2005/03/01

Another small step forward

The US Supreme Court has banned the death penalty for murders under 18. The decision was split 5-4.

    "Now the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators - that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan - that still execute juvenile offenders," - William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA

This is a slow move forward in the abolition of the death penalty, a clear breach of human rights. In 1988 the US banned children under 16 from being executed and in 2002 mentally disabled people were banned from being executed.

The fight to ban the death penalty in the self-appointed up-holder of human rights is slowly taking hold.

13 Comments:

"The decision was split 5-4. "

What an impressive overwhelming majority of representation for human rights.

"the self-appointed up-holder of human rights is slowly taking hold."

Give it another 100 years, and they'll extend the abolition of death penalty for those under 25. They're watching Iran, their human rights model, and will follow suit and make sure they're not left behind. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/02/2005 01:05:00 am  
Yeah...great...now what do we do with all the "kids" killing people?

Wait, lets lower the age of adulthood. Not only would that let us kill off the hoodlums that make our streets unsafe, but it would put a whole lot of new, vibrant, energetic workers into the work force.

See? I saw the silver lining in that one. 

Posted by Kender
3/02/2005 06:14:00 am  
Nice to see that the Land of the Free are still kidnapping people worldwide, sticking them on Gulf Stream N379P and delivering them to be tortured by Egypt, Syria (yes that Syria) and a host of other compliant nations. All this with the assistance of the UK.
We disgust me.  

Posted by cancergiggles
3/02/2005 10:29:00 am  
What? Iran executes juveniles? I say we go in there and turn them into a democracy.

As for the Gulf Stream prisoner transportation system, I note it relies on several countries. Surely proof that with international cooperation, humanity can only improve.

 

Posted by Tyrone
3/02/2005 10:56:00 am  
"What? Iran executes juveniles? I say we go in there and turn them into a democracy "

LOL, yep fir sure. But wait... they must already be a democracy since the execute juveniles.

Dang, how do we get around this? Maybe we could invade them to explain to them they are not democratic enough because they don't invade other countries? 

Posted by WhyNot
3/02/2005 12:51:00 pm  
"We disgust me "

Well don't feel too bad, Cancergiggles. Most ppl with a brain have come to realize the errings of our respective govs is not necessarily representative of the sentiment of the population.

Which is a clear failing in our western democracies. When you have 94% of Spanish citizen against the Iraq war, and yet the Spanish gov goes for it anyhow, something sucks real bad.

But as always, you get what you give, and when the elections came up, the pro-war Spanish gov got booted out with a monumental kick in the ass.

It is clear that the huge majority of UK citizens are against the Iraq war too - like 99% of this planet is - but Tony Blair decided to go lick Bush's anus all the same. He'll pay for discarding the will of the UK ppl. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/02/2005 12:58:00 pm  
Kender, do you consider yourself pro-life? 

Posted by Sarah
3/02/2005 06:49:00 pm  
If the taking of another's life is wrong, whether the perpetrator be 15 or 50, who can give someone (the executioner) the right to take his life?

Surely one cannot say the state, or a plurality of it's population, or by extension you defend the Holocaust and the slaughter of millions of Cambodians. Both were done by the state, with the tacit approval of a plurality of the people.

Killing another person, in the absence of immediate self-defense, is the one moral absolute that has come down through all societies. Where is the immediate self-defense in executing someone who is incarerated and no threat to anyone?

I'm sorry to say, but one cannot call me a knee-jerk liberal, because the same theory holds true for an unborn child, in my view. If no threat to the life of the mother is present, where is the moral justification abortion? It is life...at least at 5 months along, yet many states and governments allow a person to choose to kill that life. 

Posted by Buckwheat
3/03/2005 01:15:00 am  
Buckwheat,

"at least at 5 months along "

I don't know where this happens, but certainly not here. 3 months is the absolute limit for abortions.

But regardless of the term of pregnancy, I think there is one fundamental difference when comparing with *stand alone* human beings, and that is that the foetus is actually part of the mother's body. I don't see a huge difference between a foetus and a stomach, they are both living organisms within a body. Sure, the foetus will eventually become another *stand alone* human, whereas the stomach won't, but until then it is still part of the woman's phsysical flesh & body - it's not as if she were merely carrying the foetus already born in a pouch kangaroo-style.

Also, unlike the scenario of collectively agreeing on executing a prisoner, abortion is the mother's decision, not a state or collective one.

Anyway, I agree that abortion is a touchy subject, but all I meant to say is that there is definitely a difference with it and executing a prisoner. The fact that more and more western countries allow early pregnacy abortions and at the same time all condemn death penalty should make ppl think there must be some valid reasons for it. It's clearly not an issue driven from oil or other profit making reasons, but one decided by a large concensus of eminent ppl and thrashed out for a long time. What I mean is that my personal take is that I feel some ppl much more enlightened than I am are slowly but surely coming around to this point of view, and that I can only assume they are right. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/03/2005 02:42:00 am  
FYI folks, we don't execute kids in the US....I have found this is a great mis-conception out there in the SLV infected populace outside of the US. We do sentence kids to die, but after all of the appeals run out there are well in their late 20's, if not their 30's. Also, these kids are killers. Unremorseful murderers. We do not, unlike Iran, execute teenaged girls for having sex and being mouthy. Believe me, if we did execute kids for being mouthy, we would have tons of dead kids.

Now Sarah, what an odd, and confrontational choice of words. Pro-life? As opposed to anti-life? Hhhmmm...you'lll not bait me that easily little girl.

My wife and I chose to have a child. Abortion was not for us. But I have no right to decide what another woman does with her body, especially when it comes to something as serious as having a child. If they can live with that choice fine. I don't believe that I should have to foot the bill through more taxes for her therapy later on though. Alot of times abortion is a better choice for society, as we have less bad mothers and less welfare receipients to contend with.

Tell you guys what. Let's not call it the death penalty. Let's just call it a really late term abortion eh? 

Posted by Kender
3/03/2005 07:37:00 am  
"we don't execute kids in the US "..."We do sentence kids to die"

Lemme sit down and study this subtle philosophical concept. 

Posted by WhyNot
3/03/2005 09:40:00 am  
"We do sentence kids to die, but after all of the appeals run out there are well in their late 20's, if not their 30's. Also, these kids are killers. Unremorseful murderers.  "

A September 27, 2004, American Medical Association editorial provided a rationale for raising the age limit. It includes a reference to AMA's own brief in this case:

"Overall, according to the AMA, adolescents, even at the age of 16 or 17, underestimate risks, overvalue short-term benefits, and are more emotionally volatile, more impulsive and less capable of controlling their emotions than adults. 'In short, the average adolescent cannot be expected to act with the same control or foresight as a mature adult.'
Cutting-edge brain research and imaging offer support for this
position. Regions of the adolescent brain associated with impulse
control, regulation of emotions, risk assessment and moral reasoning do not reach a mature state until after age 18. Teens are simply not as equipped as adults to engage in moral reasoning and adjust their behavior accordingly."

Thankfully, the AMA doesn't view them as 'killers/unremorsefull murderers.'
 

Posted by Dianne
3/03/2005 10:12:00 am  
Then perhaps we should raise the age of adulthood. 

Posted by Kender
3/03/2005 07:20:00 pm  

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home