The Death Penalty: From acceptance to universal abolition in

100 years?

Carlo A Gherardi
May 2008

Abstract

There is no doubt that over the past fifty years a global trend has emerged towards
the abolition of the death penalty. What was almost without exception a globally
accepted practice immediately following the Second World War is now considered
by the majority of nations in the world to be a cruel and inhumane way of
administering justice. Europe leads the way in the abolitionist trend having banned
capital punishment totally from its territory and now pushing in all arenas for a
global abolition of the death penalty. Nonetheless, a number of countries, most
notably the US and China, continue to argue for their right to impose the death
penalty on malefactors in their respective societies.

The arguments for and against capital punishment have been well documented
elsewhere and it is not the aim of this paper to revisit them. Instead, this paper looks
at what may have caused this global trend towards abolition and where it may
eventually lead. Briefly discussing the issue from a social evolution perspective, the
analysis traverses the developments in Human Rights law over the past fifty years
before concluding with a discussion of the impact modern forms of communications
have had with respect to mobilising the abolitionist movement.

“An eye for an eye soon makes the whole world blind”
Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi

1
At the time of writing just over sixty years have passed since the end of the Second
World War. Undoubtedly the most catastrophic and global example of mankind’s ability
to destroy his fellow man, this war may, in the future, come to be seen as the catalyst for
a number of progressive developments in human social evolution. As a direct
consequence of the war a number of institutions came into being, the United Nations and
the European Coal and Steel Agreement, subsequently the EU, being two foremost
examples. Within these fora, a new age of global politics, economics, and law has
emerged. No clearer example of this exists than in the field of International law and,
more specifically, Human Rights law.

It is within this context that any discussion of the recent trend to abolish the death penalty
should take place. Even immediately after World War II, the death penalty was an
accepted element of almost every nation’s penal code and an established means of legal
punishment. No new phenomenon, the principle of an eye for an eye has been one of the
cornerstones of justice throughout the history of man. Nonetheless, with the first decade
of the 21st Century coming to an end, 135 countries have now abolished the death penalty
in law or in practice.1 As Hood notes in his book concerning the developments in the
death penalty, ‘the annual average rate at which countries have abolished the death
penalty has increased from 1.5 (1965-1988) to 4 per year (1989-1995), or nearly three
times as many’.2 Nowhere is the remarkable about turn in terms of the death penalty more
apparent than in Europe. Not only is the death penalty now abolished across Europe, but
its abolition is also now a pre-requisite for EU membership and membership of the
Council of Europe. So what has caused this U-turn? Social evolution following the
catastrophes of the Second World War? The regional framework provided by the
European Union? The International Framework provided by the United Nations and the
emergence of Human Rights Law? The rise of technology and the global media
phenomenon, more specifically twenty-four hour news channels and the Internet? This
paper argues that an accumulation of the above factors is responsible, not only for a
particularly homogenous view emerging from Western Europe, but also for the
emergence of a global trend towards abolition that will eventually lead to the global
1
Amnesty International, April 5, 2008, “Death Penalty, Facts and Figures” http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty - figures
2
Hood, R. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective 8 (2d edit. 1996).

2
abolition of the death penalty as an acceptable means of justice in the eyes of mankind
and the State within the next fifty years.3

The death penalty and the social evolution of punishment

Over the course of history a number of cultural practices, generally related to but not
specific to punishment, have become redundant and no longer tolerated as societies and
nations evolve to form a consensus of what is and what is not acceptable. As Dieter notes,
‘ritual human sacrifice is an example; slavery, too, has been largely abandoned; physical
torture is widely condemned by most nations. Vestiges of these practices may continue,
but those are aberrations that further underscore the fact that the world has turned against
these practices’. 4
At one time in Europe it was perfectly reasonable to suggest that
someone, being found guilty of treason or heresy, should be burnt at the stake. Will
humans look back on the death penalty in a few hundred years and feel the same sense of
disbelief that this kind of justice ever took place? The growing trend towards abolition
suggests that this may be the case but the answer is certainly not clear-cut. There is, as
Dieter states, no global consensus yet against the practice of the death penalty even if the
trend is progressive. There is, however, a clear European consensus that has formed over
the past 50 years. One primary reason for this is the social condition of European citizens
and nations following the Second World War. As Schabas states: ‘Within Europe, several
of the former dictatorships, including Germany, Austria and Italy, abolished capital
punishment as part of the ‘transitional justice’ process by which they turned the page on
the abuses of the previous decades’.5

