UN panel votes for death penalty moratorium
-
UN panel votes for death penalty moratorium
The resolution, which calls for 'a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty', was passed 99-52 with 33 abstentions on Thursday. --
PHOTO: AFP
UNITED NATIONS - A UNITED Nations committee voted in favour of a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty in a key step toward the passing of the nonbinding motion by the world body.
Opponents had tried to derail the resolution in the UN General Assembly's human rights committee by inserting amendments on the right to life of unborn children.
More than 15 amendments were voted down in two days of acrimonious debate that touched on whether the death penalty was a human rights issue or a domestic matter. Some Caribbean and other countries accused the European Union, a key backer of the text, of seeking to impose its values on other nations.
The resolution, which calls for 'a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty', was passed 99-52 with 33 abstentions on Thursday. It is likely to go to the full 192-member assembly in mid-December where supporters say they expect few countries to change their position.
'It's a question of coherence - a country that votes in a certain way here will do so there,' Italian Ambassador Marcello Spatafora said shortly before the vote.
Eighty-seven countries - including the 27 EU states, more than a dozen Latin American countries and eight African states - jointly introduced the draft resolution, though opponents singled out the EU as the driving force.
Two similar moves in the 1990s failed in the assembly. This time, the text of the resolution stops short of an outright demand for immediate abolition.
Angry opposition
Mr Vanu Gopala Menon, ambassador of Singapore which has a mandatory death penalty for most drug offences, accused those who brought the resolution to the committee of being 'sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant'.
Barbados was among the most vocal in complaining that 'a group of countries' was trying to impose its will, saying it had been threatened with the withdrawal of aid over the issue.
Human rights organisation Amnesty International welcomed the vote as a 'historic resolution and a major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide'.
'Although the resolution is not legally binding on states, it carries considerable moral and political weight,' Amnesty International said in a statement.
China, Iran, Iraq, the United States, Pakistan and Sudan account for about 90 per cent of all executions worldwide.
According to Amnesty, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice - a statistic that opponents of the resolution contested. They said more than 100 countries retained capital punishment on their statutes, even if they did not all use it.
Botswana's representative Rhee Hetanang said the death penalty was a domestic criminal justice issue. 'No amount of intimidation and bullying will cause us to go against the expressed wish of the people of Botswana,' he said.
Egypt and Iran were among countries proposing a last-minute amendment that would have urged member states 'to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of unborn children'. The United States, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe were among the countries voting for that amendment. It was rejected 83-28 with 47 abstentions.
'We are in agreement with the view expressed in this amendment that the lives of the unborn deserve the strongest protection, and we agree that countries that advocate for the abolition of the death penalty should be at least equally scrupulous in showing concern for innocent life,' US representative Joseph Rees said.
The United States abstained in a vote on a more strongly worded amendment that would have said abortion was only admissible in necessary cases, 'in particular where the life of the mother and or the child is at serious risk'. -- REUTERS
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/World/STIStory_177297.html -
I wonder if the govt will budge...
-
There have been recommendations to Parliament by the Law Society to review the mandatory use of the death penalty in certain offences.Originally posted by kramnave:I wonder if the govt will budge...
However, I don't see it likely that the government will remove the death penalty from our books, though personally I'd like to see it removed. -
Well, if there is a possibility of an innocent party getting hanged then perhaps the world should do away with the death penalty.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There have been recommendations to Parliament by the Law Society to review the mandatory use of the death penalty in certain offences.
However, I don't see it likely that the government will remove the death penalty from our books, though personally I'd like to see it removed.
Sometimes i wonder if a life imprisonment is harsher or a death penalty. Spending 20+ years in prison and being released thereafter would be hell... -
And when they come out - there is a risk some might reoffend again.Originally posted by kramnave:Well, if there is a possibility of an innocent party getting hanged then perhaps the world should do away with the death penalty.
Sometimes i wonder if a life imprisonment is harsher or a death penalty. Spending 20+ years in prison and being released thereafter would be hell... -
UN to vote on death penalty halt
By Laura Trevelyan
BBC News, New York
United Nations General Assembly
General Assembly resolutions are non-binding but can send a signal
A resolution calling for a worldwide suspension of the use of the death penalty has been introduced at the United Nations General Assembly.
Eighty-one of the 192 UN members are backing the resolution, which is expected to be voted on next week.
This resolution calls for countries which still have the death penalty to introduce a moratorium or a suspension, with a view to abolishing the practice.
Opponents of the moratorium are led by Singapore.
One-hundred-and-thirty countries have already banned the death penalty, and only 25 nations carried out executions last year.
'Wrecking amendments'
Franklin Makanga of Gabon said there should be a worldwide pause in the use of capital punishment.
"No country, no legal system, even the most advanced one is immune to miscarriages of justice. There are great risks of executing innocent people which is irreversible and irreparable," he said.
There is considerable opposition to suspending the death penalty from those countries that use it the most, led by Singapore.
The island state argues capital punishment is not about human rights but criminal justice and that is for each country to decide on.
Human rights groups say Singapore may try to introduce what are known are "wrecking amendments", changes to the resolution which would have the effect of making it ineffective.
Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, a vote calling for a suspension of the death penalty, backed by a majority of countries, will be a significant statement of changing international opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7085893.stm -
UN approves resolution for death penalty moratorium
UNITED NATIONS - THE UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Tuesday calling for a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolishing capital punishment.
The vote in the 192-member world body was 104-54 with 29 abstentions.
The resolution is not legally binding but it carries moral weight and reflects the majority view of world opinion.
The vote capped a heated debate in the General Assembly's human rights committee that continued before and after the final vote. It saw the United States taking the unusual step of siding with countries such as Iran and Syria in opposition to the resolution.
The resolution calls on those countries that still allow capital punishment to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates and to 'establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.'
It also calls upon those who have abolished the punishment not to reintroduce it.
The resolution was co-sponsored by European Union states and 60 other countries. -- AP
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/World/STIStory_188404.html -
i would have prefered that UN spend more resources and time on reducing conflicts among nations. The world can;t even agreed on if Raped victims should be punish.
Another moral high ground to walk, that makes the western liberal feel good factor. -
You're talking through your ass. Anything that advances humanism is better than nothing at all.Originally posted by Arapahoe:i would have prefered that UN spend more resources and time on reducing conflicts among nations. The world can;t even agreed on if Raped victims should be punish.
Another moral high ground to walk, that makes the western liberal feel good factor. -
Angry opposition
Singapore is like a Chihuahua; it thinks it's a big dog.
Mr Vanu Gopala Menon, ambassador of Singapore which has a mandatory death penalty for most drug offences, accused those who brought the resolution to the committee of being 'sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant'.
Singapore is more sanctimonious; a single person playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. -
But if you don't bark, you won't be noticed too. But there's a high chance that someone will call you a shrill, irritating bitch.Originally posted by googoomuck:Singapore is like a Chihuahua; it thinks it's a big dog.
Singapore is more sanctimonious; a single person playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. -
God Almighty speaking again huh? Every society has the right to decide what norms and customs are appropriate for itself. Menon's description of such arrogant talk as 'sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant' is apt indeed.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You're talking through your ass. Anything that advances humanism is better than nothing at all. -
Don't take the name of the Lord in vain.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:God Almighty speaking again huh? Every society has the right to decide what norms and customs are appropriate for itself. Menon's description of such arrogant talk as 'sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant' is apt indeed.
Like a lullaby which you love, "Societies do not exist in a vacuum, and their sovereign choices are upheld as long as they do not offend the majority."
For someone who talks of the legitimacy of majoritarian rule, you certainly have conveniently left out the statistics at hand, with regards to the discussion regarding this particular moratorium.
It is one thing to fight for the ruling administration's stance on the death penalty, it is equally sanctimonious to dismiss the other 100+ members' sovereign choice.
So how, it feels good to be selective doesn't it. -
The mercy being shown to criminals is cancelled out by the cruelty shown to the unborn. Bah.
