TIGblogs TIG | TIGblogs GROUP TIGBLOGS LOGIN SIGNUP
Isabela Di Maio - Artigos Jurídicos
Isabela Di Maio - Artigos Jurídicos
A pena de morte em Dostoiévski
Translations available in: Portuguese (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | English | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

The penalty of death in Dostoiévski
Automatically translated into English thanks to WorldLingo
E “the Idiot” (1868) of the Dostoiévski Russian, I found the idea sufficiently cool humanist in relation to the homicide and the penalty of death when of the dialogue of Míchkin prince with the secretary of the general.


“- It has! The Courthouse. Yes, really it has a Courthouse. E there for the foreigner, as is? There it has
for many justice cuts? They are as ours?
- It would not know to answer to it. I heard to brag ours very daqui. As it knows you, we
we do not have, for example, the capital punishment.
- Then, there, they execute people?
- Yes. A time I saw, in France, Lião. The Dr. Schneider took me.
- They hang, right?
- Not. In France they cut except the heads.
- They cry out?
- How they could? That is made in one instant. They make the man to be lying and then a great knife
goes down, for the proper weight. A powerful machine, called guillotine. The head polishes outside before the person
blinks! The preparativeses are horrible. Badly they finish to read the sentence, they prepare the man, tie-in, take-the one
for the scaffold - and this is that it is terrible! Multitudes join themselves, until women, even so do not like that
the women attend.
- It is not thing for them!
- Of course that not. Of course a thing thus, so hideous! The criminal one was
an intelligent
man, of middle-age, fort, courageous, Legros call. But I guarantee to it that when went up for the scaffold
it was crying, and whiter of what one
31
sheet of paper. It is not incredible? He is not hideous? Who can cry
of fear? It never passed me for the head that a man already made not a child, but a man who never
cried, a man of forty and five years, could cry of fear! What
it does not have to be if passing in its
soul, at this moment? The one that anguish does not have it to be being led? He is one offends for a soul, here it is
that it is! It is written: “You will not kill” E then, because it killed, kills it? Not. This is missed! Already it makes one month that
attended this, but me it seems to be still seeing with my eyes. Already
I have dreamed a half dozen of times.
Míchkin, while it spoke, completely was changed; a fast coloration goes up to its pale face,
much even so its voice continued gentile. The flunky followed it with likeable
interest, as much that disliked it to have
the silenced prince if. It, certainly, also was a sensitivity and imagination man
, whose thought
worked.
- Still it is a good thing that, at least, does not have much suffering when the head
falls.
- It wants to know of a thing? It made you a comment exactly that already I heard of many other people
- the prince
continued, heating - and the guillotine was invented with this end. But, in that occasion, me the thought occurred
of that this was perhaps worse. It can it seem absurd and barbarous this my idea, but, when
imagination is had, if arrives, as I, to assume this. It thinks! If it had torture, if, for example, it had I suffered
mento, a wound that of this corporal agony, and everything more, this at least would distract the spirit, deviating
it of the moral suffering, thus it would only have been fretted over physical pain until it was died. But the main and
worse penalty is not in the corporal suffering and yes in if knowing with mathematical security that, in one hour,
later in ten minutes, to follow in half minute, and, later, already, well right now, in this as, the soul must
leave the body, and if it goes to cease being man; e that this has to happen! … The worse of everything this is where it is
certain. When it lies down its head to you there, underneath of the blade, and it hears it to slide come for its head,
this room of as it is most terrible of all. It notices you that this is not imagination of
my part. Much
people have said the same. We go to see if I obtain to say cabalmente to it what I feel. To kill, because of
a murder, is a punishment incomparably worse of what the proper committed crime. Murder
32
for judicial sentence is incommensurably worse of what
murder committed for outlaws. Who wants that it is assassinated by outlaws,
and, whose throat has been
cut, in a forest, at night, or any thing thus, of course that waits to escape until the last moment.
It has had cases of a person still
to wait to escape, running, or requesting mercy, and already after the throat having been cut! But in the other
in case that, the one that in we are relating them, all this last hope, that makes to die ten
times, as it is easy
to understand, is suppressed. therefore if it knows that it is certain, Has a sentence; e all the direful torture lies in the fact of
that it does not have, certainly, ways to escape. E does not have, in the world, tortures greater of what this. They can be commanded
welded, be ordered that one of them if places ahead of a cannon, in battle, and it to know
that they go to go off it on
it: still thus, it will have a hope. But it reads one given sentence to you of death to this exactly welded and
or will go crazy, or fall in tears. Who already affirmed that the nature is enabled to support this, without
madness? So that and why this revoltante, useless and unnecessary atrocity? Perhaps, for it has some man there
who already has been displayed to such torture and to who he has been said: “Vai you even so. You are pardoned! “Such man
certainly, in can say them that he was of this torture and this agony that Christ spoke, also. Not, if it cannot treat
a creature thus human being! “

