Wait, does the Death Penalty really cost too much?
Inthe United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a pledge among nations to promote fundamental rights as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. The political elite in Europe often condemn the US as human rights violators since we still use the death penalty on murderers, which they insist is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And they also point to Article 5, which states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
From this, abolitinists self-righteously declare that the death penalty violates both of these rights. But in fact, nowhere in that declaration is the DP specifically condemned as a human rights violation! For instance, in Article 3 it states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
But if we were to follow that reasoning, we would have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation as well since they deprive people of liberty. So the interpretation that abolitionists derive from Article 3 of the Declaration is illogical and contradictory.
And in Article 5, it states: No one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. From this, abolitionists insist that capital punishment is ruled out because it is "the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Indeed, what is stated in Article 5 is highly subjective and open to interpretation and could just as easily be applied to prisons as well. And at the time it was implemented, most nations who signed it had the had the death penalty and continued to use it long after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was approved by them.
So obviously, the signers back then had the moral coherence to appreciate the distinction between murders and executions.
What the DP is, is a punishment for a human rights violation, not a human rights violation itself. Anyone with any amount of moral judgment and coherence would recognize and respect that difference.
All abolitionists are trying to do is protect human rights violators at the expense of their victims by trying to pass off the just punishment of human rights violations as a human rights violation itself, an analysis that one would have to be totally lacking in sound moral judgement to accept since it is so obviously contradictory as well as morally and logically skewed.
European elites enjoy showcasing their opposition to the death penalty as a progressive policy based on the respect of human rights. Such large contradictions usually suggest there are other motives.
Germany, along with France, has long led the anti-death penalty charge in Europe. The mayor of Paris took this viewpoint to such an extreme position that he named a city street after convicted American cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Instead, it was based on protecting convicted Nazi war criminals: Communist East Germany kept the death penalty until But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light.
Article was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities.
According to Interpol and the FBI this is not necessarily the case. If one excludes murders committed by inner city blacks from the statistics the United States actually has a lower murder rate then Germany and France. That is not to imply that blacks are inherently evil.
Their murder rates have more to do with welfare policies, racial separatism, etc. Most blacks are decent people, but a sizeable minority of them commits a disproportionate amount of crimes.
Casting this high murder rate over all sections of American society is irrational at best.The purpose of this study was to estimate the costs associated with pursuit of the death penalty, as compared to cases where the death penalty was not sought, for aggravated first-degree murder cases in Washington State.
Financial planning software, personal finance software, and investment software for consumers, investors, financial advisers and investment managers.
Raymond Paternoster and Robert Brame, An Empirical Analysis of Maryland's Death Sentence System with Respect to the Influence of Race and Legal Jurisdiction, Department of Criminology, University.
In , the U.S. Supreme Court suspended the death penalty on the grounds it violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The .
Death, Taxes and Civil Penalties: Does the Taxpayer’s Death End IRS’s Ability to Collect Penalties? Capital punishment -- the death penalty Opposing views on the death penalty: Allegedly invalid techniques of biblical analysis.
Sponsored link. An article by a retired federal judge opposing the death penalty.