久久精品国产亚洲7777小说_国产91成人精品亚洲精品_亚洲aⅴ久久久噜噜噜噜_久久精品亚洲精品无码_青青青视频免费_9191精品国产费久久_成人国产一区二区三区精品_99久久综合久中文字幕_免费黄色一级电影

Macron proposes the "global abolition of death" initiative: ambitious speculation of "no capital, no profit"

1、 In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty, Makron proposed to "abolish universal death"

On October 9, French President Marco Long participated in the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty in France and delivered a speech at the Pantheon in Paris. Makron announced in his speech that France would "re launch the fight against the universal abolition of the death penalty".

Makron said that within the framework of France's assumption of the rotating presidency of the EU in the first half of 2022, France will "unite against the death penalty (ECPM)" with non-governmental organizations, and organize a meeting at the highest level in Paris to bring together civil society in countries that still apply the death penalty or have a moratorium on executions, so as to persuade their leaders of the importance and urgency of abolishing the death penalty.

On May 3, 1974, France signed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CESDH) to protect the right of all people to exist. However, the Convention allows: in special circumstances, that is, if the criminal responsibility for which the death penalty is imposed is prescribed by law, and the death penalty is determined by the court, it can be executed.

On September 18, 1981, during the term of President Mitterrand, the French National Assembly passed a bill on the abolition of the death penalty, and on October 9, 1981, promulgated the provisions on the abolition of the death penalty. On March 1, 1986, France signed the Sixth Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Safeguarding of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which agreed to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. On August 1, 2007, the French National Assembly agreed to sign the 13th Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Safeguarding of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2002). The Protocol stipulates the complete abolition of the death penalty, including in times of war and in a dangerous state of imminent war. This move aims to take the final step towards the complete abolition of the death penalty. October 10, 2007 was declared by the European Commission as the "European Day against the Death Penalty", which was subsequently announced by the European Union. The European Union, including France, insists on strongly opposing the death penalty. Abolition of the death penalty is one of the important issues of EU human rights policy.

2、 Strategic considerations of Makron's promotion of the "Global Abolition of Death" initiative

First of all, on October 10, the "European Anti Death Penalty Day", a moral archway was set up in the EU to build momentum for the upcoming French election in April next year. Makron belongs to the middle school in politics. In Europe, where the "white left" prevails, vigorously advocating the issue of "abolishing death" that is obviously politically correct may attract the support of the "white left" group, and at the same time, it also highlights France's position as a leader in the field of European values.

Secondly, thanks to the popularity of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the "muzzle gun" initiative of "global abolition" has won the international influence of France "at no cost and no profit". On October 8, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to adopt the draft resolution on the "death penalty" (A/HRC/48/L.17/Rev. 1), in which 29 countries, including Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, South Korea, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, supported it, 12 countries, including China, Japan, India and Pakistan, opposed it, and 5 countries, including the Philippines and Indonesia, abstained. The draft resolution calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the relevant United Nations documents on the abolition of the death penalty; Also decides to discuss the issue of "human rights violations" related to the death penalty during the fifty second session of the Council. The draft resolution on the "death penalty" was jointly sponsored by more than 50 countries, including Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Mongolia and the United Kingdom. He said: "We welcome the continuation of the international trend of abolishing the death penalty, the fact that many countries are putting a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and welcome all the measures taken by countries to restrict the use of the death penalty." Makron naturally took a ride with the United Nations Human Rights Council at this time when he proposed to take the initiative of "abolishing death globally".

Finally, China and the United States, disguised as "generals", seized the "commanding heights of human rights and ethics" and established the image of "leaders of the free world" for France. Makron's "global abolition of death" campaign undoubtedly revealed his strategic ambition of "becoming the leader of the free world". As early as President Trump was in power, because of his hegemonic unilateralism policy of "America first", the American ally system almost ran counter to Germany. At that time, Makron was even regarded as the only hope of the free world by the West. If Biden did not take office, but Trump was re elected, Makron would probably become the "leader of the free world" in the hearts of Westerners. Since both China and the United States maintain the death penalty, Ma Kelong used the issue of "global abolition of death" to secretly lead the Chinese and American armies, and also to seize the "commanding heights of human rights and morality".

3、 The theoretical source of supporting "abolishing death"

According to the statistics of Amnesty International, in 2012, 140 countries around the world abolished or did not use the death penalty, including 97 countries that abolished all capital punishment, 8 countries that abolished all capital punishment in general and in non wartime, and 35 countries that retained the death penalty in law but did not actually execute it for more than 10 years; There are 58 countries that maintain the death penalty (21 of the 58 countries executed the death penalty in 2011). That is to say, almost two thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty or have not used it for a long time. The official position of the EU is very clear that the death penalty must be abolished if you want to become a member of the EU.

The theory of "abolishing death" originated from the book "On Crime and Punishment" written by Italian jurist Beccaria, and its main arguments are as follows:

1. The state has no right to execute the death penalty. Rousseau's Social Contract Theory believes that the power of the state comes from the rights that its citizens give up, and citizens cannot give up the right to life. Therefore, the state has no right to deprive individuals of their lives. The death penalty is a violation of the social contract theory.

