Death Penalty Practice Nowadays - Essay Example

leas Death Penalty Introduction The death penalty involves considerable cruelty. This is due to the fact that the majority of convicts on death row are not executed. Many among the condemned expend a lifetime on death row with uncertainty regarding their fate. On account of the death penalty, thousands of condemned individuals live in perpetual fear of being put to death. Their agony tends to last for decades. The solution is to abolish the death penalty, and not in improved and swifter executions(Bannister, 2008, p. 167). Over a period of 200 years, the approach to executions has undergone change. In the past the methods of execution were aimed at causing the maximum suffering to the condemned person. This has been replaced by the functional methods adopted by most of the modern governments. The new approach emphasises the killing of the convicted person and not upon the suffering that results from the punishment(Bannister, 2008, p. 167). This indicates a more humane approach to the killing of convicted persons. However, killing a convict is fundamentally wrong. Punishments serve the important function of averting the dissolution that is noticed in the moral and physical worlds. These punishments come to the notice of the public and remain fixed in their mind. Moral speeches, great truths, moving speeches and strong words cannot achieve what punishment does. In order to prevent violation of the law in the long term, it is essential to have a system of strong punishments(Beccaria, 2011, p. 9). However, the death penalty fails to achieve these objectives. The deterrent effect of such punishment is no longer accepted in the world. When people have to live independently and in isolation, they are placed in a continuous state of war. The freedom enjoyed by such people is always in danger of being destroyed by others. This forces people to form societies that are governed by laws. These laws ensure that the rights of the people are not harmed. In order to live in a society that is subject to the rule of law, people have to forego a portion of their liberty. It is this sacrifice that provides people with a safe and peaceful life(Beccaria, 2011, p. 9). In this manner, a depository of surrendered sacrifices is created. The total of the individual liberties constitutes the sovereignty of a country. Something more is required; namely, a defence of individual liberties against the attempts of others to take undue advantage. As such, people tend to retrieve their surrendered liberties. At the same time, individuals attempt to appropriate what belongs to others(Beccaria, 2011, p. 9). In this situation, it is essential to have strong measures that prevent people from engaging in such conduct. These measures are in the form of punishments for those who break the law. The general public tends to ignore the rights of others, unless compelled to do so by the law. Therefore, punishments play a major role in preserving order and justice in society(Beccaria, 2011, p. 9). Moreover, upon being imprisoned for crimes that do not involve the death penalty, the convict retains the right to enjoy rights. With regard to executions, the humanity of the condemned person is denied by the State(Ogletree & Sarat, 2009, p. 2). Execution constitutes punishment that is degrading and severe. In addition, there exists the possibility that such punishment is inflicted in an arbitrary manner. Moreover, the death penalty has been rejected by present day society, in its entirety. Furthermore, there are no grounds to establish that the death penalty serves penal objectives, in a more efficient manner than imprisonment(Ogletree & Sarat, 2009, p. 3).The death penalty is obviously incompatible with human dignity. As such, the first fundamental right to be declared in the various international acts is the right to life. On 12 April 1764, Cesare Bonesana, Marquis of Beccaria, published his work, ‘On Crimes and Punishments’. This was opposed to the inhumane and inquisitorial system of criminal justice in the European countries of that period(Hostettler, 2011, p. x). He stated emphatically that the death penalty was neither necessary nor useful. With this development, the death penalty came to be considered from the political and not religious perspective. Thus, human rights were declared as the basis of free society. At the same time, the abolition of the death penalty came to be considered as a political development (Nicolau, 2013, p. 279). These considerations indicate the strong opposition that had been made to executions. However, during the Middle Ages and later, the execution of heretics had been authorised by the Holy See. For instance, from 1929 to 1969, Vatican City had prescribed the death penalty for any individual who attempted to assassinate the Pope. Moreover, research conducted in the US, during the 1990s disclosed that Protestants were in favour of the death penalty to a much greater extent than the members of other religions (BBC, 2009). This discussion shows that death penalty was religiously motivated in the 18th century. However, there has been a strong and persistent international movement to abolish the death penalty. The world decided in the year 2007 that no nation should be permitted to execute prisoners. In