human rights and death penalty essay

Human Rights and the Death Penalty

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

ACLU, ACLU of South Carolina Challenges Prison Policy that Seeks to Silence the Incarcerated

From the Death Penalty to Marijuana, Clemency is a Tool For Justice

Using Cyanide Gas in Executions is an Affront to Jewish Values

At Guantánamo, a Death Penalty Case Without a Death Penalty Lawyer

Explore more, what's at stake.

The U.S. death penalty system flagrantly violates human rights law. It is often applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner without affording vital due process rights. Moreover, methods of execution and death row conditions have been condemned as cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and even torture. The U.S. death penalty system has also failed to protect the innocent—from 1973 through December 2014, 150 innocent people were exonerated from death row.

The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) contemplated eventual abolition of the death penalty, but it wasn’t until 1991 that the international community, in a complementary treaty to the UDHR, adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), calling for total abolition of capital punishment. 

The ACLU urges the United States to extend the basic human right to life guaranteed by the UDHR and ICCPR to all members of our society and to ratify its companion treaties, especially the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which aims to abolish the death penalty. At a minimum, the United States should begin by imposing a national moratorium on the use of the death penalty in keeping with the 2007 U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a global moratorium (117 countries voted in favor of the resolution re-adopted in December 2014).

Ultimately, the United States’ compliance with international human rights norms will require nothing less than a complete abolition of the death penalty.

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

In the July Opinion essay “ The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,’ ” Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you support the use of capital punishment? Or do you think it should be abolished? Why?

Do you think the death penalty serves a necessary purpose, like deterring crime, providing relief for victims’ families or imparting justice? Or is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and therefore prohibited by the Constitution? Is it morally wrong?

Are there alternatives to the death penalty that you think would be more appropriate? For example, is life in prison without the possibility of parole a sufficient sentence? Or is that still too harsh? What about restorative justice , an approach that “considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends”? What other ideas do you have?

Vast racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty have been found. For example, Black people are overrepresented on death row, and a recent study found that “defendants convicted of killing white victims were executed at a rate 17 times greater than those convicted of killing Black victims.” Does this information change or reinforce your opinion of capital punishment? How so?

The Federal Death Penalty Act prohibits the government from executing an inmate who is mentally disabled; however, in the recent executions of Corey Johnson , Alfred Bourgeois and Lisa Montgomery , their defense teams, families and others argued that they had intellectual disabilities. What role do you think disability or trauma history should play in how someone is punished, or rehabilitated, after committing a crime?

How concerned should we be about wrongfully convicted people being executed? The Innocence Project has proved the innocence of 18 people on death row who were exonerated by DNA testing. Do you have worries about the fair application of the death penalty, or about the possibility of the criminal justice system executing an innocent person?

About Student Opinion

• Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Advertisement

Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity

• Published: 27 December 2022
• Volume 24 , pages 77–95, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ben Jones   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8631 1  

1945 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

One prominent argument in international law and religious thought for abolishing capital punishment is that it violates individuals’ right to life. Notably, this right-to-life argument emerged from normative and legal frameworks that recognize deadly force against aggressors as justified when necessary to stop their unjust threat of grave harm. Can capital punishment be necessary in this sense—and thus justified defensive killing? If so, the right-to-life argument would have to admit certain exceptions where executions are justified. Drawing on work by Hugo Bedau, I identify a thought experiment where executions are justified defensive killing but explain why they cannot be in our world. A state’s obligations to its prisoners include the obligation to use nonlethal incapacitation (ONI), which applies as long as prisoners pose no imminent threat. ONI precludes executions for reasons of future dangerousness. By subjecting the right-to-life argument to closer scrutiny, this article ultimately places it on firmer ground.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Semiotics of Legal Transplants: Exploring Domestic Violence Justice in Uzbekistan

Avatars in the metaverse: potential legal issues and remedies, what is crime.

Some may suggest gladiator contests, where the condemned could defend themselves, as a counterexample. Being sentenced to such combat was not a true death sentence, though. There were distinctions in ancient Rome between gladii poena (certain death by sword), summum supplicium (certain death by more cruel methods like being thrown to the beasts), and ludi damnatio (condemnation to gladiatorial games). The last penalty forced individuals into combat where death was possible but not assured (see Bauman 1996 : 14, 122). Furthermore, my description of capital punishment remains apt for present practices since gladiator combat is rightly seen as morally repugnant and not a realistic sentencing option today.

Bedau does not explicitly say that executing murderers is the only way to revive their victims, but context implies it. He writes: “taking life deliberately is not justified so long as there is any feasible alternative” (Bedau 1993 : 179).

Before Bedau, Justice Richard Maughan of the Utah Supreme Court expressed a similar idea: “Were there some way to restore the bereaved and wounded survivors, and the victims, to what was once theirs; there could then be justification for the capital sanction. Sadly, such is not available to us” (State v. Pierre 1977 : 1359). This remark is mentioned by Barry ( 2017 : 540).

That claim is questionable in the US, where most death sentences are overturned (Baumgartner and Dietrich 2015 ) and executions that do occur usually take place close to two decades after conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2021 : 2). I grant this claim, though, for the sake of argument.

E.g., Thomas Creech who killed a fellow inmate after receiving life sentences for murder in Idaho (Boone 2020 ).

E.g., Clarence Ray Allen who while serving a life sentence for murder in California conspired with a recently released inmate to murder witnesses from his previous case (Egelko and Finz  2006 ).

E.g., Jeffrey Landrigan who escaped from an Oklahoma prison where he was serving a sentence for murder and went on to commit another murder in Arizona (Schwartz 2010 ).

E.g., Kenneth McDuff who was sentenced to death, had his sentences commuted to life following Furman v. Georgia ( 1972 ), and was eventually paroled, after which he murdered multiple people in Texas (Cartwright 1992 ). I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the examples in footnotes 5–8.

These critics include those who grant retribution as a valid rationale for punishment but still reject it as a justification for the death penalty (see Brooks 2004 ).

Alexander L (2013) Can self-defense justify punishment? Law and Philosophy 32:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9157-y

Article   Google Scholar  

Allhoff F (2019) Self-defense without imminence. American Criminal Law Review 56:1527–1552

Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association (1982) Barefoot v. Estelle: brief amicus curiae. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Directories/Library-and-Archive/amicus-briefs/amicus-1982-barefoot.pdf . Accessed 6 November 2022

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 US 304

Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) 463 US 880

Baron M (2011) Self-defense: the imminence requirement. In: Green L, Leiter B (eds) Oxford studies in philosophy of law, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 228–266

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barry K (2017) The law of abolition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 107:521–559.

Barry K (2019) The death penalty and the fundamental right to life. Boston College Law Review 60:1545–1604

Bauman R (1996) Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. Routledge, New York

Baumgartner F, Dietrich A (2015) Most death penalty sentences are overturned. Here’s why that matters. Washington Post, 17 May 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/17/most-death-penalty-sentences-are-overturned-heres-why-that-matters/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Bedau H (1993) Capital punishment. In: Regan T (ed) Matters of life and death: new introductory essays in moral philosophy, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 160–194

Bentham J (2009) The rationale of punishment. McHugh J (ed) Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

Blume J, Garvey S, Johnson SL (2001) Future dangerousness in capital cases: always “at issue.” Cornell Law Review 86:397–410

Boone R (2020) US judge rejects inmates’ lawsuit on Idaho execution plans. Associated Press, 18 November 2020. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-prisons-idaho-executions-c097976dee46337b8e9aa816f8e888d4 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Boonin D (2008) The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Brooks T (2004) Retributivist arguments against capital punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00224.x

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2021) Capital punishment, 2020—statistical tables.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/capital-punishment-2020-statistical-tables . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cartwright G (1992) Free to kill. Texas Monthly, August 1992. https://www.texasmonthly.com/true-crime/free-to-kill-2/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Colwell G (2002) Capital punishment, restoration and moral rightness. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19:287–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00222

Coons C, Weber M (eds) (2016) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York

Council of Europe (2003) Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=187 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cunningham M (2006) Dangerousness and death: a nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist 61:828–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.828

Cunningham M, Reidy T, Sorensen J (2005) Is death row obsolete? A decade of mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates in Missouri. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23:307–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.608

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Reidy T (2009) Capital jury decision-making: the limitations of predictions of future violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 15:223–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017296

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Vigen M, Woods SO (2011) Life and death in the lone star state: three decades of violence predictions by capital juries. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.963

Death Penalty Information Center (2022) Public opinion regarding the juvenile death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/public-opinion-regarding-the-juvenile-death-penalty . Accessed 6 November 2022

Dubber M (2015) An introduction to the Model Penal Code, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Edens J, Buffington-Vollum J, Keilen A, Roskamp P, Anthony C (2005) Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to “disinvent the wheel?” Law and Human Behavior 29:55–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-1399-x

Edmondson C (2016) Nothing is certain but death: why future dangerousness mandates abolition of the death penalty. Lewis & Clark Law Review 20:857–917

Egelko B, Finz S (2006). Ailing killer executed at age 76. San Francisco Chronicle, 17 January 2006. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ailing-killer-executed-at-age-76-Condemned-for-2543639.php . Accessed 6 November 2022

Fabre C (2016) War, policing, and killing. In: Bradford B, Jauregui B, Loader I, Steinberg J (eds) The SAGE handbook of global policing. SAGE Publications, London, pp 261–278

Farrell D (1985) The justification of general deterrence. Philosophical Review 94:367–394

Ferzan KK (2004) Defending imminence: from battered women to Iraq. Arizona Law Review 46:213–262

Ferzan KK (2012) Culpable aggression: the basis for moral liability to defensive killing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9:669–697

Ford SB (2022) Restraining police use of lethal force and the moral problem of militarization. Criminal Justice Ethics 41:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2060014

Francis (2020) Fratelli tutti. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 US 238

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 US 153

Hood R, Hoyle C (2015) The death penalty: a worldwide perspective, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Hurka T (1982) Rights and capital punishment. Dialogue 21:647–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217300023829

Jones B (2018) The Republican Party, conservatives, and the future of capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 108:223–252

Jones B (forthcoming) Applying the imminence requirement to police. Criminal Justice Ethics

Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 US 262

Lazar S (2012) Necessity in self-defense and war. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40:3–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01214.x

Locke J (2003) Second treatise. In: Shapiro I (ed) Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp 100–209

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1989) Gazing into the crystal ball: can jurors accurately predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law & Society Review 23:449–468

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1994) The rope, the chair, and the needle: capital punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

McMahan J (1994) Self-defense and the problem of the innocent attacker. Ethics 104:252–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/293600

McMahan J (2005) The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues 15:386–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2005.00073.x

McMahan J (2016) The limits of self-defense. In: Coons C, Weber M (eds) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 185–210

Montague P (1995) Punishment as societal-defense. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

National Research Council (2012) Deterrence and the death penalty. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Organization of American States (1990) Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty. https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-53.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Otsuka M (1994) Killing the innocent in self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23:74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1994.tb00005.x

Paul II J (1995) Evangelium vitae. The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Reidy T, Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2013) Probability of criminal acts of violence: a test of jury predictive accuracy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31:286–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2064

Robinson P (1982) Criminal law defenses: a systematic analysis. Columbia Law Review 82:199–291

Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551

Schabas W (2019) International law and the abolition of the death penalty. In: Steiker C, Steiker J (eds) Comparative capital punishment. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp 217–231

