Some comments, exceptionally city, connected to current events provide the right for a "refresher" of why and how it can legitimately be in favor of the death penalty .
The striking example of current sees a crime as heinous fact. An alleged offender
, banged on the front page as a "monster", "ogre" and so on and so forth, and followed by an avalanche of doubt as to who may have been the material executor of the crime, ie man or woman who has killed and groped decided to clear the body. In such a situation
the crime deserves the death penalty forecast.
I doubt lead to not impose the even if it were allowed.
would be different if it was, unequivocally and without alternatives that present themselves today, was can give a name to some responsible.
So, first of all, the search for truth, evidence confirming that even if the confessions had been issued. A prosecutor
that collects and evaluates evidence and evidence and a defense to have full access to the evidence gathered by the prosecution to refute them or interpret them. But it is also a fundamental
judge who is not party to the prosecution and defense and, to be such, must get to its role in different ways than the other two actors that can not be associated with him.
A judge who is able to be impervious to the pressures of the square (who still want a culprit), who can also impose the maximum penalty and, to be such, must have experience and come from a professional position that does not already sound causes him to succumb to the temptation of the spotlight.
A judge who respond only to written law and not the ideologies represented by his personal influence or theorems which can have political power or the religious . But if we can agree on
prudence with which to impose the maximum penalty, we can not deny its positive effect for social peace , to satisfy the spirit of justice, which alone can have confidence in the role of the state and avoid the legitimacy of private revenge.
A role of justice which must marry the protection of honest citizens from possible recurrence of crime by the same individuals.
or their presence as a negative example that would lead others to commit crimes in the same way.
An example of the kind we have when we read, as in recent days, the red terrorists benefited from a too-permissive legislation declaring : why should I repent? It 's true I killed him, but I only shot the enemy . With this
justifying, in a sense, their criminal activities and creating the perception that a murder carried out by shooting the enemy "deserved, as here, a lighter penalty as if that victim was worth less than other .
But, above all, demonstrating that the lack of repentance makes them potentially repeat offenders, where there is occasions, circumstances and motivations . The death penalty
, imposed with the guarantees of equality between the prosecution and defense of independence and competence of the court, becomes a legitimate and fair punishment .
Entra ne
The striking example of current sees a crime as heinous fact. An alleged offender
, banged on the front page as a "monster", "ogre" and so on and so forth, and followed by an avalanche of doubt as to who may have been the material executor of the crime, ie man or woman who has killed and groped decided to clear the body. In such a situation
the crime deserves the death penalty forecast.
I doubt lead to not impose the even if it were allowed.
would be different if it was, unequivocally and without alternatives that present themselves today, was can give a name to some responsible.
So, first of all, the search for truth, evidence confirming that even if the confessions had been issued. A prosecutor
that collects and evaluates evidence and evidence and a defense to have full access to the evidence gathered by the prosecution to refute them or interpret them. But it is also a fundamental
judge who is not party to the prosecution and defense and, to be such, must get to its role in different ways than the other two actors that can not be associated with him.
A judge who is able to be impervious to the pressures of the square (who still want a culprit), who can also impose the maximum penalty and, to be such, must have experience and come from a professional position that does not already sound causes him to succumb to the temptation of the spotlight.
A judge who respond only to written law and not the ideologies represented by his personal influence or theorems which can have political power or the religious . But if we can agree on
prudence with which to impose the maximum penalty, we can not deny its positive effect for social peace , to satisfy the spirit of justice, which alone can have confidence in the role of the state and avoid the legitimacy of private revenge.
A role of justice which must marry the protection of honest citizens from possible recurrence of crime by the same individuals.
or their presence as a negative example that would lead others to commit crimes in the same way.
An example of the kind we have when we read, as in recent days, the red terrorists benefited from a too-permissive legislation declaring : why should I repent? It 's true I killed him, but I only shot the enemy . With this
justifying, in a sense, their criminal activities and creating the perception that a murder carried out by shooting the enemy "deserved, as here, a lighter penalty as if that victim was worth less than other .
But, above all, demonstrating that the lack of repentance makes them potentially repeat offenders, where there is occasions, circumstances and motivations . The death penalty
, imposed with the guarantees of equality between the prosecution and defense of independence and competence of the court, becomes a legitimate and fair punishment .
Entra ne
0 comments:
Post a Comment