He had to plan the execution. He had to instruct others as to how to set it up. Did one of them dare ask him?

“We found our replacement for the comfort of a dictator” – ah, this hurts, but I know the truth when I read it. Anger demands dictators, for some physical manifestation of the worst of us, to act in ways that mollify our anger but absolve us of our complicity in its consequence. In that way, the worst rationale, Fioritan’s performance failed too. The worst consequence of anger and retribution and dictators is that there is no thought for the future. Just like the sympathetic nervous system suppresses those bodily functions that bring us comfortably through one month to another in order to elevate the needs of the now. It’s antithesis with the perspectives that justify thousands of nations working together and making the little sacrifices necessary to make a better future one can’t achieve alone.

You could argue treason poses a similar threat, and I see you do. I’m not qualified to make a judgment like that, myself.

That’s not my biggest concern with regard to capital punishment as a general concept, but it stands out in Enturrer’s case in particular. Bellaron then, and now apparently, represents a divorce in our understandings of the role our governments should have in mirroring our pain. In a very real way, Bellaron is asking for our governments to divest themselves of some representation of our feelings, some power, which you should think constituents would like. When asked the question, “Who would you give the power over life and death in anger?” I think few of us individually would answer, “Everyone all at once,” or, “Several people we all got together and last year asked to make sure our bridges are stable and our taxes fair.”

I think Senator Shu’s sentiment would be better understood if put into a bigger context, the context of wanting governance to reflect public feeling. Of course, the usual emotion that’s true for is pain, anger, but I’d guess that Senator Shu’s desire extends to hard to quantify feelings, as well. I’m sure if we considered his greater resume, we’d see many pushes for nostalgia in the form of historical sites or pride in the form of investing in the arts and sciences. In that sense, I don’t believe that his reaction is an overreaction; I’d see it as consistent. I might not agree, but I can understand.


What is the purpose of punishment?

Retributive injury upon individuals who harm society. Rather, that is the mechanism of punishment. The purpose is to begin the process of healing the harm.

Healing through knowledge the perpetrator is justly injured, moving ahead from a finite point of pain. The victim, their community, the witnesses each acknowledge the pain and the necessity to put it in the past. To trust the fabric of their society, the matter must be settled. Whether small or serious.

For the most grievous injury, harm to the whole society, the perpetrator forfeits their membership to it. Whether their life is ended or their agency rescinded, that is but the mechanism. The purpose is for the aggrieved to heal. In Ysiette, these perpetrators earn no easy escape to oblivion but survive under the burden of their crime, and no path remains to the ancestors’ graces. The fate of their choosing. Those who leave them behind turn their backs to pain, move together toward harmony. The transitory ideal.

That is the wisdom of exile that Faron Shu delivers before the Senate. An amalgam of mechanism and purpose, founded on Tei-Su by the ancestors and borne by their descendants. Today and tomorrow.


I was at Caille when it happened.

While I’m against mob rule, and I thought the spectacle was… somewhat degrading to the Gallentean people themselves, in my view, and a bit disturbing, as I’ve grown older, and had my share of experience with treachery as a capsuleer, well, thus always to traitors. They deserve worse, to be honest.

To respond to Hexelen, the purpose of such displays and the death penalty in general is and always has been, deterrence. It’s debatable if it works in terms of the criminal justice system on a larger scale, but I don’t think it’s debatable that such a spectacle will indeed be in the minds of prospective traitors in the future.

I realise here that you’re stating a rhetorical, and I’m sorry for answering a rhetorical, but in criminal justice studies we recognise five main justifications: retribution, of course, is what you refer to, but there’s also deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restoration. Aedre already outlined why, for crimes like treason, rehabilitation is infeasible. You list only retribution, though there’s hints of the others in your very thoughtful post - the example you believe Ysiette sets when it sentences those who have committed crimes to appropriately grievous fates is likely to dissuade others from committing similar crimes, yes? Please correct me if I misunderstand you.

Then, especially with exile, there’s incapacitation - it’s hard to commit crime when one is dead, or one is removed from a greater population. This is the rationale for expensive prisons.

There’s even, in your post, a little bit of restorative justice, which I was surprised by. You’re right. Certain crimes hurt group unity, damages the feeling of community, makes individuals feel as though they can’t engage. Anomie. And I agree, that’s a serious issue for sustainable governance, especially democratic. So we agree up to here.

