Last week, the UN proposed a resolution to condemn the use of the death penalty against apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and same sex relations. The resolution passed, with 27 countries in support, and 13 countries against. What the American people have taken note of, though, is that the U.S. voted against the resolution. So that begs the question: is the United States fully comfortable with the death penalty? Should they be?
Many have criticized U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley’s decision to vote against the resolution, blaming the vote on Trump’s administration. People are calling it a symbolic violation of human rights that the United States would even consider supporting other countries in using the death penalty against, most notably, same sex couples.
This is not the first time that the U.S. has voted against a resolution concerning a type of capital punishment. During the Obama resolution, the U.S. voted against a resolution that banned states from executing minors, intellectually disabled people, and pregnant women in police custody. This begs the question: is the United States fully comfortable with capital punishment?
Currently, the death penalty is legal in 31 states, and is a hot button issue in domestic debates. Many have argued that the penalty should only be used for the most heinous of crimes, such as rape and murder, while others think it should be outlawed altogether. “It depends… say, if you kill in a terrorist attack, then maybe. But a robber? No, they didn’t kill anybody,” says Chyna Hester, a Hillgrove senior, giving examples of who should be considered for the death penalty. She also argues that maybe the death penalty would not be the worst punishment: “I think [the death penalty] is outdated, because I feel everyone deserves a chance to reflect over their decisions, and, if you let them die, you practically let them escape from the torture that the other [criminals] have.”
This resolution has also brought up the question of how far the U.S. should be interfering with other countries and their laws. For example, countries that actively use the death penalty include North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. In the past, U.S. citizens have become concerned about national safety, and have avoided traveling to these countries in fear of stricter laws. But how far can the U.S. go in international matters? “I think we should only interfere if a U.S. citizen is at that place. For example, if I was gay, and in Saudi Arabia, and the government tries to kill me, then the U.S. should definitely interfere,” inputs Hester, who says that, unless a U.S. citizen if directly affected by a country’s laws, then the United States government should avoid trying to change that law.
Perhaps the most talked-about aspect of this resolution, though, is the argument that apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and same sex relations should not even be considered crimes. Since both apostasy and blasphemy are both religious based, many have argued that a country should have a separation of church and state, therefore rendering interference with these religious issues useless. The same seems to go for adultery, since cheating is a personal problem that many individuals find ways to deal with, even though the concern is most likely for the overwhelming numbers of women in particular being executed for adultery in other countries.
The biggest issue that citizens have been concerned about, though, is the argument of same sex relations. It is still a touchy issue in the United States, especially considering domestic interference with laws concerning the LGBT community, and the recent passing of a bill stating that same-sex marriage is legal in every state.Urges Hester:“No, a same-sex relation is not a crime. You should love whoever you want to love.” It seem that America might be becoming more comfortable with same-sex relations in the future.
Photo Credit: www.deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com
Many have criticized U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley’s decision to vote against the resolution, blaming the vote on Trump’s administration. People are calling it a symbolic violation of human rights that the United States would even consider supporting other countries in using the death penalty against, most notably, same sex couples.
This is not the first time that the U.S. has voted against a resolution concerning a type of capital punishment. During the Obama resolution, the U.S. voted against a resolution that banned states from executing minors, intellectually disabled people, and pregnant women in police custody. This begs the question: is the United States fully comfortable with capital punishment?
Currently, the death penalty is legal in 31 states, and is a hot button issue in domestic debates. Many have argued that the penalty should only be used for the most heinous of crimes, such as rape and murder, while others think it should be outlawed altogether. “It depends… say, if you kill in a terrorist attack, then maybe. But a robber? No, they didn’t kill anybody,” says Chyna Hester, a Hillgrove senior, giving examples of who should be considered for the death penalty. She also argues that maybe the death penalty would not be the worst punishment: “I think [the death penalty] is outdated, because I feel everyone deserves a chance to reflect over their decisions, and, if you let them die, you practically let them escape from the torture that the other [criminals] have.”
This resolution has also brought up the question of how far the U.S. should be interfering with other countries and their laws. For example, countries that actively use the death penalty include North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. In the past, U.S. citizens have become concerned about national safety, and have avoided traveling to these countries in fear of stricter laws. But how far can the U.S. go in international matters? “I think we should only interfere if a U.S. citizen is at that place. For example, if I was gay, and in Saudi Arabia, and the government tries to kill me, then the U.S. should definitely interfere,” inputs Hester, who says that, unless a U.S. citizen if directly affected by a country’s laws, then the United States government should avoid trying to change that law.
Perhaps the most talked-about aspect of this resolution, though, is the argument that apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and same sex relations should not even be considered crimes. Since both apostasy and blasphemy are both religious based, many have argued that a country should have a separation of church and state, therefore rendering interference with these religious issues useless. The same seems to go for adultery, since cheating is a personal problem that many individuals find ways to deal with, even though the concern is most likely for the overwhelming numbers of women in particular being executed for adultery in other countries.
The biggest issue that citizens have been concerned about, though, is the argument of same sex relations. It is still a touchy issue in the United States, especially considering domestic interference with laws concerning the LGBT community, and the recent passing of a bill stating that same-sex marriage is legal in every state.Urges Hester:“No, a same-sex relation is not a crime. You should love whoever you want to love.” It seem that America might be becoming more comfortable with same-sex relations in the future.
Photo Credit: www.deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com