Under many civil law systems, including the English common law,
in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the
prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In
civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.
History
Roman law
The sixth-century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies". It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. It was introduced in Roman criminal law by emperor Antoninus Pius.
Talmudical law
According to Talmud,
"every man is innocent until proved guilty. Hence, the infliction of
unusual rigours on the accused must be delayed until his innocence has
been successfully challenged. Thus, in the early stages of the trial,
arguments in his defence are as elaborate as with any other man on
trial. Only when his guilt has become apparent were the solicitous
provisions that had been made to protect defendants waived".
Islamic law
Similar
to that of Roman law, Islamic law also holds the principle that the
onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. "Suspicion" is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi as well as Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim.
After the time of Muhammad, the fourth CaliphAli ibn Abi Thalib has also been cited to say, "Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence."
Middle Ages in Europe
Western Europe
After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the West began to practice feudal law, which was a synthesis of aspects of Roman law as well as some Germanic
customs according to the new elite, including presumed guilt. For
instance, the accused could prove his innocence by having twelve people
swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. In practice,
this tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes, whose witnesses risked being seen as less credible. After the rediscovery of Roman law in the 12th century and the development of the jus commune, the canon law of the Catholic Church influenced the common law during the medieval period through its preservation of Roman law doctrine of the presumption of innocence.
Eastern Europe
Following the aforementioned Roman law of Justinian, who lived at the dawn of the medieval era, the Eastern Roman Empire
generally continued along his legal code which includes presumption of
innocence. This also influenced nearby states within its cultural
sphere, such as Orthodox, Slavic principalities like Serbia.
In Civil law, "it is the most general concept that everybody (suspect, accused, or not) must be considered innocent until a final judgement finds the person
guilty.
But there is another point of view also,—and it usually appears in the
international
declarations—which does not connect the stopping of the presumption of
innocence to a final judgement, but it is 'satisfied' with any provision that states guilt, that is based on law.
There is a significant difference between the two formulations. The
final judgement usually means the end of the punitive procedure, which
can take place many more years after the time of the crime committed. It
can happen, for instance, in the case of caught in the act, the
statements of witnesses, the confession of the offender, the perpetrator
must be presumed innocent for some years till the final judgement is
reached
despite the above enlisted facts".
Meaning
Sir William Garrow
coined the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty", insisting
that defendants' accusers and their evidence be thoroughly tested in
court
"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution
has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal
justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof. This is often expressed in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", coined by the British barristerSir William Garrow (1760–1840) during a 1791 trial at the Old Bailey.
Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective
observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the
defendant almost certainly committed the crime. In 1935, in its judgment of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions, the English Court of Appeal
would later describe Garrow's articulation as being the 'golden thread'
connecting both the criminal burden of proof and the presumption of
innocence within the web of English criminal law.
The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by the French cardinal and canonical juristJean Lemoine in the phrase "item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)", based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.
However, this referred not merely to the fact that the burden of proof
rests on the prosecution in a criminal case, but the protections which a
defendant should be given: prior notice of the accusation being made against them, the right of confrontation, right to counsel, etc. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.
To ensure this legal protection is maintained, a set of three related
rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:
With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime
charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who
committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does
not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to
testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the
defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision
cannot be used against them.
The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the
fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court
and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on
evidence presented during the trial.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
The idea subsequently became a staple of legal thinking in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and continues to be a topic of debate.
This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord SankeyLC in Woolmington v DPP:
Throughout the web of the English
criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty
of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have
already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any
statutory exception...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a
public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his
defense.".
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
art. 14, paragraph 2 states that "Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.". The presumption of innocence is also expressly
regulated in Art. 66 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
according to which "Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved
guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe
says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention
has been adopted by treaty
and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any
foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union
is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members
as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(a) Articles 8 (1) and 8 (2) (right to a fair trial), in conjunction
with Article 1 (1) (obligation to respect and ensure rights without
discrimination) of the American Convention on Human Rights
make the Inter-American Court to stress that "the presumption of
innocence is a guiding principle in criminal trials and a foundational
standard for the assessment of the evidence. Such assessment must be
rational, objective, and impartial in order to disprove the presumption
of innocence and generate certainty about criminal responsibility. (...)
The Court reiterated that, in criminal proceedings, the State bears the
burden of proof. The accused is not obligated to affirmatively prove
his innocence or to provide exculpatory evidence. However, to provide
counterevidence or exculpatory evidence is a right that the defence may
exercise in order to rebut the charges, which in turn the accusing party
bears the burden of disproving".
In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional
law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been
declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its
preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed
innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established" and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304). However, there exists a popular misconception that under French law, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty
of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent
court".
In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."
In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
The Constitution of Russia,
in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be
considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in
conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid
sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall
not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt
shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights
states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which
includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to
testify during the proceedings."
In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990
provides inter alia at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an
offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the
following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law"
In the United Kingdom
changes have been made affecting this principle. Defendants' previous
convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. Although
the suspect is not compelled to answer questions after formal arrest,
failure to give information may now be prejudicial at trial. Statute law
also exists which provides for criminal penalties for failing to
decrypt data on request from the police. If the suspect is unwilling to
do so, it is an offence.
Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence
that the encrypted material was unlawful. Furthermore, in sexual
offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances
where the defendant has an obligation to adduce evidence that the
complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant
reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting. These
circumstances include, for example, where the complainant was
unconscious, unlawfully detained, or subjected to violence.
Canada
In Canadian law, the presumption of innocence has been reinforced in certain instances. The Criminal Code previously contained numerous provisions according to which defences to certain offences were subject to a reverse onus: that is, if an accused wishes to make that defence, they had to prove the facts of the defence to a balance of probabilities,
rather than the Crown having to disprove the defence beyond a
reasonable doubt. This meant that an accused in some circumstances might
be convicted even if a reasonable doubt existed about their guilt. In several cases,
various reverse onus provisions were found to violate the presumption
of innocence provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were
replaced with procedures in which the accused merely had to demonstrate
an "air of reality" to the proposed defence, following which the burden
shifted to the Crown to disprove the defence.
Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, received Royal Assent in December 2018. Among other things, it eliminated several reverse onus provisions from the Criminal Code, some of which had previously been found unconstitutional, and others pre-emptively in order to avoid further Charter challenges.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence ordering that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out such a sentence is known as an execution. A prisoner who has been sentenced to death and is awaiting execution is referred to as condemned, and is said to be on death row. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences or capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious offences such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse, terrorism, treason, espionage, sedition, offences against the State, such as attempting to overthrow government, piracy, aircraft hijacking, drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and in some cases, the most serious acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping.
Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latincapitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to execution by beheading.
Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure
for all crimes, eight have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while
maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 28 are
abolitionist in practice.
The use of formal execution extends to the beginning of recorded
history. Most historical records and various primitive tribal practices
indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system.
Communal punishments for wrongdoing generally included blood money compensation by the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, shunning, banishment and execution. In tribal societies, compensation and shunning were often considered enough as a form of justice. The response to crimes committed by neighbouring tribes, clans or communities included a formal apology, compensation, blood feuds, and tribal warfare.
A blood feud
or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or
an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common
before the emergence of an arbitration system based on state or
organized religion. It may result from crime, land disputes or a code of
honour. "Acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social
collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies (as well as
potential allies) that injury to property, rights, or the person will
not go unpunished."
Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds
included peace settlements often done in a religious context and
compensation system. Compensation was based on the principle of substitution
which might include material (for example, cattle, slaves, land)
compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood
debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human
blood, or transfers of property or blood money
or in some case an offer of a person for execution. The person offered
for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime
because the social system was based on tribes and clans, not
individuals. Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as the Norsementhings.
Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced
legal systems or be given recognition by courts (for example, trial by combat or blood money). One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel.
In certain parts of the world, nations in the form of ancient
republics, monarchies or tribal oligarchies emerged. These nations were
often united by common linguistic, religious or family ties. Moreover,
expansion of these nations often occurred by conquest of neighbouring
tribes or nations. Consequently, various classes of royalty, nobility,
various commoners and slaves emerged. Accordingly, the systems of tribal
arbitration were submerged into a more unified system of justice which
formalized the relation between the different "social classes" rather than "tribes". The earliest and most famous example is Code of Hammurabi which set the different punishment and compensation, according to the different class/group of victims and perpetrators. The Torah (Jewish Law), also known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), lays down the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, practicing magic, violation of the Sabbath, blasphemy, and a wide range of sexual crimes, although evidence suggests that actual executions were rare.
A further example comes from Ancient Greece, where the Athenian legal system replacing customaryoral law was first written down by Draco in about 621 BC: the death penalty was applied for a particularly wide range of crimes, though Solon later repealed Draco's code and published new laws, retaining capital punishment only for intentional homicide, and only with victim's family permission. The word draconian derives from Draco's laws. The Romans also used the death penalty for a wide range of offences.
China
Although many are executed in the People's Republic of China each year in the present day, there was a time in the Tang dynasty (618–907) when the death penalty was abolished. This was in the year 747, enacted by Emperor Xuanzong of Tang
(r. 712–756). When abolishing the death penalty Xuanzong ordered his
officials to refer to the nearest regulation by analogy when sentencing
those found guilty of crimes for which the prescribed punishment was
execution. Thus depending on the severity of the crime a punishment of
severe scourging with the thick rod or of exile to the remote Lingnan
region might take the place of capital punishment. However, the death
penalty was restored only 12 years later in 759 in response to the An Lushan Rebellion. At this time in the Tang dynasty only the emperor had the authority to sentence criminals to execution. Under Xuanzong capital punishment was relatively infrequent, with only 24 executions in the year 730 and 58 executions in the year 736.
Ling Chi – execution by slow slicing – was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly AD 900 (Tang era) until it was banned in 1905.
The two most common forms of execution in the Tang dynasty were
strangulation and decapitation, which were the prescribed methods of
execution for 144 and 89 offences respectively. Strangulation was the
prescribed sentence for lodging an accusation against one's parents or
grandparents with a magistrate, scheming to kidnap a person and sell
them into slavery, and opening a coffin while desecrating a tomb.
Decapitation was the method of execution prescribed for more serious
crimes such as treason and sedition. Despite the great discomfort
involved, most of the Tang Chinese preferred strangulation to
decapitation, as a result of the traditional Tang Chinese belief that
the body is a gift from the parents and that it is, therefore,
disrespectful to one's ancestors to die without returning one's body to
the grave intact.
Some further forms of capital punishment were practised in the
Tang dynasty, of which the first two that follow at least were
extralegal. The first of these was scourging to death with the thick rod
which was common throughout the Tang dynasty especially in cases of
gross corruption. The second was truncation, in which the convicted
person was cut in two at the waist with a fodder knife and then left to
bleed to death. A further form of execution called Ling Chi (slow slicing), or death by/of a thousand cuts, was used from the close of the Tang dynasty (around 900) to its abolition in 1905.
When a minister of the fifth grade or above received a death
sentence the emperor might grant him a special dispensation allowing him
to commit suicide in lieu of execution. Even when this privilege was
not granted, the law required that the condemned minister be provided
with food and ale by his keepers and transported to the execution ground
in a cart rather than having to walk there.
Nearly all executions under the Tang dynasty took place in public
as a warning to the population. The heads of the executed were
displayed on poles or spears. When local authorities decapitated a
convicted criminal, the head was boxed and sent to the capital as proof
of identity and that the execution had taken place.
Middle Ages
The burning of Jakob Rohrbach, a leader of the peasants during the German Peasants' War.
The breaking wheel was used during the Middle Ages and was still in use into the 19th century.
In medieval and early modern Europe, before the development of modern prison systems, the death penalty was also used as a generalized form of punishment for even minor offences. During the reign of Henry VIII of England, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed.
In early modern Europe, a massive moral panic regarding witchcraft
swept across Europe and later the European colonies in North America.
During this period, there were widespread claims that malevolent Satanicwitches were operating as an organized threat to Christendom. As a result, tens of thousands of women were prosecuted for witchcraft and executed through the witch trials of the early modern period (between the 15th and 18th centuries).
The death penalty also targeted sexual offences such as sodomy. In England, the Buggery Act 1533 stipulated hanging as punishment for "buggery". James Pratt and John Smith were the last two Englishmen to be executed for sodomy in 1835.
Despite the wide use of the death penalty, calls for reform were not unknown. The 12th century Jewish legal scholar, Moses Maimonides,
wrote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty
persons than to put a single innocent man to death." He argued that
executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty
would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof,
until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice".
Maimonides's concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he
saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of
omission.
Antiporta of Dei delitti e delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments), 1766 ed.
In the last several centuries, with the emergence of modern nation states, justice came to be increasingly associated with the concept of natural and legal rights. The period saw an increase in standing police forces and permanent penitential institutions. Rational choice theory, a utilitarian approach to criminology which justifies punishment as a form of deterrence as opposed to retribution, can be traced back to Cesare Beccaria, whose influential treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764) was the first detailed analysis of capital punishment to demand the abolition of the death penalty. In England Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the founder of modern utilitarianism, called for the abolition of the death penalty. Beccaria, and later Charles Dickens and Karl Marx
noted the incidence of increased violent criminality at the times and
places of executions. Official recognition of this phenomenon led to
executions being carried out inside prisons, away from public view.
In England in the 18th century, when there was no police force,
Parliament drastically increased the number of capital offences to more
than 200. These were mainly property offences, for example cutting down a
cherry tree in an orchard. In 1820, there were 160, including crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft or stealing cattle. The severity of the so-called Bloody Code
was often tempered by juries who refused to convict, or judges, in the
case of petty theft, who arbitrarily set the value stolen at below the
statutory level for a capital crime.
20th century
Mexican execution by firing squad, 1916
In Nazi Germany there were three types of capital punishment; hanging, decapitation and death by shooting. Also, modern military organisations employed capital punishment as a means of maintaining military discipline. In the past, cowardice, absence without leave, desertion, insubordination, shirking under enemy fire and disobeying orders were often crimes punishable by death (see decimation and running the gauntlet). One method of execution, since firearms came into common use, has also been firing squad, although some countries use execution with a single shot to the head or neck.
50 Poles tried and sentenced to death by a Standgericht in retaliation for the assassination of 1 German policeman in Nazi-occupied Poland, 1944
Various authoritarian states—for example those with Fascist or
Communist governments—employed the death penalty as a potent means of political oppression. According to Robert Conquest, the leading expert on Joseph Stalin's purges, more than one million Soviet citizens were executed during the Great Terror of 1937–38, almost all by a bullet to the back of the head. Mao Zedong publicly stated that "800,000" people had been executed in China during the Cultural Revolution
(1966–1976). Partly as a response to such excesses, civil rights
organizations started to place increasing emphasis on the concept of human rights and an abolition of the death penalty.
Contemporary era
Among countries around the world, all European (except Belarus) and many Oceanian states (including Australia and New Zealand), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries such as Brazil and Guatemala allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 29 of the states), some Caribbean countries and the majority of countries in Asia (for example, Japan and India) retain capital punishment. In Africa, less than half of countries retain it, for example Botswana and Zambia. South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1995.
Abolition was often adopted due to political change, as when
countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, or when it became
an entry condition for the European Union. The United States is a
notable exception: some states have had bans on capital punishment for
decades, the earliest being Michigan
where it was abolished in 1846, while other states still actively use
it today. The death penalty in the United States remains a contentious
issue which is hotly debated.
In retentionist countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a
miscarriage of justice has occurred though this tends to cause
legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to
abolish the death penalty. In abolitionist countries, the debate is
sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders though few countries
have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious,
violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some
countries to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. One
notable example is Pakistan which in December 2014 lifted a six-year moratorium on executions after the Peshawar school massacre during which 132 students and 9 members of staff of the Army Public School and Degree College Peshawar were killed by Taliban terrorists. Since then, Pakistan has executed over 400 convicts.
In 2017 two major countries, Turkey and the Philippines, saw their executives making moves to reinstate the death penalty.As of March 2017, passage of the law in the Philippines awaits the Senate's approval.
In 724 in Japan, the death penalty was banned during the reign of Emperor Shōmu but only lasted a few years. In 818, Emperor Saga abolished the death penalty in 818 under the influence of Shinto and it lasted until 1156. In China, the death penalty was banned by Emperor Xuanzong of Tang in 747, replacing it with exile or scourging. However, the ban only lasted 12 years.
In England, a public statement of opposition was included in The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, written in 1395. Sir Thomas More's Utopia,
published in 1516, debated the benefits of the death penalty in
dialogue form, coming to no firm conclusion. More was himself executed
for treason in 1535. More recent opposition to the death penalty stemmed
from the book of the Italian Cesare BeccariaDei Delitti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments"),
published in 1764. In this book, Beccaria aimed to demonstrate not only
the injustice, but even the futility from the point of view of social welfare, of torture and the death penalty. Influenced by the book, Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg, the future Emperor of Austria, abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the first permanent abolition in modern times. On 30 November 1786, after having de facto blocked executions (the last was in 1769), Leopold promulgated the reform of the penal code
that abolished the death penalty and ordered the destruction of all the
instruments for capital execution in his land. In 2000, Tuscany's
regional authorities instituted an annual holiday on 30 November to
commemorate the event. The event is commemorated on this day by 300
cities around the world celebrating Cities for Life Day. In the United Kingdom, it was abolished for murder (leaving only treason, piracy with violence, arson in royal dockyards
and a number of wartime military offences as capital crimes) for a
five-year experiment in 1965 and permanently in 1969, the last execution
having taken place in 1964. It was abolished for all peacetime offences
in 1998.
In the post classicalRepublic of Poljica life was ensured as a basic right in its Poljica Statute of 1440. The Roman Republic banned capital punishment in 1849. Venezuela followed suit and abolished the death penalty in 1863 and San Marino
did so in 1865. The last execution in San Marino had taken place in
1468. In Portugal, after legislative proposals in 1852 and 1863, the
death penalty was abolished in 1867. The last execution of the death
penalty in Brazil was 1876, from there all the condemnations were
commuted by the Emperor Pedro II
until its abolition for civil offences and military offences in
peacetime in 1891. The penalty for crimes committed in peacetime was
then reinstated and abolished again twice (1938–53 and 1969–78), but on
those occasions it was restricted to acts of terrorism or subversion
considered "internal warfare" and all sentence were commuted and were
not carried out.
In the United States, Michigan was the first state to ban the death penalty, on 18 May 1846. The death penalty was declared unconstitutional between 1972 and 1976 based on the Furman v. Georgia case, but the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia
case once again permitted the death penalty under certain
circumstances. Further limitations were placed on the death penalty in Atkins v. Virginia (death penalty unconstitutional for people with an intellectual disability) and Roper v. Simmons
(death penalty unconstitutional if defendant was under age 18 at the
time the crime was committed). In the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia ban capital punishment.
Many countries have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice. Since World War II
there has been a trend toward abolishing capital punishment. Capital
punishment has been completely abolished by 102 countries, a further six
have done so for all offences except under special circumstances and 32
more have abolished it in practice because they have not used it for at
least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established
practice against carrying out executions.
Contemporary use
By country
World map of the use of capital punishment as of 26 March 2019
Legend
Retentionist countries: 56
Abolitionist
in practice countries (have not executed anyone during the last 10
years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not
carrying out executions): 29
Abolitionist countries except for crimes committed under exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime): 7
Abolitionist countries: 106
Most countries, including almost all First World nations, have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice; notable exceptions are the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Additionally, capital punishment is also carried out in China, India, and most Islamic states. The United States is the only Western country to still use the death penalty.
Since World War II,
there has been a trend toward abolishing the death penalty. 58
countries retain the death penalty in active use, 102 countries have
abolished capital punishment altogether, six have done so for all
offences except under special circumstances, and 32 more have abolished
it in practice because they have not used it for at least 10 years and
are believed to have a policy or established practice against carrying
out executions.
According to Amnesty International, 23 countries are known to have performed executions in 2016. There are countries which do not publish information on the use of capital punishment, most significantly China and North Korea. As per Amnesty International, around 1000 prisoners were executed in 2017.
A
map showing U.S. states where the death penalty is authorized for
certain crimes, even if not recently used. The death penalty is also
authorized for certain federal and military crimes.
States with a valid death penalty statute
States without the death penalty
The use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in some retentionist countries including Taiwan and Singapore. Indonesia carried out no executions between November 2008 and March 2013. Singapore,
Japan and the United States are the only developed countries that are
classified by Amnesty International as 'retentionist' (South Korea is
classified as 'abolitionist in practice'). Nearly all retentionist countries are situated in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. The only retentionist country in Europe is Belarus.
The death penalty was overwhelmingly practised in poor and
authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool
of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratisation of Latin
America swelled the ranks of abolitionist countries.
This was soon followed by the fall of Communism in Europe. Many of the countries which restored democracy aspired to enter the EU. The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practise the death penalty. Public support for the death penalty in the EU varies. The last execution in a member state of the present-day Council of Europe took place in 1997 in Ukraine.
In contrast, the rapid industrialisation in Asia has seen an increase
in the number of developed countries which are also retentionist. In
these countries, the death penalty retains strong public support, and
the matter receives little attention from the government or the media;
in China there is a small but significant and growing movement to
abolish the death penalty altogether. This trend has been followed by some African and Middle Eastern countries where support for the death penalty remains high.
Some countries have resumed practising the death penalty after
having previously suspended the practice for long periods. The United
States suspended executions in 1972 but resumed them in 1976; there was
no execution in India between 1995 and 2004; and Sri Lanka declared an end to its moratorium on the death penalty on 20 November 2004, although it has not yet performed any further executions. The Philippines re-introduced the death penalty in 1993 after abolishing it in 1987, but again abolished it in 2006.
The United States and Japan are the only developed countries to
have recently carried out executions. The U.S. federal government, the
U.S. military, and 31 states have a valid death penalty statute, and
over 1,400 executions have been carried in the United States since it
reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Japan has 112 inmates with
finalized death sentences as of December 26, 2019, after executing Wei
Wei, a former student from China who was charged with killing and
robbing the Japanese family of four, including children aged 8 and 11,
in 2003.
The most recent country to abolish the death penalty was Burkina Faso in June 2018.
Modern-day public opinion
The public opinion on the death penalty varies considerably by
country and by the crime in question. Countries where a majority of
people are against execution include Norway, where only 25% are in
favour. Most French, Finns, and Italians also oppose the death penalty. A 2016 Gallup poll shows that 60% of Americans support the death penalty, down from 64% in 2010, 65% in 2006, and 68% in 2001.
The support and sentencing of capital punishment has been growing in India in the 2010s due to anger over several recent brutal cases of rape, even though actual executions are comparatively rare.
While support for the death penalty for murder is still high in China,
executions have dropped precipitously, with 3,000 executed in 2012
versus 12,000 in 2002. A poll in South Africa, where capital punishment is abolished, found that 76% of millennial South Africans support re-introduction of the death penalty due to increasing incidents of rape and murder.
A 2017 poll found younger Mexicans are more likely to support capital punishment than older ones.
57% of Brazilians support the death penalty. The age group that shows
the greatest support for execution of those condemned is the 25 to
34-year-old category, in which 61% say they are in favor.
Juvenile offenders
The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime although the legal or accepted definition of juvenile offender may vary from one jurisdiction to another) has become increasingly rare. Considering the Age of Majority
is still not 18 in some countries or has not been clearly defined in
law, since 1990 ten countries have executed offenders who were
considered juveniles at the time of their crimes: The People's Republic
of China (PRC), Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen. The PRC, Pakistan, the United States, Yemen and Iran have since raised the minimum age to 18.
Amnesty International has recorded 61 verified executions since then,
in several countries, of both juveniles and adults who had been
convicted of committing their offences as juveniles. The PRC does not allow for the execution of those under 18, but child executions have reportedly taken place.
Mother
Catherine Cauchés (center) and her two daughters Guillemine Gilbert
(left) and Perotine Massey (right) with her infant son burning for
heresy
One of the youngest children ever to be executed was the infant son
of Perotine Massey on or around 18 July 1556. His mother was one of the Guernsey Martyrs
who was executed for heresy, and his father had previously fled the
island. At less than one day old, he was ordered to be burned by Bailiff
Hellier Gosselin, with the advice of priests nearby who said the boy
should burn due to having inherited moral stain from his mother, who had
given birth during her execution.
Starting in 1642 within the then British American colonies until present day, an estimated 365
juvenile offenders were executed by the British Colonial authorities
and subsequently by State authorities and the federal government of the
United States. The United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), and for all juveniles in Roper v. Simmons (2005).
In Prussia, children under the age of 14 were exempted from the death penalty in 1794. The capital punishment was cancelled by the Electorate of Bavaria in 1751 for children under the age of 11 and by the Kingdom of Bavaria in 1813 for children and youth under 16 years. In Prussia, the exemption was extended to youth under the age of 16 in 1851. For the first time, all juveniles were excluded for the death penalty by the North German Confederation in 1870, which was continued by the German Empire in 1872. In Nazi Germany, capital punishment was reinstated for juveniles between 16 and 17 years in 1939. This was broadened to children and youth from age 12 to 17 in 1943. The death penalty for juveniles was abolished by West Germany, also generally, in 1949 and by East Germany in 1952.
In the Hereditary Lands, Austrian Silesia, Bohemia and Moravia within the Habsburg Monarchy, capital punishment for children under the age of 11 was no longer foreseen by 1768.
The death penalty was, also for juveniles, nearly abolished in 1787
except for emergency or military law, which is unclear in regard of
those. It was reintroduced for juveniles above 14 years by 1803, where it was kept by general criminal law in 1852 and this exemption was also introduced by the same year and similarly the exemption in the military law by 1855 into all of the Austrian Empire.
In the Helvetic Republic,
the death penalty for children and youth under the age of 16 was
abolished in 1799 but the country was already dissolved in 1803.
Between 2005 and May 2008, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
and Yemen were reported to have executed child offenders, the largest
number occurring in Iran.
During Hassan Rouhani's
current tenure as president of Iran since 2013, at least 3,602 death
sentences have been carried out. This includes the executions of 34
juvenile offenders.
Iran, despite its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
was the world's largest executioner of juvenile offenders, for which it
has been the subject of broad international condemnation; the country's
record is the focus of the Stop Child Executions Campaign.
But on 10 February 2012, Iran's parliament changed controversial laws
relating to the execution of juveniles. In the new legislation the age
of 18 (solar year) would be applied to accused of both genders and
juvenile offenders must be sentenced pursuant to a separate law
specifically dealing with juveniles.
Based on the Islamic law which now seems to have been revised, girls at
the age of 9 and boys at 15 of lunar year (11 days shorter than a solar
year) are deemed fully responsible for their crimes. Iran accounted for two-thirds of the global total of such executions, and currently has approximately 140 people considered as juveniles awaiting execution for crimes committed (up from 71 in 2007). The past executions of Mahmoud Asgari, Ayaz Marhoni
and Makwan Moloudzadeh became the focus of Iran's child capital
punishment policy and the judicial system that hands down such
sentences.
Saudi Arabia also executes criminals who were minors at the time of the offence. In 2013, Saudi Arabia was the center of an international controversy after it executed Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan domestic worker, who was believed to have been 17 years old at the time of the crime. Saudi Arabia banned execution for minors, except for terrorism cases, in April 2020.
Japan has not executed juvenile criminals after August 1997, when they executed Norio Nagayama, a spree killer who had been convicted of shooting four people dead in the late 1960s. Nagayama's case created the eponymously named Nagayamastandards,
which take into account factors such as the number of victims,
brutality and social impact of the crimes. The standards have been used
in determining whether to apply the death sentence in murder cases. Teruhiko Seki,
convicted of murdering four family members including a 4-year-old
daughter and raping a 15-year-old daughter of a family in 1992, became
the second inmate to be hanged for a crime committed as a minor in the
first such execution in 20 years after Nagayama on 19 December 2017. Takayuki Otsuki,
who was convicted of raping and strangling a 23-year-old woman and
subsequently strangling her 11-month-old daughter to death on 14 April
1999, when he was 18, is another inmate sentenced to death, and his
request for retrial has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Japan.
A public execution is a form of capital punishment which "members of
the general public may voluntarily attend". This definition excludes the
presence of a small number of witnesses randomly selected to assure
executive accountability.
While today the great majority of the world considers public executions
to be distasteful and most countries have outlawed the practice,
throughout much of history executions were performed publicly as a means
for the state to demonstrate "its power before those who fell under its
jurisdiction be they criminals, enemies, or political opponents".
Additionally, it afforded the public a chance to witness "what was
considered a great spectacle".
Social historians note that beginning in the 20th century in the
U.S. and western Europe death in general became increasingly shielded
from public view, occurring more and more behind the closed doors of the
hospital. Executions were likewise moved behind the walls of the penitentiary. The last formal public executions occurred in 1868 in Britain, in 1936 in the U.S. and in 1939 in France.
According to Amnesty International, in 2012, "public executions were known to have been carried out in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Somalia". There have been reports of public executions carried out by state and non-state actors in Hamas-controlled Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Executions which can be classified as public were also carried out in the U.S. states of Florida and Utah as of 1992.
Capital crime
Crimes against humanity
Crimes against humanity such as genocide
are usually punishable by death in countries retaining capital
punishment. Death sentences for such crimes were handed down and carried
out during the Nuremberg Trials in 1946 and the Tokyo Trials in 1948, but the current International Criminal Court does not use capital punishment. The maximum penalty available to the International Criminal Court is life imprisonment.
Murder
Intentional homicide is punishable by death in most countries
retaining capital punishment, but generally provided it involves an aggravating factor required by statute or judicial precedents.
Drug trafficking
A sign at the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport warns arriving travelers that drug trafficking is a capital crime in the Republic of China (photo taken in 2005)
Many countries provide the death penalty for drug trafficking, drug dealing, drug possession and related offences, mostly in Asia and some African countries. Among countries who regularly execute drug offenders are China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Singapore.
Other offences
Other crimes that are punishable by death in some countries include terrorism, treason, espionage, crimes against the state, such as attempting to overthrow government (most countries with the death penalty), political protests (Saudi Arabia), rape (China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Brunei, etc.), economic crimes (China, Iran), human trafficking (China), corruption (China, Iran), kidnapping (China, Bangladesh etc.), separatism (China), adultery (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Qatar, Brunei, etc.), bestiality (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Iran), sodomy (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Nigeria etc.), and religious Hudud offences such as apostasy (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, etc.), blasphemy (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria), Moharebeh (Iran), drinking alcohol (Iran), Witchcraft and Sorcery (Saudi Arabia), arson (Algeria, Tunisia, Mali, Mauritania etc.), and hirabah/brigandage/armed and/or aggravated robbery, (Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya, Zambia, Ghana, Ethiopia, etc.).
Controversy and debate
Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane and criticize it for its irreversibility. They argue also that capital punishment lacks deterrent effect, discriminates against minorities and the poor, and that it encourages a "culture of violence". There are many organizations worldwide, such as Amnesty International, and country-specific, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that have abolition of the death penalty as a fundamental purpose.
Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime, is a good tool for police and prosecutors in plea bargaining, makes sure that convicted criminals do not offend again, and is a just penalty.
Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally
justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements
such as for murder of police officers, child murder, torture murder, multiple homicide and mass killing such as terrorism, massacre and genocide. This argument is strongly defended by New York Law School's Professor Robert Blecker, who says that the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime. Eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant
defended a more extreme position, according to which every murderer
deserves to die on the grounds that loss of life is incomparable to any
jail term.
Some abolitionists argue that retribution is simply revenge and
cannot be condoned. Others while accepting retribution as an element of
criminal justice nonetheless argue that life without parole
is a sufficient substitute. It is also argued that the punishing of a
killing with another death is a relatively unique punishment for a
violent act, because in general violent crimes are not punished by
subjecting the perpetrator to a similar act (e.g. rapists are not
punished by corporal punishment).
Human rights
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment". Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate irreversible denial of Human Rights". Albert Camus wrote in a 1956 book called Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death:
An execution is not simply death.
It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration
camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death
penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the
date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from
that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a
monster is not encountered in private life.
In the classic doctrine of natural rights as expounded by for instance Locke and Blackstone, on the other hand, it is an important idea that the right to life can be forfeited. As John Stuart Mill explained in a speech given in Parliament against an amendment to abolish capital punishment for murder in 1868:
And we may imagine somebody asking
how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting
it? But to this I should answer – all of us would answer – that to
deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but
the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of
respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as
unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken
that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on
the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a
rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself,
and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his
right to live, this shall.
Trends in most of the world have long been to move to private and less painful executions. France developed the guillotine for this reason in the final years of the 18th century, while Britain banned hanging, drawing, and quartering in the early 19th century. Hanging by turning the victim off a ladder or by kicking a stool or a bucket, which causes death by suffocation, was replaced by long drop "hanging" where the subject is dropped a longer distance to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord. Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar, Shah of Persia (1896–1907) introduced throat-cutting and blowing from a gun
(close-range cannon fire) as quick and relatively painless alternatives
to more torturous methods of executions used at that time. In the United States, electrocution and gas inhalation were introduced as more humane alternatives to hanging, but have been almost entirely superseded by lethal injection. A small number of countries still employ slow hanging methods, decapitation, and stoning.
A study of executions carried out in the United States between
1977 and 2001 indicated that at least 34 of the 749 executions, or 4.5%,
involved "unanticipated problems or delays that caused, at least
arguably, unnecessary agony for the prisoner or that reflect gross
incompetence of the executioner". The rate of these "botched executions"
remained steady over the period of the study. A separate study published in The Lancet in 2005 found that in 43% of cases of lethal injection, the blood level of hypnotics was insufficient to guarantee unconsciousness. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (Baze v. Rees) and again in 2015 (Glossip v. Gross) that lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Wrongful execution
Capital punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom in part because of the case of Timothy Evans, who was executed in 1950 after being wrongfully convicted of two murders that had in fact been committed by his neighbour.
It is frequently argued that capital punishment leads to miscarriage of justice through the wrongful execution of innocent persons. Many people have been proclaimed innocent victims of the death penalty.
Some have claimed that as many as 39 executions have been carried
out in the face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt
about guilt in the US from 1992 through 2004. Newly available DNA evidence prevented the pending execution of more than 15 death row inmates during the same period in the US, but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases. As of 2017,
159 prisoners on death row have been exonerated by DNA or other
evidence, which is seen as an indication that innocent prisoners have
almost certainly been executed.
The National Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty claims that between 1976 and 2015, 1,414
prisoners in the United States have been executed while 156 sentenced to
death have had their death sentences vacated, indicating that more than
one in ten death row inmates were wrongly sentenced.
It is impossible to assess how many have been wrongly executed, since
courts do not generally investigate the innocence of a dead defendant,
and defense attorneys tend to concentrate their efforts on clients whose
lives can still be saved; however, there is strong evidence of
innocence in many cases.
Improper procedure may also result in unfair executions. For example, Amnesty International argues that in Singapore "the Misuse of Drugs Act
contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from
the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally
guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty".
Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act presumes one is guilty of possession of
drugs if, as examples, one is found to be present or escaping from a
location "proved or presumed to be used for the purpose of smoking or
administering a controlled drug", if one is in possession of a key to a
premises where drugs are present, if one is in the company of another
person found to be in possession of illegal drugs, or if one tests
positive after being given a mandatory urine drug screening.
Urine drug screenings can be given at the discretion of police, without
requiring a search warrant. The onus is on the accused in all of the
above situations to prove that they were not in possession of or
consumed illegal drugs.
Racial, ethnic and social class bias
Opponents of the death penalty argue that this punishment is being
used more often against perpetrators from racial and ethnic minorities
and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, than against those criminals
who come from a privileged background; and that the background of the
victim also influences the outcome.
Researchers have shown that white Americans are more likely to support
the death penalty when told that it is mostly applied to African
Americans,
and that more stereotypically black-looking or darkskinned defendants
are more likely to be sentenced to death if the case involves a white
victim.
In Alabama in 2019, a death row inmate named Domineque Ray was
denied his imam in the room during his execution, instead only offered a
Christian chaplain.
After filing a complaint, a federal court of appeals ruled 5–4 against
Ray's request. The majority cited the "last-minute" nature of the
request, and the dissent stated that the treatment went against the core
principle of denominational neutrality.
In July 2019, two Shiite men, Ali Hakim al-Arab, 25, and Ahmad al-Malali, 24, were executed in Bahrain, despite the protests from the United Nations and rights group. Amnesty International stated that the executions were being carried out on confessions of “terrorism crimes” that were obtained through torture.
The United Nations introduced a resolution during the General Assembly's 62nd sessions in 2007 calling for a universal ban.
The approval of a draft resolution by the Assembly's third committee,
which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33
abstentions, in favour of the resolution on 15 November 2007 and was put
to a vote in the Assembly on 18 December.
Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions
adopted, on 20 November in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee), a
second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death
penalty; 105 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, 48 voted
against and 31 abstained.
A range of amendments proposed by a small minority of pro-death
penalty countries were overwhelmingly defeated. It had in 2007 passed a
non-binding resolution (by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions) by asking its
member states for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing
the death penalty".
A number of regional conventions prohibit the death penalty, most
notably, the Sixth Protocol (abolition in time of peace) and the 13th
Protocol (abolition in all circumstances) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same is also stated under the Second Protocol in the American Convention on Human Rights,
which, however has not been ratified by all countries in the Americas,
most notably Canada and the United States. Most relevant operative
international treaties do not require its prohibition for cases of
serious crime, most notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This instead has, in common with several other treaties, an optional
protocol prohibiting capital punishment and promoting its wider
abolition.
Several international organizations have made the abolition of
the death penalty (during time of peace) a requirement of membership,
most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia
is a member of the Council of Europe, and the death penalty remains
codified in its law, it has not made use of it since becoming a member
of the Council – Russia has not executed anyone since 1996. With the
exception of Russia (abolitionist in practice), Kazakhstan (abolitionist for ordinary crimes only), and Belarus (retentionist), all European countries are classified as abolitionist.
Latvia abolished de jure the death penalty for war crimes in 2012, becoming the last EU member to do so.
The Protocol no.13 calls for the abolition of the death penalty
in all circumstances (including for war crimes). The majority of
European countries have signed and ratified it. Some European countries
have not done this, but all of them except Belarus and Kazakhstan have
now abolished the death penalty in all circumstances (de jure, and Russia de facto). Poland is the most recent country to ratify the protocol, on 28 August 2013.
Signatories to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR: parties in dark green, signatories in light green, non-members in grey
The Protocol no.6 which prohibits the death penalty during peacetime
has been ratified by all members of the European Council, except Russia
(which has signed, but not ratified).
In Turkey, over 500 people were sentenced to death after the 1980 Turkish coup d'état. About 50 of them were executed, the last one 25 October 1984. Then there was a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey. As a move towards EU membership, Turkey made some legal changes. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law by the National Assembly in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution
in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified
Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February
2006. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in
practice, all states but Russia, which has entered a moratorium, having
ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights,
with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practise
the death penalty, the U.S. and Japan, to abolish it or lose their
observer status. In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member
states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the
receiving party may seek the death penalty.
Sub-Saharan African countries that have recently abolished the death penalty include Burundi, which abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2009, and Gabon which did the same in 2010. On 5 July 2012, Benin
became part of the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the use
of the death penalty.
The newly created South Sudan
is among the 111 UN member states that supported the resolution passed
by the United Nations General Assembly that called for the removal of
the death penalty, therefore affirming its opposition to the practice.
South Sudan, however, has not yet abolished the death penalty and stated
that it must first amend its Constitution, and until that happens it
will continue to use the death penalty.
Among non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
are noted for their opposition to capital punishment. A number of such
NGOs, as well as trade unions, local councils and bar associations
formed a World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in 2002.
Religious views
The world's major faiths have differing views depending on the religion, denomination, sect and/or the individual adherent. As an example, the world's largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, opposes capital punishment in all cases, whereas both the Baha'i and Islamic faiths support capital punishment.
.jpg)
