Posted on Oct 4, 2017
US Rejects UN Resolution Condemning Death Penalty For LGBTQ People, Other Groups
820
6
7
1
1
0
Not taking the moral high ground here CW3 Lindsey Muller 1LT Sandy Annala SP5 Christine Conley SSG Jessica Bautista SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" Capt Dwayne Conyers PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
US Rejects UN Resolution Condemning Death Penalty For LGBTQ People, Other Groups
Posted from yahoo.comPosted in these groups: 
Human Rights
LGBTQ+
Human Rights LGBTQ+
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
This is very typical of the US media. Throw a big headline out there that seems to insinuate that the US government approves of killing LGBTQ people. That's absurd. That was only one part of the resolution. Even if you agree with one part of something (the article plainly said the US agreed with not killing LGBTQ people) if the rest of it is wrong, you can't vote the whole thing into practice. That's like me trying to pass a law that says LGBTQ people can't be discriminated against...oh, and by the way, the law also says we're going to release all the hardened criminals we have locked up and let them teach kindergarten. Would you approve this law? Of course not. Does that mean you approve of LGBTQ people being discriminated against? Well, that's what this article is trying to do.
Do you want to know who's dividing this country? Not blacks, not whites, not gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, etc. It's the media. They need ratings (and clicks). So they make news where there is none.
Do you want to know who's dividing this country? Not blacks, not whites, not gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, etc. It's the media. They need ratings (and clicks). So they make news where there is none.
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
The US rejected the resolution not because it had anything to do with LGBTQ rights but because it was against the death penalty in its entirety. Since the US has the death penalty it is not going to sign a resolution against acts which it currently does. Not everything is about that community even if they try to make it seem that way by using misleading titles in articles or misleading tweets about why UN Resolutions were rejected by the US.
(0)
(0)
SPC Anna Larson
Actually not, I read the wording of the resolution and it included things like the following: http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf
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;
Calls upon States to ensure that all accused persons, in particular poor and
economically vulnerable persons, can exercise their rights related to equal access to justice,
to ensure adequate, qualified and effective legal representation at every stage of civil and criminal proceedings in capital punishment cases through effective legal aid, and to ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to seek pardon or commutation of their death sentence;
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;
6.
Also urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not
imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations;
It requests states to CONSIDER ABOLISHING, but doesn't make it mandatory.
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;
Calls upon States to ensure that all accused persons, in particular poor and
economically vulnerable persons, can exercise their rights related to equal access to justice,
to ensure adequate, qualified and effective legal representation at every stage of civil and criminal proceedings in capital punishment cases through effective legal aid, and to ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to seek pardon or commutation of their death sentence;
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;
6.
Also urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not
imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations;
It requests states to CONSIDER ABOLISHING, but doesn't make it mandatory.
HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf
ÑûÙq}2Kó+ßOs¡\àXèüËÍä0^M.$ÈuhÀ2#'ìg@D^¶?c'QCÁ*eXÞmÚsvuLT3à ÄÀXëÔ%ôä¶ù5.ÐvÖ%XÏ\mÆ|LPxÊÇÛLäGNÔ9Ä|GZWó ,:X-ôT|
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SPC Anna Larson - This phrase would seem to doom the US from ever signing the docuemnt that you linked to, "use of the death penalty on poor or economically vulnerable individuals, foreign nationals ... use of the death penalty against persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities ... and its use against individuals with mental or intellectual disabilities." Since the US uses the death penalty any limitations the UN attempts to place on it would not be in the best interest of the nation to sign since it cannot force states to stop using it as long as the Supreme Court declares that it is legal to use. The individuals with mental or intellectual disabilities are over represented in the criminal justice system, minorities are also over represented, as well as "economically challenged individuals.
Also the document states, "Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty." So the US is supposed to strongly deplore itself for using the death penalty?
It also calls to aim for abolition of the death penalty. It may say consider but the US cannot consider doing so except at the federal level as they cannot tell the states what punishments they are allowed to use for crimes that fall under state jurisdiction.
This is the same resolution that the Obama administration would not sign when it came up for vote during that period other than it has the LGBTQ portion in it now. If President Obama was not willing to sign it without that, the current administration not signing it doesn't necessarily mean they support executing the LGBTQ community.
Also the document states, "Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty." So the US is supposed to strongly deplore itself for using the death penalty?
It also calls to aim for abolition of the death penalty. It may say consider but the US cannot consider doing so except at the federal level as they cannot tell the states what punishments they are allowed to use for crimes that fall under state jurisdiction.
This is the same resolution that the Obama administration would not sign when it came up for vote during that period other than it has the LGBTQ portion in it now. If President Obama was not willing to sign it without that, the current administration not signing it doesn't necessarily mean they support executing the LGBTQ community.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I generally oppose the death penalty, with the exception of treason, and child molestation / trafficking / prostitution.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Child molestation, trafficking, and prostitution are not capital crimes so the death penalty doesn't apply in those cases. Also, why should a woman/ man be put to death just because she/ he has sex for money?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SSG Diane R. You oppose the death penalty for murder in the 1st degree but are okay with it for child molestation, trafficking and prostitution? None of those crimes carries a death sentence. Why don't you support the death penalty for Murder 1 but you do for these other crimes?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google