But I think this bears acknowledgement, and it might be where you and I diverge; criminal justice is only a small part of governance, and I’m not sure it’s an entirely necessary one. It’s possible that the justifications of punitive action taken too far are incompatible with fair and sustainable governance, I think. Even a criminal is a citizen and a member of the system.

Again, I claim no expertise with treason, but a random crowd of people screamed Eturrer to death. That’s not a government action, really, that’s a government shirking a responsibility it claims sole dominion over. I don’t know if it did or could have helped those hurt by Eturrer’s actions feel restored, feel capable of moving forward. I don’t remember anyone asking them what they wanted. I wonder how many of those crowd members had been hurt by those actions, immediately: had their communities fragmented, had family die, had themselves been wounded, and how many carried empathy alone.

I acknowledge that the Jin-Mei nations and their use of exile is a different, if related, issue. I’m not qualified to comment on it, and I’m not allowed to via my employment by another member state. Bellaron’s bill, which I’m also not allowed to voice an opinion on, doesn’t seem to disbar the use of exile as punishment – it looks like it just recommends against doing it to Lirsautton VI in particular. Do you feel as though it has to be Lirsautton VI or would anywhere other than Ysiette suffice?


I’m sure you’ve seen some horrific ■■■■ in your job, unless you were assigned to posh places. How can you even say this? From what I’ve seen of former police officers, they tend to actually believe a little bit too much in punitive justice. And that’s saying something coming from me.

What would you replace criminal justice with, for violent offenses? Rape, murder, torture, and the like? How can these things be mitigated and dealt with without criminal justice?

1 Like

Dunno if y’all’re interested in a Caldari perspective on this, but here it is anyway.

I don’t recall exactly where I was that day. Spent a large part of that stretch of time drunk and partying on account of how the State had won back the Homeworld. But I do remember seeing the corporate news broadcasts. Obviously there was some pretty strong anti-Fed bias in that reporting. They criticized it as an act of barbarism and cruelty unbecoming of a civilized nation.

I remember agreeing.

It wasn’t that I disagreed with the man’s execution, you understand. He was a treasonous bastard, a traitor to his people and an oathbreaker. His betrayal endangered billions of people he’d sworn to protect, and killed several tens of thousands at least. But where I’m from he’d have been given the opportunity to atone via an honorable suicide, in private. And had he refused, his execution would have been similarly restrained.

The spectacle that Foiritain chose to make of it, though? With the howling, enraged crowd and the blatant appeal to humanity’s most violent tribal instincts? You have to admire the president’s grasp of human nature, but I can’t condone his willingness to pander to it.

I remember thinking that this was what the U-Nats must have looked like to my ancestors at the height of the war. A wall of angry humanity, driven by rage and the heady spiritual high of participating in a Righteous Act.

Maybe that was the point. Maybe Foiritain wanted us to look across the border and remember our healthy fear of the Federation.

Personally, all it did was remind me why we seceded.


Foiritain was hardly the greatest President we’ve had in recent times. He was largely a weak man, without the courage of his convictions, more to be swayed by the ignorant mob than to sway them. A true leader does what is right and brings the people along with him. The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. But you know the old saying:

Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.

All this being said, I can’t think of an act of Foiritain’s that I approved of much more than the execution. For a military man, a man to whom duty is the highest calling, to betray his nation and his people, well, such a thing cannot be tolerated. The purpose of such punishment is safety and that safety is twofold - removing the offending individual from the capacity to do such a harm again, and reminding any others like him of the cost of their transgression.

Cruel? Yes. But I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. It is not beyond wolves to cast out offending individuals from their pack or even to kill one who is a danger to others. This is normal.

Death is neither bad nor good. It is an evolutionary reality. It is sometimes a necessary tool. That treasonous filth Enturrer forswore his oath to protect the Gallente people and caused many deaths himself, both Gallente and Caldari. His death can at least be illustrative to others.

As for the broadcast, how can the message get out if not through such popular means? All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. If the broadcast also entertained some folk, well, that’s good too. A small good derived from the death of an odious man.

So, how did the whole event make me feel? Patriotic.

1 Like

I’ve read it in news - never actually watch it, neither broadcasted, nor a clip. Yet I read what was it - absolute and total savagery, an epitome of what democracy look like for us, outsiders. And what I think about it - not really about the show Foiritan did and gallentean methods of execution, but rather of the fact of execution of Mr. Enturrer…

He was a scapegoat they ‘sacrificed’ on this altar of democracy, one man whom they all put blame on for their defeat and their incompetence. Pathetic.