Schwartz J (2010) Murderer executed in Arizona. New York Times, 27 October 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/us/28execute.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2009) Once a killer, always a killer? Prison misconduct of former death-sentenced inmates in Arizona. Journal of Psychiatry & Law 37:237–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530903700205

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2000) An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 90:1251–1270

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2006) Lethal injection: capital punishment in Texas during the modern era. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

Sorensen J, Wrinkle R (1996) No hope for parole: disciplinary infractions among death-sentenced and life-without-parole inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:542–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023004002

State v. Pierre (1977) 572 P.2d 1338 (Utah)

Stoughton S, Noble J, Alpert G (2020) Evaluating police uses of force. New York University Press, New York

Tadros V (2011) The ends of harm: the moral foundations of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York

Thomson JJ (1991) Self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 20:283–310

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (1989) Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/2ndopccpr.aspx

Yorke J (2009) The right to life and abolition of the death penalty in the council of Europe. European Law Review 34:205–229

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for helpful feedback on this article from Désirée Lim, Kevin Barry, and Erin Hanses.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 131 Sparks Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Jones .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jones, B. Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity. Hum Rights Rev 24 , 77–95 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 December 2022

Published : 27 December 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Death penalty
• Future dangerousness
• Incapacitation
• Right to life
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

9 (page 152) p. 152 The death penalty

• Published: June 2007
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Human rights questions change over time. The definition of a human right is not set. ‘The death penalty’ illustrates this point by looking at the use of the death penalty and how the international law scene treats this. Is the death penalty a human rights issue? If we believe that torture and inhuman punishment should be absolutely prohibited then the ultimate punishment of execution should also be prohibited. The idea of a prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life results in the notion that a death sentence may only be imposed after a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal with a review by a higher tribunal. Universal illumination of the death penalty remains a long way off.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

The Death Penalty V. Human Rights Essay

In the contemporary world, capital punishment faces considerable opposition. Corporal punishment has been deemed to be a very severe form of punishment. Consequently, most of the countries in the world have discontinued this barbaric and unnecessary mode of punishment. Capital punishment has been discontinued in almost ninety countries; nevertheless, an almost equal number still practice it. A major adherent to capital punishment is the US. On an average, seventy – five persons are executed every year in the US.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

The first ever reported execution in the US dates back to 1607. In December of that year, Captain George Kendall was shot dead by firing squad in Jamestown, USA. He was executed on charges of creating discord and fostering mutiny. The second reported execution was that of Daniel Frank in the year 1622 in the Colony of Virginia on charges of theft. Thereafter the death penalty had become common in the criminal justice system of the United States.

Imposing death penalty on minors aged below eighteen years and its legality had been discussed in the case of Sanford v Kentucky. The jury in that case rejected the basic assumption that the death penalty could not be imposed on minors and juveniles, in conformity with the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments against juveniles. However, it was held that juvenile criminals, who were sixteen years or older, could be executed. The Court held that the death penalty could not be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment. It also maintained that the founders of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution did not consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Scalia based his ruling on the changing standards of decency. Taking this decision as a precedent, most states in the US had imposed the death penalty on juvenile delinquents who were sixteen years of age. Justice Brenan opposed this decision and argued that such juvenile executions were in the breach of evolving standards of humanity in the US.

In Furman v Georgia the jury ruled that the death penalty was a form of cruel and unusual form of punishment. They also argued that it should be withdrawn from legislation.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

The supporters of capital punishment have come up with two principal justifications for its continuance. First, the death penalty is essential for the safety of citizens; and secondly, there have been attempts to eliminate some of the more barbaric practices involved in such punishment. To this end, executions are being conducted in places, where the general public is not granted access. Moreover, governments have supplanted the conventional methods of causing death, like hanging, with neoteric methods like employing electrocution and lethal fumes. Pojman recommended the death penalty for the most serious crimes, as it was morally justified, according to him.

Opponents to the death penalty contend that it is inhumane; whereas as its adherents contend that is essential retaliation for appalling felonies. The supporters of corporal punishment have opined that this kind of punishment forestalls crime in an extremely efficacious way. According to those who oppose the death penalty, capital punishment violates human. However, those who support the death penalty, contend that such punishment is one of the principal strategies of the criminal justice. Due to these diverging points of view, there has been extreme disagreement regarding the death penalty.

Critics of the death penalty have opposed it as a barbarous act. It is quite evident that the death penalty entails a number of inhumane procedures. Furthermore, capital punishment has been imposed not only for the heinous offenses but also for many less serious crimes.

In the year 2007 there were forty – two executions in the US, of these twenty – six were held in Texas, three each in Alabama and Oklahoma, two each in Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee, and one each in South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina and Arizona. Twenty – eight white people and fourteen black people were executed in 2007. All of them were male criminals. Of these forty – one were executed through lethal injection and one criminal was executed through electrocution. As of the year 2006, thirty – eight States and the Federal Government had laws that imposed capital punishment.

At present criminals charged with capital crimes are awaiting the death penalty in thirty – eight states of the US. The District of Columbia and twelve other states have rescinded the death penalty. In 2004, the statutes of New York and Kansas that impose the death penalty have been annulled by declaring them as unconstitutional. The government prosecutors in the thirty – eight states, which still have death penalty statutes, are claiming that executions would serve as a deterrent.

The Federal legislation imposes the death penalty for homicide, murder through shoot outs in drug dealings, breach of civil rights that lead to murder, child abuse and murder and murder related rape. Other crimes such as espionage, treason and drug trafficking on large scale can also attract the death penalty.

The US Supreme court ruled that the death penalty could not be imposed on offenders, whose age was less than nineteen years, at the time of committing the crime. It allowed the states to specify their own conditions to determine the mental capacity of the criminal, wherever deemed necessary. Mentally retarded people are not to be executed. The US Supreme court directed the state courts to abolish such executions. Eighteen states responded to the instructions of the Supreme Court and permitted the judge to determine the mental capacity of the defendants. Nine states have made it mandatory for the defendant to prove his mental retardation. Execution of criminals can be brought about by administering lethal injections. In the year 2003, there were sixty – five executions throughout the US. Of these sixty four were by administering a lethal injection and one was carried out by electrocution.

Based on research studies, the government of New Jersey suspended its executions for a period of one year. These studies had examined the fairness of executions and had estimated the expenditure involved in carrying out executions. They also recommended alternatives to capital punishment. Thus New Jersey became the first state to impose a moratorium on capital punishment. In 2000, the state of Illinois prohibited the execution of inmates by an executive order.

Deterrence and retribution were the main arguments of the proponents of the death penalty. Opponents to the death penalty claimed that there was a risk of executing innocent people, due to the death penalty. By December, 2005, the one thousandth execution had been completed. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman stated in a press meet on the 2nd of December, 2005 that the death penalty would serve as a deterrent for further crimes and that it should be carried out with utmost fairness and in the speediest manner possible. In order to prevent the execution of the innocent, President Bush had recommended the use of new technologies such as DNA evidence, while imposing death penalties.

In the United States the criminal justice system, frequently, imposes the death penalty. It is generally recommended by the Congress or state legislature for grievous offenses, like murder. The 8th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any forms of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court of the US had ruled that the death penalty cannot become a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is not required to conduct a trial by jury, in cases pertaining to inflicting the death penalty, under the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. The practice of inflicting the death penalty is not followed by all the states of the US.

The Supreme Court turned down a state’s imposition of death penalty on the accused in the case of Coker v Georgia. It held that the death penalty could be disproportionate punishment and that it could not be imposed for the rape on an adult woman. While delivering this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had taken into account the evolving changes in the attitude of the nation with regard to the award of the death penalty for rape crimes.

In Atkins v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty could not be imposed on criminals who were mentally retarded, because such executions would be cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution disallows such punishments.

The Supreme Court in Roper v Simmons annulled the application of the death penalty to juvenile criminals. Most of the jurors had opined that juveniles were lacking in the development of their character and they were not expected to have mental maturity and a sense of responsibility. Furthermore, teenagers had greater vulnerability to negative influences. Based on this reasoning the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty for all juvenile criminals. Moreover, it opined that juvenile offenders had a very low level of understanding of the nature of crimes they had committed.

A majority of the developed nations have abolished the death penalty and instead impose life term imprisonment. The US has a long history of capital punishment. The US government used to impose capital punishment for a variety of crimes. Execution had become a routine practice of the administration. The opposition to capital punishment started in the late eighteenth century, when sociologists began to campaign against the death penalty and demanded respect for an individual’s life. They claimed that the government’s practice of execution was inhuman and unjust. This debate is still continuing and has become a controversial issue.

Opponents to the death penalty claim that it is inhuman, harsh and degrading. Proponents claim that it is an essential and important method of punishment, for containing capital offences. Supporters of the death penalty contend that the death penalty would deter individuals from committing terrible crimes. However, opponents to the death penalty claim that the government breaches human rights by executing individuals. Furthermore, the supporters of the death penalty argue that criminal justice provides for capital punishment, which is a legal concept. These opposing viewpoints significantly, complicate the issue of capital punishment.

Initially, most of the legal systems were based on the law of retaliation or lex talionis. Several religions had contended that the death penalty had religious sanction; however, these claims were discredited by a number of authorities in this field. Some of them have established that these claims of fundamentalists, Christians and Mormons were untenable. They have also stated that these religious groups had distorted the religious texts to conform to their beliefs.

Moreover, some of these social scientists have strongly argued that the death penalty cannot be imposed, no matter what the crime. They recommend the employment of imprisonment for long periods; because, such punishment, severely curtails the individual’s freedom and privacy.

Although, it was uncontestable that the general public had to be afforded protection from crime; some of the extant methods of preventing it were unacceptable. This was especially so in the case of the death penalty, which entailed considerable cruelty and violence. The question being posed is not regarding the efficacy of the death penalty as punishment, but whether the death penalty is a better alternative to long term imprisonment.

After the thousandth execution, Amnesty International argued that the death penalty had an adverse psychological effect on the families of the victims, the offenders’ families as well as the personnel who had taken part in the executions. It contended that state sponsored killings should be proscribed immediately. Interestingly in the Gallup Poll conducted in October 2005, it was revealed that nearly sixty – four percent of American public supported the death penalty. The American Bar Association had launched the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project in September 2001. This project campaigned for abolishing the death penalty and suspending executions throughout the US.

Moreover, there were a number of issues that had not been properly addressed, for example, the racial prejudice in the South saw the award of capital punishment, to a significantly greater number of the minority communities and blacks.

There have been several attempts to reduce the brutality involved in killing convicts, in the US. Some of these were the employment of the electric chair, which was held to be less brutal than hanging. Nevertheless, there was a significant amount of barbarity involved and on occasion, the chair had even caught fire, with the result that the convict had literally been burned to death.

In addition, it entails greater expense to execute a convict than to keep that person in prison. Moreover, the degree of iniquity among murderers shows great variation and the public safety can be assured by placing the murderous felons behind locked doors. A typically specious argument is that one can never be sure as to which criminal would commit a crime again and that the best option would be to execute each and every murderer. This goes against the very grain of morality and is politically unrealizable.

At times the mentally retarded had been treated like persons in full command of all their faculties. Such offenders had been most callously executed, despite their patently obvious mental retardation. For instance, Rickey Ray Rector was executed in the state of Arkansas in the year 1992, although he was mentally challenged. In fact, while partaking of his last meal, he had asked the guards to save the dessert for his next meal.

All the available evidence indicates that execution is far worse than imprisonment. Therefore, its supporters wish to continue with it, whereas its opponents desire to put an end to it, in the US justice system. As such, capital punishment is not a greater deterrent than imprisonment for preventing murders. By executing the murderer, the victim is not restored to life. As the good Lord Jesus had emphatically stated, an eye for an eye, merely leaves everyone blind.

A very important observation by the Amnesty International is that the number of executions had declined all over the world, in the year 2006. In that year, most of the executions had transpired in countries like China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the US. With the exception of Belarus, no country in Europe had imposed the death penalty, in 2006. In Africa, only six nations had executed people in the year 2006. In the continents of South and North America, the United States was the only nation that has been executing criminals, since the year 2003.

Bibliography

Amnesty International USA. September 2007. The Death Penalty V. Human Rights. Why Abolish the Death Penalty? Retrieved on March 7, 2008 from http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGACT510022007

Atkins v Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Carol Walker, 24 February 2006. Death Penalty Subject of Debate in United States. Retrieved 7 March 2008 from http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Dec/03-518872.html

Cornell University Law School. Death Penalty. Retrieved 6 March 2008 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Death_penalty

Coker v Georgia 433 U.S. 584 (1977)

Hugo Adam Bedau. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press. 2004.

Pojman.2004.Why the Death Penalty Is Morally Permissable.

Roper v Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Rupert Cornwell, February 12, 2003. The Independent. Mentally ill inmate to be ‘made sane’ for execution. Retrieved on March 7, 2008 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mentally-ill-inmate-to-be-made-sane-for-execution-597341.html

The Outlaw, May 29, 2006. The Legality of the Death Penalty and the Supreme Court. Retrieved 5 March 2008 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35241/the_legality_of_the_death_penalty_and.html?all=1

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Capital Punishment Statistics. Retrieved 7 March 2008 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Death Penalty

Level Masters

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

Why is the Death Penalty Good for our Society

This essay about the potential societal benefits of the death penalty argues that it can act as a deterrent, provide closure to victims’ families, and safeguard the public from severe offenders. It explores the complexity of this divisive issue, emphasizing that when implemented judiciously, capital punishment could positively contribute to society. While acknowledging the serious concerns of its critics, the essay advocates for a balanced discussion on its role within the criminal justice system, guided by justice and the protection of innocent lives.

How it works

In the tapestry of societal dialogue, few topics evoke as much passion and debate as the role of the death penalty. Amidst the clash of perspectives, one aspect often overlooked weaves through the discourse—the argument that, when administered judiciously, the death penalty can serve as a positive force for society. Despite its divisive nature and the necessity for meticulous application, advocates assert that the death penalty can act as a deterrent, offer closure to victims and their families, and protect society from the gravest offenders.

By exploring these facets, it becomes apparent that, within a carefully constructed framework, the death penalty can indeed contribute positively to the societal landscape.

Central to the argument in favor of the death penalty is its potential deterrent effect. Proponents suggest that the looming threat of ultimate punishment can dissuade individuals from committing heinous acts. This deterrent effect ripples beyond the individual perpetrator, resonating within the collective consciousness and signaling society’s unwavering stance against abhorrent crimes. Although empirical evidence on this matter remains contested, the theoretical basis of deterrence theory remains robust: the prospect of severe consequences can influence behavior, guiding individuals away from the path of criminality.

Additionally, advocates emphasize the importance of justice for victims and their loved ones. The death penalty represents society’s unequivocal condemnation of egregious crimes, reaffirming the sanctity of victims’ lives. For many families, the execution of the perpetrator provides a sense of closure and vindication, facilitating the challenging journey towards healing and restoration. In cases of unimaginable atrocities, such as mass murder or terrorism, the death penalty serves as a symbolic reparation for the profound wounds inflicted upon society as a whole. While no form of retribution can fully alleviate the pain of loss, the death penalty offers a semblance of justice in an often unjust world.

Furthermore, proponents argue that the death penalty acts as a crucial safeguard against the most dangerous offenders. Some individuals pose an irredeemable threat to society, committing crimes of such depravity and magnitude that they forfeit their right to coexist with their fellow humans. While life imprisonment may remove offenders from society, it fails to provide the same level of assurance against recidivism or the possibility of escape. In contrast, the death penalty ensures that these individuals can never again inflict harm on innocent lives. In cases where rehabilitation is deemed unattainable, society must prioritize the protection of its citizens over the rights of irredeemable offenders.

Despite the validity of these arguments, critics of the death penalty raise legitimate concerns about its implementation, including issues of racial bias, wrongful convictions, and the irreversible nature of the punishment. Indeed, these concerns necessitate careful consideration, and any system of capital punishment must be subject to rigorous oversight and safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice. However, these apprehensions should not overshadow the potential societal benefits that proponents attribute to the death penalty when administered fairly and justly.

In summary, while the death penalty remains a contentious issue, proponents argue that it can serve as a deterrent, offer closure to victims and their families, and protect society from the most egregious offenders. By recognizing these potential societal benefits and addressing concerns surrounding its application, society can engage in a nuanced and enlightened discussion about the role of the death penalty in our criminal justice system. Ultimately, the pursuit of justice and the protection of innocent lives should guide our collective efforts to create a safer and more equitable society for all.

Cite this page

Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/

"Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/ [Accessed: 10 May. 2024]

"Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/

"Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/. [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Why Is The Death Penalty Good For Our Society . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-is-the-death-penalty-good-for-our-society/ [Accessed: 10-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Iran’s death sentence for rapper sparks protests and undermines criticism of US

Regime’s effort to exploit US campus crackdown damaged by treatment of Toomaj Salehi

An Iranian court’s decision to pass the death sentence against Toomaj Salehi, a popular Iranian rapper and regime opponent, has led to international protests and damaged Iran’s fledgling efforts to exploit crackdowns on unrest in US university campuses over Gaza as an abuse of human rights.

