国連で近々、「死刑モラトリアム」決議案が採択かも

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39959

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 7 (IPS) - When the United Nations votes next week on a draft resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, there will be more than a dozen non-committal member states who will neither vote for such a resolution nor against it.

They will either abstain or take the easy way out: absent themselves at voting time. Both "abstain" and "absent" are reflected on the U.N.'s vote counts.

"These may be the decisive votes on whether or not the resolution will be adopted by the majority of the 192 member states," predicts one Third World diplomat.

But Yvonne Terlingen, head of Amnesty International's U.N. Office, told IPS that, as of now, there are 75 member states which are co-sponsoring the draft resolution -- and all of which are expected to vote for it.

But the opponents of the resolution are likely to undermine it by proposing several amendments -- described by some as "wrecking amendments" -- that will dilute its core content.

Fully conscious of this, Terlingen said: "We are urging all member states to support the text and resist any amendments that would seek to alter the purpose of this important resolution."

Initially, the vote next week will be in the U.N.'s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (also called the Third Committee), which comprises all 192 member states.

来週には、「死刑モラトリアム」のための決議案が国連の社会・人道・文化委員会（通称第三委員会）で１９２の加盟国が集まっての投票が行われる。今のところ、７５ヶ国が決議案を支持していて、賛成票を投ずる見込み。でも、反対国は投票しないか、欠席する見込みらしい。日本はどーなんだろう。９０年以降、すでに５０カ国で死刑を廃止してるんだって。シンガポールの代表は死刑存置派。日本でもおなじみの主張を展開。

Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore told IPS last week that the resolution will only "sour the atmosphere" at the United Nations and "cause unnecessary divisiveness in the house."

"It is not clear to me what the EU hopes to gain with this resolution. It may give them a sense of moral satisfaction but it is not going to change the positions of countries that maintain that the death penalty serves to deter serious crimes," he added. Menon also told the Third Committee last week that some in the EU have "disingenuously" suggested that a moratorium on executions is a "compromise".

"It is not," he said. "It is clear that the ultimate objective of a moratorium is abolition."

"Whether the draft resolution is on a moratorium or the abolition of the death penalty, its goal is to impose the views and values of the sponsors on those who hold a different view," he added.

Menon said the issue before is not really about the merits or demerits of the death penalty. In the absence of an international consensus, countries on either side of the argument have no right to impose their opinions, he argued.

"Every state has the sovereign right to choose its own political, economic, social and legal systems based on what is in their own best interests," he declared.

「EUがこの決議案から何を得たいのかわからない。道徳的な満足は得られるだろうが、死刑を重大犯罪の抑止に用いている国々の立場を変えるものではない。EUの中には腹黒くもモラトリアムは妥協だというものもいるが、それはすなわち死刑廃止に持っていこうとすることなのだ。これは異なる価値観を持つ国に自分らの考えを押し付けることだ。問題は死刑の利点・欠点に関することではなく、どちらの意見を持つ国も他国に考えを押し付けることはできないことにある。各国は、それぞれの国益にかなった政治的・経済的・社会的・法的な制度を選ぶ権利がある」byシンガポール代表メノン氏。

日本は意見を言わないの？死刑判決を増やしてるのに？

ところで、ワタスは「死刑居心地が悪い派」です。できればしないほうがいいんではないか派。きっかけは、小学校で児童を殺傷した犯人があっさりと「望み通り」に死刑になったこと。どーせ自分なんか生きてても仕方がないんだから、でかい悪いことをやって死刑になって名を残したいと考える不埒なやつには、死刑制度は却って甘い誘惑なんじゃないか。それと、最近気になってるのが、被害者遺族が犯人の死刑を叫ぶのがまるでお約束のようになっていること。自分の大切な家族を守れなかった無念を、犯人の死刑を求めることではらそうとしているかに見えて、悲しい。自分だって同じ目にあったらどーなるかはわからないけど、本当にこれでいいのか。なんか釈然としないのですわ。