The death penalty is generally understood as the punishment of a criminal for his committed illegal acts with the measure of killing this person by an intervention of the state. This punishment is usually preceded by a trial in which the sentence of death is determined.
The death penalty is still legal in many states today, despite the worldwide ethical, moral and legal debates, and despite the fact that the death penalty contradicts current human rights. Even liberal, democratic states such as the United States use the death penalty as a legal means of combating crime.
The pro- and contra-argumentation is characterized by examples of miscarriages of justice, the sentencing of minors, among others, or by unpunished executions not legitimized by the state, e.g. lynch law.
The death penalty is still imposed today not only for murder, but also for many other criminal offenses. Crimes punished in this way include bank robbery (Saudi Arabia), kidnapping, human trafficking (China), robbery (USA), rape (China, Saudi Arabia, India), drug trafficking/possession, illegal use of firearms (Singapore), terrorist attacks (India), adultery (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), prostitution (Iraq), homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others), pimping (Saudi Arabia), witchcraft (Saudi Arabia), and others.
Although more and more countries are opting for the complete abolition of the death penalty and are working hard to enforce this trend worldwide, the death penalty is still an everyday practice in many countries.
Content
1. Introduction and definition.
1.1 Definition
2. History
2.1 Development in Christianity
2.2 Development in Germany
3. The legal situation
3.1 European law
3.2 International law
3.3 The absolute and relative theory of punishment
4. Arguments for and against the death penalty
4.1 Pro arguments
4.1.1 Life imprisonment and execution in cost comparison
4.1.2 State self-defense
4.1.3 Protection of society
4.1.4 Anyone who kills a human being has forfeited his own right to life
4.1.5 "Punishment must be"
4.1.6 Deterrent effect
4.1.7 Retribution and Atonement
4.2 Counter-arguments
4.2.1 People are often executed for racist reasons
4.2.2 The death of the perpetrator does not outweigh the death of the victim
4.2.3 "Lenient punishment"
4.2.4 State assumes "creator role"
4.2.5 The state cannot demand from citizens what it itself does not comply with
4.2.6 Irreversibility
4.2.7 Errors of justice
4.2.8 The "fear of death penalty"
4.2.9 Human rights violations
4.3 Death sentences against mentally handicapped persons
5. Types of execution and executing countries
5.1 Types of execution:
5.1.1 Stoning
5.1.2 Crucifixion
5.1.3 Hanging
5.1.4 Beheading
5.1.5 Shoot dead
5.1.6 The gas chamber
5.1.7 Electric chair
5.1.8 Lethal injection
5.2 The abolition process
6. Organizations against the death penalty
6.1 Amnesty International
6.2 UN - United Nations
7. Religiously differentiated traditions
7.1 Jewish-Christian views
7.2 Islamic views
7.3 Hindu views
7.4 Buddhist views
8. Ethical discussion
8.1 Deontological ethics
8.2 Teleological ethics
8.3 Situation ethics
8.4 Christian ethics
9. Conclusion and own opinion
10. Evaluation of the questionnaire
11. References
11.1 Bibliography
11.2 Film directory
11.3 Internet Source Directory
11.4 Image directory
11.5 Appendix (questionnaire)
1. Introduction and definition
"At some point we will look back on the death penalty with a sense of shame, just as we look back today at slavery and other examples of inhumanity in our country" Henry Schwartzschild, American Civil Liberties Union
This quote expresses both my own position on the issue of the 'death penalty' and my hope for the complete abolition of this penalty. The underlying bitterness heralds, on the one hand, confidence that this chapter of cruelty will soon be closed and, on the other, the mourning for the still high number of victims of the death penalty. A "feeling of shame" also arises in the following case study, to which I would like to refer at the beginning of my work. The inhumanity here is hard to put into words.
This recent case in Oklahoma, USA, is the death sentence against Clayton Lockett. The death penalty was carried out on the 38-year-old rapist and murderer on 29.04.2014 by a lethal injection. However, the execution did not go as planned. After the first injection, a vein burst, so that the condemned man rolled back and forth on the stretcher in very great pain, gasping for air and repeatedly trying to say something. After 43 minutes of agony, the convict finally died of a heart attack on death row.1
This event is not an isolated case! Unfortunately, such and other complications are still frighteningly common in today's execution procedures.
Quite apart from such unplanned procedures, the death penalty is often not approved by the relatives of the victims. Nor does it give them any satisfaction for the suffering they have suffered.
This is shown by the following case:
On November 20, 2013, the neo-Nazi and serial killer Joseph Franklin was also executed by lethal injection in Missouri, USA. The death sentence was passed on the murder of 20 people and an attack on the founder of a magazine, who has been in a wheelchair ever since. The survivor of the attack spoke out against the sentence of the accused to death in the following words: "It's not up to the state to kill people."2
These brief examples illustrate the topicality of this issue and show the attitude of many people to the death penalty, even if they live in a state where this type of punishment is legal.
1.1 Definition
The death penalty is generally understood to mean punishing a criminal for his illegal acts by the measure of killing that person by state intervention. This punishment is usually preceded by a court hearing in which the sentence to death is determined.
The death penalty is still legal in many states today, despite the ethical, moral and legal discussions throughout the world and despite the fact that the death penalty is contrary to the human rights in force. Liberal, democratic states such as the USA also use the death penalty as a legal fight against crime.
The pro and contra argument is characterized by examples of miscarriages of justice, the conviction of minors, among others, or by unpunished, non-state-legitimized executions, e.g. lynching.
The death penalty is still imposed today not only for murder, but also for many other criminal offences. Such punishable crimes include bank robbery (Saudi Arabia), kidnapping, human trafficking (China), robbery (USA), rape (China, Saudi Arabia, India), drug trafficking/drug possession, illegal use of firearms (Singapore), terrorist attacks (India), adultery (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), prostitution (Iraq), homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others), pimping (Saudi Arabia), witchcraft (Saudi Arabia), and others.3
Although more and more states are opting for the complete abolition of the death penalty and are campaigning for the implementation of this trend worldwide, the death penalty is still part of everyday life in many countries.
In general, the killing of a human life encompasses a much more spectrum. However, these other forms, such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide or the killing of people in terrorist attacks or armed conflicts ("just" war?), are not dealt with in this work. The present remarks, which focus on an ethical investigation, are not about the killing in general, but only about the death penalty, the state-ordered killing of a human being on the basis of a judicial verdict.
2. History
In the earliest communities, the hunter-gatherer cultures, was for a long time an "inhibition to kill", i.e. the population of that time was afraid of killing individuals of the same kind, because they believed in "animism". According to this conviction, everything has a soul, not only people and animals, but also forces of nature.4 In order to avert disaster, after the death of an individual, people tried to appease his soul, which was considered immortal. Contrary to the ideas in force at the time, ritual human sacrifices were also carried out for this "soul appeasement". The victims took on a certain scapegoat function for the community or other individuals, similar to the later emerging blood revenge.5
In the further course of history, offenders were declared 'outlawed', which meant the certain death of the person concerned, as he was no longer under the protection of the Community. Here, therefore, the killing did not have to be carried out directly by human hands.
Other forms of the death penalty developed, such as being on a rudderless boat, knocking down from a rock or stoning, in which death was brought about jointly, not by one person alone.6
In antiquity then the so-called "blood revenge" arose. It aimed to repay like with like and quasi guaranteed the "right" of a victim's clan to put a member of the perpetrator's clan to death. This not only led to long-lasting clan fesies, it could even mean the annihilation of whole families.7
The punishment by death was for a long time essentially shaped by the idea of revenge.
The first written law (ca. 1700 BC) was written in Babylon, the Codex Hammurabi. It stipulates that the death penalty for murder, adultery and other offences should also be imposed in accordance with the principle of talion ("an eye for an eye,...").8
In the antiquity the executions were publicly displayed. They served as a deterrent, but also as a support for the population.9, although these aspects seem to contradict each other.