-
Well, that's also an issue of values.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:The mercy being shown to criminals is cancelled out by the cruelty shown to the unborn. Bah.
Abortion is not an enforceable act on people, so that's where there is some area of dispute. -
Of course at the end of the day it sound good and serve a higher calling, but...Originally posted by LazerLordz:You're talking through your ass. Anything that advances humanism is better than nothing at all.
There is no meeting of the mind on degree of offences and criminal injunction than we can't agreed on the outcome of the final decision that include punishment. What type of law or base on what human value do we vote a resolution that cover worldwide? It would have make sense for work groups and UN NGO to bridge the gap between criminal injunction and offences.
How about grey areas such as addressing cross border criminal thru gov policy? Such as US involvement anti drug policy on Columbian engaging defense department to eradicate poppy grower n dealers. That would have bypass regular rule of law, possible of drug smuggler gunned by gov soldier in a non combat situation.
To advance humanism name a few I think that is needed attentions: advances on restricting human right abuses, and resolved conflicts result from terrorism, reduce number of people that are suffering from humanitarian crisis. such as Somalia, n Sudan,
So why jump the gun. Other than widening the division in the UN between western nations and dragging the rest of the world kicking. We end up labeling countries. Tag --- Singapore the other side. -
The way you speak, you probably think you are Sir LazerLordz, GCMG (God calls me God)Originally posted by LazerLordz:Don't take the name of the Lord in vain.
Like a lullaby which you love, "Societies do not exist in a vacuum, and their sovereign choices are upheld as long as they do not offend the majority."
For someone who talks of the legitimacy of majoritarian rule, you certainly have conveniently left out the statistics at hand, with regards to the discussion regarding this particular moratorium.
It is one thing to fight for the ruling administration's stance on the death penalty, it is equally sanctimonious to dismiss the other 100+ members' sovereign choice.
So how, it feels good to be selective doesn't it.
It is unfortunate that despite your claim to a University education you have obviously no understanding of the concept of sovereignty and the limits of jurisdiction. The standard of local universities must be low indeed...
The UN is essentially no more than a club of nations who join of their own free will. The UN has no jurisdiction over nor the right to rule a member state anymore than the chairman of your varsity interact club has the right to your girlfriend just because you are a member. Each nation has the right to rule itself according to the will of the majority within that state, without external interference from the UN or any other nations.
The fact that you cannot appreciate this simple concept reflects your mindless conformity to the vile propaganda of western liberals and the failure of your university education to inculcate critical thinking. -
here we go again ....
how many threads must there be on the death penalty ? ...
it is one thing to philosophize about the death penalty behind the ivory tower, it is another to confront the reality of horrendous crime first hand .....
I don't believe in lame, slap on the wrist punishments ....
remember the Vancouver Pig farm murder case ? ... 53 women, and counting ? .... where the young women were dismembered and fed to pigs ? ....
here's the verdict ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7136095.stm
he killed so many women that he's getting two trials ....
life in prison .... second degree ..... which meant that he's eligible for parole after TEN years .....
to me, that man richly deserves death ..... when I was still in Canada at the beginning of the year the morning radio was full of this case ... it was so gruesome that hardened forensic scientists were said to be puking, shrinks had to be called in for the police officers working on the case ...
he's not afraid .... not was he repentant ... because he knows he'll live to a ripe old age .... -
It's 25 years in Canada before he is eligible for parole because he's convicted for multiple murders. The eligibility for parole must be agreed by all 12 jury member. Rarely succeed.Originally posted by Fatum:here we go again ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7136095.stm
life in prison .... second degree ..... which meant that he's eligible for parole after TEN years .....
He's 58, plus 25 years, that's 83. He might not live that long.
It looks like the court is lenient but it makes no difference whether he's convicted for first or second degree murder. The jail term is the same. IMO, it's worse the death.In Canada, the so-called "Faint Hope Clause" (Section 745.6 of the Canadian Criminal Code) specifies that prisoners serving the maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years, may apply for early parole after 15 years has been served. It is so called because very few prisoners are actually granted this early release. This section of Canadian Criminal Code was added after Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and replaced it with mandatory life sentences for first and second degree murder. This particular provision was added in order to encourage convicted murderers in Canada to rehabilitate themselves and to reflect the fact that other countries allow convicted murderers to be paroled after on average 15 years of incarceration.