2. The theory that the death penalty is invalid. The death penalty is a one-time execution. The social deterrent time is short, and the social warning effect of lifelong hard labor is more lasting.

3. The death penalty may be counterproductive, because it will arouse the public's sympathy for the perpetrators, thus hating the national violence machine.

4. Homomorphic revenge will mislead the public to violence.

5. Once a "miscarriage of justice" occurs, it cannot be remedied.

A large number of subsequent sources of support for the idea of "abolishing death" come from the above five points.

4、 Zong Zong Jun's View of "Abolishing Death" and Its Reasons

First of all, let's make clear that Zong Zong Jun firmly opposes "abolishing death" and "legalizing drugs", which seem to have been politically correct. The reasons are as follows:

1. It cannot be said that "abolishing death" is an international trend. The mainstream view criticizing China's retention of the death penalty holds that abolishing death penalty is an international trend, and no country can stay out of international affairs. This view is mainly based on the number of countries abolishing the death penalty. However, if calculated according to the proportion of the population, the countries that maintain the death penalty still account for 65% of the world's population, even if the United States, Japan and other countries that boast excellent human rights records maintain the death penalty (but Japanese judges will try their best to avoid executing the death penalty on their own posts for the sake of public praise, which will eventually lead to the execution of the death penalty being delayed again and again).

2. "Abolition of death" is a national internal affair, which can neither be "humanized" nor "internationalized". Some documents advocating the abolition of the death penalty often point out that "the abolition of the death penalty is the trend of world human rights". This practice of linking the death penalty with human rights is a typical concept of exchange. Moreover, the death penalty is a country's internal affairs, which aims to maintain the maximum security and stability of the domestic society. It cannot be "internationalized" at will. In practice, the "humanization of the death penalty" and "internationalization of the death penalty" in disguise give the western countries a reason to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries from the moral vantage point. As long as the behavior of a country is defined as "human rights violations" or even "genocide", it can directly interfere in the internal affairs of the other party, or even subvert its regime.

The "humanization of the death penalty" and "internationalization of the death penalty" not only provide great convenience for the international intervention of western countries, but also significantly reduce the cost of their international intervention activities. For example, when American and European soldiers commit serious human rights violations such as killing civilians in the intervention against third countries, they can skillfully "abolish death" to escape punishment.

3. From the perspective of national internal affairs, "abolishing death" actually protects big capital. Especially for countries with high judicial costs, "abolishing death" means greatly reducing the criminal costs of the rich, which is equivalent to indirectly protecting large capital, having little impact on the bottom people, and even transferring some criminal costs to the bottom people.

4. "Abolition of death" is a secular evolution of Christian civilization, which does not "universalize" all civilizations. The Christian doctrine prohibits "killing" or even "suicide". Its logic is not to respect life, but because people (Christian believers) are the creation of God/Creator, which is equivalent to God's "product". One product has no right to destroy another product, and only the Creator has the right to destroy its product. Therefore, "global abolition of death" is a secular evolution of the "monotheistic" Christian civilization in a sense, which is incompatible with other civilization traditions and violates the concept of "civilization democratization".

5. The media effect of "abolishing death": compared with the dead (victims) who cannot speak, striving for the living (criminals) 'right to life can attract more media attention. In reality, there are not a few examples of making people famous by hyping the topic of "abolishing death".

6. Weight of social cost: With the improvement of criminal investigation methods, the rate of wrong cases will continue to decrease, and the rate of "miscarriage of justice" will be greatly reduced. At the same time, the cost of prison support for "life imprisonment" will be borne by the whole society. For example, in some "serious crimes and light punishments" countries in Northern Europe, the maximum penalty is only 20 to 30 years. The release (or escape from prison) of the death penalty will probably cause secondary harm to the society, and the risk cost will still be borne by the whole society. Moreover, different civilizations may have different views on life and death, and the logic that "lifelong detention" punishment is better than death penalty is not universal.

7. The abolishment of the death penalty by the state is "self abolishing martial arts". It can be done with caution, but not completely. The "death penalty" is the highest sentence of the current judicial power of the country (there were many punishments that were more cruel than the death penalty in ancient times). The "factual justice" in the concept of Chinese civilization is far more important than the "procedural justice" in the western judicial system. The concepts of "killing people to pay for their lives, repaying debt to pay money" and "repaying grievances directly, and repaying virtue with virtue" are the conventional concepts that Chinese people have been immersed in for thousands of years. The ultimate goal of justice is to pursue the equivalence of "crime" and "punishment". "Serious crime and light punishment" and "minor crime and heavy punishment" are both manifestations of judicial power imbalance. "Abolishing death" is a typical representative of "serious crime and light punishment". At present, the death penalty in China represents both the ultimate "factual justice" and the ultimate "procedural justice". As long as the life form of the "state" has not been replaced by the new power body, "abolishing death" is the "self palace" behavior of the state machine.

Author: Xia Guohan

Typesetting: YvelineWang