The Death Penalty: How bad is the European Union?
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
As with all sanctions, the death penalty represents justice and, in addition it protects and saves more innocent lives, in six ways, than does a life imprisonment (1) which confounds justice and is a greater harm to innocents (1), as EU supports, making EU the greater human rights violator.
1) The EU's Hypocricy
How bad can it get? 5 year olds are more mature than 17 year olds? Of course, says the EU.
As a matter of law, Belgium has agreed that children, of any age, can consent to assisted suicide (3), if they possess "the capacity of discernment" -- undoubtedly, a human rights movement that will sweep throughout the EU.
I'll take a chance, here, and say that Belgium and the EU may end up drawing the line at 5 year olds, unless they find that would violate the human rights of those children, aged 0-4.
EU politicians were aghast that the US would allow 16-17 year old rapist/murderers to be executed, even with thorough reviews of their mental and psychological capacities, to determine their discernment. Yet, Belgium allows children, of any age, to discern whether or not suicide is appropriate for their condition.
2) Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Patients
1) The EU's Hypocricy
a) Sarin Gas
The EU could hardly be more hypocritical on this issue, selling tons of materials to produce sarin gas for Syria to murder a huge number of innocents, just to make a profit (2).
In the US, guilty murderers are executed within justice, making no profit, except that of justice and saving more innocent lives (1), a huge profit, indeed.
b) The European Union's vile immigration system captures migrants arriving from Africa. then sends them to brutal detention centers run by Libya militias, with unknown numbers of innocents killed.
c) Children committing suicide
How bad can it get? 5 year olds are more mature than 17 year olds? Of course, says the EU.
As a matter of law, Belgium has agreed that children, of any age, can consent to assisted suicide (3), if they possess "the capacity of discernment" -- undoubtedly, a human rights movement that will sweep throughout the EU.
I'll take a chance, here, and say that Belgium and the EU may end up drawing the line at 5 year olds, unless they find that would violate the human rights of those children, aged 0-4.
EU politicians were aghast that the US would allow 16-17 year old rapist/murderers to be executed, even with thorough reviews of their mental and psychological capacities, to determine their discernment. Yet, Belgium allows children, of any age, to discern whether or not suicide is appropriate for their condition.
Combining EU's anti-death penalty position with that Belgian law shows how absurd they are, if one is capable of rational discernment.
The EU finds, no matter what, 16-17 year old rapist/murderers are not mature enough to be subject to such a punishment because they can't possibly discern murder and execution - although, somehow, 16-17 year olds do discern both murder and incarceration? Really? It's ludicrous, of course.
Now that Belgium and, possibly, the EU, are to agree that some children, of any age, are mature enough to invite death, I guess the EU and those US Supreme Court Judges will have to change their opinions on the possibility that 16-17 year old rapist/murderers may discern the error of their ways, to the point that execution may be an option. Well, no. Hypocrisy and irrationality will rule the day.
All of a sudden, 0-17 year olds are more than capable of offing themselves, because they are mature enough. I guess mental and psychological maturity is dependent on the type of killing - or, at least, that is the only "rationale" for EU's illogic.
But, of course, the EU finds that s0me 0-5 year olds have the discernment to decide their own suicide.
EU governments could could not see what most see, quite clearly, that some 16-17 year old murderers are more mature than many 18-21 year olds, just as many non-murderous 16 and 17 years are, as we all know, except for the EU.
But, 0-5 year olds? Of course.
Some idiotic US Supreme Court judges used that same illogic in Roper v Simmons, based upon EU sensibilities, to outlaw the execution of any 16-17 year old murderers, regardless of how mature they are and regardless that the rest of us, with some sense, know than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18-21 year olds.
All of a sudden, 0-17 year olds are more than capable of offing themselves, because they are mature enough. I guess mental and psychological maturity is dependent on the type of killing - or, at least, that is the only "rationale" for EU's illogic.
But, of course, the EU finds that s0me 0-5 year olds have the discernment to decide their own suicide.
EU governments could could not see what most see, quite clearly, that some 16-17 year old murderers are more mature than many 18-21 year olds, just as many non-murderous 16 and 17 years are, as we all know, except for the EU.
But, 0-5 year olds? Of course.
Some idiotic US Supreme Court judges used that same illogic in Roper v Simmons, based upon EU sensibilities, to outlaw the execution of any 16-17 year old murderers, regardless of how mature they are and regardless that the rest of us, with some sense, know than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18-21 year olds.
Clear, obvious, unchallenged.
All US criminal cases are supposed to evaluate suspects/criminals, individually, not collectively.
Prof. Kontorovich writes: " . . . a system that permits the euthanasia of innocent 12 year-olds but not the punishment of guilty 17-year-olds is one that exalts autonomy without culpability." So it comes out that the juveniles cannot really make accountable decisions when it comes to killing people, unless it is themselves. Or to put it differently, Belgium will not hold children responsible when they hurt others, but gives them free license to hurt themselves." (3)
Undoubtedly, the EU will, someday, make child suicide a human right.
Complete moral bankruptcy. Nothing new.
Prof. Kontorovich writes: " . . . a system that permits the euthanasia of innocent 12 year-olds but not the punishment of guilty 17-year-olds is one that exalts autonomy without culpability." So it comes out that the juveniles cannot really make accountable decisions when it comes to killing people, unless it is themselves. Or to put it differently, Belgium will not hold children responsible when they hurt others, but gives them free license to hurt themselves." (3)
Undoubtedly, the EU will, someday, make child suicide a human right.
Complete moral bankruptcy. Nothing new.
2) Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Patients
The state of Missouri had planned to use propofol for executions, which no one doubted would result in a quick, painless death. The European manufacturer stated that they would withhold that drug from the US if propofol were used in executions, thus denying its use, estimated at 50 million uses per year in the US (4).
Missouri Governor Nixon was much more concerned about those innocent patients and how their lives and suffering would be additionally threatened and increased, respectively, by the withholding of that drug, that he ordered the drug not be used, because he was certain that the drug manufacturer would increase the harm and suffering to all those innocent patients, by withholding that drug (4).
Drug manufacturers in Europe are so against the death penalty that they would, knowingly, put more innocent patients at risk, by withholding their drugs from the US, valuing US murderers over innocent patients, with the pro-death penalty governor valuing the innocent patients more that the murderous human rights violators. The pattern (5).
Missouri Governor Nixon was much more concerned about those innocent patients and how their lives and suffering would be additionally threatened and increased, respectively, by the withholding of that drug, that he ordered the drug not be used, because he was certain that the drug manufacturer would increase the harm and suffering to all those innocent patients, by withholding that drug (4).
Drug manufacturers in Europe are so against the death penalty that they would, knowingly, put more innocent patients at risk, by withholding their drugs from the US, valuing US murderers over innocent patients, with the pro-death penalty governor valuing the innocent patients more that the murderous human rights violators. The pattern (5).
Favoring guilty murderers over the innocent is the standard anti-death penalty malady/pattern (5).
"After Hospira announced its decision, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a strongly worded statement saying it was "extremely troubled" by Hospira's forced exit from the market and criticizing the anti-death-penalty movement for "using" thiopental supplies to make a point. The doctors noted the "unfortunate irony that many more lives will be lost or put in jeopardy as a result of not having the drug available for its legitimate medical use." (4) Again, favoring guilty murderers over the innocent (5). The pattern.
The European Union is proud of this.
The European Union is proud of this.
3) The Ethics Time Gap
The drug companies were invisible and speechless, from 1977, when the lethal injection protocols were, publicly, adopted by Oklahoma, and from 1982, when they were first used for executions, in Texas, until 2009 - 32 years and 27 years later, respectively.
Why did the moral outrage take 27-32 years to surface?
