→Art: Added the famous Goya painting |
|||
Line 371: | Line 371: | ||
===Art=== |
===Art=== |
||
[[Image:Executions of the Third of May by Goya.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Executions of the Third of May by [[Goya]]]] |
|||
The electric chair was used to promote the electric industry in the early days of its inception and was by 1971 an icon of [[Americana]]. [[Andy Warhol]] famously depicted the [[electric chair]] in his 1971 [[screenprint]] series. The image was repeatedly printed in a range of colors including pink, blue and yellow. Warhol's art often demonstrated a preoccupation with death, and dealt directly with the commercialisation of violence and the ease with which modern technology had made killing possible. |
The electric chair was used to promote the electric industry in the early days of its inception and was by 1971 an icon of [[Americana]]. [[Andy Warhol]] famously depicted the [[electric chair]] in his 1971 [[screenprint]] series. The image was repeatedly printed in a range of colors including pink, blue and yellow. Warhol's art often demonstrated a preoccupation with death, and dealt directly with the commercialisation of violence and the ease with which modern technology had made killing possible. |
||
Revision as of 17:03, 6 February 2006
Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted felon as a punishment for a crime (often called a capital offence or a capital crime). Historically the judicial execution of criminals and political opponents was a phenomenon of nearly all societies and it was often also used as a means to suppress political dissent. Countries around the world, particularly in Europe and Latin America, have abolished capital punishment. The United States is unique amongst wealthy western nations in retaining it. However, many of the countries in Asia (including China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Thailand) continue to apply the penalty for certain crimes and it is also common in many Middle Eastern and African countries.
The death penalty is sometimes seen as an effective deterrent to crime, but some studies show that life in prison is just as effective.
In most countries that practice captial punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as a punishment for planned murders. In some majority-Muslim countries, certain sexual crimes, including adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty. In militaries around the world, courts-martial have sentenced capital punishments also for cowardice, desertion, insubordination and mutiny.
Terminology
The term "capital" derives from the Latin caput meaning "head".[1] Capital punishment therefore literally means "head punishment", but has been extended to cover all forms of the death penalty rather than just those methods involving decapitation (beheading). A capital offence or capital crime is any crime to which the death penalty applies.
History
The use of formal execution extends back beyond recorded history. In the history of the death penalty, societies have generally progressed (or sometimes regressed) through an identifiable sequence of practices surrounding the death penalty.
- Tribal practices or blood feuds.
- Introduction of state-sponsored justice, with use of the death penalty for many crimes.
- The lex talionis, restricting the death penalty to murder.
- Abolitionary movements.
All of these phases can still be found in some parts of the world today, although the tendency is towards abolition. Parallel with this progression towards abolition, societies have also experienced developments in concern with the suffering associated with the death penalty. Earlier phases show attempts to maximize suffering. Intermediate phases show attempts to differentiate (maximizing in some cases, minimizing in others): the degree of suffering may have some relation to the person's status in society or the nature of the crime. In later phases, any extraneous (or "cruel and unusual") suffering is considered unethical and execution must be as "humane" as possible. The issues of human sacrifice and entertainment are also important in the history of capital punishment.
Blood feuds
The historical origin of the death penalty lies in the practice of the blood feud. Blood feuds (or vendettas) are a form of social control in societies where the state is too weak or underdeveloped to enforce law, or where the state does not exist at all.[2] Responsibility for law enforcement falls to the individual members of society, who may be entitled by tradition to kill those who have threatened the honour of their families. Honour can be threatened by many transgressions (e.g. land disputes). Blood feuds are not an unregulated practice. On the contrary, the traditional rules surrounding blood feuds (such as a code of honour) may be elaborate and rigidly observed. "...revenge can be characterised as a mechanism for social control and maintenance of a balance of power between medium-sized groups which are not subject to any higher central authority. The lack of a guarantor of order and security means that these groups can only ensure long-lasting coexistence by means of an "equilibrium of fear". Acts of revenge underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies (as well as potential allies) that injury to property, rights or the person will not go unpunished."[3]
A blood feud may seem primitive and uncivilised by modern standards, but it should be seen as progress compared to the alternatives available in early societies: "Blood feud makes a society safer than it would be if there was no regulation of violence and its use against others." [4] However if disagreement about application of the rules of honour arises, the two sides may get involved in an unending cycle of violence: the "equilibrium of fear" is unstable. Societies have tended to progress away from the state of blood feud if they can.
Key elaborations of the blood feud cultures include the principle of substitution. Just as one life had to be paid for with another in revenge, so one life could be substituted for another in the payment of the blood debt. Blood feud systems include elaborate rules for negotiation and settlement, although the parties might not be willing to settle. Settlement rules can allow for animal blood to replace human blood, or transfers of property or blood money.[5] Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as Viking things.[6] Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts (e.g. trial by combat). One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel.
Sacrifice and entertainment
- "All of the people of Gaul are completely devoted to religion, and for this reason those who are greatly affected by diseases and in the dangers of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so using the Druids as administrators to these sacrifices, since it is judged that unless a man's life is given back, the will of the immortal gods cannot be placated." (Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Book VI)
Human sacrifice is well documented from the earliest times, but what was the rationale? According to Caesar, for the Celts it was "pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur" - roughly, "a life for a life". If the gods are displeased with you for a wrongdoing, they demand blood payment and may send a disease to perform the execution. However it is possible to negotiate with the gods and perform a substitution - somebody else's life will pay the blood debt instead. Similarly, there is a risk when going into battle that one might have some unpaid blood debt with the gods, for which reason the gods might ensure defeat and death. So as a safety precaution it was possible to promise the gods an alternative blood payment - presumably the blood of one's enemies, but again as a substitution for one's own blood. See also: Celts and human sacrifice.
In Christian theology the doctrine of substitutionary atonement has a similar logic, but extended to a universal scale. The idea of substitutionary atonement is that humanity (from the dawn of time to the end of time) is sinful and that these sins or wrongdoings require compensation or atonement. The Roman execution of Jesus of Nazareth is interpreted as a self-sacrifice on behalf of humanity. The key biblical texts indicate the idea of one life for many lives.[7] As regards the substitution, Christian theology draws parallels between the crucifixion and the story of how Abraham was permitted to substitute a lamb for his son Isaac when commanded by God to make a human sacrifice (the lamb is understood as symbolizing Christ).[8] See also: atonement, substitutionary atonement, propitiation, sacrifice.
Further examples of human sacrifice include the judicial hanging that was originally a sacrificial rite to Odin. Scandinavian religions demanded human sacrifices not only by hanging, but also by drowning the convict in a bog (see Kalevala which contains a chapter where Väinämöinen sentences the fatherless Son of Marjatta to be drowned in a bog; see also bog body, describing the archaeological finds of human sacrifices across Northern Europe). Some societies, such as the Aztec, used mass executions of prisoners of war as a religious rite. The perceived religious or instructive purpose of execution meant that many of the oldest methods of execution were intentionally brutal.
In many cultures the entertainment value of suffering was valued, as seen in Roman executions.
Public executions were the norm until recently, whether atop an Aztec pyramid or on a gallows in the town square. Public executions still occurred in Europe and the United States in the first half of the 20th century and continue to occur in other countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Public execution can be justified on the grounds that it is important that justice, expecially for the most heinous crimes, is seen to be done. An alternative justification is that the deterrent effect is greater if execution is in public. In practice, public executions have often better served the purposes of entertainment. The practice in some countries of selecting a small group of witnesses, usually including officials and family members of victims, can be seen as a compromise between a public interest in witnessing justice and the avoidance of descending into entertainment.
State-sponsored justice
- In 1593 some poor women from Nithsdale travelled up to Edinburgh with the bloody shirts of their husbands, sons and servants who had been slain in a raid by the Johnstones. Carrying these gory objects, they paraded through the burgh exposing the king’s inadequacy in providing protection or justice.[9]
Societies have both progressed and regressed between blood feud and state-sponsored justice in the course of history. Recent studies, for example, have focussed strongly on the current regression into blood-feuding (kanun) in Albania.[10] Detailed statistics measuring the impact of the regression have been published.[11] As the above description of 16th C. Scotland shows, state intervention and regulation is desirable to end the cycle of excessive retaliations often associated with feuding.
The initial response of the state has often been to legislate the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, and provide appropriate courts. The Pentateuch (Old Testament) lays down the death penalty for kidnapping, magic, violation of the sabbath, blasphemy and a wide range of sexual crimes, although evidence suggests that actual executions were rare.[12] A further example comes from Ancient Greece, where the Athenian legal system was first written down by Draco in about 621 BC: the death penalty was applied for a particularly wide range of crimes. The word draconian derives from Draco's laws. In medieval and early modern Europe, the death penalty was also used as a generalised form of punishment. For example, in 18th C. Britain there were 222 crimes which were punishable by death, including crimes such as cutting down a tree or stealing an animal.[13]
Again, the range of often minor crimes to which the death penalty could be applied is almost universally regarded as unacceptable today. But it must be understood as an improvement on the blood feud. State-sponsored justice ensures that at most only one person (the actual perpetrator) is executed and that the matter ends there. Feuding sends whole families into hiding and impoverishment, with potentially several generations of killing.
Numbers of executions
It should not be assumed that ancient societies necessarily used the death penalty with greater frequency than later ones. For example in England during the Heptarchy (500AD-850AD) the maximum punishment for murder was a fine paid by the assassin or his kin to the victim's family (see Weregild). Similar systems existed in Ireland (Ericfine) and Poland (Główczyzna).
Imprisonment may often not have been an option in some societies, but alternative punishments such as enslavement and exile were widely used. At the other end of the scale, in 16th C. Britain, in the reign of Henry VIII alone, it has been estimated that there were as many as 72,000 executions.[14]
The lex talionis
The lex talionis (also known by the principle "an eye for an eye") describes criminal law systems in which punishments fit the crime. As applied to the death penalty, application of the lex talionis restricts the range of crimes to murder. While the lex talionis may seem severe from a modern perspective, in its origin it was reformist, involving a liberalisation of penalties compared to previous practices. The earliest known application of the lex talionis for death penalty crimes was in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC). A similar example of the reforming introduction of the lex talionis is the Athenian Solon's (638 BC – 558 BC) restriction of the death penalty to murder (a reform of the previous laws instituted by Draco).
Differentiated styles of execution
Even in ancient times, methods of execution were sometimes chosen so that the extent of suffering during execution was related to the perceived seriousness of the crime or the class and status of the criminal. Roman citizens might be allowed to commit suicide while low class persons might be crucified.
In medieval Europe, the method of execution often depended on the social class of the condemned. The nobility were usually beheaded in as painless and honorable a method as possible, generally with either sword or an axe (which occasionally failed horribly). Those in the working class, serfs, peasants, and possibly the bourgeoisie were usually executed publicly, by a more gruesome and painful method, such as the wheel or being hung, drawn and quartered . In Scandinavia, the noblemen were beheaded with sword and commoners with axe. Specific crimes sometimes warranted specific methods of execution: suspected witchcraft, religious heresy, atheism, or homosexuality were typically punished by burning at the stake. Unsuccessful regicides generally merited a horrible death. A wide range of offences could be punished by death, including robbery and theft, even if nobody was physically harmed in the action.
Such methods of execution continued into the modern era. In 1757 in France, Robert-François Damiens suffered a horrible but customary execution for his attempted regicide against King Louis XV. His hand, holding the weapon used in the regicide attempt, was burnt, and his body was wounded in several places. Then, molten lead and other hot liquids were poured on the wounds. He was then drawn and quartered, and what remained of his body was burnt at the stake. Inhumane methods of execution and class inequalities were abolished in France during the French Revolution, which imposed the guillotine, seen as a painless and instantaneous method of execution, for all. However, during The Terror, other forms of execution, such as massed cannon fire and mass drownings, were also used.
Movements towards "humane" execution
In early New England, public executions were a very solemn and sorrowful occasion, sometimes attended by large crowds, who also listened to a gospel message [15] and remarks by local preachers [16] and politicians. The Connecticut Courant records one such public execution on December 1, 1803, saying, "The assembly conducted through the whole in a very orderly and solemn manner, so much so, as to occasion an observing gentleman acquainted with other countries as well as this, to say that such an assembly, so decent and solemn, could not be collected anywhere but in New England." [17]
Trends in most of the world have long been to move to less painful, or more "humane", executions. France developed the guillotine for this reason in the final years of the 18th century while Britain banned drawing and quartering in the early 19th century. "Hanging by the neck until dead", which causes death by suffocation was replaced by "hanging" where the subject is dropped to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord. In the U.S., electrocution and the gas chamber, which were introduced as more humane alternatives to hanging, have been almost entirely superceded by lethal injection, which in turn has been criticised as being too painful. Nevertheless, some countries still employ slow hanging methods, beheading by sword and even stoning, although stoning is rarely employed.
See also: cruel and unusual punishment
Abolitionary movements
Although the death penalty was briefly banned in China between 747 and 759, modern opposition to the death penalty stems from the book of the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments"), published in 1764. In this book Beccaria aimed to demonstrate not only the injustice, but even the futility from the point of view of social welfare, of torture and the death penalty. Influenced by the book, Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg, famous enlightened monarch and future Emperor of Austria, abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Granducato di Toscana (Tuscany), the first permanent abolition in modern times. On 30 November 1786, after having de facto blocked capital executions (the last was in 1769), Leopold promulgated the Reform of the penal code that abolished the death penalty and ordered the destruction of all the instruments for capital execution in his land. In 2000 Tuscany's regional authorities instituted an annual holiday on 30 November to commemorate the event.
Portugal abolished the death penalty in 1867; the last execution had taken place in 1846. In 1949, Federal Republic of Germany and Costa Rica became the first countries to ban the capital punishment in their constitutions.
In the United States, the state of Michigan was the first state to abolish the death penalty, on March 1, 1847. The 150-year ban on capital punishment has never been repealed, and as such the state is considered to be the first democracy in recorded history to have eliminated capital punishment. Currently, 12 states and the District of Columbia ban capital punishment.
The death penalty worldwide
Some jurisdictions still practicing capital punishment restrict its use to a small number of criminal offences, principally murder, treason and equated mortal sins such as apostasy. Historically—and still today under certain systems of law—the death penalty was applied to a wider range of offences, including robbery or theft and kidnapping. It has also been frequently used by the military for crimes including looting, insubordination, and mutiny. Armies based on conscription have used death penalty as means of motivation (see coercion) and keeping discipline.
Military
Military organizations have sometimes employed capital punishment. In the past, cowardice, absence without leave, desertion, insubordination, looting, shirking under enemy fire and disobeying orders were often crimes punishable by death. The method of execution since firearms came into common use has almost invariably been firing squad. Today most armies no longer utilize capital punishment, and those armies which still retain the death penalty apply it only to the most serious crimes, such as treason or murder.
Juvenile capital punishment
Only six countries practice the death penalty for juveniles, that is, criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime. In the 1980s and 1990s, most executions for juvenile crime took place in the United States, although, due to the slow process of appeals, no one under age 19 has been executed in recent years.[18] In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that the death penalty cannot be applied to persons who were under age 18 at the time of commission of the crime. That decision resulted in 72 convicted murderers being taken off death row. In the US and ancestor bodies politic since 1642, an estimated 364 juvenile offenders have been executed by states and the federal government.[19] Although the People's Republic of China accounts for the vast majority of executions in the world, it does not allow for the executions of those under 18.[20] Execution of those aged under age 18 has occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran since 1990. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which among other things forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia.[21]
International organizations
A number of international conventions prohibit the death penalty, most notably the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, such conventions bind only those that are party to them; customary international law does not prohibit the death penalty.
Several international organizations have made the abolition of the death penalty a requirement of membership, most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, and practices the death penalty in law, it has not made use of it since becoming a member of the Council. Another example is Latvia which entered a moratorium in 1996. Latvia retains the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances (as does non-EU-member Albania), and is the only EU member not to have ratified the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (which prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances). Latvia's parliament has, however, signed the 13th Protocol. As an EU member Latvia has pledged to abolish the death penalty.
Turkey has recently, as a move towards EU membership, undergone a reform of its legal system. Previously there was a de facto moratorium on death penalty in Turkey as the last execution took place in 1984. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law as in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice (all states having ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights), with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practice the death penalty, namely the US and Japan, to abolish it or lose their observer status.
Among non-governmental organisations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are noted for their opposition to the death penalty.
Public opinion
Support for the death penalty varies widely. It is a highly contentious political issue, particularly in democracies that use it. In many parts of Asia where the death penalty remains in force, including Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the death penalty commands considerable public support.
In countries where the death penalty has been abolished, debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolition. Some opinion polls in Europe and Canada suggest that the death penalty has similar support there to the United States. Other polls show that Western European support of the death penalty dropped significantly in the years after abolition. In most former communist countries there is still a majority for reintroduction.
An International Gallup poll undertaken in 2000 found that 60% of western Europeans opposed the death penalty. In France, a TNS Sofres poll revealed that twenty years after abolition of capital punishment, 49% of respondents opposed reintroduction of the policy compared with 44% who wanted to reinstate capital punishment. In 2000, a poll in Germany found the percentage of West Germans in favor of capital punishment at just 23% the lowest level in Europe. Just 37% of East Germans favored capital punishment in 2000. (Financial Times, August 22, 2003) A recent poll in Italy showed only 23% of respondents in favour of the death penalty. [22]
While a majority of states in the USA use the death penalty, public opinion is split and opinion poll results depend on the phrasing of the question.[23] The difficulty with the interpretation of opinion polls is shown by the following examples. A Gallup Poll in 2005 found that 64% of the public voted in favor of capital punishment, and 56% prefer death penalty to life imprisonment.[24] The most popular alternative to capital punishment was "life without parole" and some form of restitution to the families of victims.[25] A Harris Poll in 2004 concluded that 69% of Americans support the death penalty whilst only 22% were against. 41% of people believed that it detered murder while 53% stated that there was not much effect. 36% of people believed that there should be more executions versus 21% favoring a decrease.[26]
In many countries that have abolished the death penalty, it is a matter of policy that the government will oppose its use in any country. However, controversially, on some specific occasions a government may choose to ignore this policy; for example the Australian government has refused to condemn and may even tacitly support the use of capital punishment against those involved in the Bali bombing.
The death penalty in specific countries
- Capital punishment in Belarus
- Capital punishment in Canada
- Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China
- Capital punishment in Denmark
- Capital punishment in France
- Capital punishment in Germany
- Capital punishment in India
- Capital punishment in New Zealand
- Capital punishment in Singapore
- Capital punishment in the United Kingdom
- Capital punishment in the United States
- Capital punishment in Japan
See also: Use of death penalty worldwide
Ethical views on capital punishment
Ethical arguments for and against an issue can be divided into consequentialist, deontological and virtue-based. Some arguments cannot be clearly assigned a category.
Categorisation of arguments for and against the death penalty.
- Consequentialist arguments: the deterrence argument, the prevention argument, economic arguments, effectiveness of the judicial and penal systems
- Deontological arguments: the retribution argument, discriminatory use of the death penalty, right-to-life arguments, consideration of democratic rights
- Virtue-based arguments: the rehabilitation argument, cruel and unusual punishments,
- Mixed arguments: the human fallibility argument, extreme cases and exceptional circumstances
In most surveys of people's reasons for supporting the death penalty, retribution is listed as the main reason while deterrence comes second.
The Deterrence Argument
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it deters potential criminals. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it does not in fact deter or that it is an unacceptable form of argument.
Subarguments can be divided into a priori issues and empirical issues. Empirical issues look at statistics to find out if deterrence does or does not occur. A priori issues include the question "if the death penalty in fact deters, is it nevertheless right to use it?" - in other words, is deterrence a sufficient justification?
A priori arguments. In favour of the deterrence argument, it can be argued that a killing is justified if such an act could save another life. Against, it can be argued that the issue of punishment should look to the criminal and the victim, not the future free choices of uninvolved observers who might or might not be contemplating their own crimes. Further a priori objections to the deterrence argument point out that if taken to its logical extreme, the deterrence argument not only justifies the death penalty for any form of anti-social behaviour (such as Draco's laws or medieval criminal law systems), but also justifies the execution of innocent people in order to deter the potentially guilty (death squads in some countries use such deterrence killings[27]).
Empirical studies. Empirical studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance.[28] Some studies have shown a correlation between the death penalty and murder rates[29] - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in at least two different ways, one of which can be used to support, the other to oppose the death penalty: either the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalising society (opposing) or higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty (supporting). It is difficult for statistical research on murder rates to prove or disprove the deterrence theory because such studies demonstrate correlation not causation.
Further arguments hold that deterrence was greater in the past, when societies had fewer resources at their disposal for the detection and punishment of crime (e.g. no police forces and no prison systems). In these societies, it was may have been justifiable to make examples of a few to discourage the rest. However today new punishments such as life imprisonment carry their own deterrent effect. It can be argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. A further argument is that potential criminals think that they won't be caught, so they do not care about punishment until it is too late.
The Prevention Argument
The idea behind the prevention argument is that a killer will probably kill again and the death penalty stops them from doing it again. Like the deterrence argument, the prevention argument can be extended to all sorts of other crimes. If the criminal is dead, they cannot steal, lie, cheat or offend society in any other way. In the pre-modern period, authorities had neither the resources nor the inclination to detain someone indefinitely. For this reason, the death penalty was usually the only means to prevent a criminal from re-offending.
Against the death penalty, it can be argued that today prevention is equally well served by other means, especially life imprisonment. This argument can be countered by pointing out that life imprisonment often only amounts to 10 years or so and that parole boards tend to prefer prisoner's rehabilitation hopes over the protection of society.
The Retribution Argument
The retribution argument is the classic deontological argument in favour of the death penalty. The argument focuses on the rights and duties owed between the criminal, the victim and society. Just as the virtuous deserve reward proportionate to their good deeds, so too the vicious deserve punishment proportionate to their bad deeds. The victim has a right to be avenged. Society has a duty to inflict a punishment that fits the crime. In the case of murder, a life must be paid for with a life. One might even hold, with Kant, that respect is shown to the criminal as someone who has chosen a particular path in life by visiting the appropriate punishment on the criminal.[30]
This argument supports the lex talionis - i.e. murderers deserve the death penalty, but smaller criminals must be spared.
For opponents of the death penalty, execution itself is a violation of human rights. It brutalizes society by sending out the message that killing people is the right thing to do in some circumstances and it denies the possibility of rehabilitation. In most Western nations, retribution, or any benefit to the victim, is not stated as a purpose of the criminal justice system. Similarly, proponents of the death penalty argue that people who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life and the abolition of the death penalty is a violation of the victim's rights. The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable rights and it provides "closure" for victims' families. In modern democracies, most murderers are not executed. The court only imposes the death penalty in case of multiple homicides or unusually horrendous murder. In such cases, the proponents argue that it is the closest and arguably the only acceptable form of justice whilst the opponents argue that vengeance is not justice.
The Rehabilitation Argument
Rehabilitation, along with prevention, deterrence and retribution, is one of the main justifications for punishment of any kind. Rehabilitation arguments focus on the perpetrator of a crime (as distinct from the victim or society at large) and ask how the perpetrator can be turned into a normal member of society. Rehabilitation advocates hold that the primary purpose of a judicial system should be to educate and reform criminals.
Rehabilitation arguments both for and against the death penalty exist. On the one hand it can be argued that the death penalty denies any possibility of rehabilitation and is therefore wrong. On the other hand, it can be argued that criminals may be led to rethink and reconcile their lives by the pressing expectation of death. Examples of the latter include death row inmates turning to religion, as well as witches confessing their sins before being burnt.
The right to life / sanctity of life
Arguments based on the right to life or the sanctity of life are a variety of deontological argument usually used to oppose the death penalty. Pope John Paul II was a renowned supporter of the principle of the sanctity of life.
