EU sneakily re-introduces the death penalty?

www.currentconcerns.ch...

what do you think?

Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty
Europe’s citizens demand wide discussion
by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

Following a ruling of the Federal Constitution Court of Karlsruhe, democracy in general, states under the rule of law and welfare states remain at the mercy of the Brussels dictate. The supranationality of the EU is hardly debilitated. Not much change can be expected in terms of depriving national states of their power and nations of their rights. Yet only nations have the legitimate right to exercise legal power. Large or small scale politics requires a plebiscite free from manipulation. The Lisbon Treaty is a decision from the “top”, and not based on the knowledge of free people of their rights. So called “guarantees” and “side laws” do not help get over this fact. Similarly, the possibility of reintroducing death penalty on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty requires objective discussion and a plebiscite. Whoever wants to build a European Europe can still leave the Union (Art. a (50) EUC in order to force a treaty that is in the interest of nations and citizens and that takes the freedom of citizens and peoples into serious consideration.

It is not really new you know.

It stated before the treaty was signed that when the EU thinks you cause terrorist mayhem ( or just take part of a illegal protest ) or betray the the EU the Death penalty can be implemented.

Worrying indeed.

The Lisbon treaty is a work in progress and subject to change. Most countries have abolished the death penalty even though some laws within countries still allow death penalties in regards to certain violations of law. England theres only 2 possible ways of getting the death sentence one is harming a member of the royal family and breaking into naval dockyards. Just because the law states it dosent mean it will happen and most EU countries are appalled by the notion of a death penalty. I dont think its anything to worry about but I am curious as to why they want it in the first place.

They brought the whole EU in under 'sneakiness'...


This is not surprising.


The death penalty s a wrong thing and completely outdated in civilized society.

The State should not have the right to kill to punish, nor should anyone else.

Murder in the name of anything is a sin, and murder in the name of the State is a crime against humanity!

Originally posted by Goethe
They brought the whole EU in under 'sneakiness'...


The death penalty s a wrong thing and completely outdated in civilized society.
The State should not have the right to kill to punish, nor should anyone else.
Murder in the name of anything is a sin, and murder in the name of the State is a crime against humanity!

Exactly what I think it is.

I would even say it is far more repulsive.

For some people dead is the easy way out.
Governments that punish a crime with a crime are to me nothing more then a hypocrite and hideous institute.

Originally posted by loner007
England theres only 2 possible ways of getting the death sentence one is harming a member of the royal family and breaking into naval dockyards.

8th of November 1965. Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act passed which effectively abolished capital punishment but provided for another vote on it "within 5 years." Treason, piracy with violence and arson in Royal Dockyards remained capital crimes.

16th & 18th of December 1969. The House of Commons and House of Lords respectively confirmed abolition of capital punishment for murder.

1971. Arson in Royal Dockyards ceased to be a capital offence, or in fact any specific offence.

1998. Death penalty abolished for crimes committed under military jurisdiction.

20th of May 1998. On a free vote during a debate on the Human Rights Bill, MP’s decided by 294 to 136, a 158 majority, to adopt provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights outlawing capital punishment for murder except "in times of war or imminent threat of war." The Bill incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.

July 31st, 1998. The Criminal Justice Bill of this year removed High Treason and piracy with violence as capital crimes, thus effectively ending capital punishment.

27th of January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to 1998 but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceding 30 years, that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed/ex]
source

so as you can see there are no longer any offences in the UK that carry the death penalty.

edit for spelling


[edit on 6/5/10 by executioner]

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

For some people dead is the easy way out.
Governments that punish a crime with a crime are to me nothing more then a hypocrite and hideous institute.

What is a crime, is tax payers having to support the life of people who deserve not to be here anymore. Do you have any idea what it costs a tax payer to sustain the life of some of these people in prison?

Perhaps you would not feel this way, if somebody you knew was affected by a rapist, or murderer.

Revitiscism rates show, that repeat offenders do not deserve a life outside of the system. If you think otherwise, please forward all your income to incarcerate these people!

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas


What is a crime, is tax payers having to support the life of people who deserve not to be here anymore. Do you have any idea what it costs a tax payer to sustain the life of some of these people in prison?

Perhaps you would not feel this way, if somebody you knew was affected by a rapist, or murderer.

Revitiscism rates show, that repeat offenders do not deserve a life outside of the system. If you think otherwise, please forward all your income to incarcerate these people!

Forgive me if I was not clear enough for you. I will explain.

I believe the issue was the death penalty with that in mind I said crime.

I believe a murderer or a rapist should not be allowed in our society.
The situation of the act calls for an expert to decide what should be the punishment. However I'm against the death penalty because I think it is not our place to decide over life and death and however someone did murder I think it is hypocrite for us to do to them when it is considered evil in the first place.

I would love any rapist to get raped, they probably are in prison.
But they might like it. Who knows.

I know how it feels to have someone close murdered, if it makes you feel better.

Revitiscism rates. I'm sorry but did I give the idea that someone should not be punished when they commited a crime ?
When a murderer gets back on the street I would say someone made a mistake when the murderer kills again.

The only thing I'm against is the death penalty.
Any government can easily cut some of their deffense budget to keep criminals of the street.

