# data[].attributes.headline
Article why the death penalty should be allowed -counter argument

# data[].attributes.subject
Article why the death penalty should be allowed -counter argument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Campaigner Michael Hayworth answers some of the tougher questions - like why it is fundamentally important to abolish the death penalty?
Anti-death penalty campaigners can rattle off 25 different reasons why we need to abolish the death penalty: its cruel, degrading, inhumane, what about families, it's just wrong and world peace.

Most of us can do this so quickly that we cause a small whirlpool in the organic latte that we proudly paid $4.80 for at a garage in the industrial estates of inner western Sydney.

Despite the overwhelming global trend against executions, a number of reasons for the death penalty continue to come up. Here is my attempt to respond to them.

1. We need to be 'tough on crime'

Everyone agrees that crime is bad and we need to stop it. This seems sensible and logical in every way, until we ask the question: do we need the death penalty to be 'tough' on crime? The answer is no, we don't.

The fallacy that crueler punishments deter crime doesn't take into account that there are complex social and economic factors that drive crime rates, and secondly, that criminals don't often plan on getting caught or think through all the consequences of their actions.

"Since Canada stopped executing the murder rate has dropped by 44 per cent"

Simplified statistics don't help either.

Did you know that since Canada stopped executing the murder rate has dropped by 44 per cent? Does this mean that stopping executions will stop murders? Of course not, but it does demonstrate that the issues that drive and prevent crime are too complex to fit into a one line statistic or sound-byte.

The point here is that preventing crime takes long-term research into the causes, effective police work and rehabilitation. All of which can happen without the use of the death penalty.

2. 'They did the crime, they should do the time'

Various iterations of this comment came thick and fast when Amnesty began calling for the clemency of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, currently on death row in Bali for drug offences. Ironically, with the death penalty, we are not talking about time, we are talking about the opposite.

Both men acknowledge their crimes and recognise that they must face punishment. But a death sentence deprives people of the opportunity to reform. Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are great examples of reform, one running art classes and the other studying to be a pastor. Their reform has come so far that a former governor of Kerobokan prison has argued they shouldn't be executed.

Many others who languish on death row across the world have acknowledged their crime and reformed. There is no benefit to the state in killing these people, a senseless deprivation of life.

The immediate counter argument is that the threat of death forces people to reform. Again, the evidence for this simply isn't conclusive.

Criminal justice systems the world over have had great success of reform without the threat of death, and often due to programs that focus on offender rehabilitation.

3. The criminal justice system is fair

Australia's criminal justice system is largely fair, but that certainly can't be said of many of the countries using the death penalty. We know that the death penalty is applied overwhelmingly to the working class, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups. This happens not because people in these categories are more prone to crime, but because they have less access to legal resources.

Ask any criminal lawyer whether or not the amount of legal resources available on a particular case makes a difference and they will give you a deadpan 'yes'. Legal support might not get the verdict is changed, but mitigating circumstances can be presented, alternate arguments explored and evidence double-checked. All of this makes a difference to whether a death sentence is handed down.

"We can't give back a life once it is taken, and for one I would prefer a cautious approach to even the slightest possibility of taking an innocent person's life"

Many justice systems are stacked against the person charged with the crime. Siti Zainab is an Indonesian national on death row in Saudi Arabia. Siti was a domestic worker who, after horrific treatment at the hands of her employer, allegedly killed a member of the household. Domestic workers are often unable to escape their employers treatment in the Gulf and Siti reportedly suffers from a mental illness.

Regardless of the country, a fair criminal justice system does not mean an infallible one - errors can and do occur. Troy Davis was executed in Georgia, USA after seven of nine key witnesses changed their testimony, some going so far as to argue for Troy's innocence.

We can't give back a life once it is taken, and for one I would prefer a cautious approach to even the slightest possibility of taking an innocent person's life.

