The UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) reported on Saturday that over 50,000 children in the Gaza Strip are in urgent need of treatment for acute malnutrition, Anadolu Agency reports.

In a statement, the agency said that “with continued restrictions to humanitarian access, people in Gaza continue to face desperate levels of hunger.”

“Over 50,000 children require treatment for acute malnutrition,” it added.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The very first link in a Google search - several states have explicity sentences for the murder of children, either with higher maximums, higher minimums or transforming things which would otherwise be Manslaughter into the same as First Degree Murder. (Just search for “Child” in that page to find those).

    Also check this paper. Even though it’s about gender rather than age, you can find the point I made earlier about “vulnerability” for example at page 435 section B.1 as well as explicity references to children in the various Sentencing Aggravatory Scales under Apending I (from page 464) explicitly under scale I and IV and implicitly in other scales (i.e. Scale 3 - Heinousness) which whilst they don’t prove that child killing explicitly is deemed more heinous than others, does prove my point that society has Heinousness criteria for Murder, disproving your “Murder is Murder” take.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Three results for ctrl+f child.

      First somewhat supports your claim.

      First Degree Murder 25 years to life

      Assault Causing the Death of A Child Under 8 Years of Age (Penal Code 273ab(a)) 25 years to life

      The second specifies it has to be someone under your care.

      the victim was a vulnerable person under the care of the offender (a child under 18, elderly person, or disabled adult)

      The third has the same sentence for both.

      Manslaughter Maximum of 40 years in prison (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)

      Manslaughter of a child under 10 10 to 40 years in prison without parole (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)

      Then there are 47 other states that seem to make no distinction, supporting my opinion that traits of the victim do not really matter.

      I’ll check the other read later, it sounds like a deeper look.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        First a note: The third entrance you found has a minimum sentence of 10 years in jail for child Manslaughter and no minimum sentence for adult Manslaughter, hence is nor the “same sentence” - per that law even if the Juri finds reasons for a sentence lower than 10 years in prison, the sentence cannot be less than 10 years in prison if the victim was a child.

        The paper in the second link covers sentencing guidelines (which is formal guidance for prosecutors but not actual law, so they can disregard it) and how jurors actually decided (i.e. derived from de facto results), both of which as far as I can tell are much more common way sthan “by way of formal law” in shaping the sentences for killing of children are different than others.

        Quite independently of all that, even just that first link (first result in the Google search) disproves that notion of yours that Murder is Murder.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ah, I missed that minimum, thank you. Perhaps murder is murder was a bit exaggerated, but my primary point that the traits of the victims don’t really matter, and shouldn’t really matter, still stands.

          I think what’s happening, incidentally, is a cultural thing. You are part of a particular culture, and so you and ideas you spend a lot of time around have a certain view. I don’t think it is as broad as you think, though, where the “vast majority” agrees with you.

          Being interested in a technical understanding, I’m intentionally ignoring any cultural influences I was raised with (like, “women and children first!”, stuff like that), because I am worried they are ultimately inaccurate, and may introduce bias into how I am thinking about it. This is why Occam’s Razor does not matter to me, it is a guideline and nothing more. I want to be technically, precisely correct, as much as I can manage. A guideline is no good for that.

          That said, I am curious if the more detailed paper changes my understanding any. The law is an interesting subject for me.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Oh, it’s absolutelly cultural, probably derived from empathy (check the Vulnerability chapter in the paper in my second link), and it seems to be almost universal at least in the modern Western World.

            And indeed, going back to the very beginning of our discussion, I was giving emphasis to the killing of children by the Zionists as an especially abhorrent crime because I do share that feeling as I am part of that culture just like I expect are the majority of those that would read my post. I don’t write comments to convince the tiny subset of people who find it easy to have a very detached view on the purposeful killing of human beings, I write my comments to convince most people and I wasn’t even being manipulative because the take I have on the morality of child killing is based on the feelings I have on which deaths are more abhorrent which seems to be the same as most people likely to read my comments.

            That said, a purely logical and as objective as possible analysis would still yield that the murder of children is generally a worse act than the murder of adults, simply because children have in average a lot more years as a productive citizens ahead of them than adults: in pure, emotion aside, almost Accounting terms, targetting children in a war is targetting the Future of a nation by taking out their Future productive capability.

            In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s exactly the calculation that the Zionists made - if one has no empathy and hence no sense of added abhorrence when it comes to child murder and one has as a strategical objective to weaken now and forever an entire enemy ethnicity, it makes logical sense to target the children of the “enemy ethnicity” in order to further that strategical objective and the absence of empathy guarantees there are no pesky feelings like guilt getting in the way.