But what do we mean by Social evolution? The term invokes positive imagery; of
societies slowly but surely unshackling themselves from barbaric, animalistic tendencies,
towards behaviour that reflects reason over passion, mind over heart, and rehabilitation as

3
I have decided to omit from this paper an analysis of the more common discussion points in the abolition debate, i.e.: the true value
of the death penalty as a deterrent, or other interesting debates such as developments in global religions. Instead the aim of this paper
is to try to view the discussion in a different light and look at what factors have led the author to believe that there is a global
abolitionist consensus emerging.
4
Dieter, R.C, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: US Death Penalty and International Law
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf
5
Schabas, W, The Abolition of Capital Punishment from an International Law Perspective, 2003,
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Schabas.pdf

3
opposed to retribution or vengeance. If this is the case then where will Social evolution
lead us? Will it be possible for certain human sentiments and their reflective punishments
by the state to be altogether abolished, or should we accept that within certain limits the
nature of human beings needs to see vengeance and retribution to some extent in a
functioning society? Borrowing Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts6 and
reapplying them within a social dimension, history has taught us that societies often go
from one social paradigm to the next, one consensus to the next, sometimes with ease,
sometimes with difficulty, sometimes in peace and sometimes at war, but these shifts are
constant; the evolution does not stop. Furthermore, in an age where information is
available and accessible in ways never before imagined, through the media and primarily
the Internet, the possibility of a mobilized global citizenry emerging and calling for
change has never been more plausible.

The death penalty and the emergence of Human Rights Law

International Framework

Following the Second World War, the emergence of Human Rights law has not found a
more successful case to pursue than the abolition of the death penalty. In a post war
climate where there was a strong belief for the need to improve the moral lot of the
human race, ‘Human Rights law emerged as the guiding normative regime for the newly-
minted international organisations, the United Nations and the Council of Europe’.7 In
1948, the United Nations General Assembly, when developing Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, contemplated calling for the abolition of the death penalty but then
retreated, ‘essentially because a majority of the world’s states still were not yet ready. In
a sense, their minds were ahead of their practice. Indeed, hardly a voice was raised during
the debate in the General Assembly to claim that capital punishment was legitimate,
appropriate or justified’.8 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, has
become the framework for subsequent more complicated developments in International

6
Kuhn, T.S, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1962,
7
Schabas, W, The Abolition of Capital Punishment from an International Law Perspective, 2003,
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Schabas.pdf
8
Ibid, and see also Schabas, W ‘The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law’, 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002.

4
Human Rights law. Following the Universal Declaration, the United Nations, in 1966,
adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 of the
covenant confirms the ‘inherent right to life’, adding that it cannot be ‘arbitrarily
deprived’.9 Regarding the abolition of the death penalty the International Covenant can
be seen as an important step forward, but nonetheless a step forward with caveats. On the
one hand the Covenant states that anyone sentenced to death is entitled to seek amnesty,
pardon or commutation of sentence, and the death penalty for persons under the age of
eighteen at the time of commission of the crime and for pregnant women is prohibited.
On the other hand, it also goes on to state that ‘in countries which have not abolished the
death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in
accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not
contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried
out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court’.10 The prohibition of
executing a minor was further reinforced in The Convention on the Rights of the Child,
adopted in 1989, where it is stated that ‘neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment
without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below
eighteen years of age’. As Schabas again points out, ‘the Convention on the Rights of the
Child has been ratified by essentially the whole world, with the exception of the United
States, which signed it without reservation in 1995’.11 According to Amnesty
International, ‘the United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have
not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, twenty-one* U.S.
states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Out
of the 38 death penalty states, only 16 have abolished this punishment for juvenile
offenders. In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders.
Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined
carried out five such executions. The United States accounts for four of the last five
known juvenile offender executions in the last two years’. 12