In the Right, until today in 2009 in we see them in the philosophical quandary of the penalties, of what they represent for the population. If they must bring to tona the “example” or if the State does not have the right to apply to the society what it is certain for its ideology, to only correct actions that harm the maintenance of this, not having therefore the ideological power enough to kill a person who killed another one.

In the passage of history, the sanction the criminals started with autotutela - the people acted on account proper to defend themselves. The reason, as it was about a search of personal sanction, was always vingaça; strongest they guaranteed impunity, and it did not have rules how much to the punitive acts -, with the advance of the groupings and the creation of rules so that the life in set was harmonious, the autocomposição arose as an option to that already if they felt something protected by norms that blocked the abuse of strongest, being it a type of conflict resolution in which one or both the involved people decides the problem for desistance, multiple subissão or concessions.
The autocomposição does not become related with the situation of the sanctions the one that I mention myself, because it is a pacification of problems that does not involve a punishment directly. Neither autotutela can be compared in its result-death with the state sentences which I related to me at the beginning. Both, had appeared to the beginning of the life of the human being, as alternative “primitive” of resolution of problems Inter-human beings, when it did not have complex organization as the States of today. Therefore, the controversy of the capital punishment imposition is directly on to the beginning of the jurisdictions, and consequentemente, to the beginning of the formation of the States for the world. In the jurisdiction, a problem inside of the society alone can be decided with the participation of one third on behalf of the called State judge or arbitrator, who will define the way with this conflict will be dissolved, he will define the guilty citizen for the problem, and its punishment.
The State starts to define the type of punishment that the individual “deserves” for its acts, and moreover, it must take in account the example to the remaining portion of the society and the effectiveness in the total dissolution of the caused problem.
However, since the primórdios of the state punishments for the jurisdiction, the problem of the effectiveness of the state punitive acts was born stops with the culprits.
The death penalty was common and acceptable in all the States old, but with the mixture of the catolicismo in the culture occidental person and still the prevalence of the democracy this way, in we saw to the returns with the effectiveness of the capital punishments to them. Same valley the penalty to have a related so primitive institute the beginning of the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” of the Code of Hamurabi in a society that defends the life, the dignity human being and the freedom as fundamental of the maintenance of a State made for the people?

In the democracy, my opinion, obtained with a little of logical and cold deduction, is that rationally the imposition of such penalty does not fit. The democracy is based system of state organization in the beginning of that it is governed for the people, and for people of the people, of its choice. If in our society the greater of the laws is the inviolability of the life, nothing would give right to our representatives to act adversely, therefore that it is not of our interest.
Here I use myself of arguments of total adverse nature of the used ones for Míchkin in “the Idiot”. Although if Míchkin notices that it clearly arrived at the same conclusion using the logic - when comparing the psychological suffering caused by the torture and the capital punishment - took off its conclusions of the feelings that beat to it when thinking about one and in another situation that were both bad to our vision democratic occidental person and. For it the capital punishment was cruel because the psychological terror to know that it would go to die bigger age of what that one to know that it would go to feel excruciante pain for a indeterminate time, without knowing if to the end it would die or not. Míchkin did not criticize the capital punishment as improper to be applied by the State, because wise person who at that time it was, supreme to the predominant ideologies in Switzerland, and understood that in Petersburg the capital punishment did not fit why the system was another one. As much how much I, subentendia it that the death penalty is convenient or not, depending on sitema of the State, and its dialogue demonstrates a so cool and personal vision of a still tumultuous subject, that valley to confer this workmanship as a surprising story of the mind human being who keeps its fears and revolts, crossing centuries and adverse systems of State.

In 1868 the States were very different of the ones of nowadays, but when we look at for the society, for its legacies, we see a justice feeling punjante that through the centuries do not vanish in clarity, conquanto the arguments can so be you go off.

February 9, 2009 | 9:04 PM Comments  0 comments

Tags:
You must be logged in to add tags.


Isabela Di Maio's Profile


Latest Posts
Rebatendo as críticas...
A pena de morte em...

Monthly Archive
February 2009
December 2010

Change Language


Filter By Type
Topics


2286 views
Important Disclaimer