the UN General Assembly, a moratorium on executions was favoured by a vote of 104 to 54. The Amnesty International had been persistently encouraging the nations of the world to debate, discuss and discard the death penalty (Bannister, 2008, p. 165). This indicates that the movement was politically motivated. As such, there is a clear move, among the nations of the world to abolish the death penalty. With the exception of China, executions have come down drastically in the world. Other than the executions in China, approximately 500 executions have been recorded by the Amnesty International in the year 2006. A large number of countries, across the world, do not impose capital punishment. In the African continent, just six nations continue with the death penalty. With regard to Europe, Belarus is the only nation to impose the death penalty. In the American continent, the US is the only country to have carried out executions, since the year 2003. The situation changes dramatically with regard to the countries of the Middle East and Asia, where the death penalty is quite frequently applied (Bannister, 2008, p. 165).Thus, the above discussion indicates social influences, and not religious or political motives have preserved the death penalty. Moreover, the international human rights system has been persisting in getting the death penalty abolished. Systematic efforts to abolish capital punishment emerged after the year 1945. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a very important development, in the area of fundamental rights. During the negotiations to finalise this instrument, several nations called for the abolition of the death penalty. However, there were several countries, which wanted the death penalty to be allowed. As a compromise, this instrument included the right to life terminology, without referring to the death penalty(Mc Gann & Sandholtz, 2012, p. 276). All the same, China and the other death penalty nations have shown an inclination to reduce or do away with executions. For example, on 1 January 2007, an amendment was made to the Chinese court system. This change required death sentences to be ratified by the Supreme People’s Court. At the Human Rights Council of the UN, La Yifan, a Chinese delegate, declared that death penalty in China was being sparingly used and would be totally abolished (Bannister, 2008, p. 166). In the year 2013, executions had been recorded in 22 nations. The corresponding figure for the year 2012 had been 21. Moreover, in the year 2012, it had not been possible to establish if executions had taken place in Egypt or Syria. Moreover, there had been a 15% increase, in comparison to 2012, in the number of reported executions, which was quote as 778. However, this did not include the number of executions in China. It had been estimated that China was routinely executing thousands every year (Amnesty International, 2014). China has no intention of abolishing the death penalty. In the year 2007, the Supreme People’s Court of China was empowered to review death penalty cases. Subsequently, this Court had declared that it had reversed the death penalty in 15% of the cases, wherein the death penalty had been imposed(Fisher, 2011). However, the absence of verifiable information from the Chinese authorities, makes it difficult to establish the veracity of this claim. As such, the majority of the world’s executions take place in China, and its government does not provide data regarding the number of people that it puts to death. The Amnesty International relied upon public reports and on their basis declared that a minimum of 1010 had been executed in the year 2006. However, it is generally believed that around 7,000 to 8,000 people had been executed in China, during the year 2006. Data relating to the death penalty is preserved by the Amnesty International. For the year 2006, the statistical evidence with the Amnesty International disclosed that the actual number of executions had reduced, despite a slight increase in the imposition of the death penalty. In the year 2006, 25 nations had executed criminals. In the year 2005, the total number of reported executions were 2,148. This decreased to 1,591 in the year 2006(Bannister, 2008, p. 166). In addition, the stand of the Amnesty International is unambiguous, with regard to the death penalty. It opposes the latter without any qualification, and regards the death penalty as an infringement of the right to life, and the right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This stance of the Amnesty International is independent of the method of execution. As such, Amnesty International regards the punishment, and not its method of application, as being unacceptable(Bannister, 2008, p. 166). Moreover, at the global level, there is considerable pressure to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty initially found its way to the common law countries, when they had been a part of the British Empire. Subsequently, the death penalty has been considered to be unconstitutional and incompatible with human rights standards. This has happened in several Caribbean countries, since 2000 (Novak, 2012, p. 267). The UN General Assembly moved several resolutions to bring about a moratorium upon the employment of the death penalty. This was opposed by