Death penalty is generally conceived of as the supreme legal sanction, inflicted only against perpetrators of the most serious crimes. The human rights community has traditionally held a stance against the death penalty for a wide variety of reasons: critics argue that the death penalty is inhuman and degrading; that it is inappropriately applied and often politically motivated; and that rather than reducing crime, the viciousness of the punishment only serves as an inspiration to further violence.
Historically the death penalty has existed all around the world. Only since the beginning of the twentieth century has the death penalty been rejected by a growing number of people and states. International law discourages but does not prohibit it. Article 6 (paragraphs 2 and 5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime . . . . Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women." Regarding the nonreintroduction of the death penalty, the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 4.3) is the most explicit instrument, since it provides that "[t]he death penalty shall not be reestablished in states that have abolished it" (McGarrell & Sandys, 2008).
Although the death penalty is not entirely prohibited, several legal instruments have been brought into existence that seems to pave the way for total abolition. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1991) aims at the abolition of the death penalty, by virtue of which thirty-three states have decided to abolish this punishment within their jurisdiction. It is in the European system that the trend has gone the furthest. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms now has a Protocol No. 6 Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty. This was adopted in 1982 by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers (Bohm, 2003).
According to data presented at the 1998 session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, fifty-four states have abolished the death penalty and fifteen others have done the same except in times of war. Twenty-seven additional states no longer apply the sentence, although it has not been made illegal. Finally, ninety-seven states maintain the death penalty in their legal systems. According to 1996 Amnesty International figures, China, the Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and Iran had the highest number of executions, accounting for 92% of the year's total. Although the execution of people under age eighteen is prohibited by international law, five nations have been accused by Amnesty International of continuing the practice-- Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Yemen (Bohm, 2003).
A death penalty carried out unlawfully comes under the competence of the Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions elected by the UN Commission on Human Rights. The UN Secretary General, when apprised of impending executions that may not conform to the above-mentioned safeguards, can use his best endeavors, as he did in vain in 1986 with an appeal for the life of James Terry Roche. Roche was later executed in the United States for murder committed when he was seventeen (McGarrell & Sandys, 2008).
Among NGOs, Amnesty International has taken a leading role in pursuing abolition of the death penalty worldwide. The group argues that the death penalty is "an act of violence and violence tends to provoke violence. The imposition and infliction of the death penalty is brutalizing to all who are involved in the process." In 1998 Amnesty International protested the execution of Karla Faye Tucker in Texas, issuing a scathing critique of the Texas justice system, accusing it of "a litany of grossly inadequate procedures which fail to meet minimum international standards for the protection of human rights" (Bradizza, et al. 2006).
Apart from humanitarian and philosophical concerns, the most striking argument against the death penalty seems to be the fact that, as euphemistically stated by successive United Nations studies, "the deterrent effect of the death penalty is, to say the least, not demonstrated" (Bradizza, et al. 2006). However, the debate is still lively, as supporters of the death penalty remain firmly convinced that the punishment is a necessary and effective method of controlling crime.
With
Like anything else, prison involves a very specific routine to which people adapt. In some cases, prison life becomes more "normal" for some prisoners than life on the "outside," as prisoners call freedom. To ensure that prisoners have the best chance of succeeding in their reintroduction to society, we sometimes use community corrections programs such as halfway houses where prisoners about to be released from custody are generally free to
Victim Advocate Victim advocates, also known as witness specialist or victim service providers are professionals within the criminal justice trained to offer support to crime victims in a compassionate and helpful manner. While the role of a victim advocate varies relative to the laws of a state, the roles could be summed into providing information provision, paperwork filing, crisis counseling, and court accompaniment. The role of a victim advocate may as
Video Discussion by Bryan Stevenson- A Ted Talk Presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2OxyQ Discuss your reaction and ideas you have about the content of this video. Then, discuss your ideas in relation to Criminal Justice. Finally, discuss this in relation to you as a criminal justice professional. Stevenson does have a valid concern in that it is alarming that one third of all black people are incarcerated at some point in their lives. However, automatically
Whereas judicial decisions are more likely to concern substantive matters of law and definitions of legal concepts, legislative adjustments generally reflect social consensus, particularly over large spans of time. Admittedly, political access and the relative ability of specific individuals, communities, and entities to generate legislative changes beneficial to them are not, in any sense, equal when viewed from the microcosmic perspective. Nevertheless, over time, changes in the American criminal
Does the criminal justice system discriminate? Provide support your position with reference to the various components of the process, and give an explanation for either why the system discriminates, or why it appears to discriminate. Yes, the criminal justice system discriminates. African-American males are overrepresented in every part of the criminal process, though there has been no good evidence to show that they actually engage in criminal behavior at rates
Under the stewardship of Police Commissioner Howard Safir, the NYPD began analyzing daily crime statistics collected from its 40,000 officers throughout the five boroughs of New York City and generating computer modeling of crime trends in a system dubbed CompStat that allowed the accurate identification of crime trends with pinpoint accuracy, often permitting nearly as precise predictive modeling via extrapolation (Safir, 2003). The other main benefit and purpose of CompStat
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now