AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without reservation.  This is part of the total work of the organization whose activities are focused on prisoners:

It seeks the release of prisoners of conscience. These are people detained anywhere for their beliefs, color, sex, ethnic origin, language or religion, who have not used or advocated violence.

It works for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners and on behalf of such people detained without charge or trial.

It opposes the death penalty and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of all prisoners without reservation.

A Violation of Humane Standards

All international human rights declarations, conventions and covenants stipulate that everyone has the "right to life, liberty and security of person."

The official position of the United Nations General Assembly is that in the case of executions imposed by law it is desirable to abolish the death penalty in all countries and that the crimes to which it applies should be progressively reduced.

The international human rights standards that have been adopted by the United Nations and by regional organizations since 1948 prohibit all forms of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Amnesty International seeks the abolition of the death penalty on the grounds that it is a punishment that is incompatible with these humanitarian standards.  Amnesty International opposes executions under all circumstances whether they are to be carried out in political or criminal cases, whether they result from judicial proceedings or whether they take the form of extrajudicial killings, unexplained disappearances orpolitical murders.

The Death Penalty in Practice

Amnesty International most frequently encounters the death penalty in three instances:

the execution by law of political dissenters or people convicted of political offenses;

the execution of political figures or ordinary citizens taking place entirely outside the framework of the rule of law.  The killings may be the work of the state security forces or of opposition or pro-government death squads;

the execution of criminals convicted of violent crimes (in some countries economic and sexual offenses also carry this penalty).

As a method of attempting to eliminate political dissent the use of the death penalty is abhorrent.  As a method of protecting society from crime, it has nowhere been shown to have a special deterrent effect.

The brutal suppression of minority groups or social or political movements frequently contributes to political instability, with both government and opposition resorting to violence in order to achieve their objectives or assert their control.  In this context both judicial executions and arbitrary killings often precipitate reprisals and add to a legacy of resentment, intolerance and social conflict.

Not a Special Deterrent

In the case of societies faced with the need to combat violent crime, including acts of terrorism, Amnesty International is not aware of any convincing evidence that the use of the death penalty has a special deterrent effect.

Comparisons of crime rates in different countries that have retained or abolished the death penalty do not indicate that the threat of execution has been effective in preventing capital crimes.

Studies on the death penalty indicate that changes in crime rates depend on many factors apart from the existence or use of the death penalty.  The fear of death, in itself, does not appear to prevent individuals from committing capital crimes any more than does acquaintance with the victim.   European and North American studies, for example, indicate that the majority of murders take place among members of the same family, friends or acquaintances; most take place in the heat of passion.   On examination it can be seen that the assailants gave no thought to the consequences of violent acts, much less to possible penalties.

Unequal, Unjust and Irreversible

Historically the death penalty as a judicial punishment has been seen to bear unequally and unjustly on the poor, on minorities and on oppressed groups within the population.

The vulnerability of all criminal justice systems to discrimination and error must be taken into account.  Human factors such as expedience, the exercise of discretion and the influence of public opinions can affect each stage of legal proceedings from indictment through trial and sentencing to punishment and the possible granting of clemency.

In cases where a full medical report is essential, the access of the defendant—and the court–to impartial and professional psychiatric and medical services may vary from individual to individual, depending on the ability to secure such services, and from country to country, depending on the existence and quality of such services under different economic conditions.

When the ability to obtain good legal representation becomes one of the most important factors in determining the outcome of a trial, questions of race, class and poverty can have a considerable effect upon the administration of justice.  The wealthy, the politically well-connected and members of dominant racial and religious groups are far less likely to be sentenced to death and even less likely to be executed for offenses of comparable severity than are the poor, supporters of the political opposition and members of unpopular racial or religious groups.

The possibility of judicial error, for whatever reason, assumes even greater importance in cases involving capital crimes because the death penalty is the irreversible punishment.

Because it is irreversible the death penalty has always been recognized as qualitatively different from all other forms of punishment.  Once carried out it can never be corrected.   The imposition of the death penalty negates modern concepts of penology which are based on the theory that rehabilitation of the individual criminal is possible.

The full meaning of the irreversibility of the punishment is underlined in countries that make a practice of condemning political dissenters to death.  Imposition of the death penalty in such cases can amount to the carrying out of government policy by courts which are unlikely to have judicial independence.  The political crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed under such circumstances can be defined in such a way that virtually any political activity inconsistent with government policy becomes a capital offense.