I have three questions about these capital punishments. First, would it involve punishments carried on by Black Eagles - which are done even without court sessions? It’s not really relevant to me - just curiosity.

Second: would it involve stopping building explosive cells for inmates? I am quite interested in this question, since Federals hold our prisoners of war in such installations.

And third: would it affect somehow genocide squads that are operating in Black Rise? It was quite clear from the reports back then they didn’t attack targets of military importance and the killing these operatives committed looked more like capital execution of peaceful colonists (for whatever reason they thought), rather than military losses.

This is probably the point of divergence, for the most extreme circumstances. As the OP puts it, I’d be considered a “criminal bred by circumstance”, I guess. I retain citizenship in spite of offenses that will undoubtedly follow, whatever good that does me or has ever done those still in the habs. No plans to commit treason, though. The threads of fate hold fast, for now.

I should also, for sake of honesty, admit that the sentiments of the post I made are not mine. More of a recollection of the moral ruminations of the poor and elderly whom I can remember from around the era of the execution. When you’re three generations and ten persons to a domicile, this stuff becomes the white noise of home.

Just a perspective, typically forgotten. Especially in Villore, probably, though politics aren’t my thing. Appreciate the exchange here, such as it is.


Yeah, and here’s where I wonder. Even if it did make the participants feel better, even if the ridiculous logistics could have been justified, even if every single victim cried for this vengeance with their dying breath, I don’t know if the federal level of governance can be rational, reasonable, and proactive and, at the same time, be capable of this. They don’t seem like capabilities that can co-exist to me. I don’t think it’s some lightswitch that can be flicked up and down, on and off at will either. It seems like a zero-sum equation to me.

I don’t mean to say that governance must be cold and emotionless - never that. But there must be more healthy expressions of such strong emotion, something that can be built into the system. We had thought that a president, one human being, would serve as that arbiter, but I guess Fioritan proved even Yiona’s reforms could use improvement. Without voicing an opinion on his bill, maybe Bellaron can suggest an adequate vehicle. Because Eturrer’s betrayal is not the last act of treason we of the Federation will be hurt by.

I really appreciate you taking the time to share them, though. Reading the IGS while the Lirsautton VI debacle played out, I was hard-pressed to hear any one Jin Mei voice in the babble of outsiders who didn’t want to listen, so I noticed yours in particular - you did a thankless job, and I thought you did it eloquently.

– I guess, after all these years, I feel that those who we elect to govern us conflate “citizenship” with “humanity,” as if stripping a person of the former negates membership to the later. And when I’ve voted for candidates, I never wanted to grant them power over the later.


Oh sure, I burn a man alive and people tell me it’s appalling.

Let a mob burn a man alive, and it’s just a question of policy years later.


I had held my independent capsuleer licence for just under half a year when Grand Admiral Eturrer was executed in YC111. I was operating as a contractor for the Caldari Navy out of Inoue at the time, and I remember vividly watching that grotesque spectacle with disgust.

Treason is one of the worst crimes that one can commit against one’s own nation, of that I have no doubt. To willingly betray those you have sworn an oath to serve and protect, to sacrifice the principles of protecting the whole for personal gain, abandoning one’s duty for selfish reasons… it’s anathema. Completely and utterly unthinkable, and that some in the State thought of him as a hero or his actions as heroic is wrong.

The sentence levied against Admiral Eturrer, that of him being made to pay for his egregious crimes against the Federation, was warranted. It was supported by Senator Bellaron, and the premise of retribution is exactly what then-President Foiritan promised the people of the Federation, those that were wounded, hurt, angry and confused by the events of YC110:

“I promised you he would atone for his crimes… that he would stand judgment, be made to pay for what he cost this Federation. Citizens of the Federation, I promise you this – he will pay.”

However, the manner in which he delivered on this promise was in my eyes a violation of two of the most basic, fundamental aspects of the Federal Constitution: That of the inviolability of human dignity, and that of ensuring that punishment of crimes are proportional to the offenses committed. I presume that this also includes proscribing instances of cruel and unusual punishment, which I imagine a chemical agent designed to immolate the condemned via the shrieking of a mob would fall under.

If someone is to be put to death by lawful sanction of the government at hand, then it should not be delegated or turned into a public spectacle simply to mollify the crowd or to share responsibility in their execution. I felt that by giving the crowd a sacrificial lamb, such as the Great Traitor, that maybe they presumed that a healing process could begin within the Federation. But what heals if they wound their own principles even further than those that brought harm to the Federation in the first place? What comes after that?

