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?
Don't know about public opinion on life imprisonment for minors, but the death penalty still has support from a majority of polled Americans [1]. I'd say it might be 'old' just because the UN passed this almost 25 years ago but the public policy is [supposed to be] derived from where the people are at. Seems like its still a relevant statement.
And hidden in the middle there, 1/3 of americans don't believe the death penalty reduces murder, and 2/3 believe innocents have been murdered in execution of a death penalty, meaning that those agreeing to it just do so out of spiteful vengeance.
The death penalty and the death penalty for children are different issues. I'd bet you that if allowing death penalty for children was polled, it'd do a lot worse than regular death penalty, and be a minority view.
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.
> 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?
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.
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?