Death Penalty

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

US loses faith in death penalty

It took Angel Nieves Diaz 34 minutes to die from the time the two executioners inserted the IV tubes into each arm and began pumping the chemicals into his body. His eyes widened. His head rolled. He appeared to speak.

"It was my observation that he was in pain," Neal Dupree, a lawyer for Diaz and a witness to the execution, wrote in an affidavit.

The faint signs of movement from the body strapped to the trolley continued for 24 minutes.

"His face was contorted, and he grimaced on several occasions. His Adam's apple bobbed up and down continually, and his jaw was clenched," he said.

Diaz's execution in Florida on Dec. 13 for the murder of the manager of a topless bar was the last in the state for some months to come. Almost immediately after his body was removed from the execution chamber, it became clear that the execution had gone wrong.

The cocktail of three chemicals that was meant to have sent him to oblivion within moments had led to a painful, lingering death. After a report from the medical examiner found 30cm-long chemical burns on Diaz's arms, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, opened an inquiry into his death and suspended all executions, granting the more than 370 people on Florida's death row at least a temporary reprieve.

Although the brutality of Diaz's death merited attention across the US, what has gone almost unnoticed is that the death penalty, once an article of faith for conservatives, is now in retreat.

The penalty remains the law in 38 states, but last year saw the lowest number of executions in a decade -- 53 including Diaz. The number of condemned fell to its lowest level since the restoration of capital punishment in 1976 -- 114, compared with 317 in 1996.

Ten states have suspended executions, and for the first time last week, one state -- New Jersey -- announced it was leaning towards abolition.

"The death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency," an official commission reported.

New Jersey would be the first to take such a step since capital punishment was restored.

"The death penalty is on the defensive," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

"Its flaws are much more obvious now. If you are for the death penalty you are going to have to say how are we going to avoid executing innocent people," he said.

Dieter attributes much of the declining taste for the death penalty to science, with DNA and other new technologies used to establish innocence in cases after conviction. More than 120 people have been freed from death row because of doubts about their conviction, including at least a dozen because of DNA testing.

Such doubts led George Ryan, the conservative Republican governor of Illinois, to impose a moratorium on executions seven years ago, after more than a dozen wrongful convictions were overturned.

His conversion came about when journalism students at Northwestern University produced a taped confession exonerating a man who had been on death row for 17 years.

Other inmates on death row were later cleared by DNA, and subsequent investigations.

"Juries make mistakes. Prosecutors make mistakes. If you are for the death penalty you have to say `we are going to lose innocent lives, but it is worth it,'" Dieter said.

In Florida, executions are on hold because of public queasiness about lethal injection following Diaz's botched execution.

As the medical examiner discovered, technicians missed the veins when they were inserting the intravenous tubes into Diaz's arms, and he needed a second injection to die. Death penalty opponents say such excruciating deaths are to be expected in US prisons.

Human Rights Watch reports that one of the three chemicals in the mix of lethal injections has been banned for use on animals because of fears that it masks, rather than relieves, pain.

In New Jersey, where there have been no executions since the state restored the death penalty 25 years ago, the argument came down to the high cost of legal appeals while keeping people on death row. An official commission last week concluded it did not work.

"There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent," it said.

The judiciary has also turned against the death penalty, with the Supreme Court barring the execution of the insane, people with learning difficulties, or minors, and lower courts turning to alternative sentences. Thirty-seven of the 38 states that retain the death penalty now have life without parole.

Death penalty opponents say that such lifelong prison terms make it increasingly difficult to argue that the death penalty is the last defense against a convicted killer going free. In the last few years, juries in celebrated capital cases have balked at imposing the final punishment.

Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted last year over the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, got life in a maximum security jail. So did Gary Ridgeway, the Green River serial killer from Washington state, who admitted to murdering 48 people and received a life term with no parole. If one of the worst serial killers in history does not deserve the death penalty, the argument goes, who does?

"There are indications of change even in places like Texas and Virginia," which perform the most executions in the US, Dieter said.

Those developments came too late for Diaz, as did the outrage over lethal injection.

But for Suzanne Keffer of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, his lawyer for the last eight years, his suffering may produce some good.

"If you can look at it this way, that something good may come out of this ... it certainly may be a benefit," she said.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

KYRGYZSTAN ABOLISHES DEATH PENALTY

The central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan has adopted a new constitution specifically banning all taking of life and lawyers are now drafting revisions to its legal code replacing the maximum criminal sentence of death by firing squad with long prison terms.
Many independent lawyers and human rights activists here have welcomed this as an unequivocal ban on all state executions, saying the reforms were more progressive on this than anything in the constitutions of their immediate neighbours- Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China.
The new Kyrgyz constitution came into full force when President Kurmanbek Bakiev signed it on January 16, 2007. "Every person in the Kyrgyz Republic has an inalienable right to life. No one can be deprived of life," article 14 declares. "The death penalty has been abolished," a spokesperson on the parliamentary judicial reforms committee announced at a press conference immediately after the deputies approved the new constitution on December 30.

[indian_blues]

wow good news... i hope all nations will follow KYRGYZSTAN.

[Rasputin]

World execution numbers fall

The number of people executed in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan rose in 2006 as those countries bucked an overall trend towards fewer executions, a report said today.
In its annual report on the death penalty, the human rights group Amnesty International said at least 1,591 people were executed last year, down from 2,148 the year before.

"Last year saw a slight drop in execution numbers - but it was another grim death toll around the world and we are particularly concerned about a disturbing 'revival' of executions in countries like Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan," Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, said.

In Iran, the number of executions almost doubled to 177 from 94, possibly linked to a crackdown on Baluchis. One-third of those executed came from this minority group.
Eight-two people were put to death in Pakistan - up from 31 in 2005 - while the number of people on death row stands at 7,000, the highest in the world.

Iraq executed 65 people, up from three in 2006. The Iraqi government reintroduced the death penalty after it had been suspended by the US-controlled provisional authority, claiming the move was a necessary deterrent because of the country's grave security situation.

Amnesty challenged that claim, saying the security situation had continued to decline even as the number of executions rose rapidly.

In Sudan, the number of executions went from zero to 65, possibly linked to a harshening political situation.

China once again topped the list with 1,101, although Amnesty said the true figure could be as high as 7,500 to 8,000 because official statistics remain a state secret.

Particularly horrific executions included that of one man in Somalia who was publicly stabbed to death after being hooded and tied to a stake, while a man was found to be still alive and moving after being hanged in Sri Lanka.

However, the execution of an 18-year-old in Iran was stopped with the noose already around his neck after he was allowed to play a flute as a last request. His family then decided to spare his life.

"Capital punishment is always cruel and unnecessary, and doesn't deter crime," Ms Allen said.

"Many of the thousands of prisoners awaiting execution around the world have also endured torture, unfair trials and the misery of death row. We urgently need to see death penalty governments issuing bans on all imminent executions."

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Piers Bannister, a researcher on the death penalty for Amnesty International, has had an active role in international lobbying for a global moratorium on the death penalty. A resolution calling all states for a moratorium on executions, passed at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in November 2007, leads up to a vote by the UN General Assembly. Piers, who has kindly answered some of my question about the death penalty in a previous interview, kindly agreed to talk more about international lobbying for the resolution.

Vahdati: Congratulations for the success on the first round of voting. What groups were involved and how long they have been lobbying?

Bannister: Many groups from around the world worked for this under the banner of the organization the World Coalition against the Death Penalty. This widespread campaigning was illustrated by the number of governments who took the opportunity to be cosponsors of the resolution with well over 80 nations from numerous regions backing the initiative. The campaign for this resolution started in the summer but the campaign to have a vote has been running for many years, backed by the anti death penalty group Hands Off Cain.

Vahdati: What lobbying mechanisms did you use? Did you lobby around the UN premises, or were activists and NGOs contacting country officials directly? What countries did you focus on, the possible “nay” votes, or the countries with possible abstain votes?

Bannister: Many lobbying techniques were used. We held a meeting at the UN which was addressed by three men who faced execution for crimes they did not commit. The testimonies from the three – from Uganda, Japan and the USA – were extremely powerful and moved many who heard them.

We also lobbied directly to representatives at the UN and to governments in their capitals. We targeted countries which might be persuaded to vote for the resolution or at least abstain. We also encouraged countries that were already very against the death penalty to use their influence to persuade nations they have good relations with to take a stand against state killing.

We held press conference both at the UN and in other regions to support the campaign and educate the media about the global trend away from the use of the death penalty.

Vahdati: Did you ever talk to the Iranian representatives?

Bannister: The Iranian authorities’ policy on the death penalty is well known. Although we seek to change that policy by the power of our argument we took the decision to target our limited resources on governments we thought more likely to respond positively.

Vahdati: Which countries were most vehemently opposed to the moratorium? Did Iran express its opposition vocally?

Bannister: The most vocal governments were (in no particular order): Botswana, Singapore, Egypt, Iran, Barbados and other Caribbean nations. The Iranian representative spoke often about his country’s objections to the resolution saying the death penalty was needed to deal with the nation’s drug and other crime problems.

Vahdati: What were the major arguments against the moratorium?

Bannister: That the UN had no authority to ‘interfere’ in the judicial systems of member states, that the death penalty was required as a deterrent to violent crime and that this only came from ‘the west’. These arguments were fiercely contested by the many supporters of the resolution who believe the death penalty to be a grave violation of human rights, that human rights are the concern of the international community and that the death penalty has never been shown to deter violent crime above other harsh punishments.

Vahdati: When is the date of the final round of voting at the UN General Assembly? Will the lobbying continue till then or do you think it will pass as it did before?

Bannister: The final vote will be in the plenary session of the UN General Assembly on 18 December. We continue to lobby countries that have ceased to execute to vote in favour and hope to push the vote in favour over the 100 mark.

Vahdati: Any interesting experience you would like to share?

Bannister: This is a major turning point in the fight against the death penalty. It may not stop executions in China, Iran and the USA but Amnesty International does believe that it will influence other nations who are already considering abolition. In time, we also believe that the major executing states will start to reflect on the international communities view on capital punishment and consider ending the killing of their fellow citizens.

Vahdati: Thank you. I wish you and all of the people who are fighting against the death penalty success.

[zubin]

actually, the death penalty is never justified. It may never have been justified, but instead seen as a "necessary evil" for social unity. There are three main, related arguments I've seen in support of the death penalty, each equally ridiculous than the other in today's context. It seems that most support for it comes from religious insecurity and the obligation one feels to support what they perceive to be their religion's moral laws.

The first argument is utilitarian, for the "greater good". Today, there are clear alternatives that better achieve the greater good than taking away a person's life, so that argument is fully refuted though some attempt to latch on to it like they're swimming in a river in Egypt.

The second argument is purely "moral", an "eye for an eye". Give the killer what he gave. This is perhaps a strong argument because it banks off weak human instincts. But really, it is based on the misconceptions that (1) killing someone as a means for retribution is equal to killing someone, and (2) that the person who killed is evil and blameworthy, rather than weak in strong circumstances.

The third argument is what everyone is waiting for. Religion advances the strongest case for the death penalty, and interestingly enough, it is based on a strong logic. There are some reasons why the logic fails in current circumstances, however. First, God's social laws don't stay the same, they are reformed based on circumstances, and this occurs everyday in the Islamic world based on Islamic science. Laws are to achieve the essential values of God. So laws on women's rights change with time for the sake of keeping up with the fundamental notion that men and women are equal. Clearly, God-given human life is also another essential element of God's Will. We end up playing God instead of exercising His Will when we don't need to use the death penalty to preserve God's ends, yet we do anyway.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Someone who is sentenced to death in Islam has broken a fundamental and absolute right, in other words God's Will. The fallacy invoked by proponents of the death penalty is that an absolute right, and God's Will, means absolute laws. What they miss is that laws are meant to preserve God's Will, and this can only occur if the institution applying them is not corrupt, and this has a very high standard. If the standard is met by a society, the society is almost perfect, and the fundamental laws can be used to prevent the breaking of fundamental rights and achievement of God's Will. Otherwise, fundamental laws will actively turn society away from God's will. Eventually, in the right society, the death penalty is abolished because God's Will is achieved without the need for it.

I know the above is somewhat confusing. It is simply an argument, at least apparently based on logic, and open to rebuttal.

[mike435]

i am confused about the third argument

so are you implying that in the third argument death penelty is ok untill the will of g-d is observed


and in the first argument cant i say a usless person takes too much space and resources theire for it is the ultimate good to murder that person


i my self personally am not for it nor against
but for example when i hear someone brutily murdures or tourchers another
i have the strong desier to see the person get justice by dying and i belive when we sentence these murdurers to life in prison it is the socioty that is paying for it

also you forgot another argument which says it so others dont attept to do the same if they know the punishment is death
wich i think is the most restarted one,

but please continue

[zubin]

i am confused about the third argument

so are you implying that in the third argument death penelty is ok untill the will of g-d is observed

Personally, I'm unsure if the Will of God was ever achieved through the death penalty. To me, it seems simply a preventative measure, and in the right society, it will NOT be used but instead it will be effective in preventing the crimes, eventually leading to its abolishin.

and in the first argument cant i say a usless person takes too much space and resources theire for it is the ultimate good to murder that person

killing someone when alternatives exist produces a highly damaging effect on the psyche of the society, and is the opposite action for bringing about a happy society.

i my self personally am not for it nor against
but for example when i hear someone brutily murdures or tourchers another
i have the strong desier to see the person get justice by dying and i belive when we sentence these murdurers to life in prison it is the socioty that is paying for it

how is justice achieved through killing someone Mike? I gave two rebuttals above:

(1) killing someone as a means for retribution is NOT equal to killing someone, and (2) that the person who killed is NOT evil and blameworthy, rather than weak (of no fault of his own) in strong circumstances.

[zubin]

I guess I neglected the fact that political affiliation (as well as religious obligation) compels people to such a ridiculous conclusion...

[mike435]

hi zubin

you know i have been thinking about the death penalty i really don't think we do it becuase of justice or vengens or even so people learn their lessons and preemt furthur ecil, i think more than anything it is used to get rit of evil, i think more than anything it is adopted by society as a quick fix so they don't have to look at theme selfs and see were they went wrong to produce evil,

but at the same time how can you deal with certin cases with out the death penelty

example hitler, khomaini, these guys that creat total chaos and realize evil


you know i think this subject is way over my head and even your arguments they are a thousand times better than mine but still i dont think they adress the issue and i dont think it is going in the right direction

[mike435]

how is justice achieved through killing someone Mike? I gave two rebuttals above:

look for a class of mine had to sit in the court room
i sat their and saw the joy this family got when they convicted the person of the crime.
I personaly think the guy who got convicted was innocent
but for the familt it didnt really matter that much it was more the act that he got what he deserved

i think it is a selfish gratification seeing somone pay for killing someone else.

(2) that the person who killed is NOT evil and blameworthy, rather than weak (of no fault of his own) in strong circumstances.

see this os where i have problem you are telling me that Hitler being a killer is weak and thats why he should not get the death penealty
or all these other terrorist who kill kids and and innocent womman

look socioty need the death penalty just so it can get rit of the stain
but at the same time death ppenalty is only a bandaid on sociotys problem that created this type of people