Select Page

# In 2004, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that part of the death penalty law was unconstitutional. In 2007, the court ruled that its earlier ruling applied to the last prisoner on state death row. The legislator rejected attempts to reinstate the law. The study of the Committee of Experts had concluded that there was no evidence that the death penalty reduced the murder rate. But there is more: the same research also concluded that we have no evidence to the contrary, namely that the death penalty increases the number of homicides. According to the cited publication, it cannot even be guaranteed that the death penalty has no influence on the murder rate. There are hardly any valid arguments in favour of the death penalty, so everything should aim at its abolition. The number of crimes punishable by death will be significantly reduced. For example, in Britain, out of about 300 types of crimes that can be punished by rope, only 4 (at the beginning of the 20th century), of which only 1 is actually used (murder). In general, little is known how criminals perceive the risk of receiving this punishment. The researchers used data on crimes and executions to create indicators or statistical models, assuming that potential killers assess the risk of being executed for their crime. So far, however, there are no “credible measures” that objectively show what this risk is.

In addition, the report notes that very little is known about how criminals perceive the risk of the death penalty. Nor do we know whether there is a link between the actual risk of execution and the behaviour of criminals. The information centre also presents a compilation of the results of selected studies on the cost of using the death penalty in the United States. “Let`s say that the existence of the death penalty did not prevent the same individuals from engaging in the conduct that led to their conviction.” States often resort to the death penalty after violent attacks, showing that they are doing something to “protect” national security. But the threat of execution is unlikely to deter men and women from dying for their faith, like suicide bombers. However, executions are likely to produce martyrs whose memory will become a source of justification for their organizations. [The death penalty] is a simple formula used by politicians to tell an anxious electorate that something is being done to fight crime. In the United States, even in states where the death penalty is allowed, alternative sentences for murder, such as life imprisonment without parole, are allowed. Even in states where the death penalty is most commonly used, most murderers are sentenced to other sentences, such as life in prison.

Studies on the effects of the death penalty therefore do not show that the evolution of the number of homicides is caused by the use of the death penalty and not, for example, by the application of other sanctions against murderers. The death penalty or death penalty is a penalty imposed for the commission of certain offences, according to the provisions of the relevant criminal legislation, resulting in the death of the offender. Those accused of “terrorism” are very likely to face an unfair trial. Many are convicted on the basis of “confessions” extracted under torture. In some cases, special or military courts established under counter-terrorism laws sentenced civilians to death, violating international standards. – The second argument is that this sentence has a lower cost than other convictions. (1) The concept of merit and the relationship between the damage caused and the penalty imposed. Studies have sought to assess the potential deterrent effect of the death penalty on crime. Some surveys have attempted to show that after the execution of this sentence, the number of homicides decreased. 1) The historical argument fails to mention populations that have not used the death penalty for most of their history (Barbero, 1964). According to Amnesty International, the decrease in the number of death sentences is due to the decrease in the number of judicial executions in countries where the highest number has already been executed. Although econometric research has been conducted to estimate the impact of the death penalty on murder rates, the committee formed by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences ensures that there is no evidence that it has a deterrent effect.

The crimes punishable by death are equally diverse. Barbero Santos highlights murders and attacks on state security (Barbero, 1964), although if we go back to ancient times (without having to go very far), there are crimes of minor gravity punishable by death. The Human Rights Committee adopted the general opinion on 30 October 2018. Article 6(2), (4), (5) and (6) of the ICCPR contains safeguards for the application of the death penalty. General note 36 deals with these protective measures. Barbero Santos points out (and it should be noted that this is data from 1964 and the source of which is not entirely clear) that countries that apply the death penalty execute only between 8% and 10% of murderers (Barbero, 1964). And in all this, there is not even a reference to the endless list of crimes for which one could be sentenced to death. In most cases, these were completely absurd acts that hardly merited administrative sanctions.

Of course, the path taken by some executioners does not necessarily reject the intimidating nature of punishment. There are several other arguments against the preventive nature of the death penalty. The first argument, which is preventive, is based on the theory of deterrence. According to this perspective, the death penalty would serve to deter offenders from committing crimes resulting in the death of others. In addition, it would serve as an example for those with criminal tendencies. Apart from this, according to the report, it is difficult to integrate into a single statistical model the many factors that can influence the relationship between the death penalty and crime. For example, the reduction in the murder rate can only coincide with the period of application of the death penalty and is linked to variables that have nothing to do with executions. (3) Finally, it should be noted that the long history of the death penalty has not led to a reduction in crime.

In other words, the fact that the crime has not been eradicated is further evidence that the death penalty is totally ineffective (Garcia, 1979:30). Revenge is not the solution. The answer is based on reducing violence and not causing more deaths. According to another publication of this organization, in 2018, in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Vietnam, processes were recorded that did not meet international standards. Similarly, Ghana, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Singapore have imposed service sentences (penalties that violate human rights because they do not take into account the situation of the accused or the conditions in which the crime was committed). The imposition of the death penalty for the most serious crimes is intended to set an example or intimidate those who might commit similar acts. Jurisdictions (with 10 or more death row inmates) with the highest percentage of minorities on death row: No, according to research. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty is more effective in deterring crime than prison sentences.

In fact, crime has not increased in countries where the death penalty has been banned. In some cases, the reality is that they have decreased. Canada`s homicide rate in 2008 was less than half of what it was in 1976, when the death penalty was abolished in the country. Every day, men and women, including minors, are on death row awaiting execution. No matter what crime they have committed, whether they are guilty or innocent, a justice system that values punishment more than rehabilitation costs them their lives. As long as a prisoner is still alive, he hopes to be rehabilitated or acquitted if he is later found innocent. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has a mandate to promote and protect all human rights, is committed to the universal abolition of the death penalty. Our project is based on the fundamental nature of the right to life, the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people and the lack of evidence that the death penalty deters crime.