n.
The penalty of death for the commission of a crime.
| Dictionary: capital punishment |
The penalty of death for the commission of a crime.
| 5min Related Video: capital punishment |
| US Supreme Court: Capital Punishment |
Penalizes those convicted of certain classes of crimes by killing them. While many societies practice capital punishment, most developed countries had abolished death sentencing by 2003. The European Union mandates, and international covenants favor, abolition of this practice. Although outlawed in some states, in 2003 capital punishment was legal in thirty‐eight states, the federal government, and the U.S. military.
The word capital comes directly from the Latin capitalis, “of the head.” Across human history, beheading has probably been the most frequent mode of dispatch. Sanctioned methods of execution in the United States have included death by electrocution, poison gas, hanging, and firing squad. Concern regarding their cruelty has led to lethal injection as the preferred method.
Historical interpretations of the Constitution support capital punishment's legality. The Eighth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, but no Supreme Court majority has interpreted that phrase to prohibit all forms of capital punishment in all circumstances. The phrase “cruel and unusual” historically referred to punishments that were far more serious than the offense involved, to torture, and to forms of execution that prolonged the pain of dying. Further, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments implicitly sanction capital punishment by stating that one cannot “be deprived of life … without due process of law.”
However, interpretive approaches that stress the evolving character of constitutional norms have enabled the Supreme Court to address the complex moral and empirical questions associated with capital punishment. Since Furman v. Georgia (1972), which nullified all death sentences imposed without statutory guidelines, critics of the death penalty have attacked it on several fronts.
First, it is hypocritical to punish heinous crimes by means of a heinous crime—the deliberate taking of another human life. Second, research does not confirm the claim that capital punishment is an effective general deterrent. Third, once inflicted, the death penalty's irreversibility prevents correcting those instances in which the criminal justice system convicts the wrong person. Over one hundred persons have been freed from America's death rows on grounds of innocence since the mid‐1970s, demonstrating the system has indeed been convicting innocents, and suggesting it may be executing them as well. Though the Court has required a greater degree of reliability in these cases, legislators and governors are increasingly moving beyond the Constitution's minimum protections to assure against mistake. When Illinois had sent thirteen innocents to death row, the risk of mistaken execution led then‐Governor George Ryan to announce a moratorium on executions in 2000 and to eventually commute the death sentences of all those on the Illinois death row in 2003. The state legislature followed, enacting reforms. A moratorium movement has made strides around the country, prompting study commissions focusing not only on the perceived unreliability of the process, but also on concerns about arbitrariness, discrimination, and the comparative cost of the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. In speaking engagements, some Supreme Court justices have echoed a number of these concerns.
Fourth, administration of capital punishment in law and practice is inconsistent with retributive theories of punishment.
Fifth, data on those who receive the death penalty show that the criminal justice system does not apply it in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. Rather, it appears to be imposed on a randomly selected subset of those convicted of capital offenses, often the poor. Prosecutorial discretion in charging and the discretionary practice of plea bargaining virtually assure this randomness. As this randomness suggests, no definitive study has isolated a strong racial bias in death sentencing. However, aggregate data convincingly show that the death penalty is more frequently imposed on those who victimize whites than those who victimize blacks.
Sixth, as a class, paroled murderers show lower recidivism rates for their crimes than do most classes of felons. There is no evidence that the death penalty, as opposed to long‐term imprisonment, is an effective specific deterrent. Murderers on death row are more likely to engage in violent crimes within prison than are those serving life terms.
On the other hand, sociological theory, at least since Émile Durkheim, has posited that setting absolute outer limits on deviance is a necessary component of group identification and survival. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in The Common Law (1881), “The first requirement of a sound body of law is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong” (1938 ed., p. 41). Public opinion supporting the death sentence appears strong, at 74 percent in 2003. However, when life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole is considered as the alternative punishment, only a slim majority (54 percent) supports death. Sentencing juries, too, increasingly choose a life without parole sentence over the death penalty. By this measure then, support for the death penalty may appear to be slipping. Supporters also urge that by some modern models of social interaction, parties must occasionally threaten to take irrational and extreme actions in order to strengthen their capacity to negotiate resolutions of conflict peacefully. Finally, they contend the precise effects of the death penalty versus less harsh punishment are impossible to measure because due process of law prohibits conducting controlled experiments.
In Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the Court majority upheld death‐sentencing when the legislature created statutory standards to guide the sentencing body's discretion in a separate trial where additional evidence relevant to sentencing could be adduced. A companion case, Woodson v. North Carolina, rejected a mandatory death penalty for all capital murderers, finding the Eighth Amendment evolving standards of decency required the individualized consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Ring v. Arizona (2002) required that juries, not judges, determine the presence of the aggravating factors that made one death‐eligible, and that these factors be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Before Furman, most executions had been for murder, some for rape, and a few for kidnapping, treason, espionage, and aircraft piracy. In Coker v. Georgia (1977), the Court barred the death penalty for rape of an adult woman