Crowds gathered in the US, Europe and Canada on Sunday to support Salehi, while dozens of political prisoners in Iran’s Ghezel Hesar prison issued a statement condemning the death sentence, calling it “the culmination of gross human rights violations in Iran”. Salehi has also won the support of major US rappers, as well as human rights groups.

The Iranian press has been closely following the campus unrest in the US and France, including reports that 900 American students have been detained in April. The social media account of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: “See what is happening in the world. In western countries, in England and France, and in states across the US itself, people are coming out in huge numbers to chant slogans against Israel and America. US & Israel’s reputation has been ruined. They truly have no solution.”

But even some reformist Iranian newspapers said the regime’s propaganda in the international arena had suffered reputational damage as a result of the surprise decision to issue the death sentence against a singer associated with defiance, but not violence against the regime.

Ever since he shot to prominence, Salehi has been distinguished by his personal bravery and determination to help unite the Iranian Women, Life, Freedom movement.

Salehi was arrested in October 2022 in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province after making public statements in support of the nationwide protests caused by the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman arrested for allegedly wearing an “improper” hijab.

After reports by UN experts that he had been beaten in jail, in July 2023 he was handed a jail sentence of six years and three months.

In November last year, after more than a year in jail including more than 200 days’ solitary confinement, the supreme court released him on bail due to a technical flaw in the sentencing – only for him to be arrested again by plainclothes officers two weeks later. He had recorded a song outside the jail in which he had been held, claiming he had been tortured in jail including through adrenaline shot injections.

In a surprise move last week the Isfahan revolutionary court raised his punishment to the death penalty, a decision that has been described as unprecedented. In what may be a sign of a power struggle between the two courts, he was sentenced for “corruption on Earth”. He has 20 days to appeal.

The actor Nazanin Boniadi told a rally at the weekend: “When he takes to the streets, when he puts pen to paper, when he uses his voice, the regime trembles. Why? Because he speaks for the people. Things that the people do not dare to say, he says.”

Kaveh Shahrooz, a Canadian activist in Toronto, said he was personally blown away by Salehi’s courage. “There are people outside Iran in this city who are scared of talking and Toomaj was talking about them inside. His talent and his empathy and social conscience are hard to deny and his courage is hard to believe and his courage is contagious.”

Iran is in the throes of a new crackdown against women deemed to be flouting the Islamic dress code and is also increasing executions, the number of which, according to the Norway-based Iran Human Rights, has already reached 147 this year.

Salehi has previously said that Iranians “are living somewhere horrific. You are dealing with a mafia that is prepared to kill an entire nation in order to keep its power, money and weapons.”

His uncle in Germany Iqbal Iqbali said Iran was “at a stage where the explosion of the anger of the Iranian people against boundless tyranny is imminent”.

• Capital punishment
• Israel-Gaza war
• Middle East and north Africa
• Palestinian territories

Most viewed

Nigeria's Senate proposes death penalty for drug trafficking

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Writing by Elisha Bala-Gbogbo; Editing by Josie Kao

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Britain's Prince William says wife Kate is 'doing well'

Britain's Prince William said on Friday his wife Kate was "doing well" in a rare public comment about the Princess of Wales as she undergoes preventative chemotherapy for cancer.

Indian security forces killed at least 12 Maoist rebels in a gun battle in central India on Friday, the chief minister of Chhattisgarh state said, the third major encounter in recent weeks amid ongoing national elections.

• [ May 9, 2024 ] Cyberattack on largest Catholic hospital chain in the U.S. disrupts care  News Briefs
• [ May 9, 2024 ] PHOTOS: Catholics gather at site of Jesus’ ascension in Jerusalem News Briefs
• [ May 9, 2024 ] Haiti in danger of ‘a real genocide,’ priest warns News Briefs
• [ May 9, 2024 ] Department of Justice goes after pro-life former Rep. Fortenberry again News Briefs
• [ May 9, 2024 ] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorses unrestricted abortion ‘even if it’s full term’ News Briefs

New study suggests rampant ‘cafeteria Catholicism’

May 6, 2024 Catholic News Agency News Briefs 11 Print

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, May 6, 2024 / 18:37 pm (CNA).

Ryan Burge, a leading researcher on religion and politics, recently compiled data indicating that “cafeteria Catholicism” is rampant in the United States. Specifically, the country’s Catholics express widespread disagreement with the Church’s teaching on abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

The term “cafeteria Catholic” refers to a Catholic who picks and chooses which Church teachings he or she affirms and adheres to.  Washington, D.C., Cardinal Wilton Gregory  recently used the term to describe President Joe Biden, who as president has advocated for unrestricted abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

Burge found that only 0.9% of Catholics agree with Church teaching on all three of the issues.  His conclusions were based on 2022  data  collected by the Global Social Survey (GSS) and compiled by the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). Burge told CNA that the 0.9% number is an all-time low since GSS started collecting data in 1972.

“It’s not just many Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Church — in fact, if you look at the data, it’s nearly all of them,” said Burge, who teaches political science at Eastern Illinois University.

This coincides with an overall 12% decline in Church attendance among Catholics over the last two decades, as found by Gallup.

Despite the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that abortion is gravely immoral, Burge said, there is “clear majority support for elective abortion in almost every circumstance.”

Over 50% of Catholics support abortion when the mother’s health is at risk, the child is the result of rape, if there is a “strong chance of serious defect in the baby,” and when the family or mother either does not want or cannot support another child.

Nearly 90% of Catholics support abortion in such cases in which the mother’s health is at risk. Over 80% of Catholics support abortion in cases of rape, and close to 80% of Catholics support abortion for serious defects.

ARDA also reports that  17.7%  of Catholics believe abortion should be illegal in all cases.

Regarding euthanasia, which the Church teaches is morally unacceptable, and suicide, which the  Catechism of the Catholic Church  calls “contrary to love for the living God,” most Catholics again are not in agreement with the Church’s teaching.

According to the data, 70% of Catholics support euthanasia, defined in the survey as a person’s ability to commit suicide in the case of an incurable disease. As pointed out by Burge, Catholics’ support for euthanasia and assisted suicide has been growing since the 1980s.

Death penalty

In recent decades, the Church has been increasingly voicing its opposition to the death penalty. In 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised to reflect that opposition.

The catechism acknowledges that in the past “recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.”

“Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption,” the catechism indicates.

The catechism goes on to quote Pope Francis in stating that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

Despite this, ARDA found that 61% of Catholics are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers. Support for the death penalty among Catholics has waned in recent decades after reaching a high of 81% in 1990.

‘A lot of work to do’

Monsignor Charles Pope, a Catholic author and pastor of Holy Comforter-Saint Cyprian Church in the Archdiocese of Washington, told CNA that the 0.9% number does not accurately represent Catholics’ “buy-in” to the faith.

Pope called the study “very unfair” and said it is “bringing things together which need to be analyzed separately.” He pointed out that the Church is clear in its teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil, while there is more leeway when it comes to the death penalty, which he described as a “prudential” rather than a “doctrinal” matter.

He agreed, however, that there is still a disconnect between Church teaching and what many Catholics believe. This, he thinks, is due to what he called “the politicization of moral issues.”

“Politics, sadly, is driving the conversation more than faith, because we are very worldly in our outlook,” he said. “So, if there’s one positive thing to take from this study it’s that we certainly have a lot of work to do to convince our own faithful of our teachings.”

“We’ve got a lot of work to do, but it doesn’t mean our teachings are wrong,” he went on. “It’s not the job of the Church to reflect the public opinion polls of our people, it’s the job of the Church to say: ‘Here’s what Jesus says.’”

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

• Abortion in the United States
• Catholic News
• death penalty
• Pro-Life News

Related Articles

Citing abuse lawsuits, California’s smallest diocese files for bankruptcy

Cathedral of St. Eugene in Santa Rosa, CA. / chrisw80/wikimedia. CC BY SA 4.0

Denver, Colo., Mar 14, 2023 / 09:47 am (CNA). The Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa in northern California said on Monday that it will file for bankruptcy, citing the nu… […]

Senators ask Google why it removed ads for abortion pill reversal

Google offices in Chelsea, Manhattan, New York / MNAphotography/Shutterstock

Denver Newsroom, Sep 17, 2021 / 14:01 pm (CNA). A dozen U.S. senators on Thursday sent a joint letter to Google’s CEO asking why pro-life ads for abortion pill reversal… […]

Louisiana legislature recognizes anniversary of Roe v. Wade as ‘Day of Tears’

Sean Pavone/Shutterstock

Washington D.C., May 11, 2021 / 10:00 am (CNA). The Louisiana state legislature last week passed a resolution recognizing Jan. 22, 2022, the 49th anniversary of legalized abortion throughout the United States, as a “Day … […]

11 Comments

I am most shocked by Euthanasia.

But what is surprising? I went to the church and heard the Gospel reading, very poignant, about Our Lord comforting His disciples re: His parting, how He will send them the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth and so on (this reading always makes me sad because I imagine that the promise of Christ could not really comfort the decouples who were attached to Christ and did not know that Spirit). The homily: “We all make appointments, make too many, cancel them, we become fretful. But we forget that God sent us the Spirit Who will help us to manage those appointments so no need to fret”.

Thus “the appointments” entirely obliterated the Gospel. The congregation’s minds were taken down so to speak. I do not know who taught our priests to start with “the story” like that but they often do.

Upon return I checked the commentaries to the Gospel. It was a very different world from “appointments”: the love of the disciples to Christ and also fear of being left alone, their new role of witnesses guided by that Spirit of Truth, the judgment of this world and Satan etc.

A day before I advised a priest to remove a card tapping machine with the huge glowing numbers $2, $5 from the Sanctuary. Yes, really from the Sanctuary – from an altar space. When a priest raises the Host the “money machine” is included creating a thick blasphemy. He answered he cannot see why it should not be there.

The flickering “$2, $5” kills the sense of sacredness. If there is nothing wrong with a desecration of a Sanctuary what is wrong with a desecration of a human life?

Tell us the name of the parish and pastor so we can all contact him. Remember, we’re all Catholics and have been baptized into the same Christ.

I would gladly accept your (and of other Catholics) help if you were in our (Australian) diocese. Before our Bishop was moved, I have formally addressed him re: such things. He was pious. Since he is left, I am on my own. I know that my vocation is to state the truth (especially re: Liturgy/images because I am an iconographer). I have tried to ignore that card tapping machine in the Sanctuary (literally glowing “$2” next to the side altar) out of tiredness but then I realized I could not be silent.

The most shocking to me was zero personal engagement of the priest with me. He did not see/hear and he did not want to see/hear. This is a trend in our parish now and the trend in the Church as a whole as I perceive it. It is bureaucratic “nice” non-engagement with people – all that while trumpeting the Synod of Synodality’s “love, go to the roots, discussions, empowerment of the laity” and so on. The priest failed to respond to my argument entirely while “nicely” thanked me for my “concern”. This is a paradigm of the “nice bureaucratic Church”. It is impenetrable and, brothers and sisters, it is where our Church is heading to.

