The fundamantal document is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the USA is a signatory. This requires nations to change their laws to comply with the Declaration, and requires all individuals, organisations and nations to work to achieve compliance by all nations. The Preamble states:
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
Enforcement can be through national or international courts (within the context of the EU frequently the European Court of Human Rights) or through the resolutions of the United Nations, which may be supported by international actions.
The contrary argument is "might is right". Nation X can do what it jolly well pleases because no-one is going to take them to task. China pretty much asserts this, as does Iran. By contrast the nations of Europe signed up to the UDHR as part of the retreat from the imperial age and accept international jurisdiction. The USA is unique among developed nations in that it sets itself above international law, and the might of the USA is such that at the moment no-one feels it worth their while to demand sanctions.
I completely missed the part where the death penalty is prohibited.
Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
This is modified by Article 29(2) "...everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others..."
The application of the UDHR has been a matter for courts. Yes people can be deprived of ther right to liberty because of recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of other (ie they can go to prison), but they cannot be deprived of life. There is no right to revenge in the UDHR, and no-one has the right to have another murdered.
Like I said, I am against MOST applications of the death penalty- but I have to say that incertain instances it is VERY difficult to argue against it- for instance, when the perpetrator rapes and then murders his victim, or the rape of a pre pubescent child. Especially with violent pedophiles- there is no way to rehabilitate some of these people. That kind of thing is a sickness, one that calls for permanent separation from the mainstream of society.
Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.It's not that hard to argue against. Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.
You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't. There are no exceptions and grey areas.
Sure it is, when the guilt of the accused is undeniable and the crimes are as horrific as what took place in Norway, I do not see a problem with executing such a person.It's not that hard to argue against.
But I gather that you are the type of person who would prefer that the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping this man alive, clothed, fed and protected from others and simply kept behind bars for the rest of his natural life eh?
Yeah, because Norwegian society should be merciful towards this monster who gunned down in cold blood over one hundred innocent people, right.
What an absolute crock of shit, pathetic really. That is your opinion and your opinion alone, has it occured to you that other people might not share your view on such matters? What if the familys of the victims feel differently that you do, and would want to see this man put to death, I`m guessing in your eyes they would be considered murderers as well then according to your way of thinking?Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.
Has it occured to you that not everyones opinion of what justice is is the same as yours?You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't.
Oh yes there is, remember not everyone shares your opinion on such matters. Certain crimes are so senseless and horrific in nature that the people who perpetrate these acts have forfeited their right to stay alive should they be convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the accused now is there?There are no exceptions and grey areas.
well yes, it is rather USA style armed wackery, isn't it? Sad it happens other places as much as here.He should have immigrated here could have fit right in with teabaggers. oopps immigrant sorry.
Neiwert also quotes from a piece by Bill Berkowitz from 2003 on the Web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on the anti-Jewish underpinnings of the jargon of "cultural Marxism." One of the themes of Neiwert's writingsee his book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Rightis that far-right thinking like this, minus only the most overt manifestations of racial and religious hatreds, has been finding its way into the mainstream of conservative politics in the US. He gives instances of this with the use of the term "cultural Marxism" by Andrew Breitbart in videos on the first-cited page.Chip Berlet said:Breivik, charged in the terror attacks in Oslo, Norway, described himself in online posts as a cultural conservative and a Christian conservative who felt that Protestantism had lost its way and that Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church. These views are almost identical to the views of the late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Christian Right epicenter in the United States, the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich and his colleague William S. Lind developed an aggressive theory of Cultural Conservatism as a way to save Western Culture. . . .
This vein of culural conservatism warns of a "Demographic Winter" a term which is a coded racist warning that Muslims are outbreeding "white people" in Europe and the United States. . . .
Breivik thought Cultural Marxists=multiculturalists=Islamization of Europe. This racist right-wing conspiracy theory is tied to the Islamophobic "Demographic Winter" thesis. In his online posts, Breivik considered himself a cultural conservative and condemned "Cultural Marxism."The idea of "Cultural Marxism" on the political right is an antisemitic conspiracy theory cliaming that a small group of Marxist Jews formed the Frankfurt School and set out to destroy Western Culture through a conspiracy to promote multiculturalism and collectivist economic theories.
That's bullshit, in practice. No international body is going to meddle in a country's national jurisdictions. Unless they are willing to go to war over it. You are interpreting in an extremely idealistic manner.
Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.
First, to say "otherwise known as judicial murder" is analogous to saying "war, otherwise known as mass murder," or "meat eating, otherwise known as animal murder," or "abortion, otherwise known as fetus murder." You're just trying to smuggle your moral convictions into the very names of things.
