9 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2016
    1. The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading. Amnesty opposes the death penalty at all times - regardless of who is accused, the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

      i totally agree with this it's just not right to take someone's life no matter what happened.

    2. Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people who suffer mental problems. Before people die they are often imprisoned for years on “death row”. Not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

      To me this is just wrong. Someone is under 18 or with a disability they shouldn't just be killed and taken away from their families.

    1. UPDATE: Wesbrook was executed on Mar. 9. EARLIER: Coy Wesbrook is scheduled to be executed in Texas on March 9. If the execution proceeds, it will be the eighth in the U.S. this year, half of which have been in Texas. Wesbrook killed five people after a confrontation with his ex-wife. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that defendants with intellectual disability (formerly referred to as "mental retardation") are exempt from the death penalty. Wesbrook was tested for intellectual disability at the request of the prosecution, following a challenge by Wesbrook's attorneys that he should be spared. Psychologist George Denkowski examined Wesbrook and initially submitted a report finding he had an IQ of 66, placing him below the standard level for intellectual disabilty. Several months later, he filed a new report based on "non-intellectual factors" that said Wesbrook's "actual adult general intelligence functioning is estimated to be of about 84 quality." Ohio State University professor Marc Tasse, an expert on developmental disabilities, said Denkowski's methods had "absolutely no scientific basis." Because of his unscientific procedures in Wesbrook's and 15 other cases, Denkowski was fined by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and agreed never to testify in another criminal case. Nevertheless, the execution has been allowed to proceed.

      This refers to one of my topics.I was curious if the death penalty rules changed with people with disabilities.

    1. "Along with two-thirds of the American public, I believe in capital punishment. I believe that there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."

      The victim isn't always innocent.

    2. "Executions should be banned by act of Congress for this simple reason: Experience has shown that the death penalty doesn't serve the cause of justice… How likely is it, really, that a killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so haphazard… It's true that the purpose of punishment is not only deterrence but also retribution. But this doesn't justify the popular view that killers should be killed, any more than it would support the idea that rapists should be raped or thieves stolen from. To be just, retribution must be measured and restrained. That's the difference between justice and revenge…

      This is true and i totally agree with the parts about retribution. This is going to be one of my sub topics because it's true why is this the case for only death, what about thieves and rapists.

  2. Feb 2016
    1. "Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact, just like the opposite position held by abolitionist detractors, including myself... The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense, and thus subject even to butchery to satiate human gluttony. Moreover, capital punishment celebrates the dignity of the humans whose lives were ended by the defendant's predation."

      Just because your killing someone that kilt someone else it doesn't make it right. They both are wrong but if they're trying to stop the killing then why are they murdering?

    1. Executing murderers is still murder. They say it helps grieving families but then they'll start another grieving family by killing a murderer who is still at the end of the day a human being.

  3. Dec 2015
    1. Thousands of schools across the U.S. rushed last year to stop feeding their students meat that contained the ammonia-treated beef, known by industry as lean finely textured beef. Their action followed a massive media uproar, which included a prime time show featuring British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver and a series of critical reports by ABC World News.

      It would save you more money than buying the ammonia meat anyways because if a kids gets sick and die the school district could get sued for millions.

    2. Schools are under more financial pressure than ever before, thanks in part to the new school lunch nutrition standards that hit the ground last year, observes Margo Wootan, head of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

      That is true, schools are under financial pressure but i dont think we should have to suffer something else has to give.