EU to discuss world ban on death penalty

[matcom]

<snip>

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Europe’s foreign ministers will meet today (Monday 21 July) in Brussels to decide on tabling a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly banning the death penalty.

An attempt in 1999 to pass such a vote failed, with some UN members arguing that the move was excluded under rules protecting internal state decisions.

The EU, at the time led by Finland, called on all UN members to progressively limit offences with can be punishable by death – with the final aim of abolition.

The next General Assembly is in September.

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=12192

[veganwitch]

1. yeay..but

just like the kyoto protocol, bush can just sorta "pull out"

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. He should

The UN has no business making local laws for us.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. Agreed.

I like and support the UN, but this would constitute an undo abridgement of a State's ability to formulate laws in it's own territory.

[Resistance]

36. Of course you would say that Muddle

you support Sharon dropping bombs on apartment buildings full of innocent Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Not exactly

But then again, you knew that wasn't quite the real truth now didn't you.

[Resistance]

56. Yes, exactly

you've stated it plenty of times and boldly defended Israel's murder of civilians. Does this mean you've now stepped away from your alignment with Ariel Sharon?

[ze_dscherman]

54. International law is meant to override local law

That's what it is meant for!!!

But the current U.S. government totally lacks to understand this, since according to them international law is meant for weanies, and strong nations don't need it. This jingoism, apparently shared by many U.S. citicens, has lead to the unitarlism proposed by the U.S. The Empire needs not respect international law.

Just one example: The U.S. is the ONLY nation that still executes delinquents that were minors when comitting their crime.
Other nations that have executed minors in the past ten years: Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. To most of the world, this is a barbarian act. Accordingly, the U.S. has not signed international charters on the protection of children, that would prohibit such an act.

Some more on this: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500072002?open&of=ENG-392


Your statement reeks of absolute disregard and lack of knowledge for international politics.

[IADEMO2004]

5. Bush daddy should have pulled out of Bush mommy

n/t

[muchacho]

6. lil squirt

>>just like the kyoto protocol, bush can just sorta "pull out"

Yeah, like his daddy should have done.

[Atlant]

4. Evil countries will, of course, reject/ignore this. (NT)

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Evil

There is nothing evil about the death penalty. It's only evil when it is applied poorly. Right now, we don't use it enough.

[matcom]

8. yeah, we just don't kill enough people in this country

:eyes:

[BonjourUSA]

11. You're right, the jails must be cleared out !!

And like everybody knows, the death penalty deters murderers. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Yes and no

It might not deter NEW murderers, but it plays hell with those who have already killed and are statistically likely to kill again.

[BonjourUSA]

13. Yes, a kind of euthanasia ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. No

Just a penalty for actions taken. And a preventive measure for the rest of us.

[Heddi]

22. but

if the people who were going to be put to death were given multiple life-sentences instead, they still wouldn't be killing people nor would they be a threat to society in general as long as they're behind bars.

Put them in a supermax prison where they're isolated from the general population, don't have any one-on-one contact with anyone other than themselves. Keep them there until they die.

Saves money, saves lives, and they're still no more of a threat than they would be if they were put to death.

It costs several million dollars to execute one prisoner. It costs several hundred thousand dollars to house a prisoner for life.

Seems to be the cost-effective way to go. Especially during these times of cash-strapped states.

Would you rather have community centers and free clinics shut down so that we can execute "more people"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Prison

Have you ever been to a prison? I have, more times than I care to count. Even the Supermax requires recreation, food, medical care, etc. All of those situations require interaction with guards, doctors, staff and other inmates. All of those provide opportunities for more crimes. And, to be honest, the more you lock criminals up and deny them any human contact, the more antisocial they will become and the more dangerous.

Have you ever heard of the little "cocktails" that prisoners work up for guards? Even in maximum security, prisoners (especially those with AIDS), like to mix up a collection of urine, feces, semen and blood to throw it in the face of guards -- just to get even. No, it is virtually impossible to make the prisoners pose no threat without violating the concept of cruel and unusual punishment.

As for the cost, I would rather streamline the process and cut down on the ridiculous and serpentine appeals process. I want to ensure that as few innocents as possible are killed and that the guilty go away as quickly as possible.

[Heddi]

26. Yes I have been to prisons

many times as well (always on the visiting end, tho).

You and I disagree whole-heartedly on this issue. I don't have an answer for everything because there is no answer for everything.

I do know that there are prisions, Super-Max prisons, where the inmates have no contact with any other inmate. THey're served food in their cells. They pretty much are naked all day, and they never have direct contact with anyone without being very heavily restrained.

