Winning a War on Terror: Eliminating the Death Penalty

The General Assembly of the United Nations called on the 18th of December 2007, in its resolution A/RES/62/149 for a moratorium on the death penalty. Thanks to this resolution, death penalty is now recognised as a human rights issue. Is this just another scene in the talk show of international diplomacy, or are some measures to make individuals comply with the norms of society just not acceptable any more? Is our system of law finally moving away from retribution and revenge?

The slow process of establishing globally recognised values is leading to a world where the general respect for human dignity limits the support for terror, whether by zealots or governments, whether in the criminal justice system, in the use of terror or in war. The ultimate terror, killing somebody, is not acceptable any more.

In a world with competing values and belief systems, accepting that killing is a legitimate way for reaching a goal is dangerous. Death penalty might be just a practical conclusion of the underlying principle that killing for the higher good and revenge is acceptable. Alternatives for the death penalty, such as life terms in prison, are as effective in bringing safety to the streets and the houses of the population. Moreover, it does not strengthen the moral position that the norm is “an eye for an eye and a life for a life”, where death penalty is, in effect, a cleaner moral equivalent for lynching.

The General Assembly called on the 18th of December for a moratorium on the death penalty by a vote of 104 in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions¹⁾.

In the original United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (1948) death penalty could not be included, because there was still a majority of countries applying the death penalty, and two earlier resolutions, in 1994 and 1999, failed to gather a majority.

In the 70s and 80s, the European countries gradually abolished the death penalty, and enshrined their abolitionist stance in their common world view. From there, the movement has expanded rapidly.

The coalition for what Mario Marazzatti ²⁾ calls “ the culture of life” is diverse.

The campaign was lead by a platform of civil society groups and NGOs: The World Coalition against the death penalty ³⁾. This coalition has 63 members, NGO's from the a diverse group of countries, cities, and international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International.

The role of the Catholic Church ⁴⁾, normally linked to conservative moral causes, such as resistance against birth control, cannot be underestimated. It is thanks to the efforts of Catholic groups, that the resolution became acceptable. They pressed third world countries to take the lead on this resolution: of the ten nations who co-authored the resolution: Albania, Angola, Brazil, Croatia, Gabon, Mexico, New Zealand, The Philippines, Portugal, East Timor, eight are catholic. Moreover, when Egypt proposed to introduce an anti-abortion amendment, the Vatican and the Philippines refused to see the pro-life cause to block the progress on the death penalty. Italy has been seen as the long-term stalwart of abolitionism, with strong backing of the Vatican.

However, the coalition is a lot wider than the catholic lobby. The Russian federation supported the resolution, as well as most Pacific Countries, most of Latin America and a large group of African Countries. The European Union considers the abolition of the death penalty as part of the “acquis communautaire”; all prospective member states, such as Turkey, must abolish the death penalty in peacetime.

They also pressured other countries to join them: extradition is only possible to countries where there is no death penalty. This issue showed up during the inversed “fight against terror”; Al Quaida terrorists cannot be officially extradited to the US, except for when there are guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied.

The list of retentionist countries opposing the moratorium is smaller and shrinking. The United States joined Iran, Syria, Democratic Republic of Korea and China ⁵⁾ in opposing the resolution, together with 49 other nations, amongst them most Islamic countries, who have difficulty with supporting the resolution; the Koran is said to call explicitly for death penalty in some cases. The call for a moratorium instead of the abolition was influenced by the wish for compromise: countries can keep death penalty on the books, but in reality never apply it.

More important than the vote in the General Assembly, is the practice. Notwithstanding the fact that still a lot of countries have the death penalty in most countries it is very rare.

More than 90 % of the executions were carried out in only six countries in 2006 ⁶⁾:

1. China (at least 1,010 based on publicly available reports, other sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000).
2. Iran (177)
3. Pakistan (82)
4. Iraq (at least 65)
5. Sudan (at least 65)
6. United States (53)

While Kuwait has the most executions per capita.

Except for China, most of the serial killer countries are embroiled in or at risk of some form of war, and live in a situation where violence is common or perceived to be common.

Showing respect for life might help in countries that want to break out of the cycle of violence. Since a few years, countries like Mozambique, Rwanda and Liberia, who have seen their share of violence, have abolished the death penalty, and in the DRC there is an ongoing campaign against it. This move is seen as a necessary step in the process of reconciliation. Moreover, it is the only possible way to get genocide suspects extradited from EU-countries.

“You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs” was seen as a sufficient explanation for making victims collateral damage while pursuing revolutionary ideals. In the end, however, most countries have realized that they don't want the omelet if it requires too much egg breaking.

We would like to argue that the stance towards the death penalty is a symptom of a deeper change in the way a growing part of the world respects human dignity. A growing part of the world finds that killing is not an acceptable strategy for instilling good behaviour.

Thirty years ago, most European countries still executed the death penalty, and violent resistance against the government by regional or political minorities was rife in some European countries. Some of these fringe groups still fight on, but the armed struggle, killing innocent people, is not accepted by the public opinion any more. The terrorists, who used to be “freedom fighters” can not move as a fish in the water amongst the citizens any more. By extending democratic liberties, and by making killing unacceptable in general, the support for terrorism amongst the original population has evaporated.

What binds the countries that still accept terror as an important way to relate to its citizens? Is it the same mindset that leads individuals, who consider the government to be illegitimate, to turn to terror? As important as it is to research the effects of the death penalty on crime statistics, it would seem more beneficial to research and assess the effects of state violence on the criminal.

The fact that the government, with its monopoly of violence, finds itself restrained and cannot use the ultimate terror any more to maintain the status quo, comes from a change in the mindset of the citizens and leads to a further change of the mindset of the citizens on what forms of power are acceptable, from the government to the individual, and from one individual to another.

You can comment on this article on the Discussion Page