9
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1976) 999 UNTS 171, art. 6.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid
12
Amnesty International, Death Penalty Fact Sheet, h t t p : / / w w w . a m n e s t y u s a . o r g / a b o l i s h / j u v e n i l e s . h t m l
* The Missouri Supreme Court recently held the juvenile death penalty to be unconstitutional under federal law, a decision that may or

5
Although there clearly remain exceptions to the rule, most notably the US and China, the
majority of the world’s nations have signed and ratified these International documents
binding them to certain measures clearly in line with the progressive reduction and
ultimate abolition of the death penalty. The dogged resistance of the United States to
ratify and modify her laws must be seen as an important obstacle to the full global
acceptance of the goals stated in these documents. As the economic superpower of the
late 20th Century and self-stated promulgator of democracy, freedom and justice
throughout the world, quick to slight Human Rights violations in other parts of the world,
the arguable hypocrisy shown by the US when it comes to the abolition of the death
penalty on her own soil should be seen as a roof under which other smaller nations may
shield themselves from the otherwise almost universal consensus of Human Rights law
on the subject.

Regional Frameworks

A number of regional frameworks for the preservation of Human Rights have also come
into existence in the last fifty years. The first one of these, the European Convention on
Human Rights was drafted in the early 1950s. In its original format, the Convention
allowed capital punishment as the only exception to the right of life. Subsequently, in
1982, the Council of Europe adopted Protocol No. 6 concerning the abolition of the death
penalty, providing for the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime. Under the protocol,
Member States’ may retain the death penalty for crimes "in time of war or of imminent
threat of war".13 The American Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1969 and
limited the scope of capital punishment by adding persons over 70 to juveniles and
pregnant women as persons ineligible for execution. Furthermore as Schabas notes, the
American Convention “explicitly states that ‘the death penalty shall not be re-established
in states that have abolished it’, something that is only implicit in the [International]

may not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislatively, the juvenile death penalty is still on the books in Missouri. (Source as
above)
13
Amnesty International, Death Penalty: Ratification of International Treaties
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/ratification-of-international-treaties
46 States have signed and ratified Protocol 6 with only Russia having signed but not ratified.

6
Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights].”14 Along with Europe and the US, the African
Charter of Human and People’s Rights (adopted 1981, entered into force 1986), and the
Arab Charter of Human Rights (adopted 1994, ratified and entered into force January
2008), complete the regional framework agreements for Human Rights. The African
Charter recognises the right to life but does not mention the death penalty. Nonetheless,
following South Africa’s Constitutional Court’s decision to abolish the death penalty,
some now argue that the African Charter mandates abolition.15 Whilst the original Arab
Charter adopted in 1994 allowed the death penalty for ‘serious violations of general law’
but prohibited it for juveniles, political crimes, pregnant women, and nursing mothers for
2 years following childbirth, the amended text, ratified in January this year, may provide
an exception concerning the execution of juveniles. Specifically, Article 7 states
“Sentence of death shall not be imposed on persons under 18 years of age, unless
otherwise stipulated in the laws in force at the time of the commission of the crime."16

Europe as Primus inter Pares

In the field of regional and international politics, with numerous countries vying for
influence, one can never expect changes overnight. Despite the existence of these binding
regional frameworks, American, African and Arab states continue, to greater or lesser
extent, to use capital punishment as a means of administering justice. European countries
on the other hand have developed a homogenous abolitionist position on the death
penalty. Whilst a number of factors have led European countries to this position, this is
the appropriate juncture to ponder the impact the European Union, as a regional