This section of the criminal code was amended in 1997. Applications for early parole made under the section are now first reviewed by judge who determines whether or not the application should be submitted to a jury for consideration. Previous to the amendment, applications were not reviewed and always went directly to a jury for consideration. The 12 person jury is also now required to be unanimous for the application to be accepted (previously only eight out of the 12 jurors had to agree). Also, the section was amended so that people convicted of more than one murder in Canada, where one or more of the murders was committed after January 9, 1997, must now serve 25 years before being eligible for parole. -
For every murderer let loose with a slap on the wrist, there's also another fella wrongly sent to the gallows and exonerated decades later.
That's what it is. Reality.
Reality also says that legal codes can be tightened if they have the will to do so. You cannot blame the absence of the death penalty for a lack in alternative punishment that will allow for recourse in an instance of wrongful conviction, but also serve to lock someone up in solitary for life.
It's one thing to tug at heartstrings that a killer may be out on parole, which itself is a failure of the legal system at hand, it is another to think that a man should be sentenced to death, and have no realistic recourse should his conviction have been a mistake.
We're talking about humans, and humans are not infallible and perfect.
One life lost is one too many. And it is not about the killed, it is about preventing more from being killed, be it heinously or through the sanitized procedures of state executions.
Don't forget, the State should not operate on the same level as the citizen in terms of vengeance.
My own two cents. -
DEATH PENALTY= RHK BY CHUCK NORRIS
-
click on the BBC linky, it says 10 years ....Originally posted by googoomuck:
though I know it's unlikely for any parole board to say yes to letting him go ... I'd gladly like to see him swing .....
and feed him to the pigs like he did those girls .... -
You can bugger off because this is not a crapbox.Originally posted by inf4ntry:DEATH PENALTY= RHK BY CHUCK NORRIS -
well, with respect to your personal convictions..there have been cases where the families of the victims have called for a non-capital punishment for the killer (not this case evidently).Originally posted by Fatum:click on the BBC linky, it says 10 years ....
though I know it's unlikely for any parole board to say yes to letting him go ... I'd gladly like to see him swing .....
and feed him to the pigs like he did those girls ....
How would you view those families? Would you call them crazy?
-
that may even be true once upon a time ... but in the age of DNA, how true is that ? ...Originally posted by LazerLordz:For every murderer let loose with a slap on the wrist, there's also another fella wrongly sent to the gallows and exonerated decades later.
That's what it is. Reality.
Reality also says that legal codes can be tightened if they have the will to do so. You cannot blame the absence of the death penalty for a lack in alternative punishment that will allow for recourse in an instance of wrongful conviction, but also serve to lock someone up in solitary for life.
It's one thing to tug at heartstrings that a killer may be out on parole, which itself is a failure of the legal system at hand, it is another to think that a man should be sentenced to death, and have no realistic recourse should his conviction have been a mistake.
We're talking about humans, and humans are not infallible and perfect.
One life lost is one too many. And it is not about the killed, it is about preventing more from being killed, be it heinously or through the sanitized procedures of state executions.
Don't forget, the State should not operate on the same level as the citizen in terms of vengeance.
My own two cents.
again, we went through that before long ago ... you focus on the killing, but the state does not ask to kill anyone, it does not want the dirty deed of sending someone to the gallows, no one does, me neither, if it can be helped ... you are confusing the cause and effect here .... the punishment for a crime like murder is death, it is there in black and white ... if you choose to commit murder, and the state will have no choice but to administer the punishment, the fundamental difference between a state sanctioned killing and a criminal murder is that the state did not choose to kill ... it was forced to because a unforgivable trespass has been committed against the society .... this is called justice .... but more to the point, justice is not just about just desserts, or even an eye for an eye ... it is also about deterrence ...