To add to this, I will share with you something I witnessed while travelling years ago. I went to Mass at one of the churches on the outskirts of Sydney. I went straight to an old, huge, realistic Crucifix (sculptured, Spanish style, with blood etc.) – only to find out, a few cm below the Christ’s feet nailed to the Cross, the box for donation, also nailed to the wood of the Cross. A huge metal box with the slot and the lock. I was horrified and disgusted.

After Mass I spoke to a priest. When I told the box must be removed because it was unacceptable to have the money box included in the depiction of the Crucifixion, he got visibly angry with me and basically told me to go away. There was zero desire to understand.

To my mind, that zero desire to engage and to feel is the same whether re: liturgical abuse or re: euthanasia. It is all about the deadening of the soul.

How about helping the poor. Read Matthew 25.

There are less poor to help if you kill them off in the womb or euthanize them. Read Commandment 5. 🙂

1) The Catholic church is NOT a democracy.

2) You get out of it as much as you put into it.

About the death penalty, what exactly does “inadmissible” actually mean?

A change in doctrine or, instead, still a prudential judgment about applying a licit penalty, simply tightening what had already been said earlier and better by Pope John Paul II in the “Gospel of Life” (1995)? About the wording of John Paul II, Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles offered commentary at the time:

Cardinal Josef RATZINGER (Benedict XVI): “Clearly the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles…but has simply deepened (their) application…in the context of present-day historical circumstances” (National Review, July 10, 1995, p. 14; First Things, Oct. 1995, 83). Later, in a July 2004 letter to former-Cardinal McCarrick–a letter intended for all of the bishops but which came to light only when later leaked to the press–he wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Cardinal Avery DULLES concluded that traditional teachings on “retributive justice” and “vindication of the moral order” were not reversed by John Paul II’s strong “prudential judgment” regarding the use of capital punishment. The pope simply remained silent on these teachings. (“Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute”, National Catholic Register, 3-24-02).

And, about capital punishment being “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” now that we know from Cardinal Fernandez that human dignity is “infinite” (Dignitas Infinita), then any kind of punishment at all is also an attack on such human dignity!

TODAY, if 61% of Catholics still recognize the possible moral legitimacy of the death penalty (as distinguished from its application), then the share of Catholics agreeing with Church teaching on the three issues listed is higher than 0.9 percent. But, still abysmal… After several decades of so many foggy and smiley-button homilies (many but not all), and social gospel stuff at the expense of the baseline Ten Commandments, and with maybe 90 % of Catholics not regularly attending Mass at all and probably not reading much of relevance—then of course (!) the general population of Catholics is media-marinated and poorly informed on moral theology.

Yes, as Anna says euthanasia is shocking. Shocking is the Pew statistic of 20% weekly Mass attendance, another survey has it lower, “Almost two-thirds of Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but only 17% of adult Catholics physically attend Mass at least once per week, according to a newly published survey from Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate Sep 29, 2023. Insofar as belief in the real presence when asked many will say, Yes, symbolic. Abortion is likely the more telling indicator of belief and practice. Although the views surveyed of Catholics in this article really comes down to who Catholics vote for. What a Catholic will say in response to a survey is a highly variable indicator including mood, unwillingness to be truthful. For example the majority of Catholics seem to have small interest in whether the candidate is pro choice, or whether the candidate supports Transsexual ideology. As it stands Monsignor Pope’s bottom line is that Catholic belief has become politicized. Nonetheless what underlies politicization is accommodation if not loss of faith. What’s prevalent is a vague sense of belief absent of conviction on the key issues cited in the CNA article. Decades of terrible catechesis, toothless sermons, and clerical scandal have immensely hurt us. Much of it can be attributed to the clergy, the Laity opposition to Humane Vitae and the turn from spiritual to sensual fulfillment. Another conviction is that Synodality ideology as a means of retrieving the faith is destined for failure by its reliance on private opinion and prayerful revelations. What’s feasible is leadership, a miraculously [at this stage such a candidate would seem a miracle if only on the chance of a conclave in favor] strong, deeply devoted, faith focused pontiff to lift the Church out of the mire into the light of Christ.

“The catechism goes on to quote Pope Francis in stating that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

The death penalty has nothing to do with the dignity of criminals, and framing that way is deeply dishonest and manipulative. The death penalty is about justice, and the value and dignity of the victims of heinous crimes are the only considerations that need to be made in these situations.

I’m not sure of the point of these surveys of Catholics. Nominal Catholics? Lapsed Catholics? Mass-attending Catholics? These surveys make me feel pressured/afraid that I must be a freak. That is probably not the intention but that is the effect on me.

“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost; “ It is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), That Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) exists.

“You cannot be my disciples if you do not abide in My Word.”

A “lapse” Catholic, like a “faithless “ Catholic is an oxymoron.

Being in Communion with Christ is not a matter of degree, if you are not with Christ, you are against Christ.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.

© Catholic World Report

You can see how this popup was set up in our step-by-step guide: https://wppopupmaker.com/guides/auto-opening-announcement-popups/

Sign up to receive a weekly email with news, analysis, and commentary from a voice you can trust!

Email Frequency

Entries tagged with “ Daniel Chen ”

Facts & research.

Nov 08, 2021

Daniel Chen of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Discusses Freedom of Religion in the Execution Chamber

In the November 2021 episode of Discussions with DPIC , Daniel Chen, coun­sel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, speaks with DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham about the Supreme Court case Ramirez v. Collier and death-row pris­on­ers’ rights to reli­gious free­dom. John Ramirez has chal­lenged Texas’ restric­tions on audi­ble prayer and phys­i­cal touch by his spir­i­tu­al advi­sor dur­ing his exe­cu­tion. Allowing such pas­toral com­fort in the exe­cu­tion cham­ber, Chen says, is about ​ “ fun­da­men­tal human dignity.”