Laredo Sun | News for the Laredos region
Although there have been some setbacks

Although there have been some setbacks

Is the battle to abolish the death penalty being won? Yes. Currently, two-thirds of the countries in the world have either abolished the death penalty altogether, or have stopped using it in practice.

Although there have been some setbacks, these contrast with the clear global trend towards abolition. In 2015 alone, Fiji, Madagascar and Suriname turned their backs on the death penalty once and for all. Burkina Faso, Mongolia and South Korea are on track to do so.  Europe is almost free from the death penalty. And the United States, historically one of the most refractory nations to abandon the death penalty, is becoming increasingly opposed to capital punishment.

Human rights and social defense

The death penalty debate: its advocates and opponents02/28/2007 Abstract: This article aims, from the analysis of the debate between defenders and opponents to the title, to analyze the real need for the application of capital punishment, to study the effectiveness of its introduction in the current system of laws as an instrument capable of producing the fall crime rates and the possibility of being innocuous with regard to social prophylaxis, intended by its fervent defenders.

Did this content help you? Need to buy a book? Click HERE and go straight to Livraria do Âmbito Jurídico!Summary: Introduction: The Right to Punish and the Social Contract;

Human rights and social defenseProportionality Between Offenses And Penalties; Purposes Of Punishment; Admission of the Death Penalty in the Event of War; Contrary Arguments; a) Human rights and certain religious dogmas; b) Judicial error; c) Scope of re-socialization; d) The American example; e) Uselessness of punishment as prophylaxis; f) Constitutional barrier; Favorable arguments;

Human rights and social defense; b) Economic aspect; c) Bankruptcy of the prison system; 

Conclusion; references  Introduction: The Right to Punish and the Social Contract  When men reach the stage when the obstacles that are harmful to their conservation in the state of nature, surpass the forces that each individual can use to maintain it, the imperative need for aggregation is born, in order to overcome the resistance that is established. The association, stemming from the competition of many, aims to protect the person and the assets of each member.

Any man has the right to risk his own life in order

No social organization could do without a system of penalties that would protect it, it would be inconceivable.  In the view of JJ Rousseau, the primary clause of the contract points to the total alienation of each associate, with all his rights, to the entire community, if the social pact is violated, each one returns to his first rights and resumes his natural freedom.  Any man has the right to risk his own life in order to preserve it.

  • The purpose of the social treaty is to preserve the contractors, whoever wants the ends also wants the means, and these are inseparable from certain risks, and even from certain losses.
  • When the prince says: it is useful to the State that you die, you must die, because it was only thanks to this subjection to the determinations of the pact, that until then you lived safely, and your life is no longer just a gift from nature, but a gift.
  • Conditional gift of the State.

Any criminal who attacks social law, becomes, for his crimes, a rebel and a traitor to his country and ceases to be one of its members when he violates the laws and even promotes war. In this case, the conservation of the State is incompatible with that of the delinquent, and it is necessary that one of them perishes, and when the guilty party is killed, it is less as a citizen than as an enemy.

Any man has the right to risk his own life in order

The proceedings and the trial are the evidence and the declaration that he broke the social treaty and, therefore, that he is no longer a member of the State.

However, he says, still, one should not kill

If, previously, he had recognized himself as an integral part of the community, at least because of his residence, he must be removed by exile as an infringer of the pact, or by death as a public enemy, because such an enemy is not a moral person, he is a man, and then the right of war is to kill the loser.

However, he says, still, one should not kill, even if to serve as an example, except the one that cannot be preserved without danger to the majority; which contradicts his argument that the State, by virtue of the pact, acquires full powers to dispose of the life of its members, constituting a kind of restrictive clause. Such is the reasoning of JJ Rousseau.

Refuted by Beccaria, for whom there was only a small part of the individual’s freedom in the contract, which did not deprive him of all his other rights, in compliance with this restriction, society has no power to kill any offender.

Beccaria stated that  “Laws are conditions under which independent and isolated men have joined together in society, tired of living in a continuous state of war and enjoying freedom useless due to the uncertainty of their conservation. Part of that freedom was sacrificed for them to be able to enjoy the rest with safety and tranquility.

Since individual security is the primary

Since individual security is the primaryThe sum of these portions of freedom sacrificed to the common good forms the sovereignty of a nation and the sovereign is its legitimate depositary and administrator ”.  Some crimes immediately destroy society or whoever represents it; some offend a citizen’s private security in life, property, or honor; others are actions contrary to what, by law, each is obliged to do or not to do, in view of the public good.

Since individual security is the primary aim of any legitimate association, one cannot fail to apply some of the most severe penalties imposed by law in the face of the violation of the security right acquired by the citizen-associate.

The Principle of Legality (Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege) formulated by Feuerbach, limited the State’s scope of action with regard to the application of criminal measures. This principle is inserted in art. 1 of the Penal Code: “There is no crime without a previous law that defines it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *