Electric Chair

It was originated in the United States .
It is all about strapping the person to a wooden chair and electrocuting him/her through electrodes which are around the body. It would damage organs but initially it was invented to go directly to the brain and kill it.
It was used for the first time in 1890 in the United States. Now in the 21st century its unusual, but in 2008 it became an option of execution.

Gas Chamber

It consists of a sealed chamber where poisonous gas is released.

Hanging

Suspension by the neck.
This picture is from 1979, but you can get an idea of what it looked like.
Is one of the most common death penalties.

What countries approve and disapprove death penalty?

58 countries still maintain death penalty in practice and in their laws.
95 countries have eliminated death penalty.
9 still use it for special cases.
35 permits it for ordinary crimes.
some of countries which APROVE death penalty are:
• China (1700)
• Iran (388)
• Iraq (120)
• Saudi Arabia (69)
• United States (52)
• Yemen (30)
• Sudan (9)
• Vietnam (9)
• Japan (7)
• Egypt (5)
• Libya (4)
• Bangladesh (3)
• Thailand (2)
• Singapore
• Botswana (1)
• Malaysia
• North Korea
(This digits represent the number of deaths in 2009 by death penalty.)

United States

Lets focus for a moment in United States.
The 1st of April 2008 the death penalty was authorized in 37 states
(Texas, Virginia, Oaklahoma, Missouri, Florida , North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama , South Carolina, Lousiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Arizona, Indiana, Delaware, California, Illinois, Nevada, Mississipi, Utah, Maryland, Tennesse, Washington, Nebraska, Pensylvania, and many more)
Executions by race:
Black:630-57%
White:377-34%
Hispanic:76-7%
Native American:14-1%
Asian:8-1%
By gender:
Male:3291-98.2%
Female:59-1.8%

• executions in some death penalty approving countries in 2006

My country's opinion

Peru rejects the Death Penalty.
The congress decided not to agree with the application of the Death Penalty. 49 congressman voted against it, while 26 were in favor. This was going to be applied to convicted terrorists which threatened the population and government of Peru, as well as its fame. They will only apply it in EXTREME circumstances.
Now there is a debate whether Joran Van Der Sloot who was captured in Chile and committed a crime in Peru, should be subjected to a Death Penalty. The question is will Peru bend its policy or will it just remain calmed in front of a situation which demands justice? Van Der Sloot has committed homicide (victim: Stephany Flórez) and as a normal action the family will want dignity upon their dead beloved familiar.
In 2007 President, Alan Garcia tried to introduced the death penalty against convicted terrorists but it was not accepted because 70% of the citizens did not agree and because it was breaking a Human Rights agreement Peru had signed.Alan Garcia, personally approves the death penalty for rapists of minor, I do agree that that action is barbarous but I do not know if I would apply a death penalty to that people. I guess I rather let them live with what they did in a prison instead of killing them, but it would cross my mind that they do deserve it but I believe that a better punishment than be incarcerated for years instead of death which would just end the blame, end their problems, end the consequences of their actions. Alan Garcia has even proposed a law which would also include terrorists, but has not been approved.

Human Rights

Well, as it says human rights is the rights and freedom everybody has. We all have the right to be free and feel equally important as everybody, we are all the same. I believe equallity is the base of any good formation and is necessary to live in armony with the peopole that surround us.
To accomplish this the General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was applied to everyone in every nation.
some points made in this declaration are:
• ARTICLE 1: all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscienece and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
• ARTICLE 3: everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• ARTICLE 4: no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
• ARTICLE 5: no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degradating treatment or punishment.
• ARTICLE 6: everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
This are some of the points made but in total 30 were established.

My thoughts

In my opinion Human Rights make the difference between the ages. Before, nobody respected them and even before nobody knew about it or they were just applied to people with money. Nowadays there is still some trouble with Human Rights because not everybody respects these rights, which is why some people are not treated like they should be. One cause of it may be that the social classes are still racist and wealthy classes don't respect the poor's rights, but without losing the subject Human Right are indispensible for living in harmony because it makes living easier, harmonic, peaceful, etc. It is why having them is important to maintain the worlds order besides from being the rights that by law are given to everyone.

In the USA
It is incredible to realize that United States the country which proclaimed the Human Rights do not respect them completely. It is disappointing. First of all death penalty is permitted in almost all the states, and it is applied in several cases, this is a attempt against Human Rights because the life of a person is not being respected or appreciated. USA absolutely changes his position by approving this, USA is contradicting themselves because they say everybody have the right to freedom and life, and they are not going along with what they say. So death penalties totally involve Human Rights. Besides the war with Iraq which was started under Bush control was also an attempt against Human Rights because they invaded and captured people in their own country, but I am not saying it was completely wrong because Iraq attacked first but still it was a violation of Human Rights which i personally don’t approve, but I guess they think it was a justified action as Iraq is not an angel.

The Future of Human Rights
The future of Human Rights its clear; it is going to continue growing. Every time more and more countries haves different treaties, peaceful treaties which make more possible the Human rights achievement as more countries agree in stating laws. Each time more and more people have rights to what they really deserve, such as education which has been far away from the lives of many, now some countries, not all, give free education. Poor people are able to receive a good education which will give them knowledge and jobs and the needed money and more. But in the end what is Human Rights really? It is the achievement of legal rules in a goverment. They are the rights people have by law but also they are the rights people deserve according to life. They are what is needed to feel respected, and everybody has it maybe not every nation make it happen but in the future it will happen as a normal action of freedom and independence. The nation need to value the importance of Human Rights to maintain a unified nation.