"Only the U.S., Somalia and South Sudan have declined to ratify the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits juvenile solitary confinement as a matter of international law."
Nice.
Nice.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/17/america_the_e...
There isn't a "US's stated reason for not signing". Instead, there's lot of "yeah that'd be great, we'll get on that later" from the various administrations, and what sounds like paranoid whining from religious conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_ratification_of_the_Conventi...
> On 16 February 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. However, though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate. Likewise, President Bush did not submit the Convention to the Senate. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The Obama administration has said that it intends to submit the Convention to the Senate, but there is no set timeline for it.
Are you american and really think this is a sane path of action: "The Convention is unlikely to be ratified in the near future because it forbids both the death penalty and life imprisonment for children [...] threatening national control over domestic policy"
To be honest, to me this sounds exactly like immigrants to germany claiming a right to honor slayings because it's part of their culture.
If that's not the statement you tried to make, please clarify what exactly you think is the US' stated reason for not signing it.
So the US already can't execute or imprison children. So that's not the reason for not signing it.
The thing about strong central authority is when it makes mistakes they are much harder to deal with. And mistakes are inevitable from all authorities.
Does that seem accurate? It reads as if the lack of ratification is basically an old political statement at this point and there's no real policy there they object to now?
Also, note the poll question was terribly written and may dramatically understate US support for the death penalty. The question I mean is the top one, "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?"
This is ambiguous. My position is I'm in favor of the death penalty for SOME crimes, in some special cases, but NOT as a default for all murderers. I think the death penalty should be ALLOWED NOT OUTLAWED – I think it should be a possibility sometimes – but if I was asked that poll question I would say "no". I think MOST murderers should not be executed.
So the poll question is really really badly done. The only saving grace is that a lot of people will ignore the question wording and hear "death penalty: pro or con?" and give their general political stance using their pre-existing knowledge of what the actual issue is.
The policy that is objected to, inasmuch as the US political opponents of the treaty object to policy, is that the US has to answer, or even report, to any one on what it does. It doesn't matter that the substantive requirements are little different than what the US does, what matters is the idea that anything but what the US chooses to do at the time matters.