Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Tuesday, December 13, 2005

    Mexico abolishes the death penalty

    Mexico has abolished the death penalty. The list of nations still practising includes: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, North Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Thanks to Hullabaloo.


    At 12/13/2005 05:56:00 am, Blogger _H_ said...

    out of interest do you know how many of those listed countries still actually carry out the death penelty ? rather then just keep the option within law

    in the United kingdom abolition of the death penalty for treason and piracy only took place in 1998 even though it was 1964 that the last person (on the main land) was actually sentenced and murdered by the government

    I know that you are against the death penelty (as i am)but do you see any difference between those that still carry out this barbaric act and those that still have the right to do so within their own national laws but always refuse to take that option ?

    At 12/13/2005 08:45:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    For the first question, I don't know. For the second question, I guess it's like the difference between some man who thinks it's ok to beat his wife but doesn't, and another man who does beat his wife. Or perhaps the difference between testicular cancer and liver cancer - either way, it's still cancer.

    At 12/13/2005 05:42:00 pm, Blogger _H_ said...

    I see your point

    However i do see (using your example of the man and his wife) that we should 'go after' the men who actually hit and punch their wives first

    In no way does this mean that those that think it is ok should be let off the hook merely that by highlighting those that currently murder their own people in this way in my opinion is best done by showing how isolated they are in carrying out this medieval and barbaric act

    I suppose what i mean is that they should be judged like we do countries that have nuclear weapons

    having them is frowned apon , but using them is horrific and a much greater crime

    btw obviously this is in no way a critisism of your post , just what is (to me) and interesting side question that was inspired by your post

    I certainly do not desire to let those who still have this law of the hook and the reverse of my argument is also true

    that is by listing them as one group it may have some 'small' impact on shaming those who still keep this law into changing it

    At 12/13/2005 11:17:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    The nuclear weapon analogy is not only a great one, it's also quite correct in itself.


    Post a Comment

    << Home