Eturrer, as much of a loathsome individual that he was, did not deserve his fate in the manner that it was delivered. President Duvailler and his gang of Ultranationalists, described as genocidaires and war criminals in reference to their crimes against the Federation and her peoples, did not face the ultimate sanction. And I’d argue that their actions were profoundly more anti-Federation and treasonous throughout their reign of terror, given their excesses against their own people and that of the Caldari that threatened to destroy the Federation as an institution, than that of Admiral Eturrer.

So that leaves the question of whether capital punishment has a place within the Federation in it’s current iteration. I would like to know what has changed in Senator Bellaron’s mind to push for the complete prohibition on capital punishment within the Federation. Would the debate be delegated purely at the elected representative level subject to accusations by unprofessional individuals, or would the choice be given to the Federal populace in a referendum in which they’ve historically had a low-turnout, peaking at 30% at best. And what would replace it as a punishment that would be agreeable to all within the Federation?

This will be a landmark moment in the Federation in my opinion, should it survive the myriad of readings and procedural motions.


I am in no shape or form, a personal advocate of capital punishment. However, around 8 years later and after the destruction of the Shiigeru I had found myself as being accepted into the Diplomatic Corps of the Federation. Although the act of Anvent Enturrer wasn’t the main topic, it was important to how it preluded the considered victory of the Shiigeru destruction. For many colleagues and Federate citizens that destruction was a payback to the treachery that Anvent Enturrer brought at the Federation.

I don’t believe that the Federation is in fact characterized from that event alone. But the proposal of Senator Bellaron is one that is worthy of exploring. If I know something however, is that in the truest sense of Federate style, the signatories are the ones who will have to decide and the public servants must be there to deliver. Difference is the wholesome of the Federation lets not forget. There are other Interstellar nations with their kind of democracy after all but none so diverse as in Federate level. Although having been stationed for a time in Amarr and Pator as well, I could say that the Federation can learn a lot from some others as well;it’s not always about reinventing the wheel.

I am not going to sit and point to various views that people have raised in this thread over how actions of betrayal and sense of justice made them feel. I will only stand on an aspect that I keep on coming across regarding the Gallente government. Nor of course I will say that I am the only person with experience in how that government works. I will only state that the Gallente Federate government does not act on matters to produce entertainment. No interstellar government actually does,that is simply a shortsighted view and begs for entertainment on its own. But given how this topic is about the Federation I will simply offer my views and experiences regarding what I believe capital punishment represents on a Federate level.

The burden of everyone involved in the execution of Anvent Enturrer is and will be immense. From the people who worked to the conception of the plan to the President Foirotan, to each soul in the crowd which made it possible. But that burden was instilled and it wasn’t a choice. War makes men mad as the famous quote goes. It is the retreat to the primary self that simply kicks in. There are plenty of stories in the Garden about this.

Stories that will echo forever to me but also stories that have taught me a great many deals. Many believe that the Federation can’t hit back. Due to the democratic nature, due to the signatory political structure. Due to a great many political reasons. But I always believed for those to be a facade.

The true underlying reason for people thinking the Federation can’t or won’t hit back is because that on a human level, those who have the courage and the strength to rise up above the primitive nature of violence that is so well embedded as mere reaction to our biological response, are always considered the weakest. In fact they are the strongest. For someone to have at their basis the nature of goodwill and diplomatic approach, only to evolve to use force when necessary…that is the first glimpses of an evolution of a mindset that breaks the pattern of where humanity is stuck for millennia and a way that some even have built their careers and to spread the dimensions…whole Empires. That dichotomy right there is I believe what Foirotan came against. What all of the Federation came against internally.

You know, if maybe I was just a Caldari or a Gallente I might have had similar views of that particular event. But being a Minmatar as well as Gallente, knowing our history, this is the most unshakable common trait we have, us Minmatar and Gallente. Our value system tries to challenge us everyday. In a way that simply teaches us and prepares us to not given in to primitive reactions. But when the time comes we must act. That is why some of the behaviors of the Tribes seem very odd to foreigners. And yet it is no different. The potential cruelty a voluval can offer to an individual would make them take capital punishment a million times.

The forces that look to undermine such creations are the ones that are trying to bring down to their level those whom they cant best. It is easy to judge President Foirotan and the Federation. But what needs to be understood is that there are some people out there, people who break the pattern…those of us that might do horrible things, but have the courage, decency and honesty to absolutely detest what we might do. So much so that in the end we can become the killers of our own monsters, even if that means the end of us.