The prevailing penal code at the time of the Middle ages in Central Europe formed the "Constitutio Criminalis Caroli" from 1532, created in the time of Emperor Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire. It combined the Germanic traditions and italian criminal law. Fines were still unknown at that time, only corporal punishments or the dungeon were imposed.10
In Age of Enlightenment it finally came to the first questions of the death penalty. Probably the most important and well-known resister of this period was the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), who in his book published in 1764 entitled "The Delitti E Delle Pene" (On Crimes and Punishments) criticized the ineffectiveness of the death penalty: "From the simple consideration of the truths that have been dealt with so far, it is clear that the purpose of punishment is neither to torment and grieve a sentient being, nor to undo a crime already committed. Can a political body that, far from acting out of passion, is rather the quiet leader of the passions of the individual, have that pointless cruelty, the tool of anger, fanaticism or weak tyrants inherent in it? Can the cries of lamentation of an unfortunate one from the never returning time reclaim the deeds accomplished? The purpose, then, is none other than to prevent the criminal from causing new harm to his fellow citizens and preventing others from doing the same. Preference is therefore due to penalties and the way in which they are imposition, which, while respecting appropriateness, make the most vivid and lasting impression on people's minds, causing the culprit as little physical suffering as possible".11
Further critical remarks were also made by the philosopher Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. However, many representatives of the Enlightenment still supported the death penalty, such as John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hegel or Immanuel Kant.12 who wrote: "But if he has murdered , then he must die. There is no surrogate here to satisfy justice. It is not a similarity between a life, however sorrowful, and death, and therefore also no equality of crime and retribution, as death by the court of the perpetrator, but freed from all the mistreatment that humanity could make a shie in the suffering person."13
During the period of National Socialism the death penalty is experiencing a high phase. During this time, it was possible to impose the death penalty for offences of any kind.14 Further explanations of this epoch follow in chapter 2.2.
After these formative years with the numerous murders covered by the judiciary as the death penalty, a change of opinion arose. On 10 December 1948, at a General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" followed.15 From then on, the trend of abolishing the death penalty continued in most countries of the world.
In some countries, the death penalty was abolished much earlier, but in some it was reintroduced.
In Russia, it was abolished during the reign of Empress Elizabeth I of Russia from 1741 to 1761, but it still exists in law in Russia today.16 In 1786, the death penalty was abolished forever in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany as the first region.17 In 1865, Romania abolished the death penalty as the first European land state, but only until 1939.18
With the 6th Optional Protocol in 1989, the death penalty was officially abolished in the states of the Council of Europe (currently 47 members), since 2002 by the 13th Optional Protocol also in martial law. However, along with a few other states, Russia has never ratified these protocols. In Europe, the death penalty is currently only practiced in Belarus.
The death penalty has now been completely abolished throughout the European Union, and in Germany it existed in law until 1989.19 20 21 22 23
2.1 Development in Christianity
The Christian churches, on the other hand, advocated the death penalty for a long time and repeatedly referred to the Bible in their explanatory statement, in which, however, contradictory statements can be found.
In the 13th century, the execution of heretics as well as the Inquisition and witch hunt prevailed.24 In the course of the early modern period (1525-1648) the executions by the Reformation - contrary to expectations - increased.25 Martin Luther also supported the death penalty. It was only after 1945 that Christian opinions turned. In 1968, the Vatican noted that every human being was God's image and that this fact was incompatible with the death penalty. It was not until 2001 that it was removed from the Constitution of the Vatican State, as one of the last states in Europe.26
Today, the Christian churches, together with other organizations and groups, are working for the universal abolition of the death penalty.
2.2 Development in Germany
With the introduction of the Basic Law, the death penalty was banned in the then Federal Republic of Germany.27 However, this clear attitude of the legislators towards the death penalty has not always existed in that country.
