Juvinle Capital Punishment puts U.S. in Good Company

YesWeCan

YesWeCan

YES WE DID!
Today I bring you the wikipedia fact of the day:

"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed by all countries and ratified, except for Somalia and the United States.[14]"

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty[/ame]

Thought I would share.
 
Apparently you missed the supreme court ruling abolishing capital punishment for those under 18.

And it should be followed by one abolishing the atrocity entirely.
 
I think we can still execute people that have committed crimes as a juvenile, if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't that law just mean we can't execute kids WHILE they are 18 and under?
 
Grind said:
I think we can still execute people that have committed crimes as a juvenile, if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't that law just mean we can't execute kids WHILE they are 18 and under?
Click to expand...

The theory would be that they weren't mature enough to take such a huge burden of responsibility for their crime, not that it's too much to do to an 18 year old. What you're saying, quite frankly, just wouldn't make any sense, and practically no one is going to have the death penalty move fast enough to execute them before they're eighteen anyway.
 
Somalia and the US - LOL. Somalia has no government, so of course it couldn't ratify it. Although we have no juvenille death penalty b/c the supreme court, most of the people in our government believe in it, or are scared into not signing it because of the mindless mobs of sensationalism driven morons who would froth at the mouth if we took a step away from the DP.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Somalia and the US - LOL. Somalia has no government, so of course it couldn't ratify it. Although we have no juvenille death penalty b/c the supreme court, most of the people in our government believe in it, or are scared into not signing it because of the mindless mobs of sensationalism driven morons who would froth at the mouth if we took a step away from the DP.
Click to expand...

You've already made it clear...

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.

So why sign on to something well already have a law for....
Scared into not signing? WTF are you talkin about....
Signing or not signing makes NO difference in the US at all....moron
 
Threedee said:
It should never matter what the rest of the world is doing. This country was founded with the purpose of being different from it.
Click to expand...

And whenever the rest of the world is freer and more humane, I guess it's correct that we've turned to barbarism and fear mongering.

Dumbass.
 
Democracy and freedom of speech is becoming rather popular. So, in my conservative-think, I assume that we should turn to a ruling ogliarchy of Baptist ministers who will make sure we live a Christian life and don't speak any Satanic stuff.
 
Watermark said:
Democracy and freedom of speech is becoming rather popular. So, in my conservative-think, I assume that we should turn to a ruling ogliarchy of Baptist ministers who will make sure we live a Christian life and don't speak any Satanic stuff.
Click to expand...

Sounds very familiar to me. BTW - it was we who put freedom and democracy into play, and the world that followed. If they are moving forward in a way that is different from us, they are probably doing some things that are drastically dire.
 
Threedee said:
Sounds very familiar to me. BTW - it was we who put freedom and democracy into play, and the world that followed. If they are moving forward in a way that is different from us, they are probably doing some things that are drastically dire.
Click to expand...

Like abolishing the death penalty?

Dire indeed.
 
It seems remarkable to me that a country with such a deep tradition of distrust of government would invest it with the power to kill its on citizens.

It seems like an contradiction to me....
 
Sounds very familiar to me. BTW - it was we who put freedom and democracy into play, and the world that followed.

This shows a total disregard for history.

You colonials revolted because, amongst other reasons, you were being taxed without representation in Parliament. That would indicate that democracy, parliamentary democracy, was extant before the US existed. Hardly the world following, is it.

 
AnyOldIron said:
Sounds very familiar to me. BTW - it was we who put freedom and democracy into play, and the world that followed.

This shows a total disregard for history.

You colonials revolted because, amongst other reasons, you were being taxed without representation in Parliament. That would indicate that democracy, parliamentary democracy, was extant before the US existed. Hardly the world following, is it.
Click to expand...
Hardly a "freedom" expressed in no representation. It was also missing in the forced acceptance of troops meant to quell dissent, or ignoring the excesses of those troops enforcing the "freedom" on us.

It should also be noted that the King appointed the Prime Ministers at that time, and King George III was particularly willing to exercise that particular power. In four years he appointed four of them. Changing them like he did socks until he found one that would do and say pretty much whatever the King wanted him to. When war broke out with France his pet PM went and had passed a writ to suspend Habeas Corpus, Tom Paine (some in the US may recognize that name) barely escaped with his life when they began arresting and killing MPs for "sedition".

Yeah all that powerful "freedom" and "democracy" forced on the Colonies by an insane king and his pet PM was hard to give up for the Colonies.

It was even harder on those MPs with his later pet PM Pitt you know the one who killed all dissenters...

Yeah, we were sure sorry we gave up all that "freedom".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top