Under certain circumstances, please explain
What I read came from a different source:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Arbitrary | What is the Definition of Arbitrary? | Dictionary.com
Death sentences may be many things, but hardly arbitrary at least in the US.
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
I believe you and I are both correct on this. While judges are subject to certain limitations and guidelines, they are free to make the ultimate decision. The purpose of the court of appeals is really only to ensure the law was carried out during the trial, not necessarily to judge the appropriateness of sentencing.
Also, in many states (I believe it is more than 20), we do execute juveniles and/or mentally retarded individuals.
Also, since when do we dictate our laws based on the whims of the international community? You're conveniently using international law to prove that state-sanctioned killing is murder in certain circumstances, while ignoring state-sanctioned killing in our own country.
This seems like it could become one of those never-ending exchanges which I am not disposed to. I really don't want to quibble about semantics, but I have found your statement above to be erroneous not only on the article, but also factually incorrect.