For the first time, the death penalty was imposed after the March Revolution 1848/49 abolished in some countries, namely Bremen, Saxony and Oldenburg. However, this did not last long, so the death penalty was introduced with the beginning of the Imperial period 1871 reintroduced.28 Until the time of National Socialism, several attempts at abolition failed. Well-known supporters of these attempts included Albert Einstein, Kurt Tucholsky, Heinrich Mann, Erich Piscator and Max Reinhardt.29
After the First World War between 1919 and 1932 about 148 executions were carried out.30
With Hitler's "seizure of power", the number of executions increased massively. Under National Socialism a 1940 decree justified the death penalty for any criminal offence.31 This decree was entirely in line with Hitler's 1942 formulation that after 10 years in prison every human being was lost to the national community anyway. Such a "guy" should either be put in a concentration camp or killed.32
One of the greatest mass killings of people in history was certainly the Holocaust. The Nazi regime tried to wipe out the "Jewish race" on a large scale through gassing and mass shootings. This "racial extermination" killed an estimated 5.6 to 6.3 million people of Jewish descent.33
According to official figures, a total of about 12,000 death sentences were carried out between 1933 and 1945.34 However, these figures differ from statistic to statistic and are probably far higher in reality. After the end of the Second World War, the death penalty was seen as an unnecessarily cruel instrument of terror, which led to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in Paris in 1948. Although the death penalty has been abolished under the Basic Law since 1949, the last execution was carried out in 1951 on the soil of the Federal Republic of Germany.35 In the GDR (German Democratic Republic), the last convict was executed in 1981. The death penalty was not banned there until 1987.36 In 1983, all member states of the Council of Europe approved protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits the death penalty in peacetime. The abolition in wartime did not take place until 2002.37 However, Germany did not sign the 6th Protocol until 1989. The Bavarian constitution remained the death penalty until a corresponding referendum in 1998.38
3. The legal situation
3.1 European law
Opinion in European countries on the death penalty was fundamentally influenced by the events of the Second World War.
At the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the Abolition of the Death Penalty (European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR), on 28 April 1983 all member states of the Council of Europe approved the 6th Optional Protocol, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime. The 13th Optional Protocol, declared on 3 May 2002, abolishes the death penalty in all respects, including martial law. However, only 43 out of 47 states of the Council of Europe have ratified this protocol, for example Russia has not.39
Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also prohibits the death penalty. The EU laid down the death penalty, which had been deleted from the constitution, as well as respect for human rights as conditions of admission in the Copenhagen criteria for new member states.40 41
3.2 International law
A criminal who is still a minor at the time of the offence cannot be sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of early release under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which almost all the Member States of the UN are signatories and which entered into force on 2 September 1990.42 However, some states, including UN members, still have minors executed, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.43 In the USA, a supreme court ruling in March 2005 prohibited the executions of those who were not yet of age at the time of the crime.44
3.3 The absolute and relative theory of punishment
The penal theories deal with the meaning and purpose of punishment, sometimes referred to as punitive theories. Basically, two penal theories are distinguished, the absolute and the relative penal theory.
The absolute theory of punishment, also called retributive, sees punishment as an end in itself. In this theory, the punishment is justified by the offense ("punitur quia peccatum est").45 In it is the thought of atonement, so the goal of judicial consequence is the retaliation of the act and the restoration of the order disturbed by the perpetrator. Proponents of this theory and thus of the talion principle ("life for life, eye for eye, ..." or the ius talionis) are, for example, Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) or Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).46
In the relative theory of punishment, according to Kant, the offender is used as a "means in the service of the common good". The justification of the penalty here is independent of the crime. This theory focuses on prevention, both general and special prevention ("punitur ne peccetur").47 General prevention is intended to deter other potential offenders by illustrating the consequences, and special prevention involves, on the one hand, the resocialization of the offender and, on the other hand, the protection of society from repeat offenders.
Both theories cannot always be applied in their entirety and in their idealizing way. German legislation combines the theories of the so-called Unification theory, whereby a compensation of guilt, the atonement and retribution for an injustice committed, the prevention and the resocialization of the offender are considered an appropriate punishment.
4. Arguments for and against the death penalty
In order to be able to form as well-founded an opinion as possible regarding the death penalty, the main arguments of the proponents and opponents are discussed below.
The demand for the death of a criminal is based in part on the human-unhuman thinking.48 A criminal is degraded by his fellow human beings to a monster, to a monster, whose deeds and thoughts no longer correspond to those of a rationally thinking person and thus cannot be understood. On this person, the own shortcomings are then projected. In this way, people can draw a line between themselves and the perpetrators. This clear separation can lead to a willingness to take the life of a criminal. Also in the movie "Dead Man Walking" the father of a victim says about the offender: "This is not a human being, this is an animal! No more! No, I take that back, animals do not rape or murder their peers! M.P. is God's error!". Helen, a nun in this film, describes the words of the people with whom they name a criminal as follows: "They are monsters, nothing but scum! Human garbage that belongs destroyed and merely devours taxes".49
These statements are characterized by emotions that may be understandable, but they must not be the basis for a sentence of death. Ultimately, human rights, such as the right to life, also apply to the perpetrators of the cruelest crimes - or not?
4.1 Pro arguments
4.1.1 Life imprisonment and execution in cost comparison
One of the arguments repeatedly put forward in favour of the death penalty is that prison is more expensive than an execution. It is argued that the offenders should not be "fed through" as "state pensioners" by the "righteous" citizens, who ultimately include the families of the victims.
This is contradicted by studies in the USA, which found that a death sentence in the USA costs an average of 1.8 million dollars and is about twice the cost of a life sentence.50 Thus, the "economic efficiency factor" cannot be argued. Moreover, a decision on a person's life and death should never be made on the basis of financial considerations.
4.1.2 State self-defense
Many proponents explain that in the event of the imposition of the death penalty, the state is in a self-defense situation similar to the war or comparable to the "final rescue shot".51 The state must protect itself against any threat to general security.
However, this danger is already overcome by the arrest or detention of the perpetrator. Even a deterrent factor for others cannot be taken into account in self-defense. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2263, the "self-defense of persons or societies" is not considered an "exception to the prohibition to kill an innocent person, i.e. to commit a willful murder".52
4.1.3 Protection of society
A criminal should be irrevocably and definitively deprived of the possibility of threatening society again. If the court ruling were to be called "imprisonment", there would be no complete safeguarding of the company, since there would be the possibility that the inmate could be released again. After all, a life sentence often means "only" 15 years in prison. This threat is only averted in the finality of the death penalty. However, the convicted are also pre-emptively punished for (potential) offenses that they have not yet committed.
4.1.4 Anyone who kills a human being has forfeited his own right to life
Here the "instinctive" sense of justice of a person is addressed, which says that whoever takes the life of another has forfeited his own right to life.53 By murdering a human being, the murderer has created an injustice, an imbalance, which he can only redress by his own death, in other words, restore the balance by his punishment. This idea corresponds to the Old Testament talion principle.
In EV 53 ("Gospel Vitae" of John Paul II), human life is described as something sacred and no one should assume the right to "directly inflict death on an innocent human creature".54
By violating the valid principles of a community based on the rule of law, the murderer becomes the enemy of it and must be eliminated for general and special prevention. "Moreover, every wrongdoer who attacks social law becomes a rebel and a traitor to the fatherland through his sacrilege; by violating his laws, he ceases to be his member, indeed he is even at war with it. Now the preservation of the state is incompatible with its preservation, one of them must perish, and if the culprit is put to death, it is not so much as a citizen as an enemy. The trial and the verdict are the evidence and the statement that he has broken the social contract and that, consequently, he is no longer a member of the state".55 Hegel bases this reaction to the act of a criminal on the principle that the murderer implies through his own actions. "By committing murder, the murderer proclaims the principle that that one man may take the other's life, and this principle may now be applied by right as his own to himself. Thus, murder is an act that already implies the murderer's consent to the death penalty."56
The offender has taken away his dignity. According to Kant, however, dignity is granted to every human being who is "capable of morality, not insofar as he realizes it".57 In addition, for example, a thief does not forfeit his right to property through his act, since the validity of human rights for a person does not depend on their reputation and the extent of the violation of the law.58
4.1.5 "Punishment must be"
In general, the penalty is considered a sanction for a particular behavior that is considered wrongful or inappropriate.59 The punishment of the perpetrator as a result of a crime committed is therefore an essential part of the case law. Legislation gives the state the right to conditionally restrict the human rights of an individual, but this raises the question of the extent to which the state may "abuse" this power when setting the penalty. In addition, man's sense of justice demands an adequate balance from the offender - a reparation of the order disturbed by him. The thought of penance, however, may all too easily lead to the punishment on the basis of the talion principle - the same is to be atoned for with the same.