I don't really understand hw you class a rapist the same as a murderer.

Edit.
What's wrong with making them work for there stay anyway.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

How do I classify rape the same as a murder? How about the victim having to live over and over again, the crime, beginning with a rape kit that is used in hospitals. How about having to re-live the rape itself, when having to face the person in court?

I have a very dear friend who was tied to a bed, gang raped, and then she was set on fire when they finished with her. She has to live with this the rest of her life. The rape stole her life. She is not dead, but, her life will never be the same, so her life was stolen, in the same fashion as being murdered.

I was also raped, myself, as a child, and an adult. I do tend to dwell on how my life would have been different, if these things did not happen to me, so, I may be biased.

What the pont is here, is some people should not be given the right to be fed even bread and water. Some people, not only kill a part of life for their victims, but for the families..........it's never ending for the survivors, or their families, or for the families of victims who were killed.

Wouldn't you rather spend you money on a movie, soda and popcorn, than pay taxes to support, sometimes for decades people who commit these crimes?

I cannot sleep, without waking at the slightest noise, cannot walk, or drive down the street without thinking somebody is targeting me. I freak out if somebody asks me a question out of the blue while I am grocery shopping. My life, is not what it should have, could have been. I was robbed of a normal life. Why should a rapist not suffer the same fate?

I guess, with what I have been through, and have seen other people go through, I am, the walking dead.

Death is too good, for some of these criminals, and every breath of oxygen they get off this planet, is one too many for my liking!

reply to post by Blanca Rose


I'm very sorry to hear this happened to you and your friend.
Honestly from the bottom of my heart.

I think it's repulsive people do these things.

I would like to say, today rapist do not get the death penalty.( As far as I know of that is.)
I understand very well that the life of a victim can be ruined.

This doesn't really affect what the threat was about.

I know there are a lot of useless governments spending. There are also alot of spending I wouldn't want one penny of mine to go to.

To make my point simple. I'm against murder. The death penalty is still murder. Even worse it's murder in the 1th degree.
So for me it doesn't matter what someone has done his or her death sentence is not going to make thing better and if I knew that my money would be used for it I would feel just as guilty. I rather see them rot their miserable lives in prison. I prefer a nice American prison not one in my country.

You say death is to good for them.
I say you're right let them suffer behind bars. Let them know what they have done and let them feel all there time slowly but steady slip away from them.

I would really like you to know that this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to tell or force it on you.

I'm truly sorry for the pain you done to you.
But it doesn't change my mind on the death penalty.

I do however would like it if there would be physical punishments.
Like whip lashes or something.

And sexual abuse should be awarded with the removal of the genitals.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yes, murder is murder. We can't, unfortunately in either of our countries, just put these criminals out to dry on some island. They languish, even with a death penalty, for years, even in an American prison system, at the tax payer expense.

They don't sit there and ponder their actions, they sit and think about how they can position themselves in prison life. They are still alive, just have to figure a new way on how to maneuver their existance. In many cases, some of these creeps think prison life is better than anything else. They are guaranteed a bed, a shower, and meals. They can sit back and have no worry about anything, like how to pay for housing, and meals.

Meantime, the vicims are out in the real world, trying to maintain life, on a day to day basis. Victims still have to pay rent, and pay for everything else, while having to get past what they endured, with sometimes physical scars, as well as most certainly emotional scars.

I do believe in assisted suicide, so to me, a death sentence for a violent prisoner is like that. They go out peacefully, like a cancer patient. They are like a cancer on society.

Why let a cancer lanquish and fester?

reply to post by Blanca Rose


I do understand why you think so. Very much even.
I would even give a rope myself, No actually I wouldn't.
I wouldn't interfere.

But on the death penalty I guess we just disagree.

Shall we agree to disagree on this one ?

I would like to hear what you think about the OP his point actualy cause if I remember correct the treaty said something like this :

When a person is a terrorist or has a terrorist agenda what could lead to civil unrest or war ( there was suggested this also counts when part of an illegal protest against ) this would be considered treason and punishable by death.

However there were a few rules ( easily overrun by EU government) that would have to be put in practise.

I'd consider this a bad thing cause this isn't just for murderers or other crimes but for anyone who dares to protest. ( If it ever gets that far )

I know a lot of ifs but the possibility is there for the taking.

Edit to make but out of nut.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


My feeling on this is..........if a person aims to kill people by way of being a terrorist, and, like the failed bomber in NYC, that death might be too good for them.

Why? Because they have links most the time, for their actions. They are brainwashed into comitting these types of acts, and don't do them a lot of time, without being coerced into them.

They should not be put to death, but gleened for every bit of useful information that can be had.

People who do things of this sort, should be put to work in morgues, cleaning up bodies of victims killed by violent crimes.

Don't let them sit their butt in a cell passing time.

Make them be useful for what they did, or proposed to do!

There are jobs, that a lot of these criminals can be doing, for no pay, to repay their debt to society.

reply to post by Blanca Rose


You are right. I 100 % agree with you on it.

I have even mentioned something like it.

What's wrong with making them work for there stay anyway.

Blanca, I'm really sorry for what happened to you, but maybe if you let go of the ideas of revenge, you would feel better?

It's just a thought though, I don't mean to sound bossy or anything.