Meathead
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 474
- Location
- Prague, Czech Rep.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.Of course they are arbitrary. It is up to the discretion of a judge (i.e. individual). The jury simply makes a recommendation.
This doesn't deviate from the point of either the UDHR article 3 or ICCPR article 6.1
It also doesn't disprove the point I made against mac.
I misread. In the UDHR, it is article 3, not article 1.
What I read came from a different source:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.
Article 6
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
This is where we disagree. If something is illegal, or murder as you stated, there would not be guidelines for its use as you pointed out above.The majority of countries have eliminated the death penalty or put it under a moratorium. And, according to the UDHR (Article 1), our death penalty is illegal and therefore murder.
Judges decisions are not made arbitrarily. Arbitrary is like when the Red Queen said, "Off with her head!". The restrictions of working within state and federal laws and appeals to other courts which are part and parcel of the process makes the claim nonsense by any definition.
This is where we disagree. If something is illegal, or murder as you stated, there would not be guidelines for its use as you pointed out above.
This seems like it could become one of those never-ending exchanges which I am not disposed to. I really don't want to quibble about semantics, but I have found your statement above to be erroneous not only on the article, but also factually incorrect.
What is your point? The convention only made such caveat in order to ensure that power was not abused in countries with a death penalty. They still would rather prefer no death penalties. You really can't ignore the "inherent right to life" rule.
Also, in many states (I believe it is more than 20), we do execute juveniles and/or mentally retarded individuals.
Also, since when do we dictate our laws based on the whims of the international community? You're conveniently using international law to prove that state-sanctioned killing is murder in certain circumstances, while ignoring state-sanctioned killing in our own country.
It clearly says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished it. Therefore, our death penalty is not murder or illegal according to international law.
That is my point.
It clearly says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished it.
That is my point.
Yes, for certain murders. There are some crimes people can commit that are so heinous the perps forfeit their right to life, in my opinion. These "certain murders" might include, off the top of my head, the murder of a child and serial killers. If I thought about it longer, I could probably come up with a longer list. But rarely.
Let most of them rot in jail and die alone without family and friends at their sides. Lethal injection? Much too easy. Hell, I'd like that way out, and I haven't killed anybody.
Does anyone but me find it ironic that alot of our friends on the left are so adament against the death penalty for people who have raped and murdered but have no problem with butchering 42,0000,000 innocent, defenseless infants in the womb since Roe V Wade was passed?
Does anyone see a double standard but me?
Does anyone but me find it ironic that alot of our friends on the left are so adament against the death penalty for people who have raped and murdered but have no problem with butchering 42,0000,000 innocent, defenseless infants in the womb since Roe V Wade was passed?
Does anyone see a double standard but me?
It said no such thing. Like our constitution, the UDHR gives explicit guidelines that are not always followed. What else do you infer from "EVERY human being has an inherent right to life?"
Also, consider the fact that you brought up the international consensus regarding Nazi war crimes, while the UDHR was inspired largely because of those crimes and was even adopted on the same day as the genocide convention.
This proves my original point. The death penalty is not illegal in certain countries, but that is not legislated by a world power. Instead, it is left to the individual countries. Likewise, the Nazi extermination of Jews (or, if you need another example which wasn't punished by any UN resolution, you can look at the Stalin campaign to systematically starve Ukrainians) was legal under that nation's laws.
There is no contradiction. An embryo is not an infant. One has to deal with women's right to own her own body and decide what she wishes to do with it, and the other deals with a government overstepping its boundaries in order to decide who lives and who dies.
Is it a contradiction to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death?
First, you brought up the Nazi's. Second, don't quote one line of the UDHR and ignore the rest. The very next sentence following the one you've been quoting (which is one of my favorites, btw) says that the death penalty is not illegal in countries that have not abolished. It's plainly written. :shrug:
There is a contradiction. The example you specify is only appropriate if she is trying to kill herself, not the ZEF she's carrying which is a separate body.
Imho, yes. However, endorsing the death of the innocent while condemning the death of the guilty is beyond contradiction.
It's agreed to by international law and clarified as not illegal in those countries. It's very easy to read and understand.
as a hated leftist on this board I support the death penalty and have posted this many times
First of all, I misquoted. The UDHR does not give exception to the rule. Look it up. Second, the civil and political rights convention promotes the abolition of death penalty, but gives a caveat to those who insist on keeping the death penalty. They do this in order to prevent (and I've said this already) an abuse of power. FINALLY, it is a recognition of legalized murder in specific states. It does NOT legitimize state-sanctioned killing. Let me use anti-abortion conservatives in red states under a Roe v. Wade federal precedence legalizing abortion. Abortion is legal on a federal level and anti-abortion conservatives can't fully criminalize abortion in their own states. But given that it is legal, they try to set guidelines and regulations which make it harder for abortions to occur on-demand. Instead of trying to criminalize countries who perform death penalties, the convention does its best to denounce those who perform routine executions for thieves and drug addicts. It does not criminalize the death penalty. Look at China. Look at their draconian laws and how often people are executed for seemingly nonviolent crimes. Does the UN take any steps, other than official denouncement, to criminalize the entire country of China? NO!
It is legal in China to kill at the discretion of the authoritarian government. This is true in many parts of the world, and the UN is powerless to stop it. The only reason the Nazis were ever punished for their crimes was because the allies beat them in a war. Yet, it still doesn't deviate from the basic fact that the final solution was legal in Nazi Germany. Starvation of Ukrainians was legal in the Soviet Russia. State-sanctioned murder is legal in North Korea. And the rest of the world is powerless to stop it.
And I can recognize that state-sanctioned killing in other countries, as well as our own, is both legal and MURDER.
There is no contradiction. An embryo is not an infant. One has to deal with women's right to own her own body and decide what she wishes to do with it, and the other deals with a government overstepping its boundaries in order to decide who lives and who dies.
Is it a contradiction to be pro-life and simultaneously pro-death?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?