the English speaking Caribbean nations, which voted against these resolutions. The component of these votes was 25% of the total opposing votes. In addition, these Caribbean nations affixed their signature to the Note Verbale, which effectively dissociated them form the global moratorium against the death penalty. In addition, recommendations from international entities to abolish or reduce the use of the death penalty were rejected by these nations(Rupnow, 2013). As such, several of the Caribbean nations retain the death penalty. However, executions, in this region, have come down significantly(World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 2013). Furthermore, in several of the African nations, such as Malawi, Uganda and Kenya, the automatic imposition of the death penalty has been deemed to be unconstitutional. Several mitigating factors are now being recognised in these nations with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. As a result, these nations have a criminal justice system that functions in closer conformity with the international human rights standards(Novak, 2012, p. 267). The European Union regards the abolition of the death penalty to be very important. Thus, any nation of Europe that applies for membership to the European Union has to totally abolish the death penalty. This requirement is imposed by the European Union, without permitting any relaxation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was adopted in December 2000 at the Nice European Council. Article 2 of this Charter declares that every individual is entitled to the right to life. Consequently, no person shall be executed or inflicted with a sentence of death(Nicolau, 2013, p. 281). With regard to the abolition of the death penalty, the European Union stands out as the strongest campaigner in the world. In June 2001, the European Parliament and the European Council launched the Strasbourg appeal. This called upon the States that employed the death penalty to declare a moratorium on executions. It also called upon the States to abolish the death penalty in their legislation(Nicolau, 2013, p. 281). Moreover, several international conventions have actively promoted the abolition of the death penalty as part of human rights progress. Most of the countries of Latin American have abolished the death penalty. The 22 November 1969 American Convention on Human Rights states at Article IV that the death penalty should not be revived in countries that have abolished it. In the year 1990, a Protocol to this Convention was adopted. This Protocol stipulates the total abolition of the death penalty, with the exception of times of war. However, the participants have to make a request for including the death penalty at times of war, during their accession or ratification to the Convention(Nicolau, 2013, p. 281). As such, on 31 December 1985, the 6th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was ratified. This made the abolition of the death penalty irreversible, by prohibiting Member States from executing criminals, at least during times of peace. In the recent decades, substantial progress had been noticed in the abolition of the death penalty across the world(Nicolau, 2013, p. 280). In the year 1981, France became the 35th country to abolish the death penalty. Thereafter, many other nations abolished the death penalty. As of the year 2013, as many as 129 Member States of the United Nations 190 Member States, have abolished the death penalty. With regard to the continent of Europe, it is nearly free of capital punishment. Out of the 47 European nations, only Belarus executes criminals. This country is ruled by an autocratic regime that has little if any respect for human rights(Nicolau, 2013, p. 280). Even during the 20th century, Europe had been home to atrocious crimes. It is in this environment that the abolition of the death penalty has to be viewed. Strictly speaking, the abolition of the death penalty constitutes a great moral victory. Several international conventions had discussed and recommended that the death penalty is not to be resumed. This has been with respect to the European nations that have ratified the abolition of the death penalty(Nicolau, 2013, p. 280). Protocol no. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights was the first decisive instrument for establishing a Europe that did not impose the death penalty. Article 1 of this Protocol states that the death penalty has been abolished. Consequently, no individual is to be executed or inflicted upon with the death penalty. However, it admitted the possibility of a Member State permitting execution or the death penalty for acts committed during war or in danger of war(Nicolau, 2013, p. 280). On 3 May 2002, Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in Vilnius. This made the abolition of the death penalty an obligation for the European countries. According to this Protocol, the death penalty could not be imposed, and no exemptions or reservations were permissible. This was made applicable, even during the time of war. In order to improve the progress of the abolition of the death penalty, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe made the following proposal. It called for the additional Protocol no.13 to be made the Protocol of