Posted on 02/25/2010 1:17:13 AM PST by jerry557
GENEVA (AFP) – European countries on Wednesday stepped up pressure for a global halt to the death penalty, as opponents of capital punishment hailed the growing number of countries scrapping or suspending executions.
The United Nations and participants in the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva said about 140 countries had now abolished death sentences or stopped carrying them out.
"More than two-thirds of the United Nations member states abolished the death penalty, by law or in practice," Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero of Spain, which holds the presidency of the European Union, told the congress.
Two decades ago the list included about 50 countries.
"The balance has tipped and the speed has been extraordinary, we have seen a grand global change," said Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Gry Larsen.
But concern was focused on the countries that account for about 93 percent of executions between them, according to Amnesty International -- China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States -- as well as North Korea.
Zapatero said Spain would set up an international commission made up of eminent people later this year to press for a global moratorium on the death penalty by 2015, "as a preliminary step to total abolition."
Italy said it would table a new resolution against the death penalty in the UN General Assembly later this year.
"Abolition is gaining ground, but not fast enough," said Italian secretary of state Enzo Scotti.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Deadly force isn’t deadly without legitimate use of capital punishment. Instead unjust relative morality becomes the norm, lowering the standards of all legitimate people to the relative morals of the illegitimate.
Perverse sexual immorality becomes relatively legitimate, ignoring the soulish consequences, depriving many of natural joy in life.
Perverse spiritual practices removes divine blessings and invites adversarial intervention in our thinking.
Perverse criminal violence is no longer met by the the violence of righteousness, love, and grace.
Worst of all, we do not treat our fellow man as ourselves, but retarget our selfish goals to nothing greater than a previously illegitimate criminal behavior, loving ourselves now as our criminal neighbor, placing his standards higher than the rule of God.
Intellectually honest students of history also recognize the degeneration of empires and social structures begins with such moral relativism and ends in anarchy. We’ve already begun by turning prisons into gated communities where criminals go to school for scandal, Islam is practiced and taught, and evil is treated with peace, with righteousness risked with violence. Anarchy soon follows when the violence of evil is not countered with the violence of righteousness after righteous power has diminished from insufficiently available force.
So it looks like some of the Euroleft have given up on global warming as a donation spigot and are desperately testing old wells.
If they can stop global murder and war crimes, then great. Otherwise, shove off.
“More than two-thirds of the United Nations member states abolished the death penalty, by law or in practice,”
but we were the ones that actually abolished Hitler and the soviet union while you guys just waved surrender flags.
Making hay while the one shines...they know he’s now a castoff and trying to get something.
I find this a hard one, really. The hardest debate point in all things judicial.
Does the death penalty deter people from committing horrendous crimes? I’d say that life in prison does that just as well.
Can we be sure that every execution is righteous, i.e.: the real guilty party is being sentenced, and not someone brought to justice by a malfunctioning procedure, or someone who was insidiously framed?
For the record: I am European, and as such I was reared in a climate where there is a lot of opposition to the death penalty. I know Americans often have a different POV, with good reason. All controversial topics have good advocates and good adversaries.
At this point in time, I would make an exception for war criminals, and terrorists (the latter if they are unequivocally proven to be mass murderers). I am pretty sure that it is a true stabilizing factor for any decent society, if such criminals are known to no longer exist as persons.
“Does the death penalty deter people from committing horrendous crimes?”
Whether the death penalty deters someone else is not the point. The real question is, does someone who slaughters another person deserve to die or not? The answer is clearly yes.
America should leave the Euro-trash to rot; they’ll soon learn that the repeating of history is all too common for those that don’t have to defend themselves then blaming all their problems and misfortune on others.
If individual nations want to abolish the death penalty, that’s their business. I don’t see how they can impose that viewpoint on nations that don’t want to though...
I sort of get what you are saying. Basically, “soft” love is not real, and ultimately self-defeating.
I’m all for judicial systems being humane and merciful, but they also have to be just. If a system does not punish wrongdoing, then expect to see more of it.
You raise a good point here, from a philosophical and humanitarian standpoint.
I must confess one thing here, which is important. I am a Christian who does not believe in Hell. That is crucial in explaining my position.
A hypothetical ‘slaughterer’ who gets life without parole will be faced for the rest of his life with the consequences of his act(s). Which amounts to an endless and torturous repetition of the same, boring, and perhaps violent (in some jailhouses) day. Over and over again.
He who is executed will have a transit to... I don’t know. What happens next is a question of one’s religious beliefs.
But, let me criticize myself here: I know very well that those left behind, family and friends of a victim, deserve some form of consolation (I’m Dutch - perhaps this is not the right word, but you’ll know what I mean). And if that consolation is best given by making sure the murderer does not exist in bodily form anymore, then it’s a valid argument to administer the death penalty.
Feel free to criticize. One always learns from decent criticism.
It's the equivalent of discussing nuclear physics to a hound dog. It just won't make sense to them, not because they're stupid, but because it's that these concepts are not part of their psyche and ethos.
I agree mostly with PallMall’s ‘Which is why I do not discuss things ....& the basic concepts of liberty and individual responsibility, to the average European’...it is a lot like a discussion with the usual ignorant US Lefty. However, Ayn And Milton appears to desire an honest discussion and is that not a good thing for all??
As to your remarks re the possibility of mistakes in sentencing - well the problem with the death penalty is that it is very final. You can hardly apologise to someone that has been executed if you find out later you had the wrong person! It is for this reason that in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't have a problem with the system being biased in favour of defendents, but I do have a problem with the way it seems to increasingly be biased against victims. Justice systems do have to punish offenders.
For the record, I'm a European too (British in fact). Every year there is a debate in the UK parliament re the death penalty. It is a "free" vote (meaning that MP's are not pressured to vote on party lines, but only to their own consciences). Every year the proposal to restore the death penalty is rejected. Yet, opinion polls over the past fifty years consistently show that the majority of Brits favour the death penalty for certain crimes (murder etc). So I'm not so sure that being European means being "reared in an environment where there is a lot of opposition to the death penalty". There's a lot of opposition from the liberal elite who have a stranglehold on the media, but of course, they're not the ones who suffer from the depredations of violent criminals, are they?
Europeans are girly men.
“Does the death penalty deter people from committing horrendous crimes?”
I don’t particularily feel good when I hear of someone getting the needle or getting zapped or whatever. On the other hand when I hear of someone executed for a proven horrendous crime I feel good in knowing that person can no longer brutalize others.
The only people detered from committing crimes are those that are already law abiding. People that commit such crimes are nut cases, most without conscience, and will continue to be a menace to society until dead.
So IMO, capitol punishment is a necessary evil so the majority of us can live a safer life.
AH............a kinder gentler planet, are the Islamics with them on this or are they still murdering thier siblings for being raped by thier family members?
The standard of debate raised ever higher...
I thank you for your diligent reply.
Yes, the chance of getting caught is crucial in deterring potential criminals, I agree. And I concur with your viewpoint on negligence of the victims. Perhaps it is an heritage of the 60s’ utopianism: the fantasy that one can ‘cure’ criminals, and that all criminals are ill people in reality, who are less to blame than we think they are. In brief: ‘they’re victims too, you know?’
Which would, if followed though to the end, mean the end of civilisation. No arguing about that.
I did not know that in the U.K. a majority favours the death sentence for the very worst criminals. Perhaps this also goes for other countries, not for Holland (where I live). But it motivates me to do a bit of internet inquiry.
Again, thank you for your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.