I am against the death penalty, but in favor of Abel and I will not allow anything to Cain. I would propose even that the judge that inflicts the death penalty would be also the executor of his judgment. So we could ascertain that not the incoherence (judgment), but the repulsion for its enforcement would end to be prevalent. But, the system remains the same of the much criticized Church, that convicted the heretic and after committed him to political power of the moment, as, for example, in the case of Giordano Bruno, deluding itself hypocritically not to dirty their hands with blood. There are forms of penalty that may be alternative and perhaps more punitive than the death penalty. Already the deprivation of the freedom for the all life can be worse than the death. But, once inflicted the not death penalty, it must not to run out in its debasement by a facile good feelings, frequently dipped into the hypocrisy. Above all, the statistics teaches that the phenomenon of criminal turning state’s evidence is a form of incoherence, contradiction and emptying of the justice. In words, it is easy to repent. The good behavior in prison isn’t a test of repentance and it isn’t neither a money to early acquisition of the freedom, often, to commit new crimes. Who is really repentant and is conscious of his crime would prefer the exhaustion of the natural duration of the punishment, because only by the expiation there is deliverance. Neither participation of the family of the victims count, because the widespread attitude to pardon poses a problem of consciousness to who has not right-duty (related of Abel). The victim isn’t deprivation of the relatives, because this belongs to whole society and we do not understand why only the first would have the right to forgive, that is function reserved only to God. Even the state can pardon, because the murder is a breach of the laws that the citizens have given to themselves. It’s a matter of consistency of the system. It is sufficient to ask because instead of taking the law into one’s own hands and law of retaliation, the modern law has preferred the devolution of the function to the public justice: with the life of Abel has violated the law and it is consequential and right that is the law to produce the justice. Nor we should confuse the justice with the mercy; the first is of men, the second of God. On this point we read of Luther: “Deus nempe solus est qui voluntate perpetua et constanti dat unicuique quod suum est, suum inquam non ex debito rigoris sed ex liberissima et dignantissima condescensione aut donatione Creatoris” [Truly only God is the one who with perpetual and constant will gives to everybody what is his, his not for strict duty, but for very free and gracious accordance and donation of the Creator] and we must remember that for the Islamics, Allah is definite “the Merciful”. Luther feels, between the others, of the letter to Titus 3.5, in that we read: “non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus Sancti” [We are saved by Christ, not by good works; but according to his mercy, by the regeneration purification, and by the renovation of the Holy Spirit]”. I keep silent of the Catholic Church because I am in its, and I would not be accused of partisan spirit. Often and in all ages, the justice has been given in management to Cain. But being part of the Church does not require to renounce the unappealable of the court of the Inquisition, that have practiced long many centuries a justice way Cain.

(Translation by Giulia Bonazza)