Anti-death penalty folks didn't, publicly, criticize the drug companies (and their countries of origin), until 2009. Of course, the drug companies and their countries of origin were well aware of the lethal injection use of drugs from 1977, but were not embarrassed, publicly, until 2009.
The response was all PR, not ethics. Obvious.
4) EU Rejects Hippocratic Oath
Why did the moral outrage take 27-32 years to surface?
Anti-death penalty folks didn't, publicly, criticize the drug companies (and their countries of origin), until 2009. Of course, the drug companies and their countries of origin were well aware of the lethal injection use of drugs from 1977, but were not embarrassed, publicly, until 2009.
The response was all PR, not ethics. Obvious.
4) EU Rejects Hippocratic Oath
Would the EU ban such drugs for use in euthanasia and abortion, which are both banned by the Hippocratic Code, and the death penalty is not (5)?
Of course not.
For the EU, as so many others, the Hippocratic Oath has become the Hypocrisy Oath.
======
5) The EU: Lack of Reason - Human Rights & The Death Penalty
The EU opposes the death penalty, allegedly because they find it a human rights violation, even though they have never shown it to be . . . but they have tried.
The EU's lack of reason.
Fundamental human rights include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to the fruits of our labors, meaning earnings and possession of property, and the right to pursue happiness.
Human rights tell us that all of those may be taken away, by the due process of law, when the social contract, the laws of our land, are violated, with all countries accepting a) incarceration taking away freedom; b) fines taking away currency or other property; c) with about half the countries retaining the death penalty, taking away life, with d) all countries, fortunately, taking away the happiness of criminals, from continuing their trade and e) with some countries providing community service, whereby the sanction is both time and labor, taking both freedom and currency.
According to the reasoning of anti-death penalty human rights activists, all of those should be human rights violations, even though such activists, only, claim the death penalty to be, when all should be, given their reasoning.
With, only, irrational and inconsistent reasoning, death penalty opponents find the death penalty a human rights violation, when it is they who have chosen to put many more innocents at risk.
6) EU Population Supports The Death Penalty
6) EU Population Supports The Death Penalty
The EU contradicts their own population, a majority which supported the execution of Iraqi dictator/mass murderer Saddam Hussein (7) and, very likely, a majority would support the death penalty for cases where children were raped, tortured and murdered, as well as cases of mass and serial murders (7), with the EU government supporting the anti-democratic, anti-death penalty position, which also sacrifices more innocent lives.
Majority does not make right, but all other points, herein, do make it right, as is that majority.
7) EU Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Victims
7) EU Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Victims
NOTE: The US and the EU have never had a problem in extraditing criminals to the US, that face the death penalty, as the US simply waives seeking death in those cases, putting more innocents at risk (1), at the behest of the EU. The pattern (5).
======
FN
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
and
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
3) What Belgium’s child euthanasia law means for America and the Constitution, Eugene Kontorovich, The Volokh Conspiracy, The Washington Post, February 13, 2014
2) Gross Hypocrisy & Moral Choices:
Germany/European Union & The US Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/germanyeuropean-union-us-death-penalty.html
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/germanyeuropean-union-us-death-penalty.html
4) "Europe's dangerous death penalty gesture", Charles Lane, Washington Post, Posted at 2:39 PM ET, 02/ 1/2011
5) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html 5) Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Medical Ethics Dilemma
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html
6) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
http://homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2006/03/21/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation/
7) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html
8) European Union financing efforts to end death penalty in U.S., By Lachlan Markay — The Washington Free Beacon, carried by the Washington Times, 10/31/2013,
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html
6) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
http://homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2006/03/21/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation/
7) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html
8) European Union financing efforts to end death penalty in U.S., By Lachlan Markay — The Washington Free Beacon, carried by the Washington Times, 10/31/2013,
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
Victim Services
Victims' Voices
======
Additional research,w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
Partial CV