There are always going to be problems in prisons. Are you telling me that the ONLY prisoners who are rude to guards and others are murderers and other 'unsavouries'? There's no 'bad-ass" drug dealers who are harassing guards? Or should they be put to death too?

It doesn't matter if a prisoner is anti-social from being denied human contact. If they're in prison for the rest of their life, we don't have to worry about whether or not they'll fit in with society. THey're never going to SEE society again as they'll be spending the rest of their life behind bars.

Again---we totally disagree on the death penatly. Nothing I say is going to change your mind, and nothing I say will change yours. I think we both know our respective opinions on the situation, and so I will have to say "agree to disagree".

:)

[joshcryer]

43. The litigation costs alone for far surpass imprisonment.

Think for a second here. Execution is a very very big deal. The appeals process is usually spread quite long for accuracy, not for some other magical reason. Even then, it fails in quite a few cases (more cases than I'd like to see). Imprisonment is historically cheaper than execution, and it should be that way given the importance of life. You don't give up the appeals process and and still manage to 'ensure that as few innocents as possible are killed,' the concept is a complete fucking contridiction.

Granted, I see situations where execution doesn't need the appeals process (that is, a very clear cut case with many witnesses, lots of DNA evidence and so on and so forth). But such cases are rare, indeed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Appeals

You are correct that right now prison is cheaper. But that shouldn't be the case. We should streamline the appeals process to ensure fair trials but to eliminate the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year appeals process used to frustrate the execution of sentence.

The money spent upfront to improve the process would be more than offset by lowering the cost of the ridiculous appeals process.

[joshcryer]

55. The fact that innocent people are on death row...

...with our current appeals process, proves that it's not enough. 'Streamlining' (ie, getting rid of bits we 'don't like') is silly. Accuracy is important. And it costs money to be accurate.

Note that a lot of death row inmates rarely get the appeals process (given that new evidence or a new approach must be had before an appeal will go through, and one must either pay a lawyer lots of money or just get plain lucky by getting access to that process via other means).

And lest we not forget that trials are the most expensive part of quite a few death row cases. In fact, I believe the system is set up so that if one pleads guilty they can overcome the death penalty, whereas if they go to trial, they risk execution. Yaknow, just a little 'incentive' to prevent people from 'spending' tax-payer money. Something I'm sure you'd appreciate...

[DrGonzoLives]

40. "Statistically likely to kill again"

You do, of course, have studies that back up this rather vague, and, I think, just plain wrong statement, right?

[Atlant]

9. As you wish, Muddle.

> Right now, we don't use it enough.

From your mouth to your god's ears. ehh?
Maybe those Bush Boy's will start using it more?

Atlant

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Take a look around

Look at the serial rapists, the child molesters who harm children again, again and again. Then they get out and do it again till they get caught. Tell me they deserve to live.

[Astarho]

14. Yes they do

a long life, alone, in prison. Maybe we could keep them there if we weren't pushing them out for pot smokers and song-swappers.

[BuddhaGirl]

15. We condemn murder in our society

and then we punish with state-sponsored murder.

Stupid. :-(

[TheBlob]

37. Exactly.

You can't teach a society that killing is wrong by killing people.

[joshcryer]

44. EXACTLY! There are more drug offenders in jail...

...than any other criminals! We could keep every miscreient on the street imprisoned if we just let out the drug offenders! Violent or perverse behavior that affects others physically is the only reason I think one should be jailed.

[Atlant]

18. What about the "traitors and treasonous Democrats"? (NT)

[Atlant]

35. Doesn't any DP supporter want to pick up this point??? (NT)

[Atlant]

51. I guess not. I guess they're sure it will never apply to them. (NT)

[DrGonzoLives]

42. Who are you

to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?

Hey, how about all those scumbag corporate CEO's who raid pension funds and ruin lives for thousands? Do they get sent to the electric chair too? Or do only convicted murderers, more than a few of them innocent, deserve your wrath?

[NYC]

46. They get out again & again because they were not properly sentenced.

Makes one wonder why crimes against women & children are not more stringently punished.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mechatanketra]

47. Perfect justice can only be used by perfect people.

And I don't know any of those. :eyes:

Theoretically, Muddle may be right: execution might be justifiable except "when it is applied poorly".

But as long as we have it, eventually, it will be "applied poorly" -- that is, we're going to execute someone who didn't do the crime ... which basically puts the state in the same boat as the people it wants to execute.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Do you mean to say that the US is evil?

The fact that we have the death penalty in this country is not because evil Republicans are in charge. It is because the voters want it. Unless the presidential race changes very draticly, our party will nominate a candidate next year who is in favor of the death penalty.

[Atlant]

32. Yup. (NT)

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Have fun voting for an 'evil' candidate for President next year!

Because all of the significant candidates running are in favor of the death penalty.

[Atlant]

53. I vote pragmatically.

If the choice is appaling evil versus one or two positions
I disagree with, I'll vote for the latter.

Assuming America escapes from the grip of the fascists,
it'll come around soon enough on the evils of the Death
Penalty. And if it doesn't escape fascism, then you'll come
around soon enough on the evils of the DP (once they start
coming around for you and me).

Atlant

[slackmaster]

45. We're in, uh, good company, I guess

How the vote went on a proposal for a global DP moratorium in 1999...

SWITZERLAND:

in Geneva, the United Nations human rights agency on Wednesday called
for a worldwide moratorium on executions as a prelude to abolishing
the death penalty.

The 53-member U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is holding its
annual meeting in Geneva, easily adopted a resolution tabled by the
European Union (EU).

The United States and China, long criticized by human rights groups for
excessive use of capital punishment, voted against the text. They were
backed by 9 other members, including Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan,
Rwanda and Sudan.

The vote was 30 states in favor, 11 against and 12 abstentions.

[kskiska]

16. The U.S. is not of this world

and hasn't been for the past 3 years. Try again in 2005.

[dofus]

19. I guess if the death penalty actually deters

potential murderers, then the U.S. must have the lowest murder rate in the world, right?

It doesn't? Are you sure?

(sarcasm mode now turned off) I find that when I point out to death penalty enthusiasts that no other first world country has the death penalty they're quite amazed. It doesn't seem possible to them that a civilized country can manage without one. Actually, I think Japan does, but they're quite secretive about how often it's used. But most of the rest of the world, except China, Cuba, South Africa, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, somehow don't find killing their own citizens to be a good thing to do.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

20. right?

So what about the murderers and rapist-murderers who destroyed entire families with their disgusting crimes. I suppose that they are civilized? Why does everyone always look for the "poor" criminal?

[StandWatie]

24. I can't believe you guys are still around..

I figured after they cleared out half of death row on indisputable DNA evidence the hanging squad would never poke it's head up again.

[termo]

29. what makes you happy about death row ?

put these rapist-murders in jail for life (at least up to 80).

by the way, try to attack the roots:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-02.php

are you also for death penatly if a american soldier is involved in a rape during a war ? (I know it never happend)

[DrGonzoLives]

41. Oh please

Let's talk about all those Ken Lay executive types who ruin THOUSANDS of lives ALL THE TIME and are NEVER punished for what they do.

Should Ken Lay get the death penalty? Or only poor, black people that may, in fact be innocent, and are only charged because they aren't wealthy enough to hire competent defense?

[Atlant]

52. In America, you're guilty until proven wealthy. (NT)

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Incorrect about US being only first world nation without death penalty

Japan also has the death penalty.

[Atlant]

33. Read Dofus's note again; Japan is mentioned. (NT)

[Trek234]

50. Americans are blood thirsty. Plain and simple.

nt

[tlb]

21. Preseumptious interferece in internal state affairs

that will only result in the strengthening of the anti-UN/anti -international feeling.

If the momentary thrill of moral superiority feelings over the US is worth that to them, fine. The beeneficiaries of this will however not he death row convicts, it will be the right wing.

[DavidMS]

23. I can only think of a few places where the death penality is useful.

Namely to deal with real cases of treasion and esponage. Not the sort of nonsense cooked up by the right, but real cases (like pandering by some segments of the right to Saudi Araba) where the goal is to scramble the offender's brain so baddly that they can't devulge any other secrets or influence anyone else.

The other place where its usefull is to deal with war criminals. This is again because they are enterprising and amorous people and it will save everyone a headache in the future by killing them. For instance much of the Nazi intelegence aparat in eastern europe was taken over by the CIA. The Nazis then fed the CIA information to furhter their own goals (east-west confrontation to create curmstances where facism can remerege).

Needless to say a firing squad or hanging could have prevented anyone from concidering comiting this sort of mistake (employing former Nazis in a policy or intelegence capacity).

I completely oppose the death penality in the run of the mill murder, rape or similar small cases. Locking the offender up for life should be enough to prevent recidivism without the risk of killing the wrong person.

[mvd]

30. Good - we should become like most of the civilized world

Except when has Bush obeyed any international organization?

[BonjourUSA]

48. That can be a goal

In 1981, The great majority of French people was against the death penalty abolishment but the government did it with courage. (3 weeks before major national elections).

Today, except some loonies of the ultra-right-wing, everybody thinks that death penalty is a barbarian act without efficiency. This option is shared with 91% of European. The abolishment is in the EU charter.

[Randi_Listener]

39. There is no use for the death penalty.

Let's join the rest of the civilized world and off this shit practice.