Death Penalty for gays ok?

[Walker1]

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/un-resolution-abolish-gay-death-penalty/#gs.RZet1PI

 

Looks like there was a resolution banning death penalty for gays among other things-apostasy, pregnant women, kids under the age of 18, blasphemy etc.

 

One would think this would be reasonable. 13 countries opposed this resolution. One would think the usual suspects-but no-among the countries that rejected this were ole glory USA, China, India, Japan, Botswana.

 

I am stunned the US voted no and also at Japan, India etc.

 

Was there anything nefarious in the subprint? I just don't understand why we would vote no on such an issue-Trump aside. Or is the orange orangutan worse than that far right conservative Pence on social issues too? But Japan and India? China I understand -their criminal justice system is interesting-not that it is right. Botswana was supposed to be a friendly country.

[+ Avalon]

<<‘The United States has the death penalty and has a consistent record of voting no on resolutions that are against it.’>>

 

Doesn't seem to be particularly anti gay but rather pro death penalty in general.

[MscleLovr]

Botswana was supposed to be a friendly country.

 

It's certainly a rich and stable country, and it counts as a democracy in southern Africa. Nonetheless there are aspects of a feudal society and essentially the country is run by 5 families.

[+ Avalon]

It's certainly a rich and stable country, and it counts as a democracy in southern Africa. Nonetheless there are aspects of a feudal society and essentially the country is run by 5 families.

 

Here is info about Botsawana

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana

[+ bigjoey]

<<‘The United States has the death penalty and has a consistent record of voting no on resolutions that are against it.’>>

 

Doesn't seem to be particularly anti gay but rather pro death penalty in general.

 

Traditionally, the federal government has considered the issue one of state's rights and not wanting an international agreement to impinge on what a state can do. In our federal system, the states are still considered "sovereign" and the death penalty is something for each state to decide. That could change by constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court finding the death penalty conflicting with the Constitution and the Constitution trumping the right of the states as the states have agreed to the Constitution being a superior law. The conflict could be that the Supreme Court finds the putting a person to death "cruel" and in violation of the Constitution.

[+ Avalon]

Traditionally, the federal government has considered the issue one of state's rights and not wanting an international agreement to impinge on what a state can do. In our federal system, the states are still considered "sovereign" and the death penalty is something for each state to decide. That could change by constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court finding the death penalty conflicting with the Constitution and the Constitution trumping the right of the states as the states have agreed to the Constitution being a superior law. The conflict could be that the Supreme Court finds the putting a person to death "cruel" and in violation of the Constitution.

 

But even if the states do not impose the death penalty there are still federal crimes which have the death penalty.

 

I can see that some methods of execution could be "cruel". But I don't see how it be found to be "unusual" since capital punishment has been around for thousands of years.

 

In the USA it's now limited to murder but imo there are some crimes that are worse than murder like child molestation.

[+ sniper]

But even if the states do not impose the death penalty there are still federal crimes which have the death penalty.

 

I can see that some methods of execution could be "cruel". But I don't see how it be found to be "unusual" since capital punishment has been around for thousands of years.

 

In the USA it's now limited to murder but imo there are some crimes that are worse than murder like child molestation.

It's unusual today in that it's rarely carried out. So this is a case of the law staying the same but circumstances changing.

[Rudynate]

. But I don't see how it be found to be "unusual" since capital punishment has been around for thousands of years.

 

 

No, it isn't unusual in a broad historical sense, but within a particular legal framework, it could be unusual. For example, if the death penalty were arbitrarily imposed, perhaps to "send a message," for a crime in which the severity of the penalty wasn't proportional to the severity of the crime, it could be argued that it was unusual.

[Rudynate]

 

imo there are some crimes that are worse than murder like child molestation.

 

The victim of child molestation can still lead a happy productive life after being molested. A murder victim doesn't have that option.

[+ Avalon]

The victim of child molestation can still lead a happy productive life after being molested. A murder victim doesn't have that option.

 

It is such a terrible thing. Many can never get over it and move on.

[Rudynate]

It is such a terrible thing. Many can never get over it and move on.

 

 

But they still get to move on, even if they don't. Even if they live a miserable thereafter, they probably have moments of joy and pleasure. The murder victim gets none of that.

