NationStates Jolt Archive

A UN General Assembly panel on Thursday passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice despite fierce opposition from several members.

The vote, capping an acrimonious, two-day debate on the highly divisive issue, was 99 in favor, 52 against and 33 abstentions.

The United States and China joined many developing countries, notably from the Islamic world, in voting no.

[...] France's UN Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert said the vote on the Italian-drafted text "marks a real turning point in the global realization of the need to abolish the death penalty."

"I hope that the General Assembly will confirm this vote in its plenary session," he added.

"The strong vote in favor of this resolution is further evidence that the center ground on this debate has shifted towards the end of the use of the death penalty worldwide," Britain's UN Ambassador John Sawers chimed in.

[...] Singapore's UN envoy Vanu Menon said ahead of the vote the co-sponsors were trying "to impose a particular set of beliefs on everyone else," and described them as "sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant" for having rejected a "genuine dialogue" with opponents.

"This house is divided," said Iran's delegate Mahmoud Jooyabad. "There is no international consensus on the death penalty."

Opponents were particularly incensed that more than a dozen amendments they had proposed were all rejected, including one by Egypt backed by a number of Islamic countries and the United States that sought to insert a paragraph also upholding the right to protect life at all its stages, meaning the right of the unborn child.

[...] According to Amnesty International, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, while 64 countries and territories retain and use capital punishment, although the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller.

The London-based rights group says just under two-thirds of the 1,600 known executions in the world in 2006 took place in China, with the United States, Iran, Pakistan and Sudan collectively accounting for the rest.


(link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3HSZFJETODK6xT9CKev4_5T-XXw))


U.S. sides with Iran and Sudan?

The usual alliances break down at the United Nations when the debate is on the death penalty.

The major human rights debate at the United Nations this week pitted the European Union, Australia, Brazil and the Philippines against the likes of China, Iran and Sudan. Guess which side the United States fell on?

When the topic turns to the death penalty, the usual pattern at the U.N. -- with secular democracies pressing for greater freedom and respect for human rights, and dictatorships and theocracies accusing them of trying to instill their colonialist ideologies on sovereign nations -- comes apart. That's because the United States, which tends to lead the struggle for democratic values around the world, is still committing the kind of state-sponsored killing popular among regimes like those of Myanmar and Ivory Coast.

At least 87 countries jointly introduced a draft resolution in the General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. The General Assembly can't pass binding resolutions, so even if the vote were unanimous, the moratorium would be voluntary for U.N. member states. The reasons for the move were eloquently expressed in the resolution, and are the same as those that have been cited repeatedly in this country by opponents of capital punishment: The death penalty "undermines human dignity," there is "no conclusive evidence" of its deterrent value and "any miscarriage or failure of justice in [its] implementation is irreversible and irreparable."

[...] Dozens of countries impose capital punishment, but just six -- China, Iran, Iraq, the U.S., Pakistan and Sudan -- account for 90% of the executions. Seldom has this nation kept less distinguished company.

[...] That leaves us to ponder why even "progressive" states like ours continue to tolerate an outdated practice that most developed nations long ago abandoned as ineffective and inhumane. Capital punishment is a relic of an unenlightened past. The United States, or at least California, should join the list of responsible countries that have done away with it.


(link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-death17nov17,0,2385751.story?coll=la-opinion-center))

Good on the UN. Sadly, this will have little effect beyond the symbolic.

It's better than nothing, just.

On a closely related topic:


The United States voted in favor of inserting an amendment that would have urged member states "to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of unborn children," lining up with Iran, Egypt, Syria, Zimbabwe and several Gulf countries.

The measure was rejected by an 83-28 vote with 47 abstentions.

U.S. representative Joseph Rees said the United States backed that amendment, although it abstained in a vote on a more strongly worded amendment that would have said abortion was only admissible in necessary cases, "in particular where the life of the mother and or the child is at serious risk."

"We are in agreement with the view expressed in this (first) amendment that the lives of the unborn deserve the strongest protection, and we agree that countries that advocate for the abolition of the death penalty should be at least equally scrupulous in showing concern for innocent life," Rees told the General Assembly's human rights committee.


(link (http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnN15315127.html))

Strange... I agreed with that until the US tried to change so they could.

Here (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/577/06/PDF/N0757706.pdf?OpenElement) is the actual text of the proposal. I haven't been able to find the full list of who voted for and against.

Amazing that people continue to consider zygotes human beings.

I feel that stem cell research could help cure many diseases, and that so long as companies make leaky condoms, women should have a right to abortion.

Also there is been proven to be a negative correlation between women having abortions and amounts of crimes committed yearly.

Wouldn't want the death penalty reintroduced here, but I don't really care a whole lot if other sovereign countries do it. I agree with the sentiment but I don't think the UN needs to get involved. It doesn't matter that they do anyway, it's not as if the resolution is binding.

Also there is been proven to be a negative correlation between women having abortions and amounts of crimes committed yearly.
No to dispariage abortions at all, but on the other hand, a) you can correlate almost anything if you like, and b) countries with legal abortions are generally richer than those without, which is probably the crux of the issue.

The UN can call for anything for as long as wants and it won't make a difference. China, Iran, Iraq, the U.S., Pakistan and Sudan aren't exactly noted for following the will of the UN.

Among many, many others.

The UN is just an extremely expensive message board.

NSG changes a lot more people's opinions than the UN though.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9480/timewarphv3.jpg

Among many, many others.

The UN is just an extremely expensive message board.

Amazing that people continue to consider zygotes human beings.

Yes. Insulting, isn't it ?
But hey - brainless lifeforms have to look out for one another.

Just wondering, anybody have any figures on executions per country annually?

Just wondering, anybody have any figures on executions per country annually?


Total (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions)and Per Capita. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe_percap-crime-executions-per-capita)

The data may be a wee bit old though, watch out.

Edit: Yikkkes, it's almost nine years old. They really need to update.

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

...
Wow, I had no idea that the LA Times was this bad!

Sure, why not.

Oh give it a break. There is absolutely nothing wrong with death penalty. The UN can go shove this document up its ass.

Oh give it a break. There is absolutely nothing wrong with death penalty. The UN can go shove this document up its ass.
Aside from how it essentially means people are KILLED. One could say "but the people being killed already killed someone else!" but first of all this isn't necessarily the case anyway; aside from the death penalty being used for other things than murder, like rape, the more relevant point is that the justice system is NOT infalliable. People have been falsely convicted of crimes like rape and murder before. Think of the cases of people being falsely convicted of murder and being in prison for decades before DNA evidence cleared them and they got out of prison; if they were executed instead, it would have been too late. You can try to reduce the error in the justice system but you can never completely eliminate it, there will always be mistakes and it's best to be careful with them so punishments don't end up being too late to fix.

Besides, I don't think this retaliatory response of "kill those who kill" is all that good an idea anyway. What about people who go to school to murder those who picked on them? Granted, the response is WAY worse than the act being responded to, but nonetheless I could understand why the people who murdered those bullies would have thought that their victims deserved it. That might sound sick, but some would find the death penalty sick; it really depends on how you look at it.

In any case, if you need to resort to cruel and unusual punishments for a strong deterrent, there is still another solid argument against the death penalty; it's not the most practical punishment. Rather than just KILLING the criminals, why not make slaves out of them, or better yet do experiments on them? Surely if it's worth going to the length of killing criminals over, then we could perhaps make better use of them than to kill them?

The reason I agree with the death penalty is because I know if someone raped or killed someone in my family, or one of my friends, I'd want them dead. Period. Its about revenge.

The reason I agree with the death penalty is because I know if someone raped or killed someone in my family, or one of my friends, I'd want them dead. Period. Its about revenge.
Law based on revenge? Seems like that would fit in nicely with crap like honor killings and killing exes. Just seems like the mentalities aren't far apart.

And lumping the US in with a bunch of theocracies? Big surprise.:rolleyes:

good, if it doesn't do anything good, it probably won't do a lot of bad either.

The reason I agree with the death penalty is because I know if someone raped or killed someone in my family, or one of my friends, I'd want them dead. Period. Its about revenge.

Justice does not exist to cater for the whims of the victim or their families.

Have you ever seen a victim after a court case say that they felt the sentence was too harsh and would have preferred that the judge take an impartial view of the circumstances of the case?

Oh give it a break. There is absolutely nothing wrong with death penalty. The UN can go shove this document up its ass.
How very neaderthal of you.

Oh give it a break. There is absolutely nothing wrong with death penalty. The UN can go shove this document up its ass.

I absolutely agree with this statement. Too many people have the idiotic notion that the death penalty is a form of punishment. It's not. It's the permanent removal of a highly dangerous individual from society as a whole so they can no longer cause any more harm. It's like the euthanasia of a rabid animal. Besides, dying VIA the death penalty takes so long that a number of people die waiting to be euthanized. In my opinion I say we should just get the guillotine and use it. We could essentially remove most of the people on death row in a couple of days.

Anyway, screw the UN. Of all the resolutions and mandates they pass a year, how many do they actually enforce? Also, why isn't the UN dealing with more important matters? Like, I don't know, Iran having 3000 centrifuges for enriching uranium for nuclear weapons?

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21666121/

United Nations does (insert new proclamation here).

World carries on much the same as if the UN had not wasted an indeterminate amount of money on (insert new proclamation here).

I must confess it is policies like this which so disaffect me where the UN is concerned; it's role in the world is a diplomatic peace keeper, not a vehicle to proselytise every state into a homogenous form of left-of-centre morals.

Justice does not exist to cater for the whims of the victim or their families.

Have you ever seen a victim after a court case say that they felt the sentence was too harsh and would have preferred that the judge take an impartial view of the circumstances of the case?

Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.

Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.
Macho idiocy - the cause, and the oft-percieved solution to all of life's problems.

Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.

That's why we have laws and educated, mature, reasonably intelligent and sane people in governments. Well, most of the time, and comparatively speaking when contrasted with the gut-reaction, uneducated, bloodthirsty mob.

See it this way. If some sick bastard were to harm a member of your family, and someone were caught, tried and found guilty, you could never be absolutely sure that that person was indeed guilty. Would that not bother you?

Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.

http://pds5.egloos.com/pds/200701/26/08/c0045208_09014845.jpg

http://pds5.egloos.com/pds/200701/26/08/c0045208_09014845.jpg

It's the 101st Fighting Keyboarders on parade!

Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.

Then its probably just as well that criminal justice does not simply serve as a tool for your or anyone else's petty feuds.

The reason I agree with the death penalty is because I know if someone raped or killed someone in my family, or one of my friends, I'd want them dead. Period. Its about revenge.
Then it's wrong. Just because YOU would want them dead doesn't mean it's RIGHT for them to be dead. Now, why, don't you think experimenting on them and/or forcing them to do slave labour would be a better revenge, given how I mentioned them as options? What if their sentence was to be your slave forever, ever think of the practical benefits to you of that on top of the revenge? Why haven't you thought of that? Let me guess; you're not really being logical to begin with.

So take your vindictive attitude and put it where the sun don't shine. Right back where you got it from.

It's the permanent removal of a highly dangerous individual from society as a whole so they can no longer cause any more harm.
Something which could be accomplished via life in prison, which has the side benefit of being far cheaper.

Something which could be accomplished via life in prison, which has the side benefit of being far cheaper.
Hmm? I thought it cost a fair bit of money to keep people in prison. I might be wrong. Again, though, if practicality is the argument for the death penalty then experiments are still better.

Hmm? I thought it cost a fair bit of money to keep people in prison. I might be wrong. Again, though, if practicality is the argument for the death penalty then experiments are still better.

It costs money, but less than the death penalty.

It costs money, but less than the death penalty.
Really? Where does the expense for the death penalty come from?

And why haven't I heard of this before?

Really? Where does the expense for the death penalty come from?
The appeals process.

Originally Posted by Trollgaard View Post
Maybe it should. And I don't really care about justice- I care about revenge. Someone hurts my friends or family then they'll pay. Simple as that.

Quote:

Macho idiocy - the cause, and the oft-percieved solution to all of life's problems.


Sounds like a feminine emotional outburst to me.

Really? Where does the expense for the death penalty come from?

And why haven't I heard of this before?

In North Carolina, an execution costs $2million more than life imprisonment.

In North Carolina, an execution costs $2million more than life imprisonment.
What's your source for this?