I am going to avoid the debate over the ethics of capital punishment. While that is important, it is the political implications of the Senator’s proposal that I have been struggling with since its announcement and the commentary so far seems to address these more in passing than as the main issue.

I am genuinely conflicted about the expansion of federal law in this area.

On one hand, the proposal could strengthen the case for challenging the treatment of the Intaki 5,000 and their descendants. This was, in part, a mass execution by federal forces, as the ruins of the old colonies still testify.

On the other hand, it could also be the thin end of a constitutional wedge being driven into the autonomy of member states. Given their diversity, this risks enflaming latent antagonisms and divisions which any student of our collective history would surely prefer to avoid.

On balance, I welcome the ban applying to federal authorities and urge the Senator, with considerable reserve, to clarify the details of his proposed ‘guidelines’ applicable to members.


I watched it. I think I understood the why of it.

It was an uncharacteristic action from President Fioritan, but then he understood unsatiated rage is dangerous and ‘we’ were angry.

Senator Bellaron’s Proposal where it touches the rights of the ‘Constituent Domains’ within our Federal Union will run afoul of the Federal Charter. At which point his education will begin.


Any state will always, in extreme circumstances, have power of life and death, whether it aligns with our personal sensibility and idealism, or not. No other model is sustainable in the long term. If you will not fight, you will be conquered, at the very least, and leading an army to fight, kill, and die is indeed the stripping of a right to life from other people. Such is life, we make compromises with government, we do our best to make it sane and humane.

The only thing we can do is limit in which circumstances this power is exercised, but every state will kill, so long as men fight wars, if nothing else.


That’s pretty absurdly reductionist, don’t you think?

Details do matter.

1 Like

Despite the peculiar nature of this fellow’s messages and the lack of sufficient moderation from our CONCORD chums, please do not derail this thread from it’s original purpose and take it to off topic or something.

The Intaki 5,000 had amongst their number terrorists and criminals as well as simple dissidents that spoke out against the then-U-NAT regime. Their exile was heavy-handed, but it could have easily resulted in an actual mass-execution at the barrels of U-NAT gangsters had Duvailer chosen to. That said, it could be something on the table, although the Syndicate would have to show serious signs of reform for it to be possible.

Federal law supersedes that of the member states, from my understanding of it. No doubt the bill will be debated in the districts of the Federation and polls held by the senators and other authorised representatives of the people to fully gauge what the people of the Federation desire. Additionally, the Charter states that all member states must abide by the Constitution and respect its principles outlined. No doubt there will be member states that will try and exercise their right to opt-out of Federal law, but that doesn’t mean attempts shouldn’t be tried to reform the system in the eyes of those representatives that are expressing the will of their constituents.

I would agree that unsated rage is quite dangerous, and can lead to unforeseen consequences for any nation, not just the Federation. However, I will quote one individual, Irine Patrone, that expressed grave concern for the anger in which the Federation had at the time: “My great-grandfather served against the Caldari in the war… …He said there were times when he was so angry after Nouvelle Rouvenor he was frightened by himself. I had the same feeling when I saw the execution.”

In our rage and anger, no matter how justified or righteous it can seem, we can forget who we truly are and the goals and aspirations of our societies we strive towards. To slake the thirst of the mob for retribution in exchange for sacrificing the basic tenets of one’s society that one holds sacred and inviolate is not a trade worth making.

I would be interested in hearing how it violates the Federal Charter in your eyes, nonetheless.


I was referring to the destruction of the colonies in Poitot at the same time as the 5,000 were exiled. That was an actual mass execution. Further, the way in which those who were not killed that day were cut off by the destruction of the stargate to Intaki with very limited means of life support was effectively a death sentence for many.

Regardless, your point about reform is a good one. Syndicate has its fair share of troublemakers but many inhabitants are simply interested in making a living. I would encourage IGS readers to reach out with proposals for legitimate collaboration, as Catherine De’Lane did recently, whether with other capsuleers or the local authorities. I, for one, would welcome support in the Poitot pipe.

The second issue is about striking the right balance between federal and local policies. The Charter and the Constitution have an inherent tension because they seek to protect values that sometimes clash; in this case between the rights to dignity and justice of criminals and the rights to self-determination of member states. Capital punishment probably is an area appropriate for regulation. My point is simply that I hope Villore will do this carefully and not overreach.