[+ Avalon]

But they still get to move on, even if they don't. Even if they live a miserable thereafter, they probably have moments of joy and pleasure. The murder victim gets none of that.

 

I contend that there are some crimes worse than murder. When the victim is dead their suffering is over. But for some victims the suffering never ends.

[rvwnsd]

Although I do not favor the death penalty in general, I also do not favor exempting gay people who have been convicted of a crime that carries the death penalty while not exempting a non-gay person. Two reasons: 1) If a gay person murders someone they should be punished in the same way as a heterosexual person. 2) I can see a convicted murderer "coming out as gay" to avoid the death penalty.

 

I'd support a resolution banning the criminalization of being gay.

[Walker1]

Although I do not favor the death penalty in general, I also do not favor exempting gay people who have been convicted of a crime that carries the death penalty while not exempting a non-gay person. Two reasons: 1) If a gay person murders someone they should be punished in the same way as a heterosexual person. 2) I can see a convicted murderer "coming out as gay" to avoid the death penalty.

 

I'd support a resolution banning the criminalization of being gay.

 

No this is not exempting a gay person who committed a crime from the death penalty. This is for not giving death penalty for someone who is gay. No crime was committed-save being gay.

 

Basically this provision was targeted for countries where simply being gay is punishable by death. Apparently there are six or so countries where simply being gay is punishable by death.

 

There were some other provisions-minors, blasphemy , pregnant women etc. I didn't know if there was any fine print that made us vote with the usual suspects. Putting someone to death for being gay in this day and age-I mean what if you visit that country for work and they find you are gay and sentence you to death right there?

[+ sniper]

They lumped together several things, it was by no means just about executing people for being gay. The US likely objected to the mental capacity restriction as being too vague.

[rvwnsd]

No this is not exempting a gay person who committed a crime from the death penalty. This is for not giving death penalty for someone who is gay. No crime was committed-save being gay.

 

Basically this provision was targeted for countries where simply being gay is punishable by death. Apparently there are six or so countries where simply being gay is punishable by death.

 

There were some other provisions-minors, blasphemy , pregnant women etc. I didn't know if there was any fine print that made us vote with the usual suspects. Putting someone to death for being gay in this day and age-I mean what if you visit that country for work and they find you are gay and sentence you to death right there?

No this is not exempting a gay person who committed a crime from the death penalty. This is for not giving death penalty for someone who is gay. No crime was committed-save being gay.

 

Basically this provision was targeted for countries where simply being gay is punishable by death. Apparently there are six or so countries where simply being gay is punishable by death.

 

There were some other provisions-minors, blasphemy , pregnant women etc. I didn't know if there was any fine print that made us vote with the usual suspects. Putting someone to death for being gay in this day and age-I mean what if you visit that country for work and they find you are gay and sentence you to death right there?

 

I'm not sure which I think is more poorly written - the article or the resolution. Although the resolution addresses the use of death as punishment for consensual same-sex relations, blasphemy, and other offenses it does not address the fact that these are considered crimes in the first place. Then again, the article isn't well-written, so we don't know what the resolution actually said. Here is a link to a piece from NBC News regarding the State Department's clarification of the vote on the resolution.

 

There are three statements in the piece that I found to be particularly interesting:

 

1. "The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization.”
   
2. "...the U.S. voted "no" to the resolution under the Obama administration, though the specific mention of "same-sex relations' was not included in previous death penalty resolutions."
   
3. "Jessica Stern, executive director of OutRight Action International, a global LGBTQ human rights organization, acknowledged the U.S. vote on the U.N. resolution was misconstrued.
    
   "There's been some misreporting and misconceptions," Stern told NBC News. "The U.S. always opposes this death penalty resolution, because it makes reference to a global moratorium on the death penalty. For both Obama and Trump, so long as the death penalty is legal in the U.S., it takes this position."
    
   "OutRight will call out the Trump administration on its many rights violations, its many abuses of power from LGBTI violations to xenophobia, but this particular instance is not an example of a contraction of support on LGBTI rights," Stern continued. "It would be a mistake to interpret its opposition to a death penalty resolution to a change in policy."
   

I understand that Gay Star News is not exactly The New York Times, but it should do a better job of reporting topics like this.