4. It is cheaper and more humane to execute people.

Even I was surprised by the facts on this one. A study done in California discovered that it was actually more expensive to execute a person than to keep them in jail for life. Yes, that's right - the amount of time and money spent on taking a person's life is greater than keeping them in prison.

For those of us who think there is a humane way to execute, let's reflect on how some executions actually occur.

Often prisoners are woken with no knowledge they are to be killed, taken to a remote location, tied to a post and shot in the chest. If they don't die, a captain takes a pistol and shoots them in the head. For hangings, people are sometimes strapped to a steel board to stop them moving as they are wheeled up to a noose.

Governments often keep this information on executions secret, even to the point of loading some of the guns with blanks so no one definitively knows who in the firing squad fired the death blow.

Whichever way you look at it, killing another human isn't humane, not even close. And when you get to the details it is simply vengeful and cruel.

5. But what about [insert horrible despot here]: surely they should be executed?

There are a lot of people who have done horrific, unspeakable things, but modern societies should not join their ranks by also carrying out a murder. People are judged by their actions, and killing another human being is about as profound as actions come.

We can't take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment.

"We can't take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment"

This knowledge give us an opportunity, a chance to ask our neighbours in the region to end this practice. Today, thousands of Australians will start a movement and light candles at vigils all across the country to end the backslide towards execution in Asia.

It might sound simple but we shouldn't underestimate the capacity of a group of Australians to change the world.
An edited version of this story first appeared on news.com.au Find out more about the Amnesty International Australia's campaigns against the death penalty and how you can help save lives today. Join our Human Rights Defenders program to help us abolish the death penalty.
Read More Download Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are five reasons why some people think the world needs the death penalty, and five ways in which they're wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Death penalty makes the people doing the execution just as bad

# data[].attributes.body
Just one execution costs much more than a life sentence

# data[].attributes.body
Innocent people are being executed

# data[].attributes.body
picture of the words death penalty

# data[].attributes.body
Gives reasons the death penalty should not be allowed in the us, (13 reasons)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a better alternative: life without parole.
In Oregon, we have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently over 121 people in Oregon who have received this sentence.

The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. In Missouri, Texas and Virginia investigations have been opened to determine if those states executed innocent men. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk we cannot take.

Race and place determine who lives and who dies.
Those who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to die than those who kill African-Americans. In Oregon, prosecutors from some counties are more likely to pursue the death penalty than others are.

We pay many millions for the death penalty system.
According to the Oregonian, in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year.

Poor quality defense leaves many sentenced to death.
One of the most frequent causes of reversals in death penalty cases is ineffective assistance of counsel. A study at Columbia University found that 68% of all death penalty cases were reversed on appeal, with inadequate defense as one of the main reasons requiring reversal.

Capital punishment does not deter crime.
Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime. Around our country, states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than neighboring states with the death penalty.

There is a better way to help the families of murder victims.
Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance.

The death penalty is applied at random.
The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, approximately 120 people are sentenced to death, less than 1%.

Capital punishment goes against almost every religion.
Although isolated passages of the Bible have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral.

Mentally ill people are executed.
One out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that people with "mental retardation" may not be executed, Oregon has not yet passed a law banning the execution of the mentally ill.

The USA is keeping company with notorious human rights abusers.
The vast majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and South America - more than 117 nations worldwide - have abandoned capital punishment in law or in practice. The United States remains in the same company as Iraq, Iran and China as one of the major advocates and users of capital punishment.

We are the "State." When the "State" kills, we are participants.
Would you choose to be the person that pulls the switch that snuffs out a human life?

No civilian's job description should include killing another person.
Corrections personnel involved in executions, like our military, frequently suffer PTSD from having to kill. Perhaps there is a reason to have a defensive military, but prisoners pose no threat to the well-being of our citizens. There is no reason to place the mental health of our corrections workers at risk simply to pursue vengeance.

Sources:
Death Penalty Information Center ( www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)
FBI Uniform Crime Reports ( www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr)
Death Penalty Focus ( www.deathpenalty.org)
The American Civil Liberties Union ( www.aclu.org)
The National Association on Mental Illness ( www.nami.org)
Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty ( www.oadp.org)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a better alternative: life without parole. In Oregon, we have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently over 121 people in Oregon who have received this sentence. The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk.

# data[].attributes.body
contains information covering nearly every subject and on how the death penalty is bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Center also produces groundbreaking reports on various issues related to the death penalty such as arbitrariness, costs, innocence, and race.

# data[].attributes.body
This site holds a lot of information about where it takes place, how, and when

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes - sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 when the crime for which they have been convicted was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials - in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception - regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Previous Next

About the death penalty

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

Amnesty International has never felt more hopeful that this abhorrent punishment can and will be relegated to the annals of history
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General, Amnesty International

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still resort to the death penalty in these situations. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 163 executions of people who were below the age of 18, in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many people who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 113 of them since 1990.

Execution Methods used in 2022

Beheading

Hanging

Lethal injection

Shooting

Where do most executions take place?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA - in that order.

China remained the world's leading executioner - but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 883 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International's view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

How many death sentences and executions take place each year?

Death sentences

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,016 death sentences in 52 countries in 2022, a slight decrease from the total of 2,052 reported in 2021. At least 28,282 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2022.

Executions

Amnesty International recorded at least 883 executions in 20 countries in 2022, up by 53% from 2021 (at least 579 executions).

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 191 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems

In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory

The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty International doing to abolish the death penalty?

For over 45 years, Amnesty International has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty International monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty International's latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2022, was released in May 2023.

The organization's work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia , and Middle East and North Africa regions; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions by the UN General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty International started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 112 - more than half the world's countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

Case Studies

Saved from death row: Hafez Ibrahim

Thanks to Amnesty's campaigning efforts, the execution of Hafez Ibrahim, from Yemen, was stopped not once, but twice. Hafez, who was accused of a crime he insists he didn't commit, first faced a firing squad in 2005. He was taken to a small yard in a Yemeni prison and brought before a row of officers with rifles in hand. He thought that moment would be his last.

Just before he was about to be shot, he was taken back to his cell, with no explanation. "I was lost, I did not understand what was happening. I later learned that Amnesty International had called on the Yemeni President to stop my execution and the message was heard," Hafez said.

In 2007, Hafez was about to be executed again when he sent a mobile text message to Amnesty International. "They are about to execute us." Hafez said.

It was a message that saved his life. The message sparked an international campaign, persuading the President to stop the execution for a second time.

Now Hafez is a lawyer helping juveniles who languish on death row corridors across Yemen.

Activists on a mission: Souleymane Sow

Amnesty International's work to abolish the death penalty is also bolstered by its incredible activists, who take it upon themselves to campaign against this abhorrent practice.

Souleymane Sow, has been volunteering with Amnesty International since he was a student in France. Inspired to make a difference, he returned to Guinea, set up a local group of Amnesty International volunteers and got to work. Their aim? To promote the importance of human rights, educate people on these issues and abolish the death penalty in Guinea. Along with 34 NGOs, they finally achieved their goal in 2017.

"My colleagues and I lobbied against the death penalty every day for five months. In 2016, Guinea's National Assembly voted in favour of a new criminal code which removed the death sentence from the list of applicable penalties. Last year [2017], they did the same in the military court, too," said Souleymane.

"It was the first time so many NGOs had come together to campaign on an issue. People said they were happy with our work and they could see that change is possible. Most of all, it inspired us to continue campaigning."

It was such an incredible achievement - and it showed the importance of people power.
Souleymane Sow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.body
This site says what the death penalty is and the history about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The death penalty is the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. Congress, as well as any state legislature, may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for crimes considered capital offenses. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the Eighth Amendment does shape certain procedural aspects regarding when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment applies to the states, as well as the federal government.

Eighth Amendment analysis requires that courts consider the evolving standards of decency to determine if a particular punishment constitutes a cruel or unusual punishment. When considering evolving standards of decency, courts look for objective factors to show a change in community standards and make independent evaluations about whether the statute in question is reasonable.

History of the Death Penalty

Initial Ban

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Court invalidated existing death penalty laws because they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the laws resulted in a disproportionate application of the death penalty, specifically discriminating against impoverished and minority communities. The Court also reasoned that the existing laws terminated life in exchange for marginal contributions to society.

Reinstatement

In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court refused to expand Furman. The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence. Specifically, the Court upheld Georgia's new capital sentencing procedures, reasoning that the Georgia rules reduced the problem of arbitrary application as seen in earlier statutes.

Proportionality Requirement

In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In performing its proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court looks to the following three factors:

A consideration of the offense's gravity and the stringency of the penalty;

A consideration of how the jurisdiction punishes its other criminals;

And a consideration of how other jurisdictions punish the same crime.

Twenty-one years later, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), the Supreme Court extended its ruling in , holding that the penalty is categorically unavailable for cases of child rape in which the victim lives. Because only six states in the country permitted execution as a penalty for child rape, the Supreme Court found that national consensus rendered the death penalty disproportionate in these cases.

Principle of Individualized Sentencing

To impose a death sentence, the jury must be guided by the particular circumstances of the criminal, and the court must have conducted an individualized sentencing process. In Ring v. Arizon a, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for "a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty."

The Supreme Court further refined the requirement of "a finding of aggravating factors" in Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006). For cases in which an appellate court rules a sentencing factor to be invalid, the sentence imposed becomes unconstitutional unless the jury found some other aggravating factor that encompasses the same facts and circumstances as the invalid factor.

The decision in offered yet another clarification to the principle of individualized sentencing jurisprudence. Under Marsh, states may impose the death penalty when the jury finds any aggravating and mitigating factors to be equally weighted, without violating the principle of individualized sentencing.

Method of Execution

A legislature may prescribe the manner of execution, but the manner may not inflict unnecessary or wanton pain upon the criminal.

State courts and lower federal courts have refused to strike down hanging and electrocution as impermissible methods of execution. In Baze v. Rees, 553. U.S 35 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the lethal injection does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court in Baze also applied an "objectively intolerable" test to determine if the method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The legality of lethal injection was upheld in Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. (2015).

Classes of Persons Ineligible for the Death Penalty

In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Supreme Court decided that executing intellectually/developmentally disabled criminals violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" because their cognitive disability lessens the severity of the crime, and therefore renders the extraordinary penalty of death as disproportionately severe. However, in Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (2009), the Court held that states may conduct hearings to reconsider the mental capacity of death row inmates who were labeled developmentally disabled before the Court decided Atkins, because before Atkins, states had little incentive to aggressively investigate disability claims.

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The majority opinion pointed to teenagers' lack of maturity and responsibility, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development. The Court concluded that juvenile offenders assume diminished culpability for their crimes.

In Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. (2014), the Supreme Court held that a brightline IQ threshold may not decide whether someone is intellectually/developmentally disabled for the purpose of being eligible for the death penalty.

For more on the death penalty, see this Florida State University Law Review article, and this Harvard Law Review article.

Federal Material

U.S. Constitution and Federal Statutes

Federal Judicial Decisions

U.S. Supreme Court:

State Material

State Statutes

State Judicial Decisions

N.Y. Court of Appeals:

Key Internet Sources

Cornell Law School Death Penalty Project

Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide

Death Penalty Information Center

Southern Center for Human Rights

See also: Criminal Procedure; Sentencing

[Last updated in September of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The death penalty is the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. Congress, as well as any state legislature, may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for crimes considered capital offenses.

# data[].attributes.body
also has every subject almost, easier to navigate, says cost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty