http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

here's the text of the resolution. i am in class so i can't look over it all yet, but with these kinds of resolutions they throw in a few BIG ones (no discriminating for death penalty) and then add in a bunch of stuff that they want for more political reasons.

then when someone goes against it, they're hit with the headline "they want to kill gays" and what not.

this might not be the case, but i'm going to withhold judgement until i have time to read the entire thing

2. "Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty to consider doing so;"

this is probably one of the contentions that the USA opposed, although it only says "consider" doing so, so there's little reason to vote against it on this one point.



3. "Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law;"

OR "arbitrary application of the law" well... we have specific states with death penalties with varying standards and precedents. this DEFINITELY could be a reason to vote agains the resolution



5. "Urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that the death penalty is not applied against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities and persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, as well as pregnant women;"

pregnant women? i suppose they're thinking of the baby... but with the current judicial precedent in the USA, a baby in the womb doesn't have rights in the first place...



7. "Calls upon States to comply with their obligations under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and to inform foreign nationals of their right to contact the relevant consular post;"

goddamnit, now i have to go find THAT, whatever it is and see whether or not we like that. i'll give it a pass, and assume it has nothing contentious.



so it's not JUST that we were voting on.

I was waiting for a statement from Nikki Haley.

@JY thanks for that link, i'll look at it now.

Apparently the US supported two amendments from Russia, one saying that the death penalty isn’t necessarily a human rights violation, and another saying that the death penalty is not in and of itself a form of torture but can lead to it. Both amendments failed. Is the failure of those enough not to vote for the resolution? I don’t know.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-sex-death-penalty-un-same-sex-relations-human-rights-council-saudi-arabia-iraq-nikki-haley-a7980981.html

Here’s the source I used that mentioned the US support of specific amendments. Beyond this, I haven’t seen anything other than speculation that points to real motive.

There may be reasons to assume the US is against reconsidering signing up to abolish the death penalty.

So this raises a question, instead of looking at the US as if it was the self-appointed 'leader of the free world' why not take a historical view of the US as a former european colony.

Why is it that compared with other former European colonies in the Americas the US feels very much out on its own.

On the death penalty, Mexico and Canada, along with most out south and central America have abolished it.
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/10/10/15/global-death-sentences-and-executions-in-2015.jpg

Almost all of Europe has (including Russia, which is listed there as abolitionist in practice... they have 'a moratorium and has not conducted an execution since 1999.')

If the US is so culturally similar to Europe, and other former colonies, and there is a strong feeling among some that the death penalty is wrong. Why hasn't the US followed the 'rest of the free world' in abolishing the death penalty?

To keep the US company on this, you have, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Egypt. (ignoring Japan, India, Pakistan and China).

Not the best company to keep, if you ask me.

Number 7 about informing the consulate has been a regular complaint from Mexico to the US regarding its citizens arrested for crimes in the US. However the US has the same complaint against 3rd world countries like Iran.

Right. This is the country we're supposed to stand up and be proud of during the anthem.

smh.

The problem is, the US federal government doesn't have control over the death penalty: it's for the states to decide. That makes international discourse on this VERY difficult

To pick up Orathaic's point about colonial history - which is a blindingly good one - it seems to me (as an outsider) that in some ways the US has never moved out of a 18th Century cultural kindest.

Consider GB in the 1700's; we had public executions, an armed militia and a Hunger for colonisation based principally on commercial greed. This included the exploitation of indigenous peoples and slavery. The only real control rested in parliament and the Crown.

Compare that to the modern US. Rampant gun crime and associated violence, appalling problems with facial integration and a head of state with immense power only moderately controlled by a parliamentary body more concerned with playing politics and preserving the free market than driving social change and improvement.

That's how it looks to me anyway.

what social change do you want Congress to drive forward? Keeping in mind, that each state has a lot of control over many issues that you would want those changes made

@"That makes international discourse on this VERY difficult"

That's fair, for the US it is a conversation between states (interstate rather than international) - so infact this is the map i should link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Death_penalty_in_the_United_States.svg

That said, the federal government could remove the death penalty for federal prisoners.

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/10/03/u-s-explanation-of-vote-resolution-on-the-question-of-the-death-penalty/

Here was the initial statement on the matter from the US, given on September 29. This statement was largely ignored by news sources reporting on the matter, saying no such statement or explanation was given. I’m response:

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/nikki-haley-u-s-not-vote-gay-death-penalty-article-1.3539883

It might be easier to find if there weren’t some dumb Hatch Act bullshit clogging up the news cycle dealing with Haley.

That's absurdly lame as an excuse. Even for the Trump administration that's some pathetic ass covering

What's next, putting forward a resolution that child sex slavery is ok?

Oh wait. I forgot, we've already done that. The US is the only UN state not a party to the convention on the rights of the child

Oh, but respect that flags, dontcha know?

Kneeling is too respectful. Mooning might be more approriate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia

So the US almost ended all death penalties in the late 60s by supreme court decision...

How did other former colonies and european countries end up getting rid of their death penalties?

Funny how the biggest whiners don't back up their words and leave the country they claim is so terrible. Surely it can't be too hard for people so smart to find a better place where they would be much happier.

Just a bunch of hot air and meaningless words.

High Larious.

Personally I agree with the US in this instance.

It would be Islamophobic to condemn nations in which homosexuals are given the death penalty.

@orathaic,

What century are we living in, you ask? What century indeed. We live in a century where some people still acknowledge that individual states have the right to determine their own internal affairs. Unfortunately your point of view tends to imply that we'd be better off acceptable globalist dominion.

Have fun when the storm troopers show up to lock you up for wrong think, Sir.

“Unfortunately your point of view tends to imply that we'd be better off acceptable globalist dominion.”

We would, but that’s not the point.

We wouldn't, for the record. Democratic governments are so stable because the power rests in the hands of the people and they can hold their politicians to account.

As more and more power slips to unelected internationalist institutions, the less acoountable to the public politicians and bureaucrats become, increasing the unrest in those nations worst afflicted by the scourge of globalism.

Just look around.

Hey, Al, locking you up for the wrong think would be fine, because it's the right of the state to do whatever it wants, right? Of course, if there's a concept called human rights that might be brought to bear to protect you, maybe.

Or maybe you are admitting that you think there's bascially no issue with killing gay people for being gay?

“We wouldn't, for the record. Democratic governments are so stable because the power rests in the hands of the people and they can hold their politicians to account.”

International federation, my dude.

Globalism is an inevitably brought on by the unstopability of capitalism. So it’s tied to freedom intrinsically.

Similarly, nationalism largely comes out to push a socialistic agenda.