Death penalty: pro or con?
Published: 26 July, 2009, 10:18
Although the death penalty has been abolished by more than two thirds of the world, over two thousand people were executed last year. Web journalist Lori “The Resident” Harfenist has New Yorkers’ say on the issue.
Personnally, on extrem cases when premeditation is prooved, all violent rapes and murders or crimes against Humanity must be solved by the death penalty. I came back to France after 20 years spent in America. Since 1985; practically all murders committed in France (mostly on small children and women) were done by recidivists. Our "business-lawyers", judges, politicians and medias always talk about the victims and criminals' rights but never of the second victim's rights, who will not be a victim if societies will assume their responsabilities: A judged violent criminal must never have the opportunity to commit an other crime (there are other ways than death). Naturally, a simplest and most efficient justice system will make many judges and lawyers jobless. Same thing apply in most countries which abolished the death penalty. Humans' hypocrisy has no limits: When Misters Mitterrand and Badinter, in my country, abolished the death penalty; at the same time they condamned to death women, children and young military personals who had the bad luck to be on the trajectory of our marveallous weapons sold all over the World. Those decisions' makers and many others all over the planet made a lot of money, that way. Everybody knows but no-one does anything about it. Sorry Future Generations. Best Regards ! Jean-Claude Meslin
We always start the debate at the wrong point. We start it at the point of an eye for an eye, the point of punishment meeting the crime. Where we should start is; given an imperfect legal justice system, which exists everywhere in the world, is it acceptable to kill innocent people for utility sake. For what would their eye for an eye in terms of retribution be. Are the judges, prosecutors and police willing to accept being put to death, when an innocent has been executed or charges framed and proven incorrectly. I think not, so until the death penalty can extract its pound of flesh from the guilty and take not one drop of innocent blood. Then we cannot even begin to argue the merits and de-merits of its use. Until such time, the death penalty remains un-useable, becuase it allows no appeal, to deal with the known and acknowledged deficiencies within all legal systems.