Replies

The first article of our constitution reads "Human Dignity is untouchable".

If one morning you went to work to a beautiful tall building that your fellow countrymen had built and suddenly you found that you had to jump to your death out of the window because the alternative would be to die in an unbearable heat, choking from terrible fumes--wouldn't you pretty much feel that your dignity had been "touched" ?

Well, in case you haven't been following the news, not long ago there were thousands of people who felt just that way, or very similarly, and tens of thousands of people who lost a loved one that way. The person your courts are trying knew full well that his actions would lead to such an outcome--he could fully grasp the extent to which he would "touch" human dignity--yet decided to go ahead with it.

Can you fathom the depravity of a soul that would make such a decision?

Now, I ask you, if you actually believe that human dignity should be untouchable--if you have really adopted that principle as a law above all laws--what, then, should happen to a person who so blatantly disregards it? Shouldn't the most important law be the law that is the most unforgivingly enforced? If a person utterly fails to respect all human dignity--including his own dignity--doesn't that make him a criminal of the greatest degree according to the first article of your constitution? Why in the world would should a respect for his "dignity" keep you from punishing him, once he himself has wilfully and forcefully thrown his dignity away?

You speak of values. Do you value something by letting those who don't care about it destroy it? You quote the Sermon on the Mount. Do you hallow your pearls by casting them before swine? You invoke your constitution. Just what, I ask you, is your constitution worth if it prevents its own enforcement?

Thanks for the ping, Polybius. And you're right: The word for his mindset is indeed irrationality.

It´s a great discussing style to accuse others of irrationality.

Noone can ever "throw" his dignity away. The human being has a dignity noone, even not himself, can be taken away. E.g. small persons wanted to make money by allowing others (for cash) that they may throw them as far as they could. The court ruled that this would violate Art. 1, the dwarfs were not allowed to continue.

The state needs to protect everyones rights and especially the dignity. So if you´re not allowed to give up your dignity on your own, how could the state take it away? Our highest court has decided that even a life-long imprisonment must not mean life long. The prisoner has the right for another chance, usually. However, there are made some exceptions which would apply to Osama bin Laden, for instance.

The state ALWAYS has to balance between the rights of the individual (yeah, this includes the terrorist as well) and the needs of the society (prevention, safety). We think we´re not bad at this. At least we provide everyone a fair trial, and don´t imprison people without a judges decision. And our murder/manslaughter statistics (in %) are half as high as in the US...

Just one example:
The FBI reported 16,000 murders in the US last year. The US has let´s say roughly four times as many inhabitants than Germany. We have ca. 2,000 cases of murder/manslaughter (including the attempts) per year.