Comments on: United Nations Human Rights Council reviews Japan

By: BakaNewMexican

BakaNewMexican — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:38:57 +0000

Isn’t the U.N. Human Rights Council an oxymoron just like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence?

If it’s not, then it should be.

The U.N. Human Rights Council doesn’t have much credibility for anything as far as I’m concerned since several countries with notorious human rights records have headed that non-elected body in the past.

Personally, I support the death penalty.

As far as Japan is concerned, a majority of people there support the death penalty. The problem with Japan using the death penalty is that the system has been long criticized for being complex, nebulous, and seemingly arbitrary. I’m sure that a lot of people in Japan wouldn’t shed a tear if Shoko Asahara and the others responsible for the sarin gas attack were executed.

That’s not to say that the death penalty system here in the U.S. is above reproach. It isn’t, not by a long shot. Texas does tend to execute the most prisoners year after year, so the State of Texas does come under criticism for being a little too eager to execute convicted murderers. However, it should also be understood that many people, especially here in Texas, are tired of what they view as lenient sentences for perpetrators of violent crimes. For example, notorious murderer Charles Manson had his death sentence overturned in the 1970s, and now spends the rest of his days in prison.

Now, as for Japan, this could all change as Japan switches over to the jury system for trials and starts to adopt more of the so-called Anglo-American judicial system. Does anyone know when this is supposed to occur?

By: ankoku

ankoku — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:31:55 +0000

This is actually something that annoys me even more greatly. The defense in that case stated that it was a “different personality” that had done it and therefore their client was innocent. However, are you putting a personality on trial, or a person? Is is possible to extract that personality and punish/kill only it so it doesn’t do it again? No.

Frankly I have to wonder how defense lawyers live with themselves.

By: concerned Filipino

concerned Filipino — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:40:39 +0000

No one elected the UN, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the best force to achieve peace human solidarity among nations. I’m all for the UN.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:03:46 +0000

So the UN, an organization no one elected, wants to continue to drag out the comfort women issue, just as Japan and China are trying to put these issues behind them? I smell an agenda at work.

By: somegirl

somegirl — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:43:24 +0000

The UN is hypocritical, also, “comfort women” is history and all things in the past should just stay on, those who keep bringing up are living int he past and need to come to reality with daily life. As for the death penalty, it is needed. some people just can’t be helped and will never feel remorse for what they did. All they do is over crowd the prisons and eat up the taxes. doubt they will even change once they get out. The UN needs to focus on true crimes against humanity that are obvious in other countries.

By: keisu108

keisu108 — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:38:55 +0000

Heard of おいでよどうぶつの森 before? Was playing last night and reminded of poking in on an animal conversation where one animal gets these swirls above their heads, but more graphic.

By: ...

... — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:38:09 +0000

UN is hypocritical.

By: DarkMirage

DarkMirage — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:17:06 +0000

Except that one is done at the discretion an individual, unjustly robbing the life of an innocent victim, while the other is the fulfilment of a social contract which everyone must albeit to and which the offender has knowingly broken.

It’s easy to throw famous sayings around without context, but often the context is what matters.

That said, I don’t think that the death sentence is “fair” either, but then again I don’t think that fairness is obtainable or even desired in certain situations. But I would argue that it serves a useful purpose or permanently removing harmful members of the society who have proven themselves to be immune to rehabilitation.

By: DarkMirage

DarkMirage — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:11:11 +0000

Yes… hence the death penalty.

17 years in jail will make an unstable murderer even more bitter and hateful. Death penalty on the other hand would eliminate a proven threat to society.

By: Dakk

Dakk — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:53:38 +0000

Who says that you’re supposed to penalize someone? If they do something as horrendous as you’ve supplied, odds are they’re probably not all right in the head. You’re supposed to rehabilitate, not punish.

Punishment serves nothing, than bitterness and hate. Those are two things you do not want a clearly unstable person to obtain.

By: Dakk

Dakk — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:47:48 +0000

If you kill the person in return, then you deserve to be killed, and that person deserves to be killed ect.

What’s the famous saying? ‘An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind’?

By: ankoku

ankoku — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:03:11 +0000

If anything Japan needs to kill more people. Of course I am Texan and I’m sure we kill more people than most of the “civilized” countries in the world put together. But really…a guy (22) kills his younger sister (20) and cuts her into pieces and disposes of the body, then he gets 17 years. Isn’t that a little bit too light a penalty?