A U.N. general assembly committee passed a resolution Thursday calling for a halt on executions — with the objective of abolishing the death penalty — but struck down provisions that protected the right to life of unborn children.
The human rights committee voted 99-52 to approve the draft resolution on the divisive death penalty issue after two days of acrimonious debate. A total of 33 countries abstained.
Supporters say they expect the full 192-General Assembly to also pass the resolution in mid-December because countries voting in favor of ending the death penalty are unlikely to change their positions. The assembly had turned down a proposed death penalty moratorium in 1994.
Although the vote is not legally binding, it would indicate where the international body stands in regards to capital punishment and carry moral and political weight, said human rights groups.
The resolution, co-sponsored by European Union states and 60 other countries, states that the death penalty "undermines human dignity.” It calls on countries that still allow capital punishment “to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty” and those that have abolished the punishment not to reintroduce it.
It also urges countries with the practice “to restrict its use and reduce the number of offenses for which the death penalty may be imposed" and to respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of those facing execution.
Human rights group Amnesty International called the resolution’s passage a “major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.”
"Establishing a moratorium on executions is an important tool to convince states still using the death penalty to engage in a nationwide debate and to review their laws on capital punishment," said Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s secretary general, in a statement.
Voting against the resolution were the United States, China, Syria, Iran, and many developing countries, notably those of the Islamic community.
Dissenting voters, including Singapore and Barbados, accused co-sponsoring countries for imposing their values on others and pressuring them to comply. Barbados said it had even been threatened with the withdrawal of aid if it opposed the moratorium.
According to Amnesty, 91 percent of all known executions last year took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the United States. The London-based group also noted that the number of total executions has declined from 2005 and over 130 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Over 15 proposed amendments were turned down earlier Thursday, two of which addressed abortion.
The U.S. joined Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, among others, in voting in favor of the first amendment, which argued for the right to life of unborn children and would have urged all countries "to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of unborn children."
"We are in agreement with the view expressed in this 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," U.S. delegate Joseph Rees told the committee.
The U.S abstained from the second amendment that would add a reference to abortion, allowing it only "in necessary cases, in particular, where life of mother and/or the child is at serious risk.”
Comments
Maybe the un would like to house all the murders and rapists in their building then, because i dont want them running loose in my country but i still at this point have the right to have guns so if any of them trys to hurt my family then the death penality will still be given. as for abortions its a hard call i mean the sircumstances some of these poor children are born into. sometimes i wonder if they arnt better off having never steped their precious little feet on this earth and never knowing anything about it just living on in heaven. then i wonder what they could have been if they were here on earth possiblly someone who could change the world.....? i know im rambling on and on but so does my mind when it comes to these things so i appoligize
It would seem to me that the UN has lost its relevancy some years ago.
The UN is an organization of agreement between many cultures and nations. However to be "tolerant" that means that there must be agreement with the country/culture with the least common denominator of morality. It seems to be "tolerant" means you must accept every practice. This is a losing proposition. The UN does hold the moral high ground in the world.
I pray for a return to the Word of God through out the world!
ForHim wrote,
<<"My friend, it is much better to revere God and follow His command for governments to punish evil doers than elevate one’s self into a position to make the decision of who dies and who lives.">>
The article said,
<<"Voting against the resolution were the United States, China, Syria, Iran, and many developing countries, notably those of the Islamic community.">>
Is this the group we want to see as our moral equals?
When Paul wrote his words about governments punishing criminals he was speaking about a Roman government that had used capital punishment on such criminals as Jesus, the apostle James, and eventually Paul himself. To say that Paul was defending capital punishment with these words seems out of context. Paul's emphasis was feeing lives from the tyranny of sin, not ending human lives. Paul had participated in the capital punishment of Stephen. I don't see him as being a big proponent.
Who cares what the U.N. says or thinks!!! They are a social pariah and great blemish on the world at large. They don't want to punish criminals with the death penalty, but they want to murder the unborn!! Go figure!!! It's time we told them to leave the United States, anyway, and go to another land!!!
Because we got away from the biblical example of being swift after a fair trial.
PS. That'sa not to say they're not right about the death penalty. If it's meant to be some kind of a deterrent, why have we got by far the highest murder rates in the developed world?
Yep, this is the organisation that walked away from a genocide in Rwanda just when they needed to be arriving causing their own soldiers to burn the UN flag on the way out, and now walking away from the biggest genocide of defenseless and voideless human beings the world has ever seen in history.
The problem with the UN making moral pronouncements is that, as an organisation, they are very hard to respect.
HampsteadPete,
In response to your statement, “except for the Christians who are at least consistent enough to revere life at any stage, regardless of what that life has done with itself.”
Because these “Christians” support your belief you can respect them? Why would you not respect a Christian who, although he disagrees with you, is consistent with the Bible?
My friend, it is much better to revere God and follow His command for governments to punish evil doers than elevate one’s self into a position to make the decision of who dies and who lives.
The Bible teaches that the role of government is to punish evil doers and protect the innocent (ie the unborn). What a world we live in when they do the opposite!
"Nice! Killing murderers "undermines human dignity" but the premeditated murder of an unborn child doesn't. Is there any question we're in the last days when this kind of contradictory, illogical thinking dictates policy? And they call Christian's hypocrites!"
Yes, you are, except for the Christians who are at least consistent enough to revere life at any stage, regardless of what that life has done with itself. I can at least respect that, even if I don't happen to agree with their idea of when life begins. I think reasonable people can disagree on when life begins, but anyone should be able to see that the death penalty, as is practiced in this country, is as arbitrary as it is barbaric. All other civilized countries have done away with it, and it only some of your "Christian principles" that allow it to continue here.
Chica,
isn't the whole idea of the UN a contradiction? Especially cnsidering that we finance the group, but really are hated for our values and way of life.
Nice! Killing murderers "undermines human dignity" but the premeditated murder of an unborn child doesn't. Is there any question we're in the last days when this kind of contradictory, illogical thinking dictates policy? And they call Christian's hypocrites!