Some argue that the death penalty is a violation of human rights - primarily Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[31] Some assert that it violates the "natural rights" laid out by 17th-century English philosopher John Locke who set out many of the foundations of American law. The American Declaration of Independence also includes the "right to life" as the first listed of the natural rights. While those against capital punishment might claim this as an irrevocable right, proponents may claim that, as protection from abuse is the basis of such rights, that the right was forfeit by the seriousness of the crimes.
Supporters of the death penalty can also use right-to-life arguments. They focus instead on the right to life of the past victims and potential future victims. Failure to enforce the death penalty could be seen as a failure to honour those rights. It can also be argued that people who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life. The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable value.
Economic Arguments
Economic arguments are consequentialist or utilitarian arguments. They revolve around the costs associated with different types of punishment, arguing that cheaper punishments are better to society. Arguments have been produced from both opponents and supporters of the death penalty based on economics.[32] The term "economic" in the context of the death penalty is sometimes used in the wider sense of any utilitarian argument, not merely financial arguments.
Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra costs of the courts such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended. When some death row inmates are freed on appeal or their sentence is reduced, that is a demonstration that the system works thanks to the extra expense of the judicial appeal system. The opponents argue that such reversal is proof that the system doesn't work, especially at the initial trial. For example, in the U.S.A., the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. However, the use of a plea bargain is banned in many countries because it can encourage the innocent to plead guilty and the guilty to testify against the innocent hence increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
The Human Fallibility Argument
The human fallibility argument is an argument against the death penalty.[33] Its fundamental premise is that criminal proceedings are fallible and that if errors are made, the death penalty is uniquely incapable of being reversed or rectified. A prisoner can be released and compensated, even if inadequately, but a corpse cannot be brought back to life. The human fallibility argument can be viewed as deontological (based on the rights of innocent convicts) or as consequentialist (if viewed in terms of statistics).
A priori and empirical variations of the human fallibility argument exist.
Empirical approaches to the fallibility issue involve statistical studies of the numbers of convictions or executions of innocent people. An example for a statistic: between 1973 and 2005, 122 people in 25 US states were released from death row with evidence of their innocence.[34] Statistics may not be reliable measure of the actual problem, however. Many cases of innocent people being executed may go undiscovered after an execution, as there is insufficient motivation and finance to keep such cases in the public eye. Likewise, those released from death row may be released because evidence showing their guilt has been overthrown, not because evidence has established their innocence (presumption of innocence). However it is not normally disputed that criminal proceedings are fallible - the empirical dispute turns on the extent of this fallibility.
A priori approaches may argue that the statistics are irrelevant, because (a) even a single case of an innocent person being executed undermines the justification for the death penalty, or (b) even without any known cases at all, the potential defectiveness of the world's justice systems suffices to show the inappropriacy of the death penalty.
Causes of judicial error. Identifying the causes of judicial error is a preliminary for arguments which may call for a moratorium on the death penalty until such causes of error are removed. The question then arises how, if ever, such causes can be eliminated.
- Convictions may rely on witness statements, which are vulnerable to being countered by forensic evidence. New forensic methods (such as DNA testing) have brought to light previously unavailable evidence and revealed errors in old convictions.[35]
- Poor representation. The ACLU states: "the quality of legal representation [in the USA] is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime".[36]
- Improper procedure. Amnesty International states: "The Misuse of Drugs Act [in Singapore] contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty".[37]
See also: miscarriage of justice.
Discriminatory misuse of the death penalty
This is primarily a deontological argument: the death penalty may be abused in violation of the rights of oppressed groups.
Some argue that, in the US, the race of the person to be executed can affect the likelihood that they receive a death sentence. Death-penalty proponents counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present. A recent study showed that just 44% of Black Americans support the death penalty.[38]
Capital punishment has also been used politically to silence dissidents, minority religions and activists. A major example of this is the People's Republic of China from which there are many reports of the death penalty being used for politically motivated ends.[39] See also: Falun Gong.
Effectiveness of the judicial and penal systems
A variety of consequentialist arguments have been advanced regarding the effective functioning of the judicial and penal systems.
In favour of the death penalty, it is argued that:
- The death penalty provides extra leverage for the prosecutor to deal for important testimony and information.
- Without the death penalty, a person already serving a life sentence may have no reason not to kill in prison.
- By waiving the threat of a death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against their co-conspirators, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. The threat of the death penalty can be a powerful mechanism for greasing the wheels of justice. (See "plea bargain").
- The death penalty alleviates the need for vigilantism on the part of the victim's family or friends (in the form of lynching or retaliatory murder). If the state fails to punish effectively and properly, vendettas or blood feuds can arise, in turn further threatening the stability of society.
- If a criminal has already committed a lesser crime which carries a life sentence, the absence of the death penalty would mean that the criminal has nothing to lose by escalating the level of his wrongdoing, such as by killing witnesses.
Against the death penalty, it is argued that:
- If criminals believe they will face the death penalty, they are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture. Therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime.[40]
Virtue-based arguments
Virtue-based arguments focus neither on consequences (e.g. deterrence) nor on rights and duties. They look at the impact on the people involved in an execution and the nature of the acts done while executing, asking if these reflect the values that society holds.
People administering capital punishment. Virtue-based arguments assess the impact on judges, juries, prison staff conducting the execution and on all the many other people who may be involved with an execution. Such arguments look at long-term psychological and moral effects on these people, such as brutalisation and guilt.
Means of execution. Absolutist arguments hold that the death penalty, in whatever form, is especially cruel and therefore wrong. Relativist arguments hold that specific forms of the death penalty are excessively cruel. Medical staff, who might have expertise to minimize suffering, do not normally assist with executions, as this would be a violation of professional ethics (see Hippocratic Oath).[41] Procedures such as the electric chair, cyanide gas chamber and hanging are rarely fast or effective processes and are not designed to minimize pain and suffering.[42] Amnesty International has highlighted lethal injection as the most frequently "botched" method of execution, noting practices such as crude "cut-downs" into prisoner's arms when a vein cannot be found.[43] Relativist arguments which highlight such cruelty can be countered by calls for new methods of execution, or by arguing that the alternatives are even more cruel.
