The Death Sentance and Why The US and Somalia are Uniquely United in Thought (545 hits)
Category: NoneLabels: Posted-for-heat
Rating: -0.11 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Beano (View user info) at 2006-09-26 09:22:34 EDT
At a time point in the autumn of 2004, the US had carried out forty eight executions and by a similar point of 2005 another forty eight people had been executed. In total over 3,400 people will be on death row at the end of 2006, including almost eighty under 18 year old offenders.
Evidence of the suitability of the imposition of the sentence continues to grow in the United States especially bearing in mind that since 1973, 121 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, including one in 2005. (mostly due to DNA evidence and generally better methods of forensic evidence)
In October 2004, American law makers passed the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). The IPA seeks to prevent wrongful executions by raising the standards for adequate representation in death penalty cases, providing greater access to post-conviction help and appeals.
More than 120 foreign nationals from twenty-nine countries remain on death row in the United States.
And while the death sentence itself can be debated and questioned, even if you look further into the treatment of criminals, particularly those of a 'minor/juvenile' age, there is yet more shocking evidence.
In March of 2006, the U.S. ruled that the execution of child offenders, (those who were under age eighteen when they committed their crimes) was unconstitutionally cruel. They acknowledged that the ruling was mostly influenced by the overwhelming international consensus against said sentence and the fact that it violates human rights law.
While child offenders no longer face the death penalty in the US, they do however face the possibility of life without parole. There are at least 2,225 child offenders sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison in the US, an estimated 59 percent of whom received the sentence for their first criminal conviction.
The United States is one of only fourteen countries in the world known to permit such sentences and there may be no more than twelve child offenders outside the US serving life sentences without possibility of release.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids sentencing child offenders to life without parole.
The US and Somalia...?? WTF?
User Reviews
Submitted by maf54 (user info) at 2008-05-14 05:13:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just to counter what that idiot Director did to you.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2008-05-13 16:07:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2008-04-19 21:50:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
muahahaha suffer the little children
Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-10-05 13:45:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:27:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The real problem here, is that we're NOT executing enough people.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-27 03:47:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 14:03:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:49:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
was he an adult in the eyes of the law? if so, I couldn't agree more.
----------------
So your argument goes back to if someone kills when they ar 17 years 11 months and 30 days they should be given clemency, but if they are one day older it is okay to throw th book at them?
--------------
Not given clemancy, given life in prison WITH the possibility of parole as apposed to life in prison WITHOUT the possibility or parole.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-26 17:46:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Reading this post made me conservative for a fleeting moment. bizzare.
Submitted by ballsonurchin (user info) at 2006-09-26 14:29:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ur such a fag.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 14:03:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:49:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
was he an adult in the eyes of the law? if so, I couldn't agree more.
----------------
So your argument goes back to if someone kills when they ar 17 years 11 months and 30 days they should be given clemency, but if they are one day older it is okay to throw th book at them?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:49:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:30:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bleeding hearts would let murderers and rapists go after a week of counseling. That's why I don't vote for those fuckers (Just one of many reasons, actually.)
Plus, just think of the family that had a life taken by that individual. Do they deserve justice? I believe so. If the family of a murdered individual requested that the inmate be spared the death penalty, I could agree to that. But it seems like most want them to fry... They don't give a fuck if it is painful or not.
That guy that killed that young woman in North Dakota deserves to die and that's why we have the death penalty. Anyone who says otherwise is thin-skinned, weak, excuse-making pussies.
---------
was he an adult in the eyes of the law? if so, I couldn't agree more.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:30:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bleeding hearts would let murderers and rapists go after a week of counseling. That's why I don't vote for those fuckers (Just one of many reasons, actually.)
Plus, just think of the family that had a life taken by that individual. Do they deserve justice? I believe so. If the family of a murdered individual requested that the inmate be spared the death penalty, I could agree to that. But it seems like most want them to fry... They don't give a fuck if it is painful or not.
That guy that killed that young woman in North Dakota deserves to die and that's why we have the death penalty. Anyone who says otherwise is thin-skinned, weak, excuse-making pussies.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:07:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:44:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think we were, but also we were looking at life sentance awarded to a minor without the possibility of parole.
Surely there has to be a cut off age or do you think that each case should be entirely judged on its fact?
We had a case in the UK where two boys (11 and 12 I believe) murdered a two year old, it was horendous, however because of their age they were released on their 18th birthdays.
The crime horrified the nation but I believe that locking them up for 80 years is wrong because 30 year olds can kill someone and not get that sentence.
---------------------
No there shouldn't be a cut off age.
I remember that case, but not in enough detail to say with certainty what I think should have happened. But from what I do remember they got off fucking easy. Maybe they didn't deserve life in jail, but 6 years, going free on their 18th, that is just BS. It isn't justice, the crime doesn't fit the punishment, if I was related to the victim I would probably be after those fucks, and I am sure they will be in jail again.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 13:02:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:47:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
I read that the US has 5% of the worlds population yet 23% of the worlds prison population.
Not sure what that implies with regard to what you are saying but I think it shows that locking up (anyone) let alone children is not working.
--------------------
Check your numbers, and check your numbers in regard to incarcerating children.
nobody is arguing that locking children alone is the only answer, but a blanket ban is wrong, there are crimes that soemone under 18 can do that warrant never having a free day again.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:47:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:00:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Gotcha, that makes sense now.
I don't know if it's right or wrong to execute a child, that's probably a very culture/society specific question.
I will agree that the US claiming to hold some kind of moral high ground is ridiculous and annoying. The trouble is, the US has a very sizable percentage of conservative, religious folks who, unfortunately, tend to vote. Thus, in order for politicians to sell stuff to the electorate, they often resort to tactics like "This is the right thing to do. God wants us to do this. The Bible says blah blah blah". Sadly, this kind of talk genuinely appeals to a large part of the electorate in this country. It also has the nasty side-effect of making us all look like self-rightous pricks to the rest of the world. But, a lot of the country does think that way, so maybe that's not an inaccurate picture. I don't know. Why can't we just go back to the days when our president spent all his time getting hummers from interns? You're probably not going to be starting any wars this morning if you're looking forward to getting your knob polished this afternoon.
-------------
I read that the US has 5% of the worlds population yet 23% of the worlds prison population.
Not sure what that implies with regard to what you are saying but I think it shows that locking up (anyone) let alone children is not working.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:44:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:16:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:00:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
That they are all wrong?... typical response I should have guess.
Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the US is in fact the only nation that has this correct (and Somalia, and China and Iran if we include countries that have also executed minors).
Are crime levels smaller in the US than in the entire rest of the world if you are getting it so right?
--------------------------
I thought we were talking about life imprisonment not the death penalty?
--------------I
I think we were, but also we were looking at life sentance awarded to a minor without the possibility of parole.
Surely there has to be a cut off age or do you think that each case should be entirely judged on its fact?
We had a case in the UK where two boys (11 and 12 I believe) murdered a two year old, it was horendous, however because of their age they were released on their 18th birthdays.
The crime horrified the nation but I believe that locking them up for 80 years is wrong because 30 year olds can kill someone and not get that sentence.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:40:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:24:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
So you look at one tiny almost microscopic aspect of US society that is similiar to somalia, and that somehow makes all our strides and freedoms in other areas meaningless? that makes it so we have no room to critisize other nations? that makes no sense.
You can't get into the debate about weather it should be allowed without looking into 17yr olds who commit crimes, you can't focus on weather it should be allowed because a lot of countries liked the idea of it. If you can't debate the idea on its own merits then you should be fighting to repeal it or at least not bringing it up.
------------
That's a fair point reagrding looking into a tiny aspect of US society but you cannot cover all aspects of society in a single post or thread. And of course to initiate debate someone needs to start with a controversial view if people are to get involved.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
As an adminsitrative justice major, trust me. It's REALLY HARD to get the death penalty in the US. You have to do something extremely bad and be extremely incompetant in your defense.
