NationStates Jolt Archive

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?

The same reason Europeans don't like America spreading their culture and values across the world. It only goes one way for any people. Everyone thinks that their culture is the best and should be spread to everyone else.

Maybe they don't understand what "cruel and unusual" means? *I dunno*

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?
Becaus we are God's chosen nation. I mean the real God, Jesus, not that allen guy that the mohomedans pray to when they blow stuff up. Our constitusion was handed down by God to the founding fathers as a gift for all people who accept Jesus as their personal savior to live by. We have a responsimility to Jesus to spread our holy laws to all you European comunists, not the other way around.

Well now we know what Jesussaves thinks.


BTW, before taking offense to anything Jesussaves posts please note that his posts are in no way serious. In other words, Mods, please don't ban me again.

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?
Oh, I saw DP for Jeveniles and thought this thread was about something wayyyy different.
Nevermind.

Oh, I saw DP for Jeveniles and thought this thread was about something wayyyy different.
Nevermind.

You dont know how glad I am that someone else thought that too

You dont know how glad I am that someone else thought that too

I wanna know what you were thinking, because I don't get it. :(

You dont know how glad I am that someone else thought that too

That's thirded. I hope there isn't an international standard for juvenile DP...I think it's illegal.

I wanna know what you were thinking, because I don't get it. :(

You are a better person than I :p

I wanna know what you were thinking, because I don't get it. :(
Double Penetration. Like when a guy and his male buddy each plug a different hole on one of their female friends.

I wanna know what you were thinking, because I don't get it. :(

DP= double penetration

That's thirded. I hope there isn't an international standard for juvenile DP...I think it's illegal.
Europe in general is pretty much a death penalty-free zone. Executing under-18s is certainly strongly frowned upon in the world.

Double Penetration. Like when a guy and his male buddy each plug a different hole on one of their female friends.
DP for juveniles? *shudder* (that's almost as bad as the death penalty for juveniles!)

Double Penetration. Like when a guy and his male buddy each plug a different hole on one of their female friends.

Lucky bitch! :D

No, I guess it's just a sign that I haven't watched straight porn in a long while... though, gay porn does have an equivalent, but only one hole is used.

Lucky bitch! :D

No, I guess it's just a sign that I haven't watched straight porn in a long while... though, gay porn does have an equivalent, but only one hole is used.
Let's not derail the thread now guys. go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435678)

...Hey surely only on NS would The Sex Thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435678) slip to the second page!

Well now we know what Jesussaves thinks.


No he never had a thought about anything, he was brain dead. :eek:

Executing under-18s is certainly strongly frowned upon in the world.

DP for juveniles? *shudder* (that's almost as bad as the death penalty for juveniles!)

Iran just exicuted some juveniles. Their crime...homosexual acts.

Iran just exicuted some juveniles. Their crime...homosexual acts.
This is true. Note that I said it was illegal in Europe. I didn't say that under 18s were not executed in the world. The practice is frowned upon among the civilised countries of this world. Iran is not one of them.

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?

The criticism is because the decisions of the Sup. Ct. are supposed to be based on the U.S. Constitution and American Law, not "international standards" which have not been enacted into law in the U.S. or are not found in our constituion. How would France like it if their Supreme Court let a criminal go because U.S. standards would hold that the search of his home was illegal? They wouldn't like it, each nation should be governed by its own laws and its courts should apply the laws of that nation, not impose the law of other nations upon the people they are supposedly their to protect.

I'm against the death penalty for juveniles. But even as a Brit I can see why some americans might resent the use of international standards as a justification for the outcome of a case. I feel that way about how our country is run. Our government is obsessed with following everything the way Europe does it, like we have no minds of our own. If we're doing something in our country that only effects the people our country, then what has it got to do with anybody else? If we want to follow a course of action we should do it regardless of what any other country thinks.

I dip the Constitution in foul gravy and spit upon it.

This is true. Note that I said it was illegal in Europe. I didn't say that under 18s were not executed in the world. The practice is frowned upon among the civilised countries of this world. Iran is not one of them.

Iran is not civilized? Why do you say that?

I'm against the death penalty for juveniles. But even as a Brit I can see why some americans might resent the use of international standards as a justification for the outcome of a case. I feel that way about how our country is run. Our government is obsessed with following everything the way Europe does it, like we have no minds of our own. If we're doing something in our country that only effects the people our country, then what has it got to do with anybody else? If we want to follow a course of action we should do it regardless of what any other country thinks.

And the closer the Brits and other European countries move to the EU, the more sovereignty they will give up.

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?