(link (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3HSZFJETODK6xT9CKev4_5T-XXw))



(link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-death17nov17,0,2385751.story?coll=la-opinion-center))

Good on the UN. Sadly, this will have little effect beyond the symbolic.

how is this good some people need to be killed for they pose a menace to society and in prison they kill aswell nto to mention they waste away a state's resources

Then it's wrong. Just because YOU would want them dead doesn't mean it's RIGHT for them to be dead. Now, why, don't you think experimenting on them and/or forcing them to do slave labour would be a better revenge, given how I mentioned them as options? What if their sentence was to be your slave forever, ever think of the practical benefits to you of that on top of the revenge? Why haven't you thought of that? Let me guess; you're not really being logical to begin with.

So take your vindictive attitude and put it where the sun don't shine. Right back where you got it from.

I don't give a fuck about what is 'right' in a situation where someone I care about has been hurt. The person will pay for what they did- either getting the fuck beat out them or dying. Simple. Besides, dying is preferable to a life in slavery. I could care less about practical benefits of slaves- I don't want any.

I don't give a fuck about what is 'right' in a situation where someone I care about has been hurt. The person will pay for what they did- either getting the fuck beat out them or dying. Simple. Besides, dying is preferable to a life in slavery. I could care less about practical benefits of slaves- I don't want any.
Ok, Trollgard, you asked for this one: You sure are one hell of a self-centered prick to act like what you want is what it should be despite not caring about what's right; and what the fuck happened to the idea that there's "nothing wrong with" the death penalty, where's the basis for saying nothing wrong with it if you don't care about what's right, where's the contrast within your contradiction? And if doing what's right isn't the issue then what the hell is the point of killing someone just to get back at them? Is killing them really going to make it better? I suppose satisfying some vindictiveness maybe, but outside of that, it's not like the execution is going to fix the problem caused; executing a murderer won't bring back those whom the murderer killed. Your apparent obsession with revenge makes the argument that a criminal deserves to be put to death and therefore it's "right" to do so look legitimate in comparison. But for you to say you don't give a fuck about what's right and still don't SEE what's wrong with the death penalty just because you want them dead? Maybe you're just so blinded by your vindictive, pointless, idiotic obsession with revenge that you can't see shit.

Ok, Trollgard, you asked for this one: You sure are one hell of a self-centered prick to act like what you want is what it should be despite not caring about what's right; and what the fuck happened to the idea that there's "nothing wrong with" the death penalty, where's the basis for saying nothing wrong with it if you don't care about what's right, where's the contrast within your contradiction? And if doing what's right isn't the issue then what the hell is the point of killing someone just to get back at them? Is killing them really going to make it better? I suppose satisfying some vindictiveness maybe, but outside of that, it's not like the execution is going to fix the problem caused; executing a murderer won't bring back those whom the murderer killed. Your apparent obsession with revenge makes the argument that a criminal deserves to be put to death and therefore it's "right" to do so look legitimate in comparison. But for you to say you don't give a fuck about what's right and still don't SEE what's wrong with the death penalty just because you want them dead? Maybe you're just so blinded by your vindictive, pointless, idiotic obsession with revenge that you can't see shit.


I'm just saying what I'd feel like under those circumstances, and what I'd want to happen. Every time when I hear about someone being a dick to one of my friends or family my first impulse is to find the person and yell at them/kick their ass. Now magnify a little bullying into murder, and my first impulse will be magnified, and my control will disappear.

I see the past problems with death penalty, but I don't really think people have to worry about executing innocent people with DNA evidence nowadays. Personally though, as I've said, it should be up to the families of victims, victims themselves to decide punishment. Making things right for them (the victims) is what is right. And no, killing a murderer won't make the victim(s) come back to life, but it feel damned good and will make sure no the scumbag won't hurt anyone else.

God damn. This story has me seething with anger. I can't imagine the rage the father must be feeling.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/16/deathrow.family/index.html

God damn. This story has me seething with anger. I can't imagine the rage the father must be feeling.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/16/deathrow.family/index.html

I wonder whether the family supports animal rights...

But hey - brainless lifeforms have to look out for one another.

Including Bush?

God damn. This story has me seething with anger. I can't imagine the rage the father must be feeling.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/16/deathrow.family/index.htmlWhat a rubbish. As if the killers death changed anything for them. Although the punishment is right, the familys conduct is just retarded. Poor uneducated US....

