Over Waxed Bonefish Grill

Introduction to the conference "The death penalty and criminal law for enemies

Conference organized by Hands & Brains (May 20, 2010)

The themes of the conference today, "Criminal Law enemy "and" The Death Penalty from a Human Rights Perspective "arising from the escalation in public discourse and political enforcement aspect as intended solution to the increase in number, visibility violence and criminal activity, being the ultimate expression of this pattern of thought proposed death penalty or life imprisonment and the constant questioning of the validity of the fundamental rights proper to a democratic state of law, seen as obstacles in the "fight against evil" directed at general to common crime and not other forms of crime less "spectacular" but perhaps even more harmful in terms of number of casualties and negative effects on society.

worth asking the question, who kills more, the common killer, political, official and corrupt businessman who diverted public funds from social investment programs to their surroundings, the armies that silenced people who decide to change social structures, speculators who destroy productive economies, or economic model is based on the dispossession of many and the accumulation in a few hands , making food, education, health, culture and work scarce goods in the midst of wealth and overconsumption?

The negative consequences on the possibilities of generating different social conditions, structurally less violent at the root, for a safer social life in every way, for anyone, at any time of life, without claiming any way justify the common killer, but if you question our double standards as a society and a weak analysis of the problem, in which of the above examples is larger?

few weeks ago on the blog of M & C conducted a survey, not science, distributed via email and social networks, but provides some data from the question Do you think the death penalty as an option effective and acceptable to fight crime?

47% is as unacceptable as ineffective, not even worth paying attention as an option

absolutely unacceptable 27% (pure moral)

9% support the establishment of the death penalty in Panama (without much argument)

5% is an acceptable option, although ineffective / effective and acceptable in the fight against crime / other

For various media were also collected views:

• "the most stupid proposal I've heard"

• "does not solve anything is to go back to the time and outdated"

• "the killing must kill "

• " oh yes, you have to shoot launders money to bankers, the businessmen who pay to be masks of organized crime, pedophile priests, politicians who attack public affairs, the national security authorities to sell weapons to criminals ... "

• "We are in a state of collective immaturity to accept this situation within our legal system ... Also, would necessarily involve the amendment of the Constitution "

• " I do not agree with that, is a superficial solution to the problems as Panamanians ... "

• " is a reversion to barbarism ... "

• " consider only estimable for one offense and is the violation of a child "

• " have a corrupt system. .. and support the death penalty law ... influences the use of corruption is very common here in Panama ... Now take a person and sentenced to death ... you do not know whether to kill it involved using the evil influences ... after his death is ascertained that he was innocent ... who respond to the damage ... believe that someone would charge for the "alleged" mistake? "

• "if arbitrarily arrested every day in these operations Panamanian social prophylaxis, or as when collected in one trammel to SUNTRACS and bystanders during the marches of the past two weeks, do we ensure that capital sentences not be equally absurd and discretionary? ... lends itself to many horrible things "

• " is a bad idea. As the use of food crops (maize) to make fuel while people ... starve "

• " is as unacceptable as ineffective because in those countries that there is not longer given the atrocities that we read every day in the media "

• " to great evils great remedies. In cases of violation of infants under 10, disabled or mentally retarded, murder for robbery, where present, offenders are over protected by the misnamed "human rights" ... Why the hell, the misnamed "human rights are not going to USA to claim the rights of those convicted of first degree and send them to the" toaster? "I do not agree with the injection, which will apply the toaster. .. I also agree that this penalty is applied to all the unfortunates who traffic in drugs, which poison our society "

• " An eye for an eye and end all blind. The death penalty has not solved the problems of any civilization. On the contrary, promotes the spiral of violence. Social conflict resolution passed by transforming a culture of violence and death in a culture of peace based on social justice and common welfare. Cultivate social equity and will not need so many prisons or actions as irrational as the death penalty "

A final contribution makes several references to a study by the University of Barcelona:

• not been proven, the penalty fulfills a preventive function generally negative, or of intimidation of potential offenders.

• courts to exercise a choice among the perpetrators, whether for economic or ethnic-racial ... difference causes economic resources compared to the same criminal act, some may be assisted by professionals with more rigor than the other. As regards the ethnic factor also in the U.S., certain sectors are more conducive to this kind of sentences. Thus, Chicanos, blacks, etc ... are borne by offenders on death penalty

• irreversibility of the death penalty in respect of judicial error ... there is a risk of convicting an innocent ... can not compensate the subject for the error.

Returning to the survey results, combining the efficiency and acceptability items contained in the possible answers: the highest percentage (47%) of respondents to dismiss the death penalty on ethical and at the technical, 74% believe the death penalty unacceptable and 52% considered ineffective, while that 14% accept or support, although a third of those who show no ethical opposition do not believe in its effectiveness, and only 5% considered it effective. That is, the poll shows more room for debate on the ability of the morality of the proposal, and that given the current political debate focuses not on the abstract to accept or not the death of a person as punishment for the commission of a crime, but just at the concrete level of ability of the proposal to solve the social problem of insecurity, crime and violence.

course, ethical opposition plays in favor of the general opposition to a proposal that never established in any where in the world be a solution to the problem, but fortunately can be supported by scientific reasons for that populism and demagoguery of our latitudes, do not drive by way of emotion in public opinion towards greater adoption of political discourse allow the transformation of the legal system for the incorporation of the death penalty.

The objective of this activity is to share criteria for evaluating public safety initiatives from a human rights perspective, exposing the political and ideological speech element that identifies as potential enemy to individuals and accounts for the emphasis in the repressive control by a variety of instruments used with a close to the arbitrary discretion on those least engaged in civil rights in our democratic system and very imperfect rule of law on, and those who question such a situation, as befits a society marked by inequality, exclusion and perverse traditional exercise of power.

A comprehensive safety proposal must be based on the life of all human rights for all, which does not deny the punishment of the offender, but always considering particularities, complexities and inherent human dignity of every person, looking profound solutions and sustainable solutions to the problems of social structure.