Global movement toward abolishing capital punishment and human rights

Abolishing the Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

Social evolution seems to have triggered people and countries across the globe to a consensus regarding certain practices. Many countries seem to have agreed that some practices must be stopped, as a way of maintaining the dignity of humanity. Slavery and sacrificing humans as a ritual are some examples of the practices that the world now largely abhors and frowns at. Physical torture of humans is yet another practice that is fast being dropped by many societies. Although vestiges of some of these practices still exist, they remain isolated and far from the normal and universally acceptable behaviors and cultures. That means the practices have largely been shunned and that they have no room in modern society.

Historically, however the church is said to have executed many lives, contrary to Biblical teachings of the importance of life, and man's right to the same (Snyder, 1999). Christians killed many innocent people during the early centuries in the name of Christ as their flag bearer; in fact, several monotheist religions massacred innocent lives, attributing their acts to divine law, killing people who were considered blasphemous or heretical (Nicolau, 2013). The Catholic Church bishops in the U.S., in 1976, made an appeal to the Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission based in Rome to assist in solving the contentious debate over death penalties. The Commission responded that "bishops have voiced their views and acted firmly in support of life against abortion and euthanasia. . . . There must be an inner reason that would force Catholics, with their sense of the sacredness of life, to be persistent in this defence and extend it to the adoption of capital punishment." More bishops were motivated as a result of the Commission's response to push for the abolition of capital punishment. It was in the same year that the Supreme Court lifted its suspension of death penalty (the ban was declared in 1972) sentences by declaring it constitutional in Gregg v. Georgia (Snyder, 1999).

Most countries around the world have increasingly dropped the death penalty as an unacceptable way of punishing capital offenders. However, there is still lack of consensus regarding the use and effectiveness of this penalty. China, which is the most populous country in the world, executes capital offenders in their thousands each year. The United States applies the death penalty commonly. Overall, there are 84 countries that still employ the death sentence. Studies show that the number of states that employ the death penalty to punish capital offenders is declining fast. There is a likelihood that pressure will mount on those who still apply the penalty, until they abandon it in the coming years (Dieter, n.d.). There are varied reasons why the countries that drop the death penalty do so. Many countries have made that decision basing it on their new perspective on human rights understanding. Spain, for instance, abolished the death penalty completely in 1995 with formidable observation that the practice had no place in modern society. There is nothing more degrading than depriving someone of their life (Nicolau, 2013). Switzerland cited flagrant violation of the right to life and dignity as its motivation towards the abandonment of the sentence. In South Africa, Justice Chaskalson notably pointed out in the landmark decision that overturned the use of the death penalty that the right to life is the most critical of all human rights. Therefore respect for such important human rights must be demonstrated by the state in all its activities including how it deals with criminals (Dieter, n.d.).

The first person in Europe to abolish capital punishment in 1786 was the Great Duke of Tuscany. It is no accident that the enlightenment philosophy and the first abolition of death penalty occurred simultaneously in history. After all, there should be no power capable of taking away man's natural right to life; there is the need for a society that does not execute any man even if he breaks its laws. This is the essence of abolishing capital punishment as a way of protecting human rights, specifically the right to life. Evidence lies in the history of abolishing death penalty (Nicolau, 2013). A society's power should halt at the point where it recognizes that it cannot execute man for whatever reason due to each person's right to life. Clearly, a murderer does not realize this right. But why would a society want to see through the eyes of the murderer by adopting his practice of killing? (Nicolau, 2013). This paper will justify why death or capital punishment should be abolished by all nations across the globe.

Statistical Data

The Error Rates in Capital Cases- A Broken System

Many stakeholders in the American justice system agree that errors in the legal death penalty sentence have hit a crisis level. More people hold the opinion that the system sends some innocent people to death row. Other critics state that capital appeal procedures are too winding and too long. According to the governor's director of communications, Ellen Qualls, in every 300 pertinent cases, 20 to 30 are expected to be exonerations in accordance to the trends of DNA test results. This clearly indicates a high error rate in previous convictions of suspects to capital punishment; this can be argued by some as unacceptable for a state that sentences offenders to death penalties. Although the U.S. has been divided for a long time with regards to the issue of capital punishment, it is upon a state to adopt or abolish it. Providing evidence that many innocent people have been killed through capital punishment is strong enough to push for its abolishment (Marris, 2006).

A report, the first ever on modern American capital appeals, collected information on various appeals; 4578 appeals were found in capital cases of the state between 1973 and 1995, highlighting that both opinions on the death penalty system are true. They say that the judicial review of capital offences takes far too long. The study, however, found the justification for the protracted process, stating that the capital sentences are frequently fraught with so many errors that critically dent their reliability and credibility (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000). The report further showed that

In the period spanning 23 years, prejudicial error stood at 68% in the capital punishment system. In particular, there were serious flaws in 7 out of every 10 capital sentences slapped on people. There were thousands of such cases under review and completed in the same period (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

It has also been established that there are far too many mistakes in capital trials that it takes up to three inspections to cite them. This also means that there is a chance that some of the mistakes are not picked up in the inspections. A federal review discovered fundamental flaws that undermine the reliability of the results of 40% of the remaining death sentences. This was after 47% of death sentences were thrown out, owing to serious errors (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

State courts conduct most of the clean up in correcting mistakes in death sentences. 90% of the death sentences that were dismissed were done by state judges. Interestingly, many of these judges were among the ones that imposed those death sentences. They were bestowed with public trust; therefore, they were unlikely to overturn the death sentences unless there was a very good reason. Federal review is still necessary though. There are large amounts of grave capital errors that the state judges of the appellate courts are required to review. It is not a wonder, therefore that a substantial amount of the cases that are let through to the federal stage are still significantly flawed (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

The threshold for the reversal of a case is quite high. Some of the common reasons that lead to reversals of death sentences include: 1. Incompetent defence lawyers who fail to identify such errors in the cases against their clients; and 2. Prosecutors who learnt about such serious errors, but deliberately covered them up and eventually let the jury make rulings without such information (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

There were massive error rates that endangered innocent people and exposed them to the possibility of wrongful execution. It was found that 82% of people whose cases were reversed deserved sentences that were less severe than a death sentence.7% of these people were found innocent (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

The high rate of errors occurs over a long time. It was noted that 50% of the flawed cases examined, occurred in 20 of the 23 years that the study was carried out including 17 of the last 19 years. The error rate was over 60% in half of the most recent years (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

The error rates are a common occurrence across the nation. It has been pointed out that over 90% of the states that still apply the death sentence in the U.S. have an error rate of over 52%. 85% of the states have an error rate of over 60%. 3 out of five states have an error rate of 70% or more (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

Although the governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions after a series of exonerations on death row cases, the state does not necessarily give a significantly high error rate compared to others. The 66% rate was quite close to, but still lower than the national average that stood at 68% (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

Identifying errors in the cases takes a lot of time- usually between 9 and 10.6 years. People on death row usually have to wait for a long time for their review to come through. These cases are then often reversed (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

The errors combined with the time frames for their correction are intolerable, and incur unnecessary costs on the exchequer, the victim, their families and the people that are wrongly condemned. The deterrence and retribution, the main reasons for the death penalty, are therefore rendered unachievable (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000).

Human Rights and the Death Penalty in the United States

President Clinton signed an Executive order on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights in 1998 (Dieter, n.d.). This is an indication that the United States is committed to the observation of international Human rights. Order (1998) expresses as thus:

"....the Government of the United States to promote respect for international human rights, both in our relationships with all other countries and by working with and strengthening the various international mechanisms for the promotion of human rights, including those of the United Nations "

The U.S. law and the ideals of the rights of human beings merge around the matter of innocence. People are largely concerned about the possibility of innocence on those who have been handed a death sentence. This is the main driving factor for the review of the death penalty in the United States. Malkani asserts that when there is a prohibition to capital sentence, the abolitionist states are expected to stop helping retentionist states with the adoption of death penalty. In accordance to the state responsibility and complicity law, and the call to human life protection by the international human rights law, Malkani argues that the international law is developing the need for states to stop being complicit with regards to capital punishment, despite jurisdictional issues and the fact that the international law does not prohibit death sentence (Malkani, 2013). The main role of a state that abolishes capital punishment is to ensure that no individual within its jurisdiction is subjected to death penalty. According to Malkani, other than the abolitionist states protecting its people from death penalties by eliminating the capital sentence, they have a second role of not facilitating the use of the same, not just in other states, but also other areas across the globe. This is the case if they have ratified treaties like the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights). Despite the fact that many states that have eliminated death penalties and have taken several measures to ensure that they play no role in facilitating the use of capital offence by nations and states that still do so, recent evidence suggests that political, legal and moral justifications as to why capital punishment should be abolished is increasingly on the rise (Malkani, 2013).

The exonerations from death rows and the identifying of errors that absolve death row inmates of any crimes has been a core discussion among major stakeholders in government and the judicial system (Marris, 2006). The danger of executing an innocent person has been the main reason for the abolishing of the death sentence in many countries that have decided to follow that path. It is strange that this matter has not surfaced prominently in the corridors of justice in the U.S. While focusing on the guilt, innocence is the primary criteria for most civilised judicial procedures, in the U.S. and elsewhere; most criminals challenge their prosecution on grounds of unconstitutional procedures in the course of their arrest or during trials. It is rare to see brave claims of simple innocence (Dieter, n.d.). The series of revelations of innocent people that had been handed death sentences have had a tremendous effect on the debate and the proponents of the death penalty such as the Illinois governor, George Ryan. This has opened the debate wider and provided impetus for the examination of the practice. Furthermore, the abolition of death penalty is one of the many great reformers of the antebellum in America. Legislators were encouraged to lower the number of capital or serious crimes, moving the gallows behind prison walls and creating ways of reforming criminals (Masur, 2012). The abolition of capital punishment was one of the causes of several reformers in antebellum America. The gallows were considered as inhumane, authoritarian, non-deterrent and anti-Christian, hence their assault. Although this is a story familiar to many Americans, less known is the role of American writers in fully embracing the anti-gallows movement. A study conducted by Paul Christian Jones impressively adds an essential element to people's comprehension of the movement's popular literary dimensions to push for the abolition of death penalty (Masur, 2012).

Prominent people in and out of the justice system have voiced their concerns and expressed their doubts regarding the effectiveness of the procedure and practice. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and conservatives Pat Robertson and George Will are good examples of people that have joined the debate. Many have pointed out that the protection of the innocent people cannot be equal to encouraging crime (Dieter, n.d.). The matter of executing an innocent person is a broad moral and legal issue. It incorporates human rights issues too (Malkani, 2013). There has been a spate of exonerations that make the matter more urgent. 102 people have had their death row sentences reversed since 1973. Several people have also been released from the sentence through DNA testing; others have been saved from the guillotine by the investigative works of journalists. U.S. campaigners look forward to the re-evaluation of existing evidence as a way of undermining death penalty. They hope that modern DNA tests carried out on old cases will underpin the confidence the public has in capital punishment. For instance, a DNA re-examination of Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed for rape and murder in 1992, is expected to reveal his innocence (Marris, 2006). Canada's Forensic Sciences Centre based in Toronto is responsible for conducting the tests that were requested by Mark Warner, the governor of the state of Virginia. If the DNA test results lead to the exoneration of Coleman, it will be the first time genetic evidence will be used in America as evidence of the many innocent persons who have been killed as a result of death penalty. In 1981, Coleman was convicted for the murder of his sister-in-law in the state of Virginia. The DNA sample being re-examined was collected in 1990 as an integral yet unsuccessful attempt to get his name cleared of the crime. Warner, a Democrat who expected to run for presidency in 2008, ordered the re-test, calling the case of Coleman "an extraordinarily unique circumstance, where technology has advanced significantly and can be applied in the case of someone who consistently maintained his innocence until execution" (Marris, 2006).

In the U.S., DNA was used once before where the convict was already a prisoner. The examinations were carried out in 2000 and conclusively proved the guilt of Ellis Felker, a man from Georgia, who had been convicted to murder, four years earlier. However, many prisoners in Virginia have been successfully exonerated from their convictions to death through modern DNA tests. Upon the completion of tests on old biological samples, three people were exonerated from 2002 to 2004; these samples had been kept by a methodical worker in the period when such techniques were inexistent. Therefore, Warner randomly selected 10% of the saved biological samples for re-examination. In more than 1000 cases, 29 were subjected to modern DNA tests to ascertain the convicts' innocence or guilt. Out of the 29 cases, 2 convicts were found innocent, leading to their exonerations with the cases being overturned. Warner announced that the remaining biological samples would also be re-examined, stating that "the only morally acceptable course" is to do so (Marris, 2006).

These errors have shaped the debate to disfavor the death sentence in most forums (Dieter, n.d.). Moreover, in a public-opinion poll, the American public showcased that a legislative move to stop death penalty for an alternative option of life sentence with no parole would not impact their vote. Recently the Supreme Court declared juvenile execution to death penalty as unconstitutional (Henry, 2008).

In 1982, the state of New Jersey reinstated death penalty on capital offenders. Almost every capital conviction that had been initially reviewed from 1982 to 2007 was reversed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. However, on 17th December, 2007, more than two decades later, New Jersey abolished capital punishment, replacing it with life sentence without the likelihood of parole. Various factors attributed to the official abolishment of death penalty convictions, namely: data from public opinion polls, the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decisions on capital cases, the hearings and report of the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission and political conditions in the state. According to Henry, the judiciary of New Jersey made a decision that facilitated ambivalence with regards to death penalty, which when coupled with distinct social and political factors, led to the official abolishment of capital punishment. As a result, New Jersey was the first American state to do away with capital punishment, four decades after the sentence first became a contentious issue. The political reason that pushed the New Jersey legislators to eliminate capital punishment in recent history is quite unique. It is important to determine the essence of the New Jersey experience with regards to abolishment of death penalty to the whole process involved in abolition efforts. However, states that were historically known to rarely execute capital offenders are less likely to adopt this kind of punishment in modern society (Henry, 2008).

Although Furman suspended the use of death penalty to punish criminals, four years down the line, it was reinstated by the Supreme Court when it upheld the revised statutes of three capital sentences constitutionally. After the efforts of many citizens, Illinois finally abolished the death penalty when its legislators passed a capital punishment repeal bill that was successfully signed by Governor Pat Quinn. A few days later, NCADP (the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty) held its yearly conference to push for the same. Families that lost their loved ones to murder also pushed for other alternatives to capital punishment such as life sentence (Stack, 2011). The NCADP conference was attended by more than 300 people from various parts of the U.S., signifying that the push for capital punishment abolition was still on, continuing to garner success and support from a broader base. This saw many repeals being enacted, not just in New Jersey, but also New Mexico and other states in the nation, after several years of meaningful campaigns. Reports from lead organizers in charge of 24 states and the large crowd in attendance to show the spirit of solidarity indicated that it took more than one state's effort to finally have capital punishment abolished in any particular state. Some of the people in the gatherings also shared that the abolishment of death penalty in their states would come to fruition in no time. The speeches made did not just hearten those in attendance, but also gave encouragement and hope to those who wanted the abolition of capital punishment, especially the southern states where most of the convictions take place (Stack, 2011). Currently, the U.S. military, 36 American states and the federal government still adopt capital punishment (Rogoff, 2008).

Death Penalty Is Simply Unfair, It Should Not Be Used

Practically, the death penalty fails to single out the worst offenders. The practice is largely a selective process that discriminates on the basis of the quality of the defence lawyer, the county where the crime was committed, the ability of the suspect to hire a lawyer, the race of the suspect and economic depravity. If a defendant is not represented by a good lawyer, the chance of being sent to the gallows increases significantly (MSUDPIC, 2000).

With regard to race, there have been studies that demonstrate the fact that a black person prosecuted of capital crime is more likely to be handed a death sentence than a white person in the U.S. Therefore, there is a subtle suggestion that white lives are superior to black lives. In particular, since the reinstatement of the death sentence in 1976, there have been 158 executions of black people for the murder of white people while only 11 white people have been executed for murdering blacks. These disparities have been around for long and seem intractable (MSUDPIC, 2000).

Issues of arbitrariness arise all the time across the U.S. There have been cases where the same crime is handed different sentences in different states; death sentence in one state and life imprisonment in another (Henry, 2008). Prosecutors have a wide discretion on the option of seeking a death sentence or not. Apparently, those who do not have financial muscle seem to be the targets for the death sentence. Therefore, it is only fair that the death penalty be done away with as long as issues of economics, race, quality of counsel and geography are the ones that largely save lives or consign them to the gallows (MSUDPIC, 2000).

There is No Proof that the Death Sentence Deters Crime

Studies have shown that the death penalty is only as good as a life sentence in deterrence of crime. Some critics such as William Bowers suggest that the death sentence offers the opposite of deterrence. He says that the brutal effect on the society encourages further crime. Interestingly, the states that no longer apply the death penalty in the United States exhibit lower murder rates than the states that still apply the penalty (Rogoff, 2008). The U.S. generally uses the death penalty but still has a higher murder rate than countries that have abolished the sentence (MSUDPIC, 2000).

It has also been noted that people who commit capital offences such as murder often do so in moments of anger or under the influence of drugs. Therefore, they do not consider the consequences of their actions. An outstanding legal practitioner, Jim Mattox, the former Texas Attorney General, pointed out that those executed in Texas did not think about the death sentence prior to the crime. He stated that most of the murders were committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol (MSUDPIC, 2000).

Organizations dedicated to the study of crime have largely disowned the notion that the death penalty deters crime. 84% of the leaders in these institutions rejected research that suggested that death penalty deters crime. A lot of states impose the life sentence without parole. This means that the society does not risk being attacked by these people again (MSUDPIC, 2000).

Conclusion

Although the U.S. has adopted many international treaties, it has isolated itself from the mainstream developments on the issue of the death sentence by invoking the local statutes and by reservations. Since there is no doubt that the U.S. is committed to the underlying principles of the treaties, they can be used as a starting point towards a sober debate aimed at doing away with the death sentence. Innocence is a major factor in the unfolding debate around the death penalty. 100 people being released from death rows after reviews, has sparked hot debates in various forums. It touches on the legal, moral and human rights issues. Any country that is committed to fairness and justice must and indeed, want to avoid situations that lead to taking innocent people's lives in the name of justice (Dieter, n.d.).

The abolition of capital punishment is a test for the society today in determining its respect for human life as a value that cannot be derogated or questioned; a society that responds to criminal acts beyond revenge as means of punishing capital offenders. Respecting life unconditionally in the most truthful and deepest manner is what can be termed as being a pro-life. A society establishes a powerful yet symbolic foundation for treating all individuals in its jurisdiction by abolishing capital punishment. This baseline is the informant of the kind of relationship in existence between individuals and the state, encompassing confinement conditions and purposes, duration, permissible interrogation methods, state agents like the police's adoption of deadly force and several other relations between the two parties. When a state abolishes capital punishment, it shows its renunciation of violence as bad way of handling even serious social order threats. Moreover, it signals to the capital offenders that violence of whatever form is not acceptable within its jurisdiction as a response to provocation (Rogoff, 2008).

In the course of the debate, there is time and room for reforms regarding the death penalty. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have expressed a level of accommodative views about what other nations think. This will assist in setting new standards of decency and acceptable extent of punishment. Many perspectives are welcome on that basis (Dieter, n.d.).

In summary, it is clear that the issue of death penalty will continue to elicit lots of debate in the next century. There will be a diversity of opinion surrounding the subject. Major stakeholders in organizations that shape research and practice in criminology studies have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. It is hoped that the research will provide the necessary impetus for the political forums to look at the matter objectively, rather than demanding for the death penalty as a way of seeking to touch on crime and violence matters (Radelet & Akers, 1996).