>John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
>Yes, but I make a distinction between something being a "human right" and
>simply being something that States shouldn't do. I think the United
>States should abolish the death penalty. I don't think, however, that the
>United States is abusing human rights by executing Timothy McVeigh.
>
That's an interesting distinction, John.
I went back and re-read some of the UN documents from earlier in this
thread, and they speak of the death penalty in terms of "civil rights" and
"political rights," but never specifically in terms of "human rights." I
also found this interesting document. It's the UN Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article 6.1
It reads, in part:
>2.In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence >of
>death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in >accordance with
>the law in force at the time of the commission of the >crime and not
>contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and >to the Convention
>on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of >Genocide. This penalty
>can only be carried out pursuant to a final >judgment rendered by a
>competent court.
The UN states that "sentence of death may be imposed" based on the
restrictions that follow. So the UN encourages countries to not have the
death penalty, but has a set of circumstances under which to carry out that
sentence correctly...
Reggie Bautista (who's still trying to figure this all out)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
