Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Amnesty Org - Amrozi's - Death Penalty




The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the
premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.

It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without
exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the
offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

blog it

I've never gave my attention to death penalty until the case of Bali Bombing be in the front page of our daily news and website. I followed their news during their trial and happy with the final decision.

For me, killing an innocent people in the name of Jihad where their nation has nothing to do with the issue of their Jihad is something that I can’t accept.

Looking their face in the television news, laughing as if they’re innocent, make me questioning the purpose of amnesty organization in their death penalty abolishment.

I do agree if the reason to abolish death penalty from this world was like the tragedy in Somalia, where 13 years old girl was stoned to death by 50 men just because of her physical appearance, she’s been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law. I’m hundred percent agree because they buried the girl when she’s still alive and stoned them.

It’s inhuman, absolutely inhuman.

I know that by executing Amrozi’s and friend will not bring the death to live. I also know that by executing them, their believes of Jihad or their “friends” who in their side, will not vanish.

Just want to questioning the amnesty organization, when Amrozi’s and friends killed the innocent people, were they ever think that their act was breach the declaration of Human Rights ?


8 comments:

dudleysharp said...

The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right.  Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement.  What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights.  On this, there is virtually no disagreement.  However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws.  So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away.  However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation.  It is not.  It depends specifically on the circumstances. 

How do we know?  Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so.  Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation?  Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it.  They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state.  And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.

Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation.  Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim.  What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."

copyright 2005-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
 
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
 
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
 
Pro death penalty sites 

homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www.dpinfo.com
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www.coastda.com/archives.html
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

dudleysharp said...

The Death Penalty Provides More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
 
Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
 
To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
 
Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often  folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
 
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
 
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
 
That is. logically, conclusive.
 
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
 
A surprise? No.
 
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
 
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
 
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
 
However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life.
 
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
 
Reality paints a very different picture.
 
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
 
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
 
Furthermore, history tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc.
 
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
 
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.
 
The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers, The New York Times,  has recognized that deception.
 
To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . (1) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 "innocents" from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions - something easily discovered with fact checking.
 
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
 
If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can, reasonably, conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.
 
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
 
Unlikely.
 
Full report -All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.
 
Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request
 
(1) The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

copyright 2007-2008, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.
 
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
 
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
 
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
 
Pro death penalty sites 

http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www.dpinfo.com
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htmwww.coastda.com/archives.html see Death Penalty
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

treespotter said...

those are strange comments - i mean, it's good, but is it some sort of spam?

good tho, i'm all for it too. Just like Tere said, why can't we kill people whose lives were spent killing other people?

keeping them in prison would be spending money on a waste, why should we feed them while the gov't still have a lot more other people it needs to feed.

dudleysharp said...

I didn't mean it a s spam, but as a contribution to the discussion.

For those issues you think are strange, if you would point them out, I will try to explain the strange away.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to the execution of the Bali Bombers. Hope every second of their death is a painful one.

Meita Nahar

accordingtod said...

I don't understand that either. The way their mind's working. It's OK to hurt people who think or believe differently than you? Doesn't care if there's children or women involved in their act of killing? That's just sickening. Although I must admit, what a heck of brainwashing they went through, they couldn't even think for themselves.

tere616 said...

dudleysharp : thank you for adding information to my post. Here's my point :

"Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions".

If they just don't approve the executions then why they put that under Human Rights list of Death Penalty ?

I'm more than agree that innocence people should be release from death row. But for those who really killed innocence people, I don't see it as a way out to change it to life sentence.

Of course they didn't ask for plea, because when they did it, they never think other's live that they have taken. They were selfish when it comes to theirself.

That's my point of put my "pro" to death sentence.

And since Amnesty Org is an organization with a bunch of smart people, then they have to understand the under lying issue not just against it.

Treespotter : I'm still wondering why the government delay the execution ? Better to take care other issue, like flood, instead of taking care of their issue.

Accordingtod : Yup .. and if you were here, you could see their face, Amrozi's family plea that said that we have to think twice before we're taking their lives.

Meita : Am looking forward for their execution but not with that painful one. I just want them vanish.

dudleysharp said...

tera616 asks: "if they just don't approve the executions then why they put that under Human Rights list of Death Penalty ?"

Because they want folks to think it is a human rights violation. But, them saying so doesn't make it true. And, it isn't true.