Main points: mental pathologies, stopping further mental pains/agony for the imprisoned, stopping "prison gamies", best line for victims/offenders aside, much crime in the World.
Not best presentation (even for blog), but here is:
The Case over the Death Sentence
That I cite the disagreement over the opposition to the death sentence for "non-principal" and that this has a specific reasoning.
Apart:
I also dispute that the UDHR article 3 or some, "The right to life" defends against the death penalty because the UDHR doesn't cover punishment for criminals (who truly deserve it).
Still, though, all matters regarded, according to Article 3 of UDHR, Amnesty Int. has the explicit duty to see the (European) populations armed with personal weaponry in light of highly criminal Europe, rife crime throughout Europe, even down to risking our "humanistic" fine line of peace (defeating Hitler, negotiating peace with Gandhi, other humanistic goals such as peace itself, under EU)!
A signal for approval of "carnivore mentalities" as the normative to society is no good either, rewarding the murderers with "extended life" and "possible jail-breaks (with a blind eye or not" while of course, the victim gets DEATH and the relatives (of a good person) loose an important person in their lives, with deep griefs to go, the beloved forever gone from their lives.
The Pro-Side for the Death Sentence Legislation
Mind you, being part of the pro-death side (humanistic and non-principal) in them, the murderers/"the torture to death"-murderers having removed from the surface of Earth 1 (eternal) human being, The Bible Law of Retribution (old testament), the opposition you will meet: mental pathologies, i.e., the people who behave maliciously no matter what with murders and the rest to go. Humanistic: with use of anasthetics (cocaine disallowed because of "mildness") to four electrically fired shots to heart and brain, prisoner to be seated, or guillotine (inside law and order, NOT rebellion, and meditated/by ruling, not headless, head down or side-ways, sharp guillotine blade and both guaranteeing instant death. Well, well, this is the start for you, this is our argument we ask you to consider... Also refer to legal systems today, with widespread crime (incl. torture, like strangulation/suffocation and murders, other, one way or other)
Conclusion: one should still consider the death penalty because holding up hate inside prison cell for more than 20 years most often, has no meaning!
The lying over the premises for the Abolition of the Death Sentences
1. That law and order is respected throughout the countries and if information allows it, problems have been dealt with - LIE!
2. The fact that the state does not kill is also a LIE because it does kill some people, and especially attack the young and exposed. That is, the state does kill by its corruption.
3. There have been promises over the health too, and one such promise has been over the performance of those who have had higher education, i.e., university and college. These people have been said to perform reasonably well given that behaviour has been a calm and orderly, decent clothing included or "up to one's best ability". - LIE!
4. There have also been descriptive problems throughout the legal systems and some people have considered the legal matters not possible to fit into a system at all. Given that these descriptive can get solved, the promise has been that progress would obtain likewise. LIE!
5. Even the mere corruption by police (incl. the lawyers) and medical doctors kill substantially, without much attention at all. The systems defends the killers and the LIEs!
6. We have been told that very insane people would be taken care of by the psychiatric hospitals and that insane people would be kept away from the general public, that the mental pathologies of people have been contained. LIE! (Rather they are propelled by various shoving (physical violence up to and including torture) and rewarding corruption and crime.)
7. A slight point on the contemporary "carnivore psychologies". That people have an inbuilt sense, the psychologists have claimed to kill and LIE about killing.
Conclusion: the state does kill by corruption and killers get away with it too, as the LIEs are defended more or less systematically.
Note: My latest efforts in presenting improvements for the legal systems throughout the World esp. by the 4 lie detectors used at once or not, along with the efforts of others, may turn these current problems entirely around.
Note2: The "carnivore psychologists" are about to suffer definite losses and are likely to disappear from the World if matters pick up.
Note3: It is Amnesty International (with references to Nazi-Germany and Cambodia and Red Khmer among others) which is most known for the "if the state starts killing people...", at least, they have picked up on the principle of a non-killing state for a very long time. One that I admit to having believed in, reading about Amensty Int. handbook of 144 pages or so, back in the early 90s or so.
Note4: An extra note is that the blatant police corruption (in Europe) makes it useful to use the military for 10 days in delivering as much pistols to the populations as necessary and that people with fears for handguns can abstain from collecting theirs and produce, possibly, a medical excuse for this (lack of personal weapon) later.
Dear ECPM
Mind you, being part of the pro-death side (humanistic and non-principal) in them, the murderers/"the torture to death"-murderers having removed from the surface of Earth 1 (eternal) human being, The Bible Law of Retribution (old testament), the opposition you will meet: mental pathologies, i.e., the people who behave maliciously no matter what with murders and the rest to go. Humanistic: with use of anasthetics (cocaine disallowed because of "mildness") to four electrically fired shots to heart and brain, prisoner to be seated, or guillotine (inside law and order, NOT rebellion, and meditated/by ruling, not headless, head down or side-ways, sharp guillotine blade and both guaranteeing instant death. Well, well, this is the start for you, this is our argument we ask you to consider... Also refer to legal systems today, with widespread crime (incl. torture, like strangulation/suffocation and murders, other, one way or other).
Conclusion: one should still consider the death penalty because holding up hate inside prison cell for more than 20 years most often, has no meaning!
A signal for approval of "carnivore mentalities" as the normative to society is no good either, rewarding the murderers with "extended life" and "possible jail-breaks (with a blind eye or not" while of course, the victim gets DEATH and the relatives (of a good person) loose an important person in their lives, with deep griefs to go, the beloved forever gone from their lives. (ECPM has duties to make information follow-up and inform members of the best arguments the opposition has!)
Sincerely yours,
Lenny F. Olsnes-Lea
(Norway)
ECPM - 5e Congrès Mondial / 5th World Congress / 5o Congreso Mundial
Some links to them so we make sure to update the discussion quickly, also evaluating the data-set: https://twitter.com/Abolition_2013 - CongrèsAbolition2013 (Abolition_2013) on Twitter
http://congres.abolition.fr/?lang=en - 5th World Congress against the Death Penalty - Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM) on the internet.
Either way, we need to see to it that both sides fulfills the requirement to have its members by "informed consent".
I'm sorry that this looks a bit badly set up for now. My belief, however, is that there is surely more to add by criminal statistics and sociological data as well as some legal systems data from the courts, like frequencies of reduced sentences for serious offences, the murders, other cases of serious abuse and torture.