The problem here is that your issues are blurred. The problem with the judicial opinion you're referring to is not that Europe's culture is influencing our laws (although, I would argue that it would be a problem), but that the court overstepped it's legal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the United States Constitution in current cases and controversy. When they looked to international opinion as to what they thought the law was, they exercised authority they did not have--they invented law rather than interpreting it. "I don't care what the law of the land says; I'm going to rule based on what I think it should be." Surely you can see the problem with this. If you're a liberal and it helps, imagine a Supreme Court filled with Hardcore Religious zealots who decide that they should ignore their Constitutional mandate and follow what they say is God's law. Do you see the problem?

This is not the same as us being influenced by outside cultures, including Europeans. Our country's population is almost entirely founded on immigrants, especially from Europe. Personally, I think that immigrants make some of the best citizens because they appreciate being in the U.S. and they've proven by bravely moving to a foreign land and culture that they have the type of personality and drive to do what it takes to succeed. At the same time, I don't want other cultures taking over my culture because we have a lot to offer. I'd hope that we'd continue to do what we've been doing for the last couple hundred years--keeping our identity, but incorporating the best of other cultures into it.

As for the Iraq war, I really think that it's mostly the cynics who think of it as some sort of American imperialism. This is basically a red herring in this topic. I couldn't care less about Americanizing the Iraqis, and wouldn't have even crossed my mind if cynical liberals who are opposed to the war for political reasons didn't start bringing it up anyway.

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?

It goes one way because our government is full of hypocrites and bastards (on all sides). I personally think it's sad that America, once the shining example of democracy, has become so slow to move towards improvement and learn from other cultures. The US should have abolished the death penalty years ago. Before the SCOTUS decision, we were part of a esteemed group of countries that champion human rights like Iran, China, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. For me, it's not even about what Europe thinks. It's about what's right. We are supposed to be a Christian nation. I think many Christians forget that Jesus Christ himself was a victim of the death penalty. He was falsely accused and put to death by the state.

For reference, real conservatives vehemently opposed the war because they don't believe in being the world's policeman and getting tangled in foreign affairs.

The criticism is because the decisions of the Sup. Ct. are supposed to be based on the U.S. Constitution and American Law, not "international standards" which have not been enacted into law in the U.S. or are not found in our constituion. How would France like it if their Supreme Court let a criminal go because U.S. standards would hold that the search of his home was illegal? They wouldn't like it, each nation should be governed by its own laws and its courts should apply the laws of that nation, not impose the law of other nations upon the people they are supposedly their to protect.

The "cruel and unusual" portion of the law has always included outside influences, specifically because "unusual" cannot be determined without a reference for comparison.

Meanwhile, the reference to other countries was practically a footnote in the actual decision, which was based on quite a bit more than what other countries thought.

We are supposed to be a Christian nation.

Actually, technically, we are not.

The Treaty of Tripoli, which, being a treaty, is second only the Constitution in power, specifically states that we are not. This treaty was formed by many of the same people who wrote the Constitution. By the way, it is a little known fact that one of the delegates writing the Constitution wanted to mention a devotion to Christ within it. It was almost unanimously voted down.

So, obviously, we are not, nor were we ever meant to be a "Christian nation."

Actually, technically, we are not.

The Treaty of Tripoli, which, being a treaty, is second only the Constitution in power, specifically states that we are not. This treaty was formed by many of the same people who wrote the Constitution. By the way, it is a little known fact that one of the delegates writing the Constitution wanted to mention a devotion to Christ within it. It was almost unanimously voted down.

So, obviously, we are not, nor were we ever meant to be a "Christian nation."

I never said we were a Christian nation. I was making a reference to those who claim we are. Even though this country is mostly populated by Christians, you stated correctly that our Founding Fathers avoided creating a theocracy or a state sponsored religion at all costs.

Actually, technically, we are not.

The Treaty of Tripoli, which, being a treaty, is second only the Constitution in power, specifically states that we are not. This treaty was formed by many of the same people who wrote the Constitution. By the way, it is a little known fact that one of the delegates writing the Constitution wanted to mention a devotion to Christ within it. It was almost unanimously voted down.

So, obviously, we are not, nor were we ever meant to be a "Christian nation."
2 things.

#1. The Treaty of Tripoli was outright extortion on the part of the Barbary pirates.
#2. As the sociopolitical entity that we made the treaty with is completely gone, the treaty no longer applies.



Addendum - Does anyone here BESIDES me know the specifics of the case that decision was made over? Cause personally I would have no problem executing them myself for what they were guilty of. Also, what is the difference between 17 and 18?

Addendum - Does anyone here BESIDES me know the specifics of the case that decision was made over? Cause personally I would have no problem executing them myself for what they were guilty of. Also, what is the difference between 17 and 18?

I do not.

What I do know is that minors are never treated fully as adults in a court of law. We say, "We're going to say that they are adults, with the full capacity of an adult, being able to make decisions like an adult, and thus try them as an adult." Then we refuse to let them make their own legal decisions, leaving that up to the parent or a legal guardian, because they are minors. I would say that you can't do it both ways. If we are going to say that a 13-year old has all the mental capacities of an adult - it damn well better be demonstrated to be true by a mental health professional. Then, we damn well better give them all the rights associated with being an adult, including the right to make their own legal decisions.

2 things.

#1. The Treaty of Tripoli was outright extortion on the part of the Barbary pirates.
#2. As the sociopolitical entity that we made the treaty with is completely gone, the treaty no longer applies.

It still passed unanimously, even with the statement that the US was in no way a Christian nation.

And even if it does not currently apply, it clearly establishes original intent.

Also, what is the difference between 17 and 18?

Not very much, which is a perfect argument why you shouldn't execute those 18+.

It still passed unanimously, even with the statement that the US was in no way a Christian nation.

And even if it does not currently apply, it clearly establishes original intent.
It passed unanimously because our sea trade, which was vital to the developing economy was being sacked by the pirates and we had no military with which to protect it at that point. THAT is the ONLY reason it passed unanimously. Do you really want to get into a discussion whether agreements made under duress are legally binding?

It passed unanimously because our sea trade, which was vital to the developing economy was being sacked by the pirates and we had no military with which to protect it at that point. THAT is the ONLY reason it passed unanimously. Do you really want to get into a discussion whether agreements made under duress are legally binding?

Quite a few treaties over the years have been made "under duress". Many of them ended wars - you don't think, "Sign this or we'll keep killing your soldiers," is just as much duress as, "Stop hating us because we're Muslim or we'll sink your ships"?

Also, what is the difference between 17 and 18?

Not very much, which is a perfect argument why you shouldn't execute those 18+.

ditto.

There are some crimes that are so heinous, that those who commit them deserve to pay with there lives. Some people cannot be rehibilitated. In those cases, removing someone permenatly from society is the best option.

There are some crimes that are so heinous, that those who commit them deserve to pay with there lives. Some people cannot be rehibilitated. In those cases, removing someone permenatly from society is the best option.

But if a person has not yet developed the mental capacity to completely understand their actions, can we really make the determination that they cannot be rehabilitated?

And even if we are fairly certain that they have, unlike most people their age, developed these capacities, should we not then treat them in every way as an adult?

And what do you suppose we do if the person turns out to be innocent? "Sorry, we were pretty sure you were guilty, but I guess we slipped up."

But if a person has not yet developed the mental capacity to completely understand their actions, can we really make the determination that they cannot be rehabilitated?

And even if we are fairly certain that they have, unlike most people their age, developed these capacities, should we not then treat them in every way as an adult?


I've seen people write off kids before, and it pisses me off. I belive that a accurate understanding of somones mental state is important no matter what there age. I've met some teenagers that are much smarter than "legal adults".

I would be all for rehab for someone who truly didn't understand the consequences of there actions.

And yes, I would be all for treating those with ability to act like responsible adults like adults, if they choose to be recognised as such.

rarely do juvies in america get executed. it's mostly 16 year olds who shoot up their school or 17 years old who murder their parents. i mean that 4 year old boy who accidently knifed his sister isn't getting dp. what's the big difference between 16 and 18 anyway? murder is murder, right? just because in 2 months they'll be 18, they don't deserve the same penalty as if they were? that's crap. now, the dp can be a touchy subject. in some court cases i'm for it, some against. it varies. but hey, most states got rid of electricution, right? now it's all done by lethal injection, in 3 shots. 1, anesteshia so you don't feel it. 2, unconciousness so you don't see it. and 3, makes it so you never feel, see or kill another human being ever again.

And what do you suppose we do if the person turns out to be innocent? "Sorry, we were pretty sure you were guilty, but I guess we slipped up."


The beauty of our system is that you have to be found guilty, not that you have to prove your innocence. There are flaws, and I think that the biggest travisty is when the media puts pressure on law enforcement to show that they are doing something about a high profile case. But with our system, I would guess that less than 1 out of every thousand convicts is wrongly imprisoned, let alone put on death row.

Addendum - Does anyone here BESIDES me know the specifics of the case that decision was made over? Cause personally I would have no problem executing them myself for what they were guilty of. Also, what is the difference between 17 and 18?
I remember the case. The little predators were bragging about killing their victim. They did this because they thought they would never be executed, as they were juveniles. I wouldn't have had a second thought about ending their miserable existence, either.

To put my two cents worth in to the topic, international events and opinion is irrelevant because the United States is still a sovereign nation that has the Constitution as its foundation of law.

To put my two cents worth in to the topic, international events and opinion is irrelevant because the United States is still a sovereign nation that has the Constitution as its foundation of law.

It is relevant in this particular case, because the issue is "cruel and unusual punishment." The viewpoints of people worldwide has been used in these cases because one cannot determine whether or not something is unusual without having a reference for comparison. At least within the Western world, even in most states, juvenile execution is certainly very unusual.

Meanwhile, one must still note that the reference to other countries was little more than a footnote in the actual decision.

When the death penalty for juveniles was declared illegal in the United States a few months ago, many US conservatives criticised the citation of "changing international standards" as part of the Supreme Court's reasoning for the decision.

Most of the aforementioned conservatives support the Iraq war and the spreading of American values throughout the world. If that can be a good thing, and I believe that it can, then why can't we Europeans spread our values to America? Why does it only go one way for you people?

Because, by and large, most countries in Europe are socialistic. America is a democracy and the two theologies do not mix well. A lot of ideas, therefore, simply will not work as a result of that basic difference. You can try to do so, by all means, do. But America does not have to take ideas for our culture from Europe any more than they have to from us. France, in particular, has had no problems whatsoever in refusing any and all things American, conceptually or otherwise.

And as for Iraq, we are a democracy. We espouse free elections. We are not consciously exporting culture. If that happens, so be it. But it is not the be all and end all of why we are there. Not at all. We are selling freedom of self determination to those who want it.

Because, by and large, most countries in Europe are socialistic. America is a democracy and the two theologies do not mix well. A lot of ideas, therefore, simply will not work as a result of that basic difference. You can try to do so, by all means, do. But America does not have to take ideas for our culture from Europe any more than they have to from us. France, in particular, has had no problems whatsoever in refusing any and all things American, conceptually or otherwise.

And as for Iraq, we are a democracy. We espouse free elections. We are not consciously exporting culture. If that happens, so be it. But it is not the be all and end all of why we are there. Not at all. We are selling freedom of self determination to those who want it.

First off, the US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. A true democracy would not involve any type of Congress - but would have the entire populace voting on every issue.

Second, most European countries have governments based just as much on the principle of democracy as the US. Being socialistic does not preclude having democracy as part of the governmental system.

Third - democracy is not a theology, nor is socialism, although certain theologies may require one, the other, or both.

Because, by and large, most countries in Europe are socialistic. America is a democracy and the two theologies do not mix well.

Most countries in Europe are democratic, too. Socialism doesn't preclude democracy in anyway, just like capitalism doesn't. And socialism/democracy/capitalism are not theologies.

Most countries in Europe are democratic, too. Socialism doesn't preclude democracy in anyway, just like capitalism doesn't. And socialism/democracy/capitalism are not theologies.

Very debatable, but not worth arguing about. As for the use of the term "theology", I admit it was not entirely accurately used. It just seemed to describe what I was trying to say closest. Germany is socialist. France definitely so. England is a constitutional monarchy. All of these countries have some elements of democracy in their governments. It doesn't make them democracies.

First off, the US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. A true democracy would not involve any type of Congress - but would have the entire populace voting on every issue.

Second, most European countries have governments based just as much on the principle of democracy as the US. Being socialistic does not preclude having democracy as part of the governmental system.

Third - democracy is not a theology, nor is socialism, although certain theologies may require one, the other, or both.



True enough, for the most part. The problem is that you cannot have a pure democracy anymore than you can have pure communism. Having either would eventually lead to its' failure.

The beauty of our system is that you have to be found guilty, not that you have to prove your innocence. There are flaws, and I think that the biggest travisty is when the media puts pressure on law enforcement to show that they are doing something about a high profile case. But with our system, I would guess that less than 1 out of every thousand convicts is wrongly imprisoned, let alone put on death row.

Our system isn't perfect. Why do you think Fmr. Govenor of Illinois George Ryan put a moratorium of all death penalty cases in his state? He realized that there were too many innocent people that were wrongly placed on death row. If the state executes just one person by mistake, it should incite outrage. I become angry just thinking about the possibility. I do not believe we have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Maybe it's because I'm Catholic or because I'm female. I just don't think human have that authority.

P.S. I'm the same person as RepubliqueFrancaise.

The beauty of our system is that you have to be found guilty, not that you have to prove your innocence. There are flaws, and I think that the biggest travisty is when the media puts pressure on law enforcement to show that they are doing something about a high profile case. But with our system, I would guess that less than 1 out of every thousand convicts is wrongly imprisoned, let alone put on death row.
Life might not be fair, but it really sucks for that one guy, doesn't it. We should expect better.

I don't remember the circumstances, and it may even have been grandstanding, but a couple years back the governor of Illinois stayed all the death sentences in the state. Apparently, the circumstances surrounding several convictions raised doubts about all of them.

I don't have any problems with true life without parole, but it just doesn't seem to happen.