Consideration of democratic rights
An argument used both in support of and against the death penalty is that one should follow the majority opinion in the country concerned. For example, if a majority of Americans support the death penalty, then democracy deems this to be the "right" view for that country. There are two possible objections to this argument. Firstly, that voters make up their minds on the basis of ethical arguments offered to them and not the other way round - i.e. ethical arguments should not be decided on the basis of uninformed voting. Secondly, that modern democracy is not direct democracy but representative democracy, which allows representatives a degree of freedom to vary from the direct wishes of their constituents if they believe it is in society's better interests to do so (otherwise we would have no taxes, for example).
Extreme cases and exceptional circumstances
A particularly contentious and difficult area of the death penalty debate concerns a variety of cases and circumstances regarded as exceptional. Some may take the view that the death penalty is normally wrong, but should be kept for some or all of these exceptions. They include: murderers of law enforcement officials (police, judges), time of war and military discipline, serial killers, child murderers.
For example, as regards special arguments for the maintenance of discipline in the armed forces, an argument in favour is proposed by Leon Trotsky: "An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements — the animals that we call men — will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear." Against this, it is argued that the death penalty in the armed forces usually has the opposite effect than desired, eroding the morale of the troops rather than improving it, and striking a wedge between the commissioned and enlisted servicemen as the latter are likely to consider shooting their own as murder. In extreme cases the death penalty can lead to fragging incidents.
Religious views on capital punishment
Buddhism and capital punishment
The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states "Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill." Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada states "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill." This is interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty.
However, as is often the case with the interpretation of scripture, there is dispute on this matter. Thailand where Buddhism is the official religion, practices the death penalty. Other countries where the majority of the population are Buddhist (such as Sri Lanka, Japan, Korea and Taiwan) also retain the death penalty. Moreover, almost throughout history, countries where Buddhism was the official religion (most of the Far East and Indochina) practiced the death penalty. One exception is when in Japan Emperor Saga abolished death penalty in 818, which lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions in retaliation to other events continued to be conducted.
The first precept of Buddhism focuses mainly on direct participation in the destruction of life. This is one reason that the Buddha made a distinction between killing animals and eating meat, and refused to introduce vegetarianism into monastic practice (see Vegetarian section of Buddhism). In Jataka, which tell stories of the past lives of the Buddha, Boddisatva (a previous incarnation of the Buddha) actually kills someone to save another person's life, though because of this action, he was no longer able to achieve enlightenment in that particular life. Therefore, few (if any) Buddhist groups issue blanket decrees against Buddhists being soldiers, police officers or farmers (which in Buddhism is classified as a profession involved in destruction of life), and some argue that the death penalty is permissible in certain circumstances. In general, Buddhist groups in secular countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan tend to take anti-death penalty stance while those in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Bhutan where Buddhism has strong political influence, the opposite is true.
Almost all Buddhist groups oppose the use of the death penalty as a means of retribution.
Christianity and capital punishment
Christians are divided on the issue of capital punishment - some are in favour, some are against it under all circumstances. Firstly, there is a tendency for Christian opinions to match those of the countries they live in; many Christians based outside the USA are against capital punishment, while some Christians of largely American denominations are in favor of it. Often overlooked is the fact that virtually all of the mainline Christian churches in the United states have maintained official positions against the death penalty since the 1950s and early 1960s. [See http://www.pfadp.org People of Faith Against the Death Penalty] Secondly, various Christian groups, including members of the Catholic Church, tend to oppose it while most conservative Protestant groups support it—exceptions to this rule include the Amish and Mennonites as they oppose the death penalty.
Pope John Paul II described capital punishment as part of a "culture of death". Many Roman Catholics, especially in America, tended to agree with his view, which is a clear testament to his influence over the Roman Catholic Church of his time. However, the Church as a whole is not completely opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances as a matter of doctrine; rather, John Paul II, as an individual, was opposed to it. The official church teaching however, is that capital punishment can be necessary at times when a society does not have the means to keep its citizens safe from criminals. Catholics are called to oppose the death penalty if the condemned can be successfully kept behind bars to protect society. If, however, the condemned poses a threat to the well-being of society and is not likely to be able to be kept behind bars then capital punishment is permissible. However, this last exception in the modern day world seems extremely rare, except in some third world countries where governments are often unstable or culpable to bribery.
Those in favor of capital punishment often point to passages in the Old Testament that advocate the death penalty such as Genesis 9 which states, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Those against tend to select their passages from the New Testament that advocate love, forgiveness, and mercy. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also…"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
In John 8, a story is told of a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. The Old Testament Law demanded that she be put to death by stoning; Jesus saves her life by requiring that the first stone be cast by someone who has never sinned, and rather than take that role himself, simply tells the woman not to transgress again.
Another verse quoted often by supporters of capital punishment is Romans 13:4, "...But if you do evil, be afraid; for [the governing authority] does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." - supporters point to the fact that a sword is an instrument used for killing, not scourging.
Interpreting the Bible as a story of man's redemption through repentance to Christ, some Christians argue that by executing a murderer we are cutting short his life and taking away his opportunity to repent, and that it denies the role of his cross putting an end to all subsequent blood atonement for sins. Some conservative Christian groups who believe in a literal Hell argue that all who die without repentance automatically go there, and point out that many serial killers, including Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, became born again Christians in prison. The less forgiving might observe that the families of their victims are unlikely to be comforted by the prospect of these men entering heaven.
Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. Therefore advocating the Old Testament over the New Testament has been argued against by groups such as Quakers and some non-Christian critics to show inconsistency in the views of pro capital punishment Christians.
Judaism and capital punishment
The Jewish view of all laws in the Bible is based on the reading of the Bible as seen through Judaism's corpus of oral law. These oral laws were first recorded around 200 CE in the Mishnah and later around 600 CE in the Babylonian Talmud.
The laws make it clear that the death penalty was only used in very rare cases. The Mishnah states that "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in 70 years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death" (Mishnah, Makkot 1:10).
Rabbinic law developed a detailed system of checks and balances to make sure that the penalty could only be carried out:
- if there were two witnesses to the crime. Witnesses must conform to a prescribed list of criteria. For example, females and close relatives of the criminal are precluded according to Bibilical law, while full-time gamblers are precluded as a matter of Rabbinical law.
- if the witnesses verbally warned the person that they were liable for the death penalty
- if that person then acknowledged that he/she was warned, yet then went ahead and committed the sin regardless.
- Further, an individual was not allowed to testify against him/herself.
As such, the death penalty was effectively legislated out of existence. Today, the State of Israel only uses the death penalty for extraordinary crimes. The last – and only – execution in Israel took place in 1962 against convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. It should be noted, though, that Israeli employment of the death penalty has little to do with Jewish law.
In Orthodox Judaism, it is held that in theory the death penalty is a correct and just punishment for some crimes. However in practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes: "In practice, however, these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed. The rules of evidence and other safeguards that the Torah provides to protect the accused made it all but impossible to actually invoke these penalties…the system of judicial punishments could become brutal and barbaric unless administered in an atmosphere of the highest morality and piety. When these standards declined among the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin...voluntarily abolished this system of penalties." (Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume II, pp. 170-71)
Rabbi Yosef Edelstein, Director of the Savannah Kollel, writes:
- So, at least theoretically, the Torah can be said to be pro-capital punishment. It is not morally wrong, in absolute terms, to put a murderer to death....
- However, things look rather different when we turn our attention to the practical realization of this seemingly harsh legislation. You may be aware that it was exceedingly difficult, in practice, to carry out the death penalty in Jewish society...
- ....I think it's clear that with regard to Jewish jurisprudence, the capital punishment outlined by the Written and Oral Torah, and as carried out by the greatest Sages from among our people (who were paragons of humility and humanity and not just scholarship, needless to say), did not remotely resemble the death penalty in modern America (or Texas).
- In theory, capital punishment is kosher; it's morally right, in the Torah's eyes. But we have seen that there was great concern—expressed both in the legislation of the Torah, and in the sentiments of some of our great Sages—regarding its practical implementation. It was carried out in ancient Israel, but only with great difficulty. Once in seven years; not 135 in five and a half.
In Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards approved a 1960 responsa by Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser on capital punishment. It states, in part:
- The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before their would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them…There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete…"
- Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970 Volume III, p.1537-1538
Islam and capital punishment
Islamic scholars state that whilst the Qur'an professes the basic principle that everyone has the right to life, this principle allows for an exception when a court of law demands it. Their precept is "Do not kill a Soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law." This exception authorizes the administration of capital punishment when Islamic law dictates. This is the line taken by most if not all countries where Islam is the state religion or the principal religion (e.g. throughout the Arab world, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.).
Islamic scholars also point out that Sharia (Qur'anic law) contains many safeguards to prevent miscarriage of justice. Sharia also has a clear injunction that strict equivalence must be observed; therefore if a woman kills a man, or a man kills a woman, or a slave kills a free person, or a free person kills a slave, capital punishment cannot be applied. One notable characteristic of Sharia is that the family of a murder victim can pardon the murderer. In Islam, the victim and/or the victim's family are the judges for all crimes; they decide what the punishment shall be under the supervision of a person who knows the Qur'an.
Hinduism and capital punishment
Hinduism preaches ahimsa (non-violence), but also teaches that the soul cannot be killed and death is limited only to the physical body. The soul is reborn into another body upon death (until Moksha), akin to a human changing clothes.
The religious, civil and criminal law of Hindus is encoded in the Dharmasastras and the Arthasastra. The Dharmasastras describe many crimes and their punishments and calls for the death penalty in several instances.
There are also aspects of Hindu teaching which can be invoked to prevent the use of the death penalty. The Mahabharata contains passages arguing against the use of the death penalty in all cases. An example is a dialogue between King Dyumatsena and his son Prince Satyavan (section 257 of the Santiparva) where a number of men are brought out for execution at the King's command.
- Prince Satyavan says: Sometimes virtue assumes the form of sin and sin assumes the form of virtue. It is not possible that the destruction of individuals can ever be virtuous.
- King Dyumatsena replies: If the sparing of those who should be killed be virtuous, if robbers be spared, Satyavan, all distinction between virtue and vice will disappear.
- Satyavan responds: Without destroying the body of the offender, the king should punish him as ordained by the scriptures. The king should not act otherwise, neglecting to reflect upon the character of the offence and upon the science of morality. By killing the wrongdoer, the King kills a large number of his innocent men. Behold by killing a single robber, his wife, mother, father and children, all are killed. When injured by wicked persons, the king should therefore think seriously on the question of punishment. Sometimes a wicked person is seen to imbibe good conduct from a pious man. It is seen that good children spring from wicked persons. The wicked should not therefore be exterminated. The extermination of the wicked is not in consonance with the eternal law.
Methods of execution
Recent events and cases in the death penalty debate
- The Houston Chronicle reported on November 19, 2005 that a man named Ruben Cantu probably was innocent of the crime for which he was executed in Texas in 1993. [44]
The death penalty in arts and media
Literature
In the short story by Edgar Allen Poe, The Black Cat, the narrator is writing the day before he is put to death.
In The Stranger (L'Etranger) by Albert Camus, the main character is sentenced to death for shooting and killing an Arab on the beach.
Victor Hugo's The Last Day of a Condemned Man (Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné) describes the thoughts of a condemned man just before his execution; also notable is its preface, in which Hugo argues at length against capital punishment.
In The Chamber by John Grisham, a young lawyer tries to save a klansman on death row who is awaiting his execution in the gas chamber.
In An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce, the main character is sentenced to be hanged, but escapes back to his home. Near the end of his journey, it is shown that his entire escape sequence was a vision in the seconds before the rope breaks his neck. There have been at least three film adaptations.
Art
The electric chair was used to promote the electric industry in the early days of its inception and was by 1971 an icon of Americana. Andy Warhol famously depicted the electric chair in his 1971 screenprint series. The image was repeatedly printed in a range of colors including pink, blue and yellow. Warhol's art often demonstrated a preoccupation with death, and dealt directly with the commercialisation of violence and the ease with which modern technology had made killing possible.
Malaquias Montoya is an artist and professor of art at the University of California, Davis. His works of art dealing with the death penalty occasionally tour in a show entitled "Premeditated: Meditations on Capital Punishment, Recent Works by Malaquias Montoya". [45]
Film
Capital punishment has been the basis of many motion pictures including Dead Man Walking based on the book by Sister Helen Prejean, The Green Mile, and The Life of David Gale.
TV
- On the television drama The West Wing episode called "Take This Sabbath Day", President Bartlet and his senior staff face the moral and political struggle associated with the death penalty.
- The TV Show Prison Break is about a man trying to save his brother from the death penalty.
Notes
- ^ Etymology of "capital"
- ^ e.g.: Template:Journal reference - article covers general work in the area of blood feuds and then discusses the resurgence of the blood feud in Albania and Columbia; also: Template:Journal reference
- ^ Translated from Waldmann, op.cit., p.147.
- ^ Grutzpalk, op.cit., p.117.
- ^ Examples of detailed studies of particular feud systems are: Template:Journal reference - rido is the local term for blood feud; the location named is in the Philippines on the island of Mindanao; also: Template:Journal reference
- ^ Lindow, op.cit. (primarily discusses Icelandic things).
- ^ 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and 1 Peter 2:24.
- ^ Genesis 22.
- ^
{{cite book}}
: Empty citation (help), p.29, quoted in: Lindow, op.cit. - ^ e.g.: University College London News (2004), Research on blood feuds in Albania and Kosovo; Template:News reference
- ^ e.g.: UK Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Albania (12 January 2006), esp. pp.4-5: "As a result of blood feuds in 2004, 670 families were self-imprisoned, 650 families accepted legal procedures instead of personal vendettas for resolving the conflict, 54 families were living under protection outside the country and 160 children were prevented from attending school due to fear of revenge, of which 73 were considered to be in serious danger. These figures showed a decrease over 2003 when 1,370 families were reported to be self-imprisoned at home and 711 children prevented from attending school due to fear of revenge."
- ^ . ISBN 052181491X.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|Chapter=
,|Others=
,|Editor=
,|Authorlink=
,|Pages=
, and|Year=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|First=
ignored (|first=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|Last=
ignored (|last=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (help) - ^ Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center
- ^ Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center
- ^ Sermon preached before the execution of Caleb Adams
- ^ Caleb Adams' life-story as told by a local pastor
- ^ Article from the Connecticut Courant (December 1, 1803)
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "Recent Developments in the Juvenile Death Penalty".
- ^ Rob Gallagher, Table of juvenile executions in British America/United States, 1642-1959.
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "Recent Developments in the Juvenile Death Penalty"; Death Penalty Information Center, "International Perspectives on the Death Penalty", citing "As China Signs Rights Treaty, It Holds Activist", New York Times (October 6, 1998).
- ^ UNICEF, Convention of the Rights of the Child - FAQ: "The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify—but has yet to do so."
- ^ Angus Reid Consultants, "Italians Opposed to Death Penalty" (Opinion poll published in October 2005)
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "Public Opinion About the Death Penalty"
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "GALLUP POLL: Public Divided Between Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole" (June 2004)
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "Public Opinion About the Death Penalty"
- ^ Harris Poll, "More Than Two-Thirds of Americans Continue to Support the Death Penalty" (January 2004)
- ^ Template:Journal reference
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty
- ^ Joanna M. Shepherd, Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of Crime (Written Testimony for the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, April 2004.)
- ^ Immanuel Kant (1790), The Science of Right; Archil Avaliani (2004), Kant — The Death Penalty
- ^ United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- ^ Martin Kasten, "An economic analysis of the death penalty" (1996); Michael Coles, "The Cost of Capital Punishment" (August 2002); Phil Porter, "The Economics of Capital Punishment" (1998).
- ^ A general overview of the judicial fallibility problem: Amnesty International, "Fatal flaws: innocence and the death penalty in the USA" (November 1998)
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, Innocence and the Death Penalty
- ^ Americal Civil Liberties Union, ACLU resources on capital punishment; Inadequate Representation (October 2003)
- ^ Barbara McCuen, "Does DNA Technology Warrant a Death Penalty Moratorium?" (May 2000)
- ^ Amnesty International, "Singapore - The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions" (January 2004)
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, Who supports the death penalty? (November 2004)
- ^ Amnesty International, "Human Rights in China in 2001 - A New Step Backwards" (September 2001)
- ^ Template:Journal reference
- ^ American Medical Association, Code of ethics, section E-2.06 Capital punishment
- ^ Death Penalty Information Center, "Post-Furman Botched Executions".
- ^ Amnesty International, "Why Amnesty International opposes the death penalty"
External links
- Country by country list of legal position of Death Penalty from Encarta
- About.com's Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty and Capital Punishment
- 1000+ Death Penalty links all in one place
Resources opposing capital punishment
- The Death Penalty Information Center: Statistical information and studies
- Texas Moratorium Network: Advocacy group seeking a moratorium on executions in Texas
- Amnesty International: Human Rights organisation
- European Union - Information on anti-death penalty policies
- People of Faith Against the Death Penalty: Southern US-based advocacy group
- Reprieve.org: United States based volunteer program for foreign lawyers, students, and others to work at death penalty defense offices
- Death Penalty Quotes: Offers thoughts grouped by profession
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: details the Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty
- Michigan's Capital Punishment History
- Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Resources favouring capital punishment
- Pro Death Penalty.com
- Pro Death Penalty Resource Page
- Clark County, Indiana, Prosecutor's Page on capital punishment
- Execution of Caleb Adams: Caleb Adams was publicly executed in Windham, Connecticut, USA, on November 29, 1803 for the brutal murder of six-year-old Oliver Woodworth.
Religious views on the death penalty
- The Dalai Lama - Message Supporting the Moratorium on the Death Penalty
- Buddhism & Capital Punishment from The Engaged Zen Society
- Orthodox Union website: Rabbi Yosef Edelstein: Parshat Beha'alotcha: A Few Reflections on Capital Punishment
- Jews and the Death Penalty - by Naomi Pfefferman (Jewish Journal)