14
Schabas, W, The Abolition of Capital Punishment from an International Law Perspective, 2 0 0 3 ,
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Schabas.pdf
Interestingly, by the late 60’s when the American Convention was adopted, the United States had almost stopped using the death
penalty. Conversely, in Europe capital punishment was still regularly being used. Subsequently, the US has re-established the practice
while Europe has banished it from its territory. Schabas argues that one main reason for these two different paths is the legacy of
oppression and slavery in the US. Although this is not the place to enter the discussion of why Europe and the US have chosen such
diverging paths, it is an important contextual point in understanding the American Convention in relation to today’s reality in the US.
15
Ibid.
16
Arab Charter for Human Rights (Translation form the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)
http://www.crin.org/Law/instrument.asp?InstID=1267
Another provision in the Charter suggests that the International Convention on the Rights of the Child may overrule it. Article 43 of
the Charter says:
“Nothing in this Charter may be construed or interpreted as impairing the rights and freedoms protected by the domestic laws of the
States parties or those set forth in the international and regional Human Rights instruments which the States parties have adopted or
ratified, including the rights of women, the rights of the child and the rights of persons belonging to minorities.”

7
organisation, has played in encouraging, coercing, and finally obliging European
countries to abolish capital punishment.

Nearly half a billion people live within the EU’s 27 Member States. Just over sixty years
ago the majority of these countries were in some way or another at war with one another
while capital punishment was an accepted and rarely questioned form of justice. Today,
the prospect of Germany and the UK going to war is unimaginable and the death penalty
is banned from European soil. The political will to propel the EU to where it is today has
ebbed and flowed over the past half century, yet today the economic, political and legal
ties that bind the Member States are a testament to how far the EU has come in reversing
a trend in what, historically speaking, is but the blink of an eye.

Membership conditions have always played a pivotal role in defining what the EU
actually represents. Following the end of the cold war, EU Member States recognised
their future political and economic security would be greatly enhanced by enveloping the
old Communist countries rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. Thus, by
inviting the Eastern European countries into the Western bloc, the EU was able to impose
conditions to membership; politically, concerning the rule of law and democracy, and
economically, concerning free market economies. This strength in Membership has
arguably been the major factor in allowing the EU to become a death penalty free zone in
such a short space of time17. The Arab League and the African Union are nascent
Organisations compared to the EU. How they develop as political Institutions on the
whole will dictate how successful they are in striding forwards in Human Rights issues
such as capital punishment. The US remains idiosyncratic; on the one hand self-
proclaimed purveyor of freedom and justice in the world, on the other a practicing
retentionist country.

The carrot and stick method of coercing change in acceding Member States is a powerful
tool for the EU to guarantee total abolition of the death penalty on its own soil: if you

17
It should be made clear that arguably a number of factors - such as the moral consequences on politics in Europe following the
Second World War, or the European Parliament’s ambition to develop its own power vis-à-vis the other Institutions- and not just
Membership, have played a role in the EU’s position on the death penalty.

8
want to be in our club and get all the benefits you have to play by our rules. But what
about in other parts of the world distant from the EU’s borders?

The EU now uses a range of tools to promote democracy and Human Rights
internationally. Politically at its disposal are representations and declarations.18
Furthermore, the EU has initiated resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council. As the
European Council on Justice and Home Affairs stated when explaining its decision to
create a European Day against the Death Penalty19, ‘the death penalty is contrary to the
fundamental rights on which the European Union and the Council of Europe are
founded’. Furthermore, having abolished the death penalty on European soil, the Council
went on to stress ‘the importance of persevering in the pursuit of actions aimed at
abolishing the death penalty in the world, by making representations to third countries,
acting within multilateral arenas and supporting the action of civil society towards this
end’. An example of how the EU has been successful in this context is the Philippines.
By providing assistance to democracy, civil rights, and Human Rights groups through the
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), abolition of the death
penalty in the Philippines was achieved on the 24th June 2006.20

