This media campaign for the reintroduction of the death penalty can not hide the fact, that the vast majority of Europeans are still against the slaughter of people.
a very specific case is known to have provided just before the turn of a stir: the execution of former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
few weeks before the execution of the sentence was running the show "ZDF-Night Studio" on "death sentence against Saddam." Among the guests were other things, Claudia Roth from the Greens and Henryk M. Broder . This is THE flagship propagandist for Israeli interests in Germany, who likes to do carefully through his hate speech against Islam itself. Broder was that night but not - as usual - just through his word posts a caricature of itself, but also demonstrated by his not overlooked, "God Bless America" button on the shirt, that he may have actually long since lost the right, seriously be made to do.
The two panelists debated zealous about whether the verdict against Saddam was now just or not. Claudia Roth built its argument on the logical principle that one, either general or against the death penalty may be general and there is absolutely no "in between" there. Broder believed now to have to mock this statement and accused the politician, they use this argument but only to protect the dictator. So that's it: if you insist on its principles, will always protect the totalitarianism. It follows, of course, quite logical: Absolute non-violence = Support a violent dictatorship. Got that?
While we're at dictatorship at every execution, is supported by the reports from the distant United States in this country, can be among the many clear-thinking people find that they abhor such practices deeply. Who comes with the accusation that opponents of the death penalty would show only their indignation, when a tyrant is executed, has simply no idea and / or no better argument. Furthermore, these people even of the existence of such this or this organization be elucidated. The federal government distanced itself even publicly about the death penalty (by the way the first Time in my life that I agree with Merkel), even if the brain-sick sentence followed respect that the sentence.
In any case, I have the pictures on television very shocked. I never would have thought it possible that if in 2006 such a primitive act also on public display. to that with the United States of all the nation that claims to be a great democracy, still performs in much of the death penalty, although only one of very many reasons why this most dangerous nation in the world always see critical needs, but It is an important one. Obviously, what we in Europe "Enlightenment" call, completely gone over to the Americans.
I am very convinced atheist. Although I know you can be that the only possible attitude a scientific agnostic. for me are people who believe in God, salvation in the hereafter, or other nonsense, just too weak or too lazy to think for themselves. I am from as deep conviction against any of the death penalty. The first argument is simple and obvious, namely that it is simply primitive, to follow this stupid "eye-for-eye" slogan from a papierverschwendenden tome. It is understandable that parents, abused and murdered their child was the person responsible for it will "fry" see. I can (thankfully) put themselves not really in this situation, if one has to survive his child. But if all decisions are made emotionally, we are not far away from a world final destructive anarchy. A couple of arguments and facts that are for me absolutely conclusive:
- The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment
The case law in this country is often too lax, no question. When I see on TV so-called psychologists, with their opinions convicted felon and is released set and then, after it has once again killed, no guilt feelings, then I pissed. Lifetime should actually ALWAYS hot for life. Lifetime Insulation is a very great punishment. And it is for the community cheaper than execution. In Texas - for the supporters of the primitive certainly a paradise - it costs an execution taxpayers $ 2,300,000. More than three times as much as 40 years in solitary confinement at the highest level of security!
further infos check here .
- sex offenders think at the time of the murder precisely NOT to the possible punishment!
As sex offender defined as a person because of a " mental defect " an instinct (desire) can not operate normally and by the obsessive exerting a gratification of action and / or its environmental harm . Such a man is always a relapse if he returns released. He can never imagine the consequences, because - is ill - see above! So this is much used argument that a sex offender is a murder, the "consent" to the death penalty, simply complete nonsense.
- The death penalty has not a deterrent!
The death penalty has never been a deterrent. Statistical studies and their scientific analysis could not provide evidence about the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
There is no evidence to suggest that would increase the abolition of the death penalty, the number of violent crimes and murders. An investigation by the United Nations, which was published in 1980, there is no valid evidence that would have spoken in favor of maintaining the death penalty.
Albert Pierrepoint, the UK for 25 years first was hangman, said: "All the men and women whom I faced in her last moment, have convinced me that I could stop with my work not a single murder, "
In countries where capital punishment was abolished, could not detect any increase in violent crime the contrary..: In a study from 1983 examined the number of murders in 14 countries, after the abolition of the death penalty. It turned out that after the abolition of the murders by half decreased. A New York study of murders from 1980 shows that 1903-1963 after each execution, an increase of two murders a month.
was in Canada was the number of murders in 2001 with 554 23% lower than 1975 (721), a year before the death penalty was abolished. The death penalty deter potential terrorists and their plan does not. Psychiatrists who have made a study of hijackings recommend strongly not to apply the death penalty in such cases as this crime appear more spectacular. In a hopeless situation, a terrorist will destroy everything rather blindly, though he knows that he risks the death penalty.
The death penalty does tend to be so brutalizing rather than a deterrent, because it sends the clear signal to society that the state considers the killing of a person under certain circumstances be justified means.
4th "death" and "punishment" contradict each other!
What is punishment? At Wikipedia, we find this definition: " The penalty is an aggressive act against the to criminal ends, which is performed as a result of a norm-violating behavior by to criminal ends and is therefore considered contrary to other forms of aggression as legitimate. normally takes place Punishment with the motivation of education for the better or the goal of protecting the general population. In democratic countries the punishment usually is done by the institutions of the state. "If one believes that the punishment of the offender not the primary objective, but the protection of the community, then may the word" use death penalty "as well.
5th No one has the right to decide on who should live and who is not
For me, the most important and valid argument. An examination of the land law is sufficient to realize that we, fortunately, never in the Federal Republic of Germany Death penalty will receive. Article 1 is to be mentioned because of course, but also Article 2 ("Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity"). The UN, which, paradoxically, the U.S. members have, in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a " of all peoples and nations to reach common ideal ." formulated to a relapse into the barbarism of the 2nd to prevent world war. Under Article 3 it: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5: No one shall be Torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Good thing the U.S. are generally not willing to adhere to human rights, unless it serves their own purpose is known. But why should not slide well, the rest of the world in intellectual flying low through life. Everyone has a value, no matter what he did. It is for the community to protect these people from the general public and never to let them live in freedom. To kill but no one has the right. I advise anyone who is so very much for the death penalty to go with once a delinquent over time and to attend his execution. Then it would be tantamount away from the retribution howl. If one time sex offenders are disregarded, one should also make it absolutely clear once more that we could prevent many murders, if you were to end the oppression of the lower social classes. Anyone who in this country vocal advocates harsh penalties as the only true means of combating crime should think twice about whether he really wants to live in a society in which one tries to solve the social problem in that large number of people are socially disadvantaged, discriminated against be marginalized, imprisoned and killed, rather than address the root causes of poverty and violence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment