Giving the death penalty the chop
The international community has taken a step closer to a global moratorium on the death penalty. An influential panel at the United Nations has voted for . 99 countries voted for the suspension, but nearly as many either voted against or abstained. The matter will now go to the full General Assembly, which looks like to "call" for a moratorium.
Religion plays a key role in this debate in many countries, not least in the United States where biblical texts have often been used (and abused) to make a case for executions. For example, the Old Testament text, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (see Exodus 21:23–27), has been held up by some campaigners as a biblical mandate for execution, when, in fact, this text specifies proportionate restrictions on judicial responses rather than a tit-for-tat policy.
Human rights lawyers with experience of the legal and political debate about capital punishment in the United States, such as , know only too well that the argument is often conducted in the language of biblical religion. It is therefore extremely important that we begin a conversation internationally about how to read the Bible responsibly. The alternative is that we do the Bible an injustice -- and do a lot of human beings an even greater injustice.
Comments
The NY Times yesterday, Sunday, had a long article on the subject of capital punishment.
I personally have a lot of sympathy with the position expressed by Neil
who said:
I am in favor of capital punishment but not for the crimes where it is now imposed.......the economists’ position that if the risk/reward ratio is high enough behavior can be affected. I would not impose the death penalty for crimes of passion as acting under ‘passion’ is not acting under ‘reason’. For many of the crimes where the death penalty is imposed today the error level seems to be unacceptably high. I am disturbed by the number of capital cases that have been overturned by DNA evidence turned up later. Clearly the death penalty has been imposed on innocent persons which is clearly unacceptable. Let’s apply the death penalty where it can be a deterrent. In my view that area lies with the highly intelligent and well-educated segment of our population. For example, if an individual manipulates the stock market by trading on insider information I think that the possibility he/she might be subject to the death penalty would have a tremendous affect on this type of behavior. I think other possible areas are treason, government corruption, running an organized crime cartel etc.
Regards,
Michael
Funny how people scream that they want democracy until "The People" speak and tell them something they don't want to hear. In the United States, this issue comes up again and again and those politicians who have championed an end to the death penalty have at times committed political suicide by doing it. Such a politician was Mario Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York. Many thought he had a real shot at the White House but he ran for re-election on a campaign of abolishing New York's death penalty and was defeated. Thirty-eight states and the Federal government have the death penalty on the books. The People can overturn it any time they want to but in all but 12 states they never have.
The other issue in this case would be the US being told what to do by an outside body, in this case the UN. This is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, it can only enrage him. While many European countries have resigned themselves to ceding their sovereignty as nation states to the EU for example, the notion of something similar in the US just runs against the most basic grain of its culture, history, and values. A recent example was the Kennedy McCain bill which would have given illegal aliens in the US a path although a difficult one to eventual citizenship. These two men are at opposite extremes of the political spectrum in mainstream American politics. Not only was the bill resoundingly defeated, to the apparent delight of the majority of Americans according to the polls, it was judged at the time as a stake through the heart of McCain's Presidential bid, his approval ratings dropping substantially in the aftermath. It may have been his undoing.
The tide of history is flowing fast against the death penalty and this UN resolution is a big step forward.
So far, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Only 25 countries actually carried out executions in 2006. In 2006, 91 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the US.
Amnesty's statistics also show an overall decline in the number of executions in 2006 - a recorded 1,591 executions, compared to 2,148 in 2005.
Of course, we had it here too until fairly recently. Northern Ireland hanged a prisoner for the last time in 1961 - 25-year old Robert McGladdery, who had been convicted of the murder of Pearl Gamble.
The death penalty for murder was abolished in Northern Ireland as recently as 1973, with the UK finally abolishing it for all remaining crimes (treason, piracy, etc) only in 1998 (one of T Blair's positive moves to improve human rights in the UK, before it all started going horribly wrong).
Remaining death penalty-using countries should establish a moratorium on executions as soon as the General Assembly endorses the resolution later this year.
However, sadly countries like Saudi Arabia (favoured method - beheading) and the US (favoured method - injection) undoubtedly will hang on to this practice for years yet. But, in the end, like us they'll catch on and abolish the death penalty. The only question is: how many more of their own citizens will they kill first?
no patrick - that is not the only question.
here is another one;-
by what authority do you decree that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances?
It appears to me this authority is "liberalism".
William Crawley is a bit of a chancer to suggest "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with the death penalty.
Yes this is about proportionality, but dont rip it out of its context William; come on now, for how many offences is the death penalt given in the associated text(s)?
Yes, quite a few.
Rape, murder, incest, animal abuse (bestiality) etc etc.
I contend evil people in our society are emboldened to commit such horrendous crimes against the weakest and most vulnerable in society because of some misguided use of human rights in their defence.
the OT defends the weak, (eg women children and animals) from the strong regarding rape, murder, incest and bestiality, with fear of the ultimate sanction - death penalty.
Witness the Ulster architect convicted last week for having a collection of the most vile child porn, including images of himself abusing kids in Thailand.
His punlishment? He will be out of jail by April.
I wouldnt for a second try to enforce a theocracy but lets hear what Amnesty International think should be done in such cases generally.
It *appears* that human rights groups often make headlines appealing for light treatment of criminals.
I know AI is involved in trafficking issues but still.
Patrick - would you consider lobbying for this architect to get a stiffer sentence ie on the grounds it was unduly lenient sentence?
It is a perfectly legitimate appeal and easy to make. There is no risk of the death penalty either.
;-)
PB