Concetti Chiave
- The article questions the permissibility of capital punishment, emphasizing the fundamental human right to life.
- It highlights the contradiction of a state executing individuals while advocating for justice and remaining unpunished itself.
- The potential for executing innocent individuals is presented as a strong argument against the death penalty.
- Revenge is depicted as counterproductive and unrelated to justice, leading to more violence and guilt.
- The article advocates for crime prevention and social commitment as better alternatives to capital punishment.
Reconciling human rights and justice
Civil society must be able to reconcile fundamental human rights with the needs of an entire community: it is therefore necessary to define the scopes within which the exercise of Justice can act. The more urgent a question is: is it permissible to punish by means of capital punishment or sentencing criminal to death? We must start from the principle that the Act of killing is wrong and that life is an absolute and inalienable right of the human being. In light of this, what example can a State provide that, aware of being stronger than individual, kills and remains unpunished?
The cycle of revenge and violence
It is the Of course a family who lost a loved one can feel anger towards the killer and his/her family, it is natural to fail to justify and to forgive a crime. Revenge generates only other violence, has absolutely nothing to do with justice, does not meet, but generates more feelings of guilt.
To win the crime the right way is prevention and social commitment; it’s sure that death penalty is easier and immediate solution, but also the worst, considering that life is the most important value that exists in the world.
Accedi a tutti gli appunti
Tutor AI: studia meglio e in meno tempo