On a lighter note, Somalia has nice beaches! Visit www.priceline.com for the latest and lowest fares!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:44:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Because I'm interested in what people think about the US acting like the sort of nations that they themselves critisise, while beating their chest and claiming to be the leading light.
And I'm not making an argument against child executions in respect to if they deserve the execution depending on their crime or their age as some people pointed out below.
I didn't want this discussion going onto a tangent about if a 17 year old kills and rapes a whole family, or if he accidentally shoots his friend with his Dad's gun. Juries decided that sort of thing.
Should chjildren be allowed to be sentances to death and/or life without parole when CIVILISED and NON-CIVILISED nations across the globe out-rule it.
(sod spelling/grammar)
----------------------------------------------
So you look at one tiny almost microscopic aspect of US society that is similiar to somalia, and that somehow makes all our strides and freedoms in other areas meaningless? that makes it so we have no room to critisize other nations? that makes no sense.
You can't get into the debate about weather it should be allowed without looking into 17yr olds who commit crimes, you can't focus on weather it should be allowed because a lot of countries liked the idea of it. If you can't debate the idea on its own merits then you should be fighting to repeal it or at least not bringing it up.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:23:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:16:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:00:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
That they are all wrong?... typical response I should have guess.
Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the US is in fact the only nation that has this correct (and Somalia, and China and Iran if we include countries that have also executed minors).
Are crime levels smaller in the US than in the entire rest of the world if you are getting it so right?
--------------------------
I thought we were talking about life imprisonment not the death penalty?
And yes a free off the hook pass for anyone under a magical and arbitrary age of 18 is wrong. Give me one reason why once someone turns 18 they should be heald to a completely different standard?
You can make an argument for the death penalty being wrong(I wouldn't agree) but a ban on life sentences that is based on an arbitrary age with no care given to the acxtual crime IS wrong to anyone with any common sense.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-09-26 12:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Gotcha, that makes sense now.
I don't know if it's right or wrong to execute a child, that's probably a very culture/society specific question.
I will agree that the US claiming to hold some kind of moral high ground is ridiculous and annoying. The trouble is, the US has a very sizable percentage of conservative, religious folks who, unfortunately, tend to vote. Thus, in order for politicians to sell stuff to the electorate, they often resort to tactics like "This is the right thing to do. God wants us to do this. The Bible says blah blah blah". Sadly, this kind of talk genuinely appeals to a large part of the electorate in this country. It also has the nasty side-effect of making us all look like self-rightous pricks to the rest of the world. But, a lot of the country does think that way, so maybe that's not an inaccurate picture. I don't know. Why can't we just go back to the days when our president spent all his time getting hummers from interns? You're probably not going to be starting any wars this morning if you're looking forward to getting your knob polished this afternoon.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:58:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Silly hippy. We shouldn't be executing FEWER criminals, we should be executing MORE. Haven't you heard they're overpopulating our jails? Eating people's hostas? Getting hit on the roads? They'll STARVE in the winter, and it's simply inhumane NOT to kill them in horrible, demeaning, and unthinkable way. Imagine, for instance, Stan Tookie Williams. Now you COULD just give him the needle surrounded by friends and family, or you could have him infected with AIDS, then, while he's being broadcast on live TV, expose him to non-lethal, but humiliating diseases.
Herpes
Ghonnorhea
Montezuma's Revenge
You'd make money, be going green, AND humiliate the greedy and stupid, it's a win-win-WIN situation!
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:44:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:36:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
"and again, please do not think that I am making an argument against death penalty for minors or life without parole for minors... I am merely stating that the US can be compared to the likes of Iran, China and Somalia."
______________
Then, what's your point. You're not arguing against child executions, you're just pointing out this commonality between the US and Iran, China, and Somalia. If you're not arguing a point, then why the discussion?
-----------
Because I'm interested in what people think about the US acting like the sort of nations that they themselves critisise, while beating their chest and claiming to be the leading light.
And I'm not making an argument against child executions in respect to if they deserve the execution depending on their crime or their age as some people pointed out below.
I didn't want this discussion going onto a tangent about if a 17 year old kills and rapes a whole family, or if he accidentally shoots his friend with his Dad's gun. Juries decided that sort of thing.
Should chjildren be allowed to be sentances to death and/or life without parole when CIVILISED and NON-CIVILISED nations across the globe out-rule it.
(sod spelling/grammar)
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:37:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=205&scid=27
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=203
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300062004
Very good source of information:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/12/usdom11835.htm
Valid point sir...see the links above.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:36:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"and again, please do not think that I am making an argument against death penalty for minors or life without parole for minors... I am merely stating that the US can be compared to the likes of Iran, China and Somalia."
______________
Then, what's your point. You're not arguing against child executions, you're just pointing out this commonality between the US and Iran, China, and Somalia. If you're not arguing a point, then why the discussion?
Submitted by ScarfaceMN (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:27:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Call me a nit-picking asshole, call me someone who spent too much time in English departments, call me whatever... but I really like footnotes on "factual" posts. Cite a document or two, links to the information, that kind of thing. Perhaps half of these stupid arguments wouldn't be happening if you wrote like you meant it.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:06:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0106-01.htm
-------------
and again, please do not think that I am making an argument against death penalty for minors or life without parole for minors... I am merely stating that the US can be compared to the likes of Iran, China and Somalia.
I think that is pretty stunning.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 11:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:52:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:12:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
I am, I'm aslo talking about every other civisiles nation on the planet doing one thing and the US doing another.
--------------------------------
Ever occur to you that they are all wrong? Can you seriously make an argument that if I killed and reped an entire family when I was 17 and 300 days old I shouldn't get life in prison, but if I was 18 life in prison would be ok?
Never mind that this would just be another treaty for HRW to hammer the US on but ignore greater transgressions by countries that don't listen to their BS.
----------------
That they are all wrong?... typical response I should have guess.
Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the US is in fact the only nation that has this correct (and Somalia, and China and Iran if we include countries that have also executed minors).
Are crime levels smaller in the US than in the entire rest of the world if you are getting it so right?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:56:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still execute child offenders. "
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-stats-eng
Not surprisingly, Iran and China have executed children in the past 3 years, despite "ratification."
--------------
So has the US.....22 people executed since 1985 for crimes commited while minors.
Not surprisingly US gets missed off the list of countries executing minors. Hence my point that they had NOT rattified.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:52:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:12:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
I am, I'm aslo talking about every other civisiles nation on the planet doing one thing and the US doing another.
--------------------------------
Ever occur to you that they are all wrong? Can you seriously make an argument that if I killed and reped an entire family when I was 17 and 300 days old I shouldn't get life in prison, but if I was 18 life in prison would be ok?
Never mind that this would just be another treaty for HRW to hammer the US on but ignore greater transgressions by countries that don't listen to their BS.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:48:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:27:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
But in your main comment you tell me that I'm wrong saying what I say and I disprove you by posting a section of the convention??
You did NOT disprove my main comment with that posting, just the ps bit.
My main comment is more along the lines that you're naive to think ratification = enforcement. My main comment used the example of freedom of religion. I know countries that "ratified" the convention, do not practice freedom of religion at any age.
Here's an example on specifically child execution.
"The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still execute child offenders. "
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-stats-eng
Not surprisingly, Iran and China have executed children in the past 3 years, despite "ratification."
Also, this is just the "recording" of executions.. as I bet some African nations don't even bother.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:27:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:24:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, you are pretty dumb. Some countries use children as soldiers. I like how you comment on my P.S. statement, where I used the "may" verb to indicate that it was just a speculative part of my main comment.
-------------
But in your main comment you tell me that I'm wrong saying what I say and I disprove you by posting a section of the convention??
I then moved onto the ps bit because that was silly too.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:24:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, you are pretty dumb. Some countries use children as soldiers. I like how you comment on my P.S. statement, where I used the "may" verb to indicate that it was just a speculative part of my main comment.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:53:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're talking about child offenders as though they're nine year old kids who accidentally shot a friend with daddy's gun. These people in prison are killers and violent sociopaths; evidently a jury was convinced by the magnitude of their crimes to have them spend life in prison.
I posted on the subject before: http://www.ubersite.com/m/90402
----------
And Ax, I think you discussed what it means to be a minor and how mature minors are nowadays.
I am doing no such thing. I am stating that the US (and Somalia) treat minors one way and the REST of the WORLD treat them another.
Please distinguish between the two.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:17:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:52:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Evidence of the suitability of the imposition of the sentence continues to grow in the United States especially bearing in mind that since 1973, 121 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, including one in 2005. (mostly due to DNA evidence and generally better methods of forensic evidence)"
Are you sure you didn't mean unsuitability?
Do you really think you can make a reasonable argument as to why a 17 yr old who murdered people in cold blood, or raped shouldn't be given a life sentence? What if they were one day away from their 18th birthday?
----------------
Apologies Ind, I did indeed mean unsuitability. My error.
And, no I am not trying to argue either way. The facts are there to be debated.
The US will lock up minors for life without parole (sometimes for their FIRST crime) whereas other nations will not. They agreed a treaty to outlaw such action.
Just statin' the facts.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:15:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:51:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids sentencing child offenders to life without parole."
-2 just on principle, because you believe whatever told you this. This is obviously not true. You're dumb for believing it. I went ahead and googled this "Convention," and the articles talk about how governments will respect children's freedoms of thought, religion, peaceful assembly, etc. That alone is not permissible in nations of the Middle East, Africa, and southeast Asia.
Additionally, they may specifically forbird sentencing of child offenders to life without parole because they're already in favor of execution of them.
----------------
Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
----------
I think you'll find that by ruling out capital punishment they are in fact ruling out execution.
and you called me dumb.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-26 10:12:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:53:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're talking about child offenders as though they're nine year old kids who accidentally shot a friend with daddy's gun. These people in prison are killers and violent sociopaths; evidently a jury was convinced by the magnitude of their crimes to have them spend life in prison.
I posted on the subject before: http://www.ubersite.com/m/90402
----------
I am, I'm aslo talking about every other civisiles nation on the planet doing one thing and the US doing another.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:53:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're talking about child offenders as though they're nine year old kids who accidentally shot a friend with daddy's gun. These people in prison are killers and violent sociopaths; evidently a jury was convinced by the magnitude of their crimes to have them spend life in prison.
I posted on the subject before: http://www.ubersite.com/m/90402
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:52:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Evidence of the suitability of the imposition of the sentence continues to grow in the United States especially bearing in mind that since 1973, 121 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, including one in 2005. (mostly due to DNA evidence and generally better methods of forensic evidence)"
Are you sure you didn't mean unsuitability?
Do you really think you can make a reasonable argument as to why a 17 yr old who murdered people in cold blood, or raped shouldn't be given a life sentence? What if they were one day away from their 18th birthday?
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:51:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids sentencing child offenders to life without parole."
-2 just on principle, because you believe whatever told you this. This is obviously not true. You're dumb for believing it. I went ahead and googled this "Convention," and the articles talk about how governments will respect children's freedoms of thought, religion, peaceful assembly, etc. That alone is not permissible in nations of the Middle East, Africa, and southeast Asia.
Additionally, they may specifically forbird sentencing of child offenders to life without parole because they're already in favor of execution of them.
Submitted by JoeyG (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:40:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know exactly how you feel. It's a shite state of affairs.
Submitted by Cinderblock (user info) at 2006-09-26 09:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*sigh*