amendment to Article 2(Nicolau, 2013, p. 280). A major difficulty with the death penalty is that the innocent are frequently punished with it. No criminal justice system is totally free of error. There are a large number of countries, in which individuals condemned to death have been released. This has happened with the discovery of evidence establishing their innocence. Moreover, there have been many instances, in which the executed have subsequently been declared innocent(Bannister, 2008, p. 169). For instance, Mtepeka of Tanzania was released in the year 2006 from death row. He had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter. The appellate court had determined that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence. This evidence had failed to explicitly establish his guilt. Furthermore, Carl McHargh was released from death row in Jamaica. He was acquitted by the court of appeal. Moreover, in the USA, John Ballard’s execution was set aside on appeal. The presiding judge remarked that the lower court judge had erred in not dismissing the case against Ballard. This should have been done, on the basis of the inconclusive evidence against him(Bannister, 2008, p. 169). Several instances exist, in which decades had transpired, by the time the government had acknowledged that it had executed an innocent person. A very distressing example is provided by the South Korean episode of 2007. In January of that year, the South Korean government posthumously acquitted eight individuals of treason charges. These persons had been executed in the year 1975. The Central District Court of Seoul found that these persons had not been guilty of forming an association to depose the government of that period(Bannister, 2008, p. 169). Subsequently, the movement to abolish the death penalty continues to grow in strength. For instance, in February 2007, around 600 activists came together in Paris. These individuals were participating in the Third World Congress Against the Death Penalty. This Congress identified the impediments to the abolition of the death penalty at the international level(Bannister, 2008, p. 170). In the year 2006, the Anti – Death Penalty Asia Network was established. This Network consisted of abolitionist activists, lawyers and parliamentarians from several nations, such as India, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Indonesia(Bannister, 2008, p. 170). Thus, several organisations and movements had come forward, around the world, to bring about the total abolition of the death penalty. Conclusion The death penalty represents a barbaric and uncivilised response to crime. Mankind prides itself upon being highly civilised and humane. When it comes to the imposition of the death penalty, these human values are discarded. No crime can be so grave that its perpetrator has to be put to death. Even the worst offender deserves to be incarcerated and not put to death. The imposition of very long prison sentences for the most heinous of crimes would certainly have a better deterrent value than execution. The death penalty is not an ideal punishment. There have been several instances, where people have been put to death on the basis of incomplete evidence. In addition, many people have been executed, due to judicial error. When viewed from these considerations, it is evident that the death penalty should be totally abolished. Consequently, there is no rational cause or justification for continuing with this form of punishment. References Amnesty International, 2014. Death Sentences and Executions 2013. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2014]. Bannister, P., 2008. The death penalty: UN victory puts total abolition within our grasp. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 22(1/2), p. 165 – 170. BBC, 2009. Capital punishment. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2014]. Beccaria, C., 2011. On Crimes and Punishments. 5 ed. Piscataway, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers. Fisher, M., 2011. Capital Punishment in China. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2014]. Hostettler, J., 2011. Cesare Beccaria: The Genius of "On Crimes and Punishments". Hampshire, UK: Waterside Press Ltd. Mc Gann, A. & Sandholtz, W., 2012. Patterns of Death Penalty Abolition, 1960-2005: Domestic and International Factors. International Studies Quarterly, 56(2), p. 275 – 289. Nicolau, I., 2013. Historical Evolution of the Death Penalty Abolition as a Fundamental Human Right. Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), p. 278 – 283. Novak, A., 2012. The Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Africa: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 22(2), p. 267 – 295. Ogletree, C. J. & Sarat, A., 2009. Introduction: Toward and Beyond the Abolition of Capital Punishment. In: C. J. Ogletree & A. Sarat, eds. The Road to Abolition?: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States. New York, USA: New York University Press, p. 1 – 18. Rupnow, J., 2013. The Death Penalty in the Greater Caribbean. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2014]. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 2013. 11th World Day against the Death Penalty: Greater Caribbean. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 May 2014]. Read More