Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-11-Speech-4-227"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100311.18.4-227"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
‘Every person shall have the right to life. If not, the killer unwittingly achieves a final and perverse moral victory by making the state a killer too, thus reducing social abhorrence at the conscious extinction of human beings’ (Amnesty International, 1998). Morality, deterrence and fairness are key in the debate on the death penalty. The ‘crime control’ approach seeks repression of criminal conduct, while the ‘human rights/due process’ model emphasises individual rights. The former considers the death penalty moral because the defendant took a life (retribution), a deterrent because those who might kill refrain from doing so fearing for their life, while fairness is unimportant or unproven. The latter model claims that death penalty is immoral because the state should not take a life, is not a deterrent – as shown by statistics – and is unfairly administered, sometimes people on death row being innocent and their trials involving irregularities. I believe in the human rights model, as reflected by the international community in hard and soft law, and by the increasing number of countries abolishing the death penalty. I urge the Republic of Korea to show a clear political will abolishing the death penalty, and, until then, to immediately adopt a moratorium on its application."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples