The Death Penalty and the Green Parties of the World
(original image: ucsbglobalvoices)
[Translated from the original.]
Is it possible to be ecological and to be in favor of capital punishment at the same time?
Complicated. I know plenty of people whose love for plants and animal is in direct proportion to their own aversion to other humans. But that doesn’t really cut it. It would have to be a species of Ozymandias – the guys in Watchmen - who believe that they can create a guaranteed world-wide peace by unleashing a unilateral war….
No, it doesn’t make much sense to want to both preserve the planet and its quality of life, and – at the same time – to make of the State into an executioner. Let’s see what some of the world’s Green Parties have to say on the subject:
Canada abolished the death penalty over 30 years ago and has maintained that it is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. - Green Party of Canada
The Green Party is the only party to oppose the death penalty and pledge to work for its global abolition. We will work for the furtherance of this objective at the EU level. - Green Party UK
The Australian Greens will: [Measure 21] oppose the death penalty in all cases and support campaigns for its abolition. - Australian Greens
“In spite of enormous international pressure, the UN has not been able to establish a global prohibition, not even a moratorium, on capital punishment. This too \ often means that every year thousands of people are executed, for doubtful reasons and without just cause. The European Union must invoke its clauses on human rights against the partnered countries who continue with this policy. ” – Partido Ecologista, Green Party, Spain
“The death penalty is the ultimate violation of human rights and the right to life,” - Green Party (Germany) leader Claudia Roth.
Meanwhile in Mexico:
Because we’re interested in your life, we support the death penalty for Kidnappers and Murderers. “Por que nos interesa tu vida, pena de muerte para secuestradores y asesinos” -Partido Verde Ecologista de México
El Niño Verde: Jorge Emilio González Torres
The Verdes, in Mexico, are neither ecologists nor a party.
Rather the Green Party Mexico is a plaything of the González family, [of Farmácia Similares fame] and to honor that office they took the short-cut suggested by not a few political strategists: position a subject that is not going to happen, such that people will remember you and debate both side of a single issue, and as such you obtain more votes though your proposal will never happen.
So then, the PVEM cannot really be said to be genuinely in support of capital punishment… (we genuinely are against it , by the way). Its proposal is a totally media-centric phenomena, in the best style of those who (thanks to television) remain in our heads for short periods of time: Niurka, Wanda Seux or the Doctor del Villar… [ all Televisa Trash Television Stars].
It’s not accidental that the weekly Proceso says that the PVEM is officially the means by which Televises arrives in the Congress…
The question is, “What is the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas that Co-presides over Jorge González Towers supposed to make of all this?”
They do have the advantage of having been outside of the European Green Party organization, which adds up to 10 ecological parties of Europe. This past February 10th they published a press bulletin in which they said:
Press Release: EGP withdraws recognition of Mexican Green Party as part of the Green Family:
Following the initiative taken by the Partido Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM) in the Mexican Parliament to re-introduce the death penalty, the European Green Party has withdrawn its recognition of the PVEM as a Green Party.
EGP Co-Spokesperson Ulrike Lunacek said that “the Mexican Green Party’s position following an exchange of correspondence between us is abundantly clear and the EGP has no option but to not consider the PVEM a member of the Green political family any longer. This is not a matter of a difference of opinion on policy options; it is a matter of basic principles. The PVEM is fully aware that the rejection of the death penalty is enshrined in the Charter of the Global Greens voted at the 1st Global Greens Congress in Canberra in 2001.
Mexican humor – of course – is legendary. The PVEM had accused the European Greens of being “anti-democratic” and “colonial,” in a letter sent in December of 2008. For those really interested, below is the complete letter from the Europeans back to the PVEM. Enjoy!
Death Penalty to Sub-Standard Pharmacists ?
“Brussels, 10th February 2009
To the Partido Verde Ecologista de México,
We thank you for your quick answer to our letter concerning capital punishment sent December 11th, 2008. We have carefully read your different arguments answering our concerns on the position adopted by your party on the death penalty and we would like to respond to them.
First, we note that you consider our reaction to your position as “anti-democratic” and “colonial”; this is a position which we simply cannot accept and do not recognize ourselves. The Global Greens are indeed in the first place an organization of the continental Green federations and of their respective member parties. In that perspective, it is the responsibility of each Federation to deal with its member parties, including in case one of them infringes on our common Global Green Charter as adopted in Canberra in 2001.
However, this, may not prevent one of the continental Federations, in this case the European Green Party, to express a political position about a party belonging to the Global Greens when it considers that some of its positions constitute a clear and open violation of the Charter which states the main principles defining the Greens, and agreed upon by ALL Green Parties – no matter where they come from – in Canberra. Doing so cannot and should not be interpreted as “violating the sovereignty” of the concerned Federation. That is also the reason why we are keeping the Federation of the Americas fully informed of our exchanges and have been doing so even before they became public.
Now, on the facts of the matter. While we do acknowledge the critical situation Mexico is facing regarding organized crime, the Greens’ opposition to the death penalty is one of principle. Even should it be proven – and this is not the case – that it would be an effective way of combating crime, the Greens would not accept it as a penalty. Our rejection of torture is based on similar grounds.
We might want to refer you to the Italian example, a country that has been affected by organized crime for decades. The Italian justice system had to change and improve its performance in order to fight against the Mafia. Even if the problem is still there a lot of relevant successes have been reached without even thinking to reintroduce death penalty.
We would like to add a few words about the comparison that has been made in your letter between the position of European Greens to de-penalize abortion and the refusal of the death penalty. We do acknowledge that questions implying life and death are sensitive ones indeed and let it be clear that the European Green Party has never advocated unrestricted abortion rights. However, there is a profound gap between supporting abortion and criminalizing it, regardless of the stage of pregnancy – which was the case in most European countries until a couple of decades ago. We consistently opposed criminalizing it as we believed – and still do – that this attitude actually made the situation worse, if not altogether dramatic for the women concerned. In that respect, we have advocated decriminalization under restrictions as far as the stage of pregnancy is concerned. While there are philosophical arguments as to when a foetus has to be considered as a living human being, there are no such arguments insofar as living adults are concerned, hence our total opposition to the death penalty.
Therefore, while we obviously respect the right of people – including Mexican citizens – and political parties to have opinions and values that differ from those Greens have adopted, we would like to assert our right to withdraw our recognition as part of the Green political family to a Party who actively supports the re-instatement of the capital penalty because it no longer is in accordance with the Global Green Charter which defines the Greens’ identity and which has been voted unanimously in Canberra in 2001, in the presence of the PVEM’s delegates. In that sense, our previous letter has no intent to impose whatever point of view on your party and on its members, rather simply to dissociate the European Green Party from the positions that the PVEM has adopted.”
[ad#june-post-ad]
The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
Unlikely.
Enhanced Due Process – No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed. That is. logically, conclusive.
Enhanced Incapacitation – To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
Enhanced Deterrence – 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. A surprise? No. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they couldn’t measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some? There isn’t one.
Enhanced Fear – Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out. Reality paints a very different picture. What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
The False Promise – Part of the anti death penalty deception is that a life sentence, with no possibility of release, is a superior alternative to the death penalty. It’s a lie. History tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc. There are few absolutes with sentencing. But, here are two: the legislature can lessen the sentences of current inmates, retroactively, and the executive branch can lessen any individual sentence, at any time. This has been, actively, pursued, for a number of years, in many states, because of the high cost of life sentences and/or geriatric care, found to be $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.
Innocents released from death row: Some reality – Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
copyright 2007-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Funny Dudley – i didn’t think we needed ANOTHER reason why we don’t live in the USA.
Or in IRAN or Saudi Arabia. Thanks anyway.