I am glad Trollgaard does not work in any nation's government, and hope that, if he ever does get into a situation of revenge killing, he will be ready to face the consequences the state will impose on him rightfully.

Good that the UN is taking a stance on this, however, I can't see it having any effect.

I think people who go to watch other people executed for revenge, enjoyment, etc are just as sick as the people being executed.

I don't give a fuck about what is 'right' in a situation where someone I care about has been hurt. The person will pay for what they did- either getting the fuck beat out them or dying.

And how will you know with absolute certainty that that person is guilty? Or don't you care? You just want to take out your primitive fury on someone who may be innocent? You advocate killing the innocent to satisy your barbaric lust for revenge?


I could care less

I'm glad you care. Or is it that you can't actually speak English, and you meant that you couldn't care less?

I could care less about practical benefits of slaves- I don't want any.

http://i20.tinypic.com/msg01u.png

And how will you know with absolute certainty that that person is guilty? Or don't you care? You just want to take out your primitive fury on someone who may be innocent? You advocate killing the innocent to satisy your barbaric lust for revenge?



I'm glad you care. Or is it that you can't actually speak English, and you meant that you couldn't care less?

Well I'd want some evidence first, before I took action. Killing the innocent is bad, but like I said earlier, I don't think that is too much of a concern nowadays.

Yeah, I guess that is the correct phrase. I seems to be shortened when speaking, though.

I am glad Trollgaard does not work in any nation's government, and hope that, if he ever does get into a situation of revenge killing, he will be ready to face the consequences the state will impose on him rightfully.

Good that the UN is taking a stance on this, however, I can't see it having any effect.

I've been told that before, and the opposite too.

Well I'd want some evidence first, before I took action. Killing the innocent is bad, but like I said earlier, I don't think that is too much of a concern nowadays.


Have you any idea how many people have been released from death row, having been found innocent after initially being found guilty and sentenced to death? What do you think it must be like to be told that you're going to be executed for a crime you didn't commit?

And that's the US, where at least there's an appeals process. But in addition, bear this in mind:

* After a person has been executed, the case is closed. There is no way of knowing whether an executed person may in fact have been innocent. Statistically, it is almost certain that at least some innocent people have been put to death in the US.

* In some cases, it was independent reasearch into a closed case that enabled the case to be re-opened, and a person on death row to be found innocent.

* Only a few weeks ago, in Texas, a man was due to be executed for having helped a killer escape the scene of a crime. He had not committed murder himself. There was a last minute public outcry, and his sentence was commuted by the Governor mere hours before he was due to be killed.

* Other countries may not have even the flimsy "protection" offered by the appeals system in the US. How many innocent people do you think are being executed in China, Iran or the Sudan?

Have you any idea how many people have been released from death row, having been found innocent after initially being found guilty and sentenced to death? What do you think it must be like to be told that you're going to be executed for a crime you didn't commit?

And that's the US, where at least there's an appeals process. But in addition, bear this in mind:

* After a person has been executed, the case is closed. There is no way of knowing whether an executed person may in fact have been innocent. Statistically, it is almost certain that at least some innocent people have been put to death in the US.

* In some cases, it was independent reasearch into a closed case that enabled the case to be re-opened, and a person on death row to be found innocent.

* Only a few weeks ago, in Texas, a man was due to be executed for having helped a killer escape the scene of a crime. He had not committed murder himself. There was a last minute public outcry, and his sentence was commuted by the Governor mere hours before he was due to be killed.

* Other countries may not have even the flimsy "protection" offered by the appeals system in the US. How many innocent people do you think are being executed in China, Iran or the Sudan?


In the US, people sentenced to death a few decades ago are being released, yes. But nowadays with DNA evidence people are guilty when sentenced to death in, oh I'd say 99.99999999999% of the time.

As for China, Iran, and the Sudan. I don't live there. Its up to their citizens to change things, not the UN or any other countries.

In the US, people sentenced to death a few decades ago are being released, yes. But nowadays with DNA evidence people are guilty when sentenced to death in, oh I'd say 99.99999999999% of the time.

The tests aren't that perfect, and that's even assuming that the material you've picked up belongs to the right person.


This is also pretty interesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_testing#Fake_DNA_evidence)

The value of DNA evidence has to be seen in light of recent cases where criminals planted fake DNA samples at crime scenes. In one case, a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: Dr. John Schneeberger of Canada raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants.

In the US, people sentenced to death a few decades ago are being released, yes. But nowadays with DNA evidence people are guilty when sentenced to death in, oh I'd say 99.99999999999% of the time.


DNA evidence is not always used. Which significantly lowers your statistics.

And in any case, how can you be comfortable with even one innocent person being executed?

I think people who go to watch other people executed for revenge, enjoyment, etc are just as sick as the people being executed.

You're right - I think the death penalty is sick and and old medieval way of punishment. Even if the disgusting person has done the worst crimes, who are we to take his life away, life is a gift, if you believe in God or not, and we shouldn't be able to take life away from anyone, even a mass-murderer.
I'm glad we don't have it in the UK

I think people who go to watch other people executed for revenge, enjoyment, etc are just as sick as the people being executed.But that's how US Americans are...

I'm just saying what I'd feel like under those circumstances, and what I'd want to happen. Every time when I hear about someone being a dick to one of my friends or family my first impulse is to find the person and yell at them/kick their ass. Now magnify a little bullying into murder, and my first impulse will be magnified, and my control will disappear.

I see the past problems with death penalty, but I don't really think people have to worry about executing innocent people with DNA evidence nowadays. Personally though, as I've said, it should be up to the families of victims, victims themselves to decide punishment. Making things right for them (the victims) is what is right. And no, killing a murderer won't make the victim(s) come back to life, but it feel damned good and will make sure no the scumbag won't hurt anyone else.
If your argument is that it "feel damned good" then why not just do drugs and "feel damned good" that way?

As for the part I bolded, that still won't completely eliminate cases of people being falsely convicted. I think someone else pointed out cases of others planting false DNA to frame someone else for the crime; in those cases, the person who was framed for the crime would have also been victimized by the same person who committed the crime, in which case if you executed that person you'd be executing a fellow victim of the same person who committed the crime. Would you feel good about that?

What's your source for this?

First read it in the Economist - I believe the original source is a Duke University study.

Heh, something I know about! *yays that capital punishment was the previous LD debate topic and goes to pull out his cases/briefs*

In the US, people sentenced to death a few decades ago are being released, yes. But nowadays with DNA evidence people are guilty when sentenced to death in, oh I'd say 99.99999999999% of the time.

Interesting. That's not what The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) says. Want more evidence? Here you go (directly taken from my briefs):

THE ECONOMIST (US), April 28, 2007, p. 70US, Online, INFOTRAC, Expanded Academic ASAP. Abolitionists have been galvanised by findings that many innocent people--more than 120 since 1973--were wrongly sentenced to death.

Danny Westneat, THE SEATTLE TIMES, July 25, 2007, p. B1, Online, INFOTRAC, Custom Newspapers. Just since 2000, 39 death-row inmates in 16 states have been exonerated and freed when it became clear they were innocent.

I can find more if you'd like.

Hmm? I thought it cost a fair bit of money to keep people in prison. I might be wrong. Again, though, if practicality is the argument for the death penalty then experiments are still better.

No, the death penalty costs more than life without parole:

Patrick Mulvaney [U. of Pennsylvania Law School], NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, March 16, 2007, p. 5, Online, INFOTRAC, Expanded Academic ASAP. The more practical consideration of cost has infiltrated the debate. Due to the extra protections afforded to capital defendants, capital cases generally cost far more than their non-capital counterparts. The New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission focused heavily on the cost issue when recommending that the state abolish its death penalty, noting that...the death penalty costs more than a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

But that's how US Americans are...

And yet currently, the death sentence is supended in the US. Go figure.

But that's how US Americans are...

And when did your country get rid of the death penalty?

How odd that the first democratic government to abolish the death penalty was an American state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Michigan

And yet currently, the death sentence is supended in the US. Go figure.

Source? Because Texas executed someone as late as 25 September 2007. Just because the USA Supreme Court agreed to hear Baze v. Rees doesn't mean that a moratorium was instituted, and in fact Scalia has said that it shouldn't. What's happened is that the executions have been slowed or halted in some states, not suspended.

Sounds like a feminine emotional outburst to me.

Uh, no. That is, in fact, stereotypically male.