Second, capital punishment is not "vengeance" any more than is any other form of punishment. You're playing with words againand cheating, again. Some people may get satisfaction from seeing an offender put to death. That is not the basis on which the death penalty is imposed any more than it is the basis on which life imprisonment is imposed. People's desire for vengeance is not part of the judicial process.
Third, even if it is granted that the death penalty is inherently unjusta possible position, but not one for which you have yet offered any rational defenseit is absurd to say that a "society" does not "believe in justice" because the criminal justice system somewhere contains unjust punishments. By that standard, there never has been and never will be a "society" that "believes in justice," as all systems of criminal justice are bound to contain imperfections.
Sure it is, when the guilt of the accused is undeniable and the crimes are as horrific as what took place in Norway, I do not see a problem with executing such a person.
But I gather that you are the type of person who would prefer that the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping this man alive, clothed, fed and protected from others and simply kept behind bars for the rest of his natural life eh?
Yeah, because Norwegian society should be merciful towards this monster who gunned down in cold blood over one hundred innocent people, right.
What an absolute crock of shit, pathetic really. That is your opinion and your opinion alone, has it occured to you that other people might not share your view on such matters? What if the familys of the victims feel differently that you do, and would want to see this man put to death, I`m guessing in your eyes they would be considered murderers as well then according to your way of thinking?
Has it occured to you that not everyones opinion of what justice is is the same as yours?
Oh yes there is, remember not everyone shares your opinion on such matters. Certain crimes are so senseless and horrific in nature that the people who perpetrate these acts have forfeited their right to stay alive should they be convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, and in this case there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the accused now is there?
Your arguments actually prove my point you know.![]()
In your own mind perhaps, and I daresay you will find more people that disagree with you than agree with your opinions on this subject, you are definately in the minority with your views to say the least.
![]()
No he is not. I agree with him 100%.In your own mind perhaps, and I daresay you will find more people that disagree with you than agree with your opinions on this subject, you are definately in the minority with your views to say the least.
![]()
It's not that hard to argue against. Execution, otherwise known as judicial murder, is vengeance, not justice.
You either live in a society which believes in justice or you don't. There are no exceptions and grey areas.
Bullshit. If you are going to make a case against capital punishment, step forward and make an honest case for it. Don't try to cheat your way to the desired conclusion with verbal swindles.
First, to say "otherwise known as judicial murder" is analogous to saying "war, otherwise known as mass murder," or "meat eating, otherwise known as animal murder," or "abortion, otherwise known as fetus murder." You're just trying to smuggle your moral convictions into the very names of things.
Second, capital punishment is not "vengeance" any more than is any other form of punishment. You're playing with words againand cheating, again. Some people may get satisfaction from seeing an offender put to death. That is not the basis on which the death penalty is imposed any more than it is the basis on which life imprisonment is imposed. People's desire for vengeance is not part of the judicial process.
Third, even if it is granted that the death penalty is inherently unjusta possible position, but not one for which you have yet offered any rational defenseit is absurd to say that a "society" does not "believe in justice" because the criminal justice system somewhere contains unjust punishments. By that standard, there never has been and never will be a "society" that "believes in justice," as all systems of criminal justice are bound to contain imperfections.
Bullshit yerself, you can dress execution up in all manner of sophistry and pretence but it remains a form of legally sanctioned life taking. The origins and underlying justifications for execution are primitive eye for an eye-type logics which are about nothing but taking vengeance. The exact purpose of execution is to meet out death for death (or in some cases death as the punishment for other transgressions).
If the state executes murderers it is taking vengeance on them. You may be satisfied with a system which does this. I personally find such systems morally bankrupt.
War is mass murder, that is a fact. Denying that is absurd, just as denying that execution is judicially sanctioned murder makes no sense whatsoever.
That the law sanctions something does not imply that this something is qualitatively any different from the same phenomenon taking place in the absence of legal sanction.
If you execute a murderer by judicial sanction there is no particular difference to that murderer having been lynched by a mob and strung up in a tree. The Judge and Jury merely lend a spurious legal and ceremonial camouflage to an act of vengeance. In fact the Judge and the Jury are the formalised proxies of the lynch-mob.
That you object so strongly to execution being described in terms which most simply express what it actually is suggests that you do not wish to examine the real nature of the phenomenon. This is perhaps because you are aware that too close an examination would reveal aspects of this phenomenon that you would be uncomfortable with, and that because I suspect you to be a person of thoughtful morality.