Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly declining although it is supported by many young people who were not born when we still had it. In the short term say the next 10 yearsthere is no realistic chance of reinstatement, however, despite majority public support for such a move. Reintroduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new. Politically it would be impossible now, given our membership of the EU and our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which totally prohibit capital punishment.
Inthe United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a pledge among nations to promote fundamental rights as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
The political elite in Europe often condemn the US as human rights violators since we still use the death penalty on murderers, which they insist is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But they couldn't be more wrong.
Abolitionists interpret from Article 3 in that Declaration to proclaim each person's right to protection from deprivation of life, especially murderers!
And they also point to Article 5, which states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. From this, abolitinists self-righteously declare that the death penalty violates both of these rights. But in fact, nowhere in that declaration is the DP specifically condemned as a human rights violation!
For instance, in Article 3 it states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Strangely, from this, abolitionists interpret that the death penalty is a human rights violation since it deprives a person's right to life.
But if we were to follow that reasoning, we would have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation as well since they deprive people of liberty. We would also have to abolish charging taxes and fines since they violate one's "security of person.
So the interpretation that abolitionists derive from Article 3 of the Declaration is illogical and contradictory. And in Article 5, it states: No one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. From this, abolitionists insist that capital punishment is ruled out because it is "the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Indeed, what is stated in Article 5 is highly subjective and open to interpretation and could just as easily be applied to prisons as well. And at the time it was implemented, most nations who signed it had the had the death penalty and continued to use it long after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was approved by them.
So obviously, the signers back then had the moral coherence to appreciate the distinction between murders and executions.
What the DP is, is a punishment for a human rights violation, not a human rights violation itself. Anyone with any amount of moral judgment and coherence would recognize and respect that difference. All abolitionists are trying to do is protect human rights violators at the expense of their victims by trying to pass off the just punishment of human rights violations as a human rights violation itself, an analysis that one would have to be totally lacking in sound moral judgement to accept since it is so obviously contradictory as well as morally and logically skewed.
European elites enjoy showcasing their opposition to the death penalty as a progressive policy based on the respect of human rights.
However, the moral basis of European opposition to the death penalty is riddled with contradictions, especially when viewed in the context of Europe's progressive euthanasia policies or dismal record on human rights on their own continent reference their indifference to the Balkans.
Such large contradictions usually suggest there are other motives. Germany, along with France, has long led the anti-death penalty charge in Europe.
The mayor of Paris took this viewpoint to such an extreme position that he named a city street after convicted American cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. So it came as little surprise when a Washington Post article revealed on June 4, that the true basis for Germany's strong anti-death penalty policy was not based on morals or a sense of humanity.
Instead, it was based on protecting convicted Nazi war criminals: Contrasting their nation's policy with that of the Americans, Germans point proudly to Article of their Basic Law, adopted in Communist East Germany kept the death penalty until But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light.
Article was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities.
Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of Article wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice. According to Interpol and the FBI this is not necessarily the case.
If one excludes murders committed by inner city blacks from the statistics the United States actually has a lower murder rate then Germany and France. That is not to imply that blacks are inherently evil. Their murder rates have more to do with welfare policies, racial separatism, etc.
Most blacks are decent people, but a sizeable minority of them commits a disproportionate amount of crimes. Casting this high murder rate over all sections of American society is irrational at best. It makes sense to exclude black murders to even things out because France, Germany, and the UK do not have a minority that commits 7 times per capita more murders then the rest of the country.
Otherwise, we are comparing apples to oranges. This on top of the fact that we include deaths caused by self-defense in the murder statistics. Failing to take such differences in demographics between America and Europe into account mislead people into believing that a high murder rate that is committed by a single ethnic group prevails over all parts of American society, and that is simply not the case.Capital punishment debate in the United States existed as early as the colonial period.
As of it remains a legal penalty in 31 states, the federal government, and military criminal justice systems. "It is widely recognized that capital punishment in the United States of America continues to be imbued with the legacy of slavery" and, to end it, American death-penalty abolitionists "should draw on the radicalism of [anti-slavery] abolitionists.".
The Controversial Issue of Capital Punishment Since the execution of James Kendall in , capital punishment “has been an accepted form of justice” in what is now the United States (Smith 2).
Capital punishment can be defined as “the penalty of death for the commission of a crime” (benjaminpohle.com 1). THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES This webpage is dedicated to the innocent victims of murder, may they always be remembered.
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders according to a nationwide study. The politics of death penalty are popular in the United States, and this trend flourishes even despite the empirical evidence highlighting its unfairness and ineffectiveness, and despite abolition of capital punishment by many .
Background. Capital punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment and since ancient times it has been used for a wide variety of offences.