Liliana Cavani - Italy

director

ABSTRACT: How can we explain the fact that countries with a protestant or Catholic majority find the death penalty a civilized thing, whereas the West bases its values on the tables of Moses? Perhaps because it makes justice seem stronger, or because it gives the illusion that there is more order. But the true reason is an economic one. Society is divided between useful beings and useless beings.

("HANDS OFF CAIN", 1 February 1994)

I have understood a thing that gave me a great deal of thought; the death penalty in a given country is not in relation to its degree of economic development, and this unsettled me. I was extremely ignorant. The civilization of the West bases its values on the tables of Moses, which say, "Do not kill". Is it not surprising that emancipated countries, with a protestant or Catholic majority, find the death penalty acceptable? How can this be explained?

Ashanti Chimurenga mentioned among the reasons the fear of the lower or middle class and the moral weakness of the rich. Obviously, this is true. The death penalty makes the justice system seem stronger, and conveys the deception that there is more order, and that the authorities are concerned about civil coexistence. But above all it gives the idea that justice is beyond the weaknesses of the intellectuals. But the real reason for which a country supports the death penalty is an economic reason. The economy is based on the mechanism of utility, of what creates utility and what does not. If we radicalize this concept, we can say that the economy divides society into useful people and useless people, and not getting rid of something which is not useful is in itself a useless action. If it is useless, justice is not credible. A useless action, for instance finding social extenuating circumstances for a criminal who grows up in an institute, means finding social extenuating circumstances for individuals who are

useless for society. In societies where an economic criterion of values prevails, there is a discrimination between useful citizens and useless citizens, i.e. rubbish-citizens, and the death penalty can be applied to this category.

I think this is the sort of future that is in the making.

I thought the opposite process was under way. I used to wonder whether the reasons for which the death penalty does not disappear in the most developed countries is not precisely an economic one, as would be predictable after so many declarations on the rights of man.

How can the Western society - which bases its religious tradition on a man who was unfairly sentenced to die on the cross - not refuse at least to sentence people to death?

I wondered whether it is the churches and the priests of all those well-thinking people who support the death penalty in Europe and in the world. The contradiction they experience is so serious as to become a mystery.

Only culture can solves mysteries, and makes us realize that Hands Off Cain is a cry which has been buried by mountains of filth. I ask myself what sort of culture is ours, which information and ideas we are transmitting from one generation to the other.

I would include among the projects of the League the need for a vast information and debates through the media.