Death Penalty in Europe: Only for Enemies of the State

[simonw]

I read this thread on blog from a writer in Brussels about the Treay of Lisbon, and wonder if this topic has appeared and been debated here, and if someone has more light on this subject?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3169

"Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations, forever. And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, like really like a super-expert to find out!"

[toxic avenger]

I read this thread on blog from a writer in Brussels about the Treay of Lisbon, and wonder if this topic has appeared and been debated here, and if someone has more light on this subject?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3169

"Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations, forever. And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, like really like a super-expert to find out!"

I foresee mass hangings for ordering in pounds and ounces...

That's the glory of European Treaties, nobody could possibly know the atomic level of detail when voting on them (on the rare occasion the peasants are allowed a say), but get held to that detail later on. Sir Humphrey would be proud..

[Bobert]

Isn't upheaval a heavier form of protest?

[ibis]

This would be the text in question, I think:

Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

In other words, the Charter states that you can't have the death penalty, and qualifies it by stating that a state may, if it chooses, have the death penalty "in respect of acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war".

In normal circumstances, it would be sufficient to point out that this is not hard to follow, or hard to find. It's part of the existing European Charter of Human Rights, and is included in the standard explanations of the Charter. Assuming we might have the usual twisting, it's necessary to point out that in no way, shape or form does or can, the above be interpreted as "reintroducing the death penalty". "May make provision" should be sufficiently clear - the conditional language is used for a reason.

[NotDevsSon]

Oh sweet Jesus. Are there any more red herrings the No side can introduce.

Two weeks ago - abortion
Last week - tax
now this week - the Death penalty.

For Christ's sake, this is getting ridiculous.

[simonw]

In other words, the Charter states that you can't have the death penalty, and qualifies it by stating that a state may, if it chooses, have the death penalty "in respect of acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war".

I took imminent to mean:
at hand(p): close in time; about to occur; "retribution is at hand"; "some people believe the day of judgment is close at hand"; "in imminent ...
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

War is about to take place, but has not yet happened. If one perceives war is about to take place all the time then one can use the death penalty all the time. Of course, this does seem a little far fetched. Could this cover a protest against a government that the government thinks, rightly or wrongly, would cause a war (civil or not)?

[Worldbystorm]

Surely simonw this is merely acknowledging that individual states have sovereignty in this area...

Isn't that what you want, or do you think Europe should go the other way and impose a prohibition on states making their own determinations on this matter?

The 'all the time' point is moot. Individual sovereign parliaments have authority in these cases... which you conveniently ignore...

[ibis]

It is extremely sad that an achievement of the EU like the abolition of the civil death penalty across Europe should be twisted in this way because of the reservation of national sovereignty in time of war.

Not only has the EU already fully ratified the abolition of the civil death penalty under Protocol 6, but Protocol 13 to the ECHR abolishes the death penalty in any form, including time of war.

So, not only is the original claim highly coloured and deliberately misleading, it is also outdated.

[corelli]

Oh for the love of GOD!!

All the member States of the EU are also members of the Council of Europe and are also bound by the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits the death penalty with protocol 6 thereto allowing a derogation in times of war. The charter provision is an exact copy of the Convention provision. I don't remember people jumping up and down about the Convention allowing the death penalty in times of war!!!!

It is merely more scare mongering!!


Its a non issue, move on!!

[corelli]

It is extremely sad that an achievement of the EU like the abolition of the civil death penalty across Europe should be twisted in this way because of the reservation of national sovereignty in time of war.

Not only has the EU already fully ratified the abolition of the civil death penalty under Protocol 6, but Protocol 13 to the ECHR abolishes the death penalty in any form, including time of war.

So, not only is the original claim highly coloured and deliberately misleading, it is also outdated.

Forgot about protocol 13!! Your quite right!

Well then, it matters not what the charter contains as all member states of the EU are bound by the Convention. NO DEATH PENALTY IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES