It doesn't because it's a covenant - it's foundation is in the rule of law. If a country isn't respecting the rule of law then no legal treaty, including those with international enforcement, will mean a damn.
It's very much getting all the worlds "gangs" to agree to something and nudging them along to where they ought to be. With each successive nudge and treaty ratification the rule of law becomes stronger and eventually everyone gets on the same page (or close enough for it not to be a significant issue)
As to the objection, you're right I should have said "was" - not present tense. Roper v. Simmons got rid of the death penalty for minors in the US in 2005. Oddly enough in the closing reasoning for the decision the court stated:
Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
1990... interesting year... right it was the year the CRC came into effect! Amazing that a toothless, purely symbolic, pointless gesture managed to help change US law. *note I did say help, it was obviously not the only reason given
They've also gone a step beyond, and abolished life-sentences for minors.
I won't call you a liar, merely misinformed: mandatory sentences of the death penalty for minors is abolished as are life terms for non-homicide crimes. Homicide crimes can still come with a life sentence subject to Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. ___ (2012) which requires consideration of the defendant and the details in determining sentence. See the ruling itself or below is the SCOTUSBlog text on the case:
Plain English Summary: In a series of decisions dating back to 1988, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that youths under age 18 who commit crimes must not necessarily get as severe a punishment as adults who committed the same kind of crimes. Among other rulings, the Court has forbidden the death penalty for minors who commit murders, and it has barred a sentence of life in prison without a chance of release for minors who commit crimes in which the victim is not killed. In this new ruling, the Court avoiding imposing such a flat ban on life without parole for a minor who commits murder, but it did rule out such a sentence as a mandatory requirement in all such cases. It said, though, that it does not expect very many youths under age 18 to get such a sentence that essentially would require them to stay in prison until they die.
As to the political bias, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. The facts are that Bill Clinton's administration signed the CRC, Bush ratified 2 of the optional protocols, and Obama stated his intent, but given the current climate it's unlikely that he will as it's better not to submit it than to have it fail.
"It's important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of Human Rights. It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties and ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in Human Rights."
