Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EU and Death Penalty Reintroduction - Need Source Article

Options
  • 08-03-2009 6:03pm
    #1
    Nostradamus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 621 ✭✭✭


    Came across this on a human rights message board:
    On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty.

    At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty -University of Nuremberg.

    Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?)

    Does anyone have the source for this and confirm this. Even to someone like me who sees the EU are a massive right wing arms market stall run by unelected crooks I find this hardly to beleive.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    imp
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭imp


    The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is legally binding under the Lisbon treaty and specifically forbids the death penalty in Article 2. It also forbids moving anyone to a state (by extradition or otherwise) where they might be executed in Article 19.

    Lisbon allows Britain and Poland (and only them) to opt out of the Charter as they made it a precondition of ratifying Lisbon. As it is neither of these countries use the death penalty.

    This is my understanding of things anyway.


  • Options
    #3
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    There is no death penalty in Europe unfortunately.


  • Options
    #4
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Pending Scofflaws confirmation I think what imp said was pretty correct. SO its highly unlikely.


  • Options
    #5
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    There is no death penalty in Europe unfortunately.
    You mean the EU. There is one or two in Europe.


  • Options
    #6
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    imp wrote: »
    The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is legally binding under the Lisbon treaty and specifically forbids the death penalty in Article 2. It also forbids moving anyone to a state (by extradition or otherwise) where they might be executed in Article 19.

    Lisbon allows Britain and Poland (and only them) to opt out of the Charter as they made it a precondition of ratifying Lisbon. As it is neither of these countries use the death penalty.

    This is my understanding of things anyway.

    That's essentially correct. However, the only EU state that even theoretically retains the death penalty is Latvia (last execution 1996), and even Latvia has ratified Protocol 6 of the ECHR (of which Charter Article 2 is a copy) abolishing the death penalty except in time of war. Latvia has signed but not ratified Protocol 13, which abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances - and the same for Italy, Poland, and Spain, although none of these latter have any legal death penalty.

    The reason behind it being a copy of Protocol 6 in the Charter, as opposed to Protocol 13, appears to be simply that not all EU states have ratified the latter, and the EU cannot realistically go beyond its member states - it doesn't have anything to do with the "opt-outs" as far as I know. However, the EU remains the main opponent of the death penalty worldwide, using diplomatic and trade pressure with all it partners to push for worldwide abolition.

    I suppose one could ask why there's a Protocol on it at all, when the EU has in any case no power to sentence anyone to death in any case. The reason is that the EU opposes the death penalty, and wants to mark that - bizarre as that may seem.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    Once again the pro EU crowd are lying.

    There is no death penalty in the charter, UNLESS you do anything of the following.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

    So YES there is a death penalty as part of the Lisbon Treaty.


  • Options
    #8
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    However, the EU remains the main opponent of the death penalty worldwide, using diplomatic and trade pressure with all it partners to push for worldwide abolition.

    I suppose one could ask why there's a Protocol on it at all, when the EU has in any case no power to sentence anyone to death in any case. The reason is that the EU opposes the death penalty, and wants to mark that - bizarre as that may seem.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I thought you were better than this. Your argument is a joke given that it can be shown as lies with the help of one link.

    Are you trying to mislead people?


  • Options
    #9
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Once again the pro EU crowd are lying.

    There is no death penalty in the charter, UNLESS you do anything of the following.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

    So YES there is a death penalty as part of the Lisbon Treaty.
    Did you link to the wrong page? :confused: The link says that the death penalty won't be used. If you're referring to the second section, that isn't about executions at all, it's about the use of lethal force when it "is no more than absolutely necessary".


  • Options
    #10
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Once again the pro EU crowd are lying.

    There is no death penalty in the charter, UNLESS you do anything of the following.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

    So YES there is a death penalty as part of the Lisbon Treaty.

    I'm confused, for one thing that article refers to the ECHR which has nothing to do with the EU or the Lisbon treaty. Secondly it abolishes the death penalty! Now I know the CFR is largely the same as the ECHR with adaptations for a supra-national institution, but why are they refering to the ECHR and not the CFR?


  • Options
    #11
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    humanji wrote: »
    If you're referring to the second section, that isn't about executions at all, it's about the use of lethal force when it "is no more than absolutely necessary".

