Death penalty is the most cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. There is a possibility of innocent persons being awarded death sentence if he/ she becomes unable to prove his/ her innocence for reasons beyond his/ her control. It has never been observed that death penalty has been able to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. As an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, Amnesty International (AI) works for an end to executions and the abolition of death penalty world over. The progress has been dramatic. When the AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, only 16 countries abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the report card is impressive.
78 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes.
* 15 countries have abolished death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes.
* 24 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, making a total of 117 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
78 other countries retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller. Executions carried out in the following countries in 2003 Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Chad, China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Korea (North), Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Uganda, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Death Sentences imposed in the following countries in 2003 Algeria, Armenia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Korea (South), Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen and Zambia. As per the official statistics available with the Amnesty International till 2003, at least 1,146 people were executed in 28 countries. Similarly, at least 2,756 people were sentenced to death in 63 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures were certainly higher. International Agreements to Abolish the Death Penalty One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to abolishing the death penalty.
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been ratified by 52 states. Eight other states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date. The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, has been ratified by eight states and signed by one other in the Americas. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), has been ratified by 44 European states and signed by one other. Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), has been ratified by 24 countries and signed by 18 others. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime.
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception. Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for total abolition of death penalty in all circumstances. High Execution Countries As in previous years, majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a few countries. In 2003, 84 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Vietnam. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 726 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher: A senior Chinese legislator said in March 2004 that China executes “nearly 10,000″ people each year.
At least 108 executions were carried out in Iran. Sixty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 64 people were executed in Vietnam. Abolition of death penalty in law or practice in over half the countries in the world have set the path for the remaining states who continue to violate the right to life. While releasing the statistics on worldwide executions carried out during 2003, Amnesty International called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to take strong action against death penalty at its recent annual session, and urged to end all executions. In a resolution adopted last year, the UN Commission on Human Rights called on countries that retain capital punishment “to establish a moratorium on executions”.
The AI also reiterated its opposition to the use of the death penalty against child offenders — people who were under 18 at the time of the offence. The recent statistics revealed that two child offenders were executed in 2003, one in China and the other in the USA. Amnesty International’s report revealed that China, Iran, the USA and Vietnam accounted for 84 percent of the 1,146 known executions carried out in 28 countries in 2003. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International indicated that at least 726 people were executed in 2003, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. Abolition of death penalty in law or practice in over half the countries in the world have set the path for the remaining states who continue to violate the right to life. While releasing the statistics on worldwide executions carried out during 2003, Amnesty International called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to take strong action against death penalty at its recent annual session, and urged to end all executions. The Deterrence Argument Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.
The most recent findings of a survey on the relation between death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: “… it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” (Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230) Effect of Abolition of Death Penalty on Crime Rates Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and homicide rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated: “The fact that the statistics continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty”. Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition of death penalty has harmful effects.
In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 1,00,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2002, 26 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975. (Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214) In conclusion, the Manavadhikar Samajik Manch, in line with the thinking and activities of the Amnesty International, does believe that death penalty should be stopped. We do feel that death penalty is the most cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and a flagrant denial of the right to life.
By: Shanker Adawal
Death Penalty: A Threat to Right to Life
The Beginning of Human Rights
In this article we will try to answer a controversial question: at what moment does a person becomes protected under the Human Rights Law. In Canada the answer can be found in three cases: R. v. Sullivan in 1991, Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in1989, Tremblay v. Daigle in 1989.
In 1989 Joseph Borowski a pro-life activist who was against abortions challenged the abortion provisions under section 251 of the Criminal Code as violations of the Charter rights to life, security of person and equality of the fetus. The court refused to decide whether the fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a verdict for the Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) the court stated that the questions of whether the already unconstitutional section 251 of the Criminal Code violates fetal rights are moot.
The Tremblay v. Daigle case had the most interesting and controversial background. The case revolved around the right of men to acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights. The whole case was closely tied to abortion issues and it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada under the Common Law and the Quebec Civil Law. The conflict began between two Quebec individuals named Chantal Daigle and Jean-Guy Tremblay. They were involved in a relationship in 1988 and in 1989 Daigle became pregnant. Shortly after, the relationship ended in a dramatic way and Daigle decided to obtain an abortion. Tremblay sought an injunction to halt the abortion and claimed that he was protecting the fetus’s right to life, he also defended this right in claiming that fetus is indeed a person. The case reached the Supreme Court, but at that time Daigle left Quebec and went to the United States to terminate the pregnancy. Still the Supreme Court considered the case to be very important and decided to give an unanimous decision on it. The court ruled that there was no precedent for men’s rights to protect their “potential progeny.”
The R. v. Sullivan case revolves around a situation when two individuals without medical education were hired as midwives. During the childbirth that occurred in a home and not at hospital the contractions stopped after the child’s head appeared and tragically the child died during birth. The midwives were charged with negligence regarding both the child and the mother. The charge itself became the argument that ended this case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that in the common law tradition negligence occurs only with respect to persons and to be legally considered a person, one must be fully outside the mother’s body and must be alive at birth. In the aftermath of this case the two previous cases here were used by Professor Peter Hogg as argumentation of the fact that a fetus until the end of birth can not be considered a legal person.
By: John