Very well said. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and not only because of the impact using the death penalty has on individual cases (such as is argued in Turow's book - which is quite an excellent read), but also because of what maintaining a death penalty says to society. Statistics have failed to ever effectively prove the death penalty deters. There is however a correlation between the death penalty and higher rates of homicide compared to similar societies without the death penalty. There is a basic fundamental human right to live. The death penalty divides us into those who "deserve" to live and those who "don't deserve" to live. In a society with deserving versus underserving lives, you open up all forms of discrimination, you open up and excuse all forms of injustice. You undermine the very principle of the rule of law. It becomes selective and that seems to be absorbed by the society as a lesson (a corrupt lesson) that enables more violence. More victims. Abolition sends the message that our society leads by example. We value the living and human dignity.
Amnesty International points not only to Article 3 of the UDHR, but also to Article 5, the right not to be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment. While the principle of having a death penalty is by its essence, a violation of article 3, the moment it is applied, you violate article 5. Death row is understood in international law as torture. Abolitionist jurisdictions routinely find that prisoners cannot be extradited because the resulting torture the prisoner would be facing is inhumane (see e.g. Burns, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada). Time of death row is also torture (see e.g. Morgan v Pratt), yet time is a requirement to have any confidence in the security of the conviction and punishment (i.e., appeals must be held). The only way to ensure any protection of these most basic of human rights, must include abolition of the death penalty.
Very well said. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and not only because of the impact using the death penalty has on individual cases (such as is argued in Turow's book - which is quite an excellent read), but also because of what maintaining a death penalty says to society. Statistics have failed to ever effectively prove the death penalty deters. There is however a correlation between the death penalty and higher rates of homicide compared to similar societies without the death penalty. There is a basic fundamental human right to live. The death penalty divides us into those who "deserve" to live and those who "don't deserve" to live. In a society with deserving versus underserving lives, you open up all forms of discrimination, you open up and excuse all forms of injustice. You undermine the very principle of the rule of law. It becomes selective and that seems to be absorbed by the society as a lesson (a corrupt lesson) that enables more violence. More victims. Abolition sends the message that our society leads by example. We value the living and human dignity.
Amnesty International points not only to Article 3 of the UDHR, but also to Article 5, the right not to be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment. While the principle of having a death penalty is by its essence, a violation of article 3, the moment it is applied, you violate article 5. Death row is understood in international law as torture. Abolitionist jurisdictions routinely find that prisoners cannot be extradited because the resulting torture the prisoner would be facing is inhumane (see e.g. Burns, 2001 Supreme Court of Canada). Time of death row is also torture (see e.g. Morgan v Pratt), yet time is a requirement to have any confidence in the security of the conviction and punishment (i.e., appeals must be held). The only way to ensure any protection of these most basic of human rights, must include abolition of the death penalty.