If you are really interested in french litterature you should also read the numerous writtings of Victor Hugo against Death Penalty

For exemple:

There are 2 essential errors in this example:

1. The 6th of the 10 Commandments does not say "Thou shall not kill." It states "Thou shall not murder."

2. G-d in the Torah (Christianity's Old Testament) clearly advocates capital punishment under certain circumstances and accompanied by certain conditions. I am personally unaware of the New Testament's outright abolishment of capital punishment. So in the eyes of whose god was Hugo referring to?

When Victor Hugo speaks to your reason, you answer with religion. The right to kill in the name of justice as nothing to do with religion. The law has nothing to do with religion. The state has nothing to do with religion. Unless you want to apply any religious text ever written. the Torah support Capital punishment so let's apply it, christianism condemn abortion so let's forbide it, islam does not recognise the freedom of women....and so on.

Moreover, each text must be kept in it's context, JJ Rousseau wrote in a time when Death Penalty was generally accepted as slavery was.

V. Hugo wrote in a time when the 1905 law on the separation of the church and the state didn't existed

(nothing personal against you but secularism is for me the most important thing for a free country)

The death penalty is a difficult thing to justify. Some could say by carrying it out you are no better than the murderer. However, in the UK murders are given "life" and are out in 8 years, its madness. Life should mean life! And why in hell should the taxpayer have to pay up for the prisons these people are kept in, with plasma TV's and gyms, they're better off than many law abiding citizens!!! Also, if we "got rid" of a number of Britains most nutorious criminals then we wouldn't be so short of prison cells. Another thing is these muslim extremists and other religious extremeists...to them death is some twisted way to "paradise", so how do you deter those who don't fear death.

This may sound harsh but its the truth, "eye for an eye", if you were facing the death penalty might make some people think twice before getting involved with crime.

Like I said before though there needs to be absolutle conclusive proof that the accused commited the crime. I could not think of a more horrifying situation than to have sentanced someone to death, only to find out he was innocent a decade later. I'm sure this discussion could go on forever, and we would still not reach a solid conclusion.

Absolute conclusive proff will never exist and for me the risk will always be too big

aside from the justice part of it does the death penalty stop people killing and will it ever and the answer is a resounding no

Is there less criminality in country applying the death penalty opposed to those who do not?
Again the answer is no

Hugo is actually appealing to his compatriots that their religion itself negates capital punishment.
Obviously not true. Deal with it.
Now that's a completely different point, which may very well be true but it was Hugo who insisted on bringing up religious convictions.
To clarify, I am only pointing out the inaccuacies of these particular arguments of Hugo's.
This is subject to interpretation. If everyone present when Hugo spoke subscribed to such interpretations, then Hugo makes sense. I have no idea what the listeners subscribed to in this regard. Do you?
Which is why he attempts to base his arguments on religious grounds.
I fully understood that.

What about the "death penalty" , rather than as a penalty to influence ones behavior, but as a means of protecting society?
It seems obvious that the less people out killing others, the better off society is.

As for correlation vs. causation, it is true that correlation does not account for causation. However this obviously does not mean that correlation negates causation! There is common sense! ie. there is a positive correlation between ice cream sales and drowning deaths (really!! There is!), but common sense would tell us that neither of these phenomena are the cause of the other.. a more likely explanation is a 3rd phenomenon called “hot weather” which would reasonably account for both of the other phenomena (hot weather would be a reason for people to buy more ice cream as well as cause more people to go swimming which would explain the increase in drowning deaths.) This implies that there is a causal positive relationship between hot weather and drowning deaths.( and yes.. also between hot weather and ice cream sales).
In the example put forth by Subman1, it does not seem unreasonable that there is a causal inverse relationship between “the presence of death penalty” and number of killings/murders.
I am open minded about this though.. Skybird.. can you suggest some other variables which might effect the inverse relationship between DP and number of murders?

As for the moral debate on whether the DP should be imposed by the state, my feeling is that it is in many instances too inefficient!
People convicted of violent acts against society should probably be interned into an “organ farm” where they might in a small way repay society for their deeds.
I know that statement is going to revile some people but human life IS too precious to just throw away.. if a person has proven themselves too dangerous to allow to co-exist in society, then perhaps they can help society continue.. just not as a “person”.

Very well spoken, thou shall not kill!!

When you kill a murderer, you are one too. See your own quote.

Hardly. There is a big difference between murder and punishment. The Death Penalty in this case is punishment.

That is for your neighbor, not the stranger that just murdered the rest of your family.

Besides, god allows defense of ones self, taking of a life if need be in that defense. SHould we just kill that man on the spot for killing your family? Or should we give him the ability to defend himself in court prior to killing him? To allow him to defend himself is the honorable thing to do is the answer and that is exactly what is going on here. Otherwise, armed men may just run the countryside, raping and pillaging and who is going to say cannot?

The point is, your passages are being taken out of context.

-S

Out of context? Just applies to neighbors? Not according to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5: 38 to 48

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

There is an additional problem with death penalty which makes it many times as unfair as any other...if someone kills one person you can execute him and that will be a proportioned revenge (Let me emphasize: Revenge). But he kills more than one you can't kill him more than once so you are stuck with unfairness :damn: But that's always like that in criminal laws, where the theory behind them is retributive, and not restitutive like in civil laws.:hmm: There comes a moment where the offence is so big that it can't be retributed proportionally, and the fact that it could not be restituted was anyway a given in criminal laws.

Aside from that, the main argument that makes me stand against death penalty is practical: You can make an error and kill an innocent, which is way more unfair that not pubishing a guilty one IMHO.

EDITED:

Hey Heibges..,where does that leave the people who earn their wage working as Judges in courts?? :hmm: