Ask Friedrich Naumann

This debate corner is for discussion purposes only. While all views are welcome, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty reserves the right to remove posts it considers not related or disruptive.


Post Your Comment | Back to Main Discussion

On Death Penalty

....U don't hav d right to kill ur felowmen becoz it's a mortal sin against the eyes of GOD!!!..wats d use of prison bars???,wat if u r convicted of a crime that u didn't do??,dba unfair un...

Posted by: Chiara
Date posted: Jan 07,2008
Replied by: Deep | Date replied: Nov 17,2009

DEATH PENALTY is suck. Human justice is not accurate. There are so many people had been punished to die for the crime they never committed.
Life imprisonment without parole should be great.


Replied by: john | Date replied: Sep 02,2009

shuold the death penalty law be restored for heinous crime like illegal drug trafficking


Replied by: obed dela cruz | Date replied: Jun 08,2009

Death penalty is not appropriate for all punishments!

Our justice system is the one that needs to be changed! Everyone has the rights to live. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE GOOD POSSIBLITIES!

If you are familiar to our Constitution, you must be familiar with its Preamble, Article II, Article III, and other articles!

GET THE CONCEPT OF IT!


Replied by: dhenn | Date replied: Aug 10,2008

death penalty does not really particular on its detterent to crime, rather it is the consequence of evil-doing..


Friedrich Naumann says... | Date replied: Feb 21,2008

Liberals believe in the importance of the rule of law and the universality of human rights. It ensures that individuals are protected from the abuse of authority or power.

The most important human right is the right to life. Thus, there is no legitimacy in taking another?s life. The only exception would be in self-defense. Thus liberals oppose the death penalty. Society cannot demand punishment that completely negates a person?s right to life. It cannot invoke self-defense because it can be protected from dangerous criminals through life imprisonment. Human justice is fallible. There is always the risk of a wrong conviction ? especially for poor criminals who cannot afford good lawyers. Since the death penalty is irreversible, it offers no way to correct a mistake at a later date. Life imprisonment does. Capital punishment also takes away the opportunity for the criminal to atone for his crime and to make amends, in whatever way he can.

There is also no strong evidence that the death penalty lowers the crime rate. Many reports show that countries without it have even lower incidences of crime than those that advocate capital punishment. You may, of course, argue that there are also other reports that support the contrary. You will be right, but what that will show is there is no conclusive evidence, no unanimous agreement. That's not good enough. The death penalty would have to be far superior to life imprisonment as a deterrent in order to make a case that society needs it for its own protection. That case cannot be made.

When fighting crime we also have to remember to focus on factors that cause crime, for example, poverty, discrimination, lack of opportunities, etc. Liberals are working to address these through promoting a free market economy and working to strengthen the rule of law. A crime prevented has a much lower social cost than a crime committed and punished.

We also need to reform the penal system to make it about rehabilitation and not just about punishment. Mechanisms should be put into place to protect prisoners? rights and give them real access to the legal system. There should also be programs that help released prisoners reintegrate smoothly back into society.

A large number of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. This has to be seen as a failure of the penal system. Maybe we should hold heads and employees of prisons accountable for crimes committed by their former inmates and/or reward those prisons with the lowest rate of repeat offences.

It is true that sometimes life imprisonment does not seem to be appropriate justice for an innocent life taken away. In anger and in grief, many families have wished for death as payment for the life or lives they have lost. But what does a punitive form of justice achieve? It does not lead to healing. Instead, it could lead to a bitter, angry and vengeful society bent on punishment instead of rehabilitation. Mahatma Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The task of a legal system is to protect the welfare of its members. While this function includes punishment, it does not imply revenge.

Replied by: faisal ilyas dar | Date replied: Jan 07,2008

The real essence of penalities can be understood by the level of deviance or crimes created in a society, and those results which are concluded through this deviance.

To eliminate the crimes from the society, penalties are indispensable; the frequency of the penalty must subjetc to the height of the crime or deviance in that particular society.

In my view, the best solution of deciding penalty(ies) for someone is to penalize the accused with the same frequecy which he or she committed against the innocent; hand against hand, eye against eye, leg against leg and life against life.

So, if someone is given death penalty and if he or she deserves it, then it is not a mortal sin. It is necessary to implement such penalties to save further lives. I am waiting for the reply of Friedrich Naumann regarding this issue.



Post your comment
Name:
E-mail:
Comment to
this post:
 Security
 Image:
Security Code
 Type Security Code
 (lowercase):
 
Stay in touch, subscribe to our regular e-newsletter at newsletter@fnf.org.ph. Listen to
The Liberal Times Manila Podcast at http://www.fnf.org.ph/podcast