    Yes I am referring to the second section.

    So the Lisbon Treaty does contain the death penalty, hidden behind a variety of fronts (what, no point in frightening the little people).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    imp
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭imp


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Once again the pro EU crowd are lying.

    There is no death penalty in the charter, UNLESS you do anything of the following.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

    So YES there is a death penalty as part of the Lisbon Treaty.

    Article 2 of the ECHR doesn't allow the death penalty, although it does allow for someone to be killed in certain circumstances which I think most people will agree are pretty reasonable (if too vaguely defined). I think it's important to distinguish between the death penalty and these three cases where killing can be used as a last resort:
    (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
    (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
    (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

    Protocol 6 allows for the death penalty to be used in certain circumstances, however Protocol 13 forbids the death penalty in all circumstances in countries which have ratified it, which include Ireland and most of the EU states (including the UK, where the organisation who run the site you linked to are based) (source). The only EU exceptions are Austria, Spain and Poland which have all signed but not ratified the Protocol and Belgium which hasn't signed it. These four states have all ratified Protocol 6, so they are still bound by it until and if they ratify Protocol 13.

    The Charter, being bound to provide the same level of rights afforded by the ECHR, is bound then not to allow the death penalty under any circumstances in most EU countries, except the four which haven't ratified, where it is bound not to allow the death penalty except in time of war or imminent war.

    So no, the Lisbon Treaty does not reintroduce the death penalty, it does allow four countries to reintroduce/keep it if they provide for it in law, and only in times of war/imminent war.

    Just my interpretation, I'm not a lawyer or anything.


  • Options
    #13
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I thought you were better than this. Your argument is a joke given that it can be shown as lies with the help of one link.

    Are you trying to mislead people?

    As far as I can see, you're looking at this:
    a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
    ‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

    * in defence of any person from lawful violence;
    * in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
    * in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

    b) Article 2 of the 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 a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

    So your argument is that because the Charter allows for the legality of lethal force in certain circumstances and the legality of the death penalty in others, it contains the death penalty?

    The first bit has nothing to do with the death penalty at all - it's about accidental killing in the course of other actions. If someone is executed (tried and killed) in the course of "action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection", that is not "use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary". Instead, it means that if a water cannon knocked you over and broke your neck when it was being used in a riot situation, that's not in contravention of the article. If it were, then the state would have to preclude even the slightest possibility of death to avoid contravention.

    The second bit allows states to retain or reintroduce the death penalty in time of war. It does not require them to do so - the word is "may", not "shall".

    So let's be completely clear about this - you cannot claim that the Charter "introduces the death penalty". It does not by any stretch of the terminology do so. The most you can claim is that the Charter "allows the reintroduction or retention of the death penalty in time of war". It contains no instruction to introduce anything whatsoever.

    That leaves out a whole series of points about the applicability of the Charter, and the existing obligations of the member states under the ECHR, but let's deal with that first issue first. The Charter contains no instruction to use the death penalty - do you understand that, or not?

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #14
    passive
    Registered Users Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    It's nice when people really do crawl back under the rock they came from... :D


  • Options
    #15
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Heres another link. :)

    http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/4/13/3636677.html


  • Options
    #16
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    passive wrote: »
    It's nice when people really do crawl back under the rock they came from... :D

    Plenty more under the rock, I'm afraid.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote:
    Heres another link.


    ...which is just another person quoting Schachtschneider, and a million people believing the guff he's spilling still won't make it anything other than guff.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #17
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Plenty more under the rock, I'm afraid.




    ...which is just another person quoting Schachtschneider, and a million people believing the guff he's spilling still won't make it anything other than guff.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    You will find something here.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9
    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62


  • Options
    #18
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    You will find something here.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9
    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62
    What exactly will be found? It just seems to go against yours and the OP's argument.


  • Options
    #19
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    You will find something here.

    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9
    http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

    I too am confused. Care to elaborate, because those links add nothing to your argument that I can see. On the contrary, that's actually quite an informative site on the EU/ECHR/Charter, once people are comfortable working from Constitution references (Your first non-eurosceptic post here, I believe, thanks for that!).


Advertisement