Thus it can be seen then that, albeit to differing degrees and with differing levels of
implementation, Europe, the US, the Arab League and Africa having a binding document
relating to the right to life and the death penalty, yet there remains one notable regional
exception; Asia Pacific. An Asian Charter for Human Rights does exist, drafted over a
number of years by over 200 NGO organisations, calling for the abolition of the death
penalty. However, at the time of writing, there appears to be little or no political will in
the Asian countries still using the death penalty to develop this project and adopt a legally
binding regional Charter such as those discussed above. The Asia Pacific region
18
“General representations consist in the EU raising the issue of the death penalty in its dialogue with third countries. Such
démarches occur particularly when a country's policy on the death penalty is in flux, e.g. where an official or de facto moratorium on
the death penalty is likely to be ended, or where the death penalty is to be reintroduced through legislation. Similarly, a démarche or
public statement may be made where countries take steps towards abolition of the death penalty”. Abolition of the Death Penalty,
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm
19
Every year on October the 10th to run in conjunction with the World Day against the Death Penalty as agreed by the Justice and
Home Affairs Council on December 7th 2007.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/97498.pdf#page=19
20
For a more detailed explanation of the chain of events see: Abolition of the death penalty, Europa website,
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm

9
continues to be the global hub for retributive justice with no less than 11 countries
actively using the death penalty, and with statistics suggesting that in China alone
between 1994 and 2003, over 19,000 people have been executed.21

Thus it can be seen that in the short space of fifty years both International and Regional
developments in the field of Human Rights have had a great impact on the death penalty
debate. Although notable exceptions remain and there is reason to fear that Asia is a long
way from developing a political consensus towards abolition, it is arguable that the
consistent spillover effect caused by the progress made over the past half century in other
areas of the world and through International agents will eventually lead to a global
consensus to abolish the death penalty in the foreseeable future. One only has to look at
the mounting pressure on China surrounding the preparations for this year’s Beijing
Olympics to feel that change is in the air. Certainly, countries that have fought thus far to
maintain their right to use capital punishment will continue to do so. Nonetheless, there
will come a point when the political will to fight for an archaic system of justice will
yield to the more pragmatic necessity of success in other fields of International Relations.
Certainly, were the US to abolish the death penalty it would be far easier for both the
United Nations and Member States acting bilaterally to put pressure, both economic and
political, on countries still using the death penalty to abolish the practice.

The death penalty debate and the rise of modern Communication

Whilst the literature surrounding the death penalty in the context of Human Rights is well
documented and discussed, there is perhaps one development over the past 50 years that
has not been tackled with the same vigour but which has been arguably instrumental in
developing public opinion regarding capital punishment and directly and indirectly
putting pressure on political systems to look again at their use of the death penalty.

21
No official figures exist for China, as death penalty statistics remain a state secret. Countries still using the death penalty in the
Asia Pacific Region: Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, North Korea, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand,
Vietnam. Source, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/asiapac.php - china

10
In 1959, shortly after midnight on June 25, Charles Starkweather was executed in the US
state of Nebraska’s electric chair. He had been convicted of the murder of a teenager, and
accused of ten other homicides. Local television stations had been covering the story
22
from when it broke. Throughout the case and execution itself there was intense
television coverage. As Michael Hilt remarks ‘the public in the late 1950s watched
television news with a fascination that it does not have today, and because the medium
itself was still new, the television audience easily could be swept up in the program,
whether it was entertainment or news’.23 In terms of the consequences that this crime and
its punishment, broadcast in the new form of media the television, had on the general
public, one only has to note as Hilt does that the case ‘spawned books, movies,
documentaries, plays, and a song by Bruce Springsteen’.24

How far can the media alter public opinion? It is an oft-debated question with no
empirical answer, yet certain indicators may show the extent to which policy makers feel
the need to be a part of the trend. For an evident example, in the current US Presidential
election race, all candidates have spent vast sums of money and time ‘blogging’ their way
into people’s consciousness.

In the US, certain advocates of the death penalty suggest that the media has mostly been
used to feed the citizenry a one-sided pro-abolition agenda without providing the viewer
with proportionate arguments from both sides.25 Whilst television today does not stir the
emotions of amazement and wonder that it did in the 1950s, new forms of media are now
empowering people the world over to comment, discuss, argue, organise and act.
Numerous websites exist arguing both for and against the death penalty.26 Moreover,
many of these have not been established by states, companies or NGOs but rather by
individuals.

22
Hilt, M. L. (1990, October), Television coverage of the Starkweather homicides Paper presented at the Ike's America conference,
Lawrence, Kansas, as quoted in Hilt, M.L Mass Media and the Death Penalty: Social Construction of Three Nebraska Executions.
March 22 1999, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
23
Ibid
24
Ibid
25
See for example Broughton, J.R. Everyday more wicked: Reflections on culture, politics, and punishment by death, Journal of Law
and Politics, 2006. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888632
26
For example: www.prodeathpenalty.com www.deathpenalty.org www.amnestyusa.org www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
www.antideathpenalty.org www.nodeathpenalty.org

11
Blogs, websites and Internet campaigns detailing arguments for and against the death
penalty have undeniably changed the location and focus for discussion among the public,
but what of other forms of communication? International news organisations such as
CNN are viewed by millions of people daily; what is their impact on the death penalty
debate? To attempt to answer this question an article of its own would be needed.
However, this paper suggests that in globalising and democratising communication,
primarily as a consequence of the Internet, a growing citizen consensus arguing for the
abolition of the death penalty is emerging, and voices that previously could not be heard
are now accessible to the majority of the world’s population. To see how a state’s policies
can be threatened in this way one only has to look at the jailing this week in China of
prominent Human Rights campaigner Hu Jia. Convicted of "inciting subversion of state
power and the socialist system", Hu has been jailed for three and a half years. 27 Hu is an
example, but by no means an exception, of what can nowadays be achieved by an
individual with an agenda and an Internet connection.28 Reaction to Hu’s jailing has been
swift; ‘The US was "dismayed" by the verdict, a spokeswoman for the US embassy in
Beijing said, while the European Union called for Mr Hu's immediate release’29.

Conclusion

The death penalty has been an accepted form of punishment throughout the ages and
across the globe. For some it is seen as a necessary, logical and proportional way for
states to deal with members of society that have committed the most heinous crimes in
the statute books. Throughout history when other forms of punishment were on their way
to losing credibility in the moral conscience of humanity, many proponents continued to
argue their validity.30 History has shown however that standards concerning the

27
Jail for Chinese Rights Activist, BBC, 3 April 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7327718.stm
28
Although Hu did give interviews to foreign journalists, the majority of his work was based on Internet articles. See note 22.
29
Jail for Chinese Rights Activist, BBC, 3 April 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7327718.stm
30
For example: On slavery, see Richard H. Colfax's Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral
Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes (New York: James T. M. Bleakley Publishers, 1833), or Van Eyrie, J, H. White

12
acceptability of certain types of punishment have developed and evolved, although some
exceptions still exist.31 By purposefully avoiding the well-documented pro-con death
penalty arguments, this paper has attempted to view the subject in a different light,
instead focusing on and documenting what the author perceives to be a growing global
consensus gradually following the path to global abolition of capital punishment.

