Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.
fymk,
I salute you for your openness.
I understand, from other threads in this forum, that Gazelle is one
of the more anti-PAP guys in this forum, but then I stick tot eh
creed, "even the idiot has something to teach us."
I have read the UDHR before and I know articles 29 and 30 well,
although I of course am inclined toward articles 6 and 7, since I
am a student. Article 30 states clearly that "nothing in [the UDHR]
may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person to...
perform any act aimed at destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth wherein" and Right to Life is clearly stated as
part of the UDHR, thus article 30 effectively bars one from using
Article 29.2 to support the Death Penalty, since the Death Penalty
is an action by the State to remove the Right to Life of a human
person.
The State has the role of moral custodian of Society. As Confucius
once said, "a leader must rule with benevolence, and lead by
example." I have a theory that the Death Penalty actually increases
the possibility of intent for murder, even while on the surface
deterring the actual act from occurring. Crouching behind Legal
Codes doesn't make the action any more legal or moral: Hitler
passed laws to condone the Holocaust, so the Holocaust was legal in
germany at that time. My point is that the State cannot act as a
morla custodian if it does not practice what it preaches.
Article 29 exists, as far as I understand, to enable Governments to
handle crime in their countries. its text is, according to the
official version:
(1) Everyone has duties to the
community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely
for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements
of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
As 29.2 states in the official version, the purpose must be to
"secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of
others." the Death penalty fails to provide these:
a) there is nothing to secure since the victim's life is already
taken, and there is no proof that the murderer is going to kill the
victim's family members without provocation. For Drug Trafficking,
it si even worse since there is no proof that victims have even
been existent. Jail and confiscation fo the possession (drugs) is
sufficient.
b) the Death Penalty violates article 12, since the enaction of it
will tarnish the reputation of the Accused' family, especially in
Asian countries like SIngapore. Remember, we are a Chinese society,
and it is tradition to have guilt by Association, whether or not we
utilise Western legal codes officially. Thus, the Death penalty
does not secureRespect for the rigths for the Accused'
family.
c) In the event that a mistake is made, it is irreversible.
I hope you understand my position on this matter.
As a side note, there is an American advocacy group against the
Death Penalty that is made up of murder victims' families. Let me
ask you, if such a group can exist, what does that tell you about
the Penalty?
the pikamaster sincerely
