I am very pleased that you have all come to Berlin for this important congress. The topic is a matter of great concern to me, both as Federal Minister of Justice and on a personal level.

In my capacity as minister, I follow in the footsteps of the very first Justice Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany. Thomas Dehler robustly opposed every effort to restore the death penalty.

And it is perhaps a matter of concern to me personally because 1977 – the year of my birth, in the midst of the terrorist atrocities of the Red Army Faction – was the last time that serious discussions on bringing back the death penalty were held in Germany. Among those who resisted was a young politician by the name of Gerhart Baum, whom just a few days ago I had the privilege of congratulating on his 90th birthday. For me, the matter has always been clear: The abolition of the death penalty is enshrined in Germany’s constitution, and rightly so. That must never change!

For centuries, some of the most eminent minds have argued about the death penalty. Nevertheless, the issue remains as topical as ever, for the simple reason that the death penalty still exists.

Neither has it lost any of its urgency: last year, for the first time in many years, more death sentences were imposed and more executions carried out than in the year before.

This cannot leave us indifferent. We must not rest. As long as even a single state in the world continues to practise the death penalty, as long as even a single person is executed, we must not rest.

The death penalty is unjust. That is why it must be abolished – without exception, in every corner of the globe. This is the message that we are here today to send to the world – and we will continue to do so until the death penalty is a thing of the past.

We are not here to discuss the arguments for and against the death penalty. There is no argument for it that could possibly outweigh those against. The death penalty is irreversible. The risk of a miscarriage of justice is therefore simply too great. It has never been proven that the death penalty has any additional deterrent effect. And so, the mere claim that it increases safety rests on shaky ground. When a person’s life is at stake, however, even the slightest doubt should be enough to spare it. In case of doubt, one does not stand on the side of death. We stand on the side of life, ladies and gentlemen!

In the unprecedented global situation we find ourselves in, there is a particular aspect that I would like to highlight today: We live in a time in which the threat to democracy and the desire to strengthen it are on everyone’s lips. And so I would like to address the relationship between democracy and the death penalty.

Yes, there are democracies that impose the death penalty. But there should not be. The death penalty is alien to democracy.

My first argument for this is as follows: The death penalty is alien to democracy because it lays claim to something that is utterly incompatible with democracy: it lays claim to infallibility.

Democracy always makes allowances for error. Democracy knows that every decision is the work of human beings. Democracy is not the revelation of absolute reason, as Marxism-Leninism claims to be. It is not the consummation of divine will, as theocracies claim to be. Democracy is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by human beings to organise a common existence in respect for one another and with freedom for all.

But every human endeavour is prone to error. This means that democracy is a process of trial and error. Democracy is constant error correction. A government that promises much but delivers little will be replaced at the next election. Legislation is changed as a result of parliamentary debates. Strong public criticism prompts politicians to change their stance and reverse their decisions. A political party can today declare to be right what it only yesterday held to be wrong, because it acknowledged a mistake.

The death penalty, however, leaves no margin for error. It brooks no uncertainty. Those who impose the death penalty must have absolute confidence in the judgment on which it is based. They must be convinced it is the consummation either of absolute reason, or of divine will. So it is hardly surprising that the death penalty is overwhelmingly used by autocracies and theocracies.

If we accept that democracy is a process of trial and error, then we must also accept that the death penalty, the very epitome of irreversibility, is alien to democracy.

There is a second argument I would like to put forward: Democracy means that we are all a part of the state, but the state is limited in what it can or cannot do. If democracy is to retain its vitality and resist simply becoming liturgical dogma, then the state – even if it represents a democratic majority – may not, for instance, deny the minority its opinion, or forbid it from expressing that opinion, from publishing it, from taking to the streets for it, or from standing for election. The only exception is when that opinion seeks to overthrow democracy itself.

Today, the idea of limits to the power of a democratically legitimate state is often associated with the notion of liberal democracy. What we mean by this is that the power exercised by democracy is limited by the fundamental rights arising from the liberal tradition. In fact, however, there can be no democracy in the modern sense of the term without these limits. What is the use of an election if it was not preceded by open debate? If the arguments of the opposition were suppressed? If candidates belonging to a minority were not allowed to stand?

Democracy is either liberal democracy, or no democracy at all. The idea of illiberal democracy is a contradiction in terms.

And so, if the state should not even have the power to deny a person their own opinion, their own political will, should it then have the right to take away their life? The question is a rhetorical one. The answer is clear:

If we have no right to deny a person their voice, then neither do we have the right to silence them forever! And that is why the death penalty is alien to democracy.

I would therefore like to end my speech with these words:
A strong state has no use for the death penalty. A strong democracy must have no need for the death penalty.

Thank you very much!