The combined influence of Human Rights law and its spillover development over the past
fifty years, the International Frameworks and subsequent Regional Frameworks
supporting Human Rights law established largely as a consequence of the disasters of the
Second World War, and the ability for the first time in the history of man for people to
concert activity as individuals on a global mission, lead the author to believe that there is
real reason to genuinely contemplate that what may have been unthinkable even fifty
years ago could well become a reality within the next fifty years. In many ways, the role
the EU plays in this trend will dictate how it develops. By continuing to fund pro
democracy and Human Rights activities and making representations in third countries,
the EU has the loudest voice for change due to its economic and political clout. In a
world still blighted by war, famine, poverty and disease, the abolition of capital
punishment may not always necessarily come top of the list. Nonetheless, mankind and
humanity will be done a significant service when all countries can stand up and state
clearly that the right to life is truly inalienable and not inalienable with exception.

Supremacy and Negro Subordination: or, Negroes a Subordinate Race, and (So-Called) Slavery its Normal Condition (second edition;
New York: Van Evrie, Horton and Co., 1870), or on being hanged, drawn and quartered, Sir William Jones speaking in a UK House
of Commons debate in 1680 "Death is the substance of the Judgment; the manner of it is but a circumstance.... No man can show me
an example of a Nobleman that has been quartered for High-Treason: They have been only beheaded” in Grey, A Grey's Debates of
the House of Commons: volume 8, London, 1769.Debate on the Warrant of Execution of Lord Stafford, Thursday, December 23, 1680.
31
For example the practice of stoning someone to death is still legal under Islamic Sharia law. See for example BBC Article, August
10 2007, “Gay Nigerians face Sharia Death” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6940061.stm. These cases however are aberrations and
command immediate International condemnation from all quarters. The thought of someone today being dragged through the town
square by a horse, hanged to within an inch of life before being mutilated is anathema to even the most retributive societies.

13
 Bibliography
Articles
Dieter, R.C, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: US Death Penalty and International Law
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf
Schabas, W, The Abolition of Capital Punishment from an International Law Perspective, 2003,
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Schabas.pdf

Hilt, M. L. Television coverage of the Starkweather homicides Paper, presented at the Ike's
America conference, Lawrence, Kansas, (1990, October),

Hilt, M.L Mass Media and the Death Penalty: Social Construction of Three Nebraska
Executions. March 22 1999, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
Broughton, J.R. Everyday more wicked: Reflections on culture, politics, and punishment by death,
Journal of Law and Politics, 2006. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888632

Books
Colfax, R.H. Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral
Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes (New York: James T. M. Bleakley Publishers,
1833),

Grey, A Grey's Debates of the House of Commons: volume 8, London, 1769.Debate on the
Warrant of Execution of Lord Stafford, Thursday, December 23, 1680

Hood, R. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective 8 (2d edit. 1996).

Kuhn, T.S, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1962

Schabas, W ‘The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law’, 3rd ed., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Van Eyrie, J, H. White Supremacy and Negro Subordination: or, Negroes a Subordinate Race,
and (So-Called) Slavery its Normal Condition (second edition; New York: Van Evrie, Horton and
Co., 1870)

International Human Rights Agreements

Universal Declaration on Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Convention on the Rights of the Child

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

14
Regional Human Rights Agreements
African Charter of Human and People’s Rights
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Banjul/afrhr.html

American Convention on Human Rights

http://www.hrcr.org/docs/American_Convention/oashr.html

Arab Charter for Human Rights

http://www.crin.org/Law/instrument.asp?InstID=1267

Asian Human Rights Charter

http://material.ahrchk.net/charter/mainfile.php/eng_charter/

European Convention on Human Rights

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG

Websites and Internet News Articles

www.prodeathpenalty.com
www.deathpenalty.org
www.amnestyusa.org
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
www.antideathpenalty.org
www.nodeathpenalty.org

Jail for Chinese Rights Activist, BBC, 3 April 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-

pacific/7327718.stm

Amnesty International, Death Penalty Fact Sheet,

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html
Amnesty International, Death Penalty: Ratification of International Treaties
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/ratification-of-international-treaties
New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties,
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/asiapac.php - china

Abolition of the death penalty, Europa website,

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm

Justice and Home Affairs Council on December 7th 2007.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/97498.pdf#page=19

15