Should Bernard Rappaz release to save his life, since the forced nutrition is not applicable ? Difficult question, which seems to divide the public romand and federal parliamentarians. The Grand Council Valais must address his request for clemency on Thursday 18 November. Maybe calls 'last chance' have an influence, but now he would say, very surprising that the Grace be granted. That said, it is important to understand that the issue of a release is not limited to this request for clemency. To understand the problem as it arises more realistically, three points are important here: First
one you've probably all aware:
1) A suspended sentence is not a grace
It is also a release, but without shortening of the total sentence. Three days out of prison in these circumstances is to add three days in prison later. This question, which is also on the table, not necessarily those of the Grand Council but that the situation in any case is very different from that of a pardon.
Also:
2) Suspend the sentence of a dying man is the norm in Switzerland, not an exception
Dying in prison is a human drama. A drama that has become superimposed, and which is not contemplated by the sentence which the inmate was convicted. Accordingly, when the death of an inmate incarcerated in Switzerland is predictable, it is usual that an application for release is sent to the judge. Allowing a prisoner who is not-or more dangerous to die free is an honorable request. To which the response, in Switzerland, is usually positive. If what matters is not to make an exception for Bernard Rappaz, so let him die in prison so that he would seek a suspension on these grounds would be quite inconsistent. That would ultimately make an exception in his case . By refusing to release him to die, it would do to him as we do not for others. Accept a suspension of sentence for this reason is not so make him an exception. So it's a crisis that could eventually, perhaps, be acceptable to all.
And then if he resumed eating and eventually died does not? It simply resume its barely ...
3) Any suspension of sentence may be conditioned by the dangerousness of the inmate
Some people who have called for the suspension of the penalty Rappaz also raised the issue that arises in the case of a strike from hunger by a dangerous inmate. It is a very good question. But this is not one that arises now. Suspend the sentence of a prisoner recognized by all as non-hazardous, taking explicitly into account that it is not dangerous, would not last for that other type of case.
It is important to understand all that. So yes, of course, perhaps a suspension of sentence in any case seem unacceptable to the authorities of Valais. Even in a context where other prisoners would have obtained. It has also seen the most recent law of Switzerland on the hunger strike, that of Neuchatel, let die a prisoner hunger strike, "if the person does so in good conscience and will. " And even if we imagine that the authorities willingly Neuchâtel would first try to find an arrangement that avoids this end, we imagine that in some cases it may be regarded as the least worst options available.
The case of Bernard Rappaz Will he considered such a situation? It is not excluded. But it is important to understand that accepting a suspension for health reasons or for reasons of end of life, would not he make an exception. This is important because the Valais authorities should be able, if they wish, make that choice without being accused of succumbing to blackmail. They would in this case not alter the normal application of penalties, precisely. They would have done to him exactly like any other. Neither more nor less.
Maybe I'm wrong in this analysis. Your comments are welcome as usual. But it seems that if we want is to both avoid an exception, and avoid subjecting an inmate to inhuman and degrading , and avoid leaving it to die, well this time it is possible .. .
0 comments:
Post a Comment