The Death Penalty - Perspectives and Solutions - Research Proposal Example

The Death Penalty: Perspectives and Solutions 2009 The Death Penalty: Perspectives and Solutions Introduction The abolition of the death penalty is perhaps one of the most controversial and serious human rights problems being tackled on the international scene these days. According to data provided by the Amnesty International, 59 world nations continued practicing the death penalty in 2008 while the number of states that abolished capital punishment both in law and in practice (though with some reservations relating to the nature of crimes or prohibition of the death penalty in practice only) increased to 138. Despite the growing recognition that the attitude toward capital punishment must be re-examined, at least 2 390 executions in 25 countries across the world were reported in 2008. Furthermore, as many as 8864 persons received death sentence in 52 states (Amnesty International, 2009). A number of experts believe that the controversy observed on the international debate over the issue of death penalty has much to do with the difference in perspectives on capital punishment adopted by various nations. Some countries share the UN view on the death penalty as the violation of human rights (European Union is the most relevant example) while the other nations such as the United States do not consider capital punishment as an aspect of human rights claiming it has more to do with constitutional rights and legislative procedures (Dieter, 2007). One might think that regardless of the difference in views the outcome of actions taken by representatives of both stances will eventually result in the abolition of death penalty. Although such assumption relies on certain evidence, this may never been the case. This paper seeks to show the reader that the actions taken by advocates of the human rights perspective pursue the objective, which is the abolition of capital punishment, while the actions taken by proponents of the other viewpoint only seek to eliminate the risk of wrongful execution. The abolition is not the objective in this case since the moral and human rights aspects are not even viewed as relevant. Therefore, only pressure from the international community, coupled with promotion of the human rights perspective on domestic level may be an effective instrument in achieving an international consensus on the death penalty and abolition of this practice. Main Body Throughout the history of human civilization, the death penalty, along with other horrible traditions such as slavery, tortures, and sacrifice has always practiced at any time and any society. As the civilization evolved, tolerance toward the traditional practices decreased, and the death penalty was one of the long-time practices that raised the strongest concern. Although a majority of world nations has already abolished capital punishment, an international consensus against the death penalty is still a matter of the future. The range of problems associated with reaching such consensus can be illustrated by the list of states that up to date refuse to abolish capital punishment. This list includes such nations as Afghanistan, Cuba, Bangladesh, Belarus, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, along with China, Saudi Arabia. Thailand, India, Japan, and the United States of America, and it is the US that hold one of the top spots in the number of executions carried out annually. The movement toward abolition of the death penalty turned into consistent tendency in the middle of the last century. The turn coincided with the creation of the United Nations organization and adoption of the famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that recognized the right of every human being to protection from tortures and cruel punishment, including deprivation of life: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), 1948). It was the first time in history, that the issue of capital punishment was put in the context of human rights thus providing a strong basis for the international debate. Adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that still remains perhaps the most influential human rights document in effect contributed to further progress in this direction. The ICCPR relies on the abovementioned basic principle promoted by UN and Article 6 of this document states in particular: “Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women” (ICCPR, 1976, Art.6). The reasons for abolition of the capital punishment vary in different countries, but the two root assumption underlying the anti-death penalty debate seem remain the same in all parts of the world. In some states, such as Spain or Switzerland the human rights concern played the key role with the experts and public claiming that capital punishment is in conflict with basic rights of human being. And in other countries, such as the United States the human rights aspect was not emphasized while the most overwhelming argument raised against the death penalty was the probability of mistakes in cases involving capital sentencing. This concern has been repeatedly voiced by Justices of the Supreme Court, law-makers, and political leaders both in the United States and on the international scene. The risk of taking life of an innocent person was the most common reason for the abolition of capital punishment in many other countries too (Bedau & Radelet, 1987). The recent advances in forensic science, criminology and other fields helped many finally realize the seriousness of concerns regarding execution of innocent people also termed ‘wrongful execution’. According to some estimates, the US legal system executed 39 people despite the availability of convincing evidence of innocence or strong doubt about guiltiness (Dieter, 2007). The increasing pressure from the international community, coupled with the new perspective on the death penalty resulted in the exoneration of 131 persons in the US since 1973 (Amnesty International, 2009). Evidently, mere availability of the new technologies and methods would hardly ensure so impressive results unless the attitude toward capital punishment has changed. The difference in viewpoints on the death penalty implies one essential reservation in terms of adequate reaction. Theoretically, accurate reformation of the death penalty legislation suffices to eliminate the risk of wrongful execution. For example, an alternative solution in this regard may be thorough examination and re-examination of each capital case using the further-improving methods and instruments. Adoption of appropriate procedures and laws to support such approach is necessary in this scenario, and it is the task of policy-makers, legislators and experts to consider each and every detail in the process. However, the solution that seems to be adequate for those who emphasize the wrongful execution concern as the key argument against the death penalty is apparently not acceptable for representatives of the human rights perspective. This perspective implies that capital punishment per se is a flagrant violation of the main human right to life and safety. Therefore, no reformation, reservations, suspension or any other action that does not fully eliminate the very concept of death penalty can be considered acceptable. The only right solution in this case is the abolition of capital punishment. The example of the United States illustrates the incompatibility between the two stances. Despite the efforts and resources invested by the country in promotion and strengthening of human right internationally, the death