Of course, it is necessary to show people in a state the difference between legal and illegal behaviour and to make effective use of the means of the rule of law. However, nowadays there are many measures in law enforcement without de taking away a person's life and thus the chance of rehabilitation. Former French Justice Minister Robert Badinter (b. 1928) says that crime is a disease of society, but you can't fight or cure a disease by killing the sick.
4.1.6 Deterrent effect
By illustrating the judicial consequences of violations of the law, the population is to be discouraged from doing the same.
In the past, criminals were publicly executed in order to teach the people a lesson. From these public executions, true "spectacles" developed over time. Crowds flocked together and "delighted" in the thrill of the bloody spectacle. In these events, due to the crowd around the scene, injuries or even fatalities occurred among the spectators themselves. It is reported that in some executions, which were attended by 40 -75 thousand people, up to 100 people died in the crowd.60 The regular executions created a certain habituation to such spectacles and a brutalization of society, whereby the intended deterrence lost its effect.61 In addition, in countries where the death penalty has been abolished, there is no higher crime rate.62 Consequently, this deterrent does not fulfil its intended purpose. She sees the condemned person more as a mere means (general prevention) than as an end in itself (special prevention), which contradicts the statement of the philosopher Immanuel Kant – "Act in such a way that you needed humanity, both in your person and in the person of everyone else, at all times at the same time as an end, never merely as a means". The deterrence argument also assumes that the offender weighs up in advance in terms of reason, the advantages and disadvantages as well as the consequences of his action. However, this can hardly be assumed and often the corresponding crimes have emotional "short circuits", intoxication states or incompensability. In addition, most offenders do not expect to be caught.63
On the basis of appropriate studies, it can be assumed that the goal of deterrence will not be achieved to the desired extent.
4.1.7 Retribution and Atonement
The need for retribution and revenge is well known. You can identify with the relatives of a victim, even if you have never been in such a situation yourself. According to the "ius talionis", it would only be fair that the perpetrator would experience similar suffering as his victim. The philosopher Hegel also tries to establish an equality of values: "If it is not possible to go to specific equality in retribution, then this is different in the case of murder, which requires the death penalty. For since life is the whole scope of existence, the punishment cannot consist in a value that does not exist for it, but in turn only in the deprivation of life".64
This idea of retribution can also be found in the biblical expression of the Old Testament "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,..., life for life". However, judging by God's commandments is faith-dependent and not state-bound, thus not universally valid; although the Christian view of man is a basis of the values of the Western world and thus also of its jurisprudence.
The demand for punishment on the part of the family members is understandable in the sense of justice. Such demands, however, are based on feelings and sensations, which in turn raises the question of whether it would really be useful and justifiable to base laws on emotions. In addition, the execution of a murderer does not undo the death of his victim, the act is irreversible.
It is noteworthy that the relatives of the victims in particular often speak out against the death penalty (as in the case of the introduction). It must also be seen that the death penalty once again snatched the perpetrator from his family and that there is a further loss of a human life.
The idea of atonement includes on the one hand a certain penance of the offender, but can also include the goal of the resocialization and improvement of the offender. Because only those who repent and improve can really make atonement.65 But how does the condemned person have the chance to improve when his life is over? The atonement would only make sense in the survival after death and a justice existing there66, but this is only given with a religious background. In the case of a sentence to death, the judge puts himself on a par with God by the verdict, consequently commits blasphemy and deprives the condemned person of any possibility of a second chance and the hope for it. An act of atonement cannot therefore be achieved by the death penalty.
...
1 cf. http://todesstrafe-nachrichten.jimdo.com/
2 cf. Newspaper article, Schwäbische Zeitung, „US-Serienmörder Franklin hingerichtet“; Thursday November 21st, 2013
3 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Straftatbest.C3.A4nde
4 cf Geschichte der Folter und Hinrichtung, Lars Richter, 2001; Tosa Wien
5 cf. Todesstrafe: Auge um Auge, Kazem Hashemi, 2008; Horlemann Verlag,, p. 39 cf. Lars Richter in 2001
6 Ibid.
7 cf. Hashemi, 2008; p. 38
8 Ibid., p. 56
9 cf. http://www.todesstrafen-magazin.de/
10 cf. Streitfall Todesstrafe, Frank Müller, 1998; Patmos Verlag Düsseldorf, p. 94/95
11 "The Delitti E Delle Pene" (Of Crime and Punishment), Cesare Beccaria, 1764
12 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Aufkl.C3.A4rung
13 The Metaphysics of Morals, Part E; "Vom Straf- und Begnadigunsrecht", I.; Immanuel Kant, 1797
14 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus
15 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 67
16 16 Ibid., p. 56
17 cf. http://www.katholisch.de/de/katholisch/themen/gesellschaft/131130_aktionstag_gegen_todesstrafe.php
18 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#1800_bis_1945
19 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 69 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Abschaffungsprozess_in_Europa
20 Bible(Unity Translation of The Holy Scriptures); 1985, Katholische Bibelanstalt GmbH, Stuttgart, 2nd book of Moses, Genesis 21, 23-25
21 Ibid. Genesis 21, 12
22 Ibid. Gospel of John 8: 7
23 Ibid. Gospel of Matthew 5: 38-39
24 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Mittelalter
25 Ibid.
26 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Abschaffungsprozess_in_Europa
27 cf. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, bpb, 2005, Bonn, Article 102
28 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 70
29 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Abschaffungsprozess_in_Deutschland
30 Ibid.
31 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus
32 cf. Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier on 8.2.1942, Henry Picker, 2003; Propyläen Verlag, p. 24
33 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Gesamtzahlen_j.C3.BCdischer_Opfer
34 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 70
35 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Bundesrepublik_Deutschland
36 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 71 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Deutsche_Demokratische_Republik
37 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 69
38 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung_des_Freistaates_Bayern
39 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Internationale_und_europ.C3.A4ische_Rechtslage
40 Ibid.
41 cf. Müller, 1998, p. 207-11
42 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-Kinderrechtskonvention
43 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Internationale and europ. C3. A4 legal situation
44 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesstrafe#Vereinigte_Staaten
45 cf. Werner Wolbert; Du sollst nicht töten, 2009; Herder Verlag, p. 52
46 cf. http://www.juristischer-gedankensalat.de/2009/06/16/die-straftheorien/
47 Ibid.
48 cf. Müller, 1998, p. 116-125
49 Movie: "Dead Man Walking," Tim Robbins; 1995
50 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 61
51 cf. Hans Jürgen Schultz, Politik für Nichtpolitiker. Ein ABC zur aktuellen Diskussion; Stuttgart Kreuz-Verlag 1979, p. 443
52 Johannes Paul II., Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche (KKK) 2263, 1993, R. Oldenburg Verlag
53 cf. Schultz, 1979, p. 443
54 John Paul II, Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" 53, 1995, VAS 120
55 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Vom Gesellschaftsvertrag oder den Prinzipien des politischen Rechtes, Stuttgart 1977, Buch II Kap 5, 37 f.
56 Professor Igor Primorsatz, Banquos Geist. Hegels Theorie der Strafe(Hegel Studien. Beiheft 29), Bonn 1986, 61)
57 cf. Wolbert, 2009, p. 54
58 cf. Hashemi, 2008, p. 59
59 cf. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafe
60 cf. Müller, 1998, p. 166
61 Ibid., p. 167
62 Ibid., p. 170
63 cf. Müller, 1998, p. 170/71
64 Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechtes, G.W.F. Hegel, 1821, Berlin, Nicolai Verlag, 64th Amendment to §101, p. 311
65 cf. Schultz, 1970, p. 447
66 Ibid., p. 446