Comments:UN's "Third Commission" passes resolution condemning capital punishment

It is true, that it is wrong to murder even murderers and rapists in the name of justice. But surely then it is also true that it is wrong to murder the poor and the sick and even the confused, insane, or indolent in the name of economic policy. If society can see a rationale to maintain a murderer and guards for him at the public expense for the rest of his life in the name of mercy, some day we should envision a guarantee of humane conditions even for the most impoverished among us, before they turn to crimes of desperation. 70.15.116.59 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says it is true? I mean besides the UN and other such organizations? If you want to dig deep it has been part of human nature. Maybe it is just an inflated sense of "being above that" that spurs this type of resolution. --SVTCobra 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says it's true? Most of the member nations of the UN, apparently, and nearly every "First World" country, the Pope, and most importantly, me. ;)  And if you want to dig deep rape is a part of human nature also but what does that mean?  And even if killing is excusable for human beings, who need to face split second decisions to defend their lives or perhaps encounter passions that no one can be expected to hold up against, that does not mean it is excusable for systems of justice which are supposed to represent fundamental principles of slow and rational deliberation.  I say that in the last ages of the world, one is in all truth entitled to cherries without stones, war without fighting, production without workers, poverty without want, and justice without cruelty. 70.15.116.59 06:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Now murders and rapist can sit in jail and use up all our tax payer money.

The third commision isn't the general assembly.

It is stuff like this that makes the UN seem so 'out of touch'. Murder should carry the death penalty (according to fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims), and UN resolutions in conflict with the 'national law' om matters of crime and punishment are likely to be ignored at best, - ridiculed and used to support an 'opt out' plan is more likely.

Note: above comments were moved to an unreferenced page, so I've restored them here. 70.15.116.59 06:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO If we listened to everything the fundamentalists said, we'd be in a lot of trouble. Personally I don't like Capital punishment, and I'm glad Canada abolished it. However I don't really think this is the UN's place to answer this question, as long as the people being executed got a fair trial and so on. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)