penalty is approached as a legal/constitutional issue, not as a human rights problem by the majority of US policymakers. The most convincing evidence to support such claim is the concern about wrongful executions voiced by the legal community and public. The campaign to ensure that innocent people are not at risk of being capitally punished by mistake is in place, and the results are impressive: 131 persons exonerated from death over the last 35 years. At the same time there is no signs that the death penalty will be waived in the nearest future unless more cases are revealed to prove that wrongful executions continue to occur. And even if such evidences are revealed there seem to be little chances that the right to use capital punishment will be renounced once and for all. A more likely scenario is that further precautions will be taken to avoid mistakes. This may eventually lead to noticeable reduction of executions but not abolition of the death penalty. The most recent statistical data collected by the Amnesty International may be employed to demonstrate the reasonableness of such assumption. Amnesty International stresses the positive trend toward reduction of executions carried out in the United States in 2008 claiming that “…the smallest number of executions since 1995 was reported in the USA [in 2008]” (Amnesty International, 2009, p. 8). Yet it is difficult to call this trend actually positive, at least from the human rights perspective, if one considers that (1) the United States remain the only state in both Americas that consistently practices capital punishment; (2) the United States together with such nations as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is responsible for 93 percent of executions the overall number of which was at least 2,390 people in 2008 (Amnesty International, 2009). Perhaps pressure from the international community members of which increasingly adopt the human rights perspective on the problem of capital punishment was one of the contributing factors in the reduction of executions carried out in the United States. At the same time, the magnitude of its contribution should not be overstated: the most essential factor was the growing public concern about wrongful executions observed in the United States these days. And this concern has little to do with the human rights or moral aspects of the death penalty. By contrast, European nations demonstrate an example of how the human rights perspective on the death penalty is implemented in practice. Protocol 6 the European Convention on Human Rights adopted by the member nations of the European Council abolished capital punishment in peacetime without any reservations (ETS, 1955). Furthermore, the European Union made the abolition of capital punishment one of the mandatory requirements for a nation to enter the Union. As a result, a number of new EU members (Poland, Serbia and Montenegro) from the Eastern Europe abolished the death penalty, and even Turkey, where capital punishment had been intensively practiced for centuries, abolished the death penalty during peacetime (New York Times, 2002). The fact that many influential European, American and African nations started to look at the capital punishment as a human rights problem contributed greatly to the success of international abolitionist efforts. First and foremost, the new perspective adopted by powerful states made countries that recklessly practiced executions come up with justifications and arguments in support of the death penalty. In doing so they had no choice but to enter the international dialogue, exchange arguments, analyze and weigh pros and cons of capital punishment, etc. The benefits of such dialogue can hardly be overestimated though the reaction of devoted practitioners of the death penalty remained highly negative. For example, the UN attempt to vote resolution restricting capital punishment and encouraging the international community to pass a moratorium on executions in 1994 was not successful. The reasoning underlying this document implied that the death penalty was in the first turn a flagrant violation of basic human rights, and a number of governments refused to adopt such viewpoint of capital punishment. Thus the government of Singapore stated in this regard that “…capital punishment is not a human rights issue” (Hood, 1996, p.55). The statement perfectly summarized the opinions of 73 other nations that did not support the UN resolution. However, the failure launched a new cycle of heated discussions over the death penalty and its relationship to human rights. The result was further strengthening of perception of the capital punishment as a serious international problem that far exceeds the framework of domestic legislation practices by each nation. Besides, the increasing number of nations that share the human rights perspective on the death penalty resulted in more resolute international policies and actions in this field. For example, the majority of European states, Canada, South Africa and many other nations passed laws prohibiting extradition of people to countries that practice capital punishment unless such country guarantees that the death penalty will not be considered as an option. As one of the world’s leaders in carried out executions, the United State is on this black list, and in many cases it undermines the nation’s international prestige and complicates relations with Europe. For example, the European Council even suggested annulling the observer status of the US if the country does not take any effective actions regarding capital punishment (Dieter, 2007). Conclusion Improved understanding of the human rights made many policymakers rethink and change their attitude toward the problem of capital punishment. Unfortunately, the current situation suggests that there is still a long way to go until the death penalty is finally abolished all around the world. Adoption of the human rights perspective on capital punishment is critically important in this regard: no other viewpoint has the potential to provide sufficient reasoning for the abolition of capital punishment. The pressure from the international community must further increase to promote the human rights perspective on national levels level and eventually abolish this practice. References Amnesty International, 2009, “Death sentences and executions in 2008”, ACT 50/003/2009 Publication [available online at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/003/2009/en/0b789cb1-baa8-4c1b-bc35-58b606309836/act500032009en.pdf] Bedau, H., & Radelet, M. L., 1987, “Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases”, 40 Stanford L. Rev. 21, pp. 22-23 Dieter, R. C., 2007, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law, Death Penalty Information Center [available online at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf] European Treaty Series (ETS) 114, Protocol 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 UNTS 221, 1955 [available online at http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/d5cc24a7-dc13-4318-b457-5c9014916d7a/0/englishanglais.pdf] Hood, R., 1996, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, New York: Oxford. University Press International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171, 1976 [available online at http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/ccpr.htm] New York Times, August 4, 2002, “Turkish Parliament, Looking to Europe, Passes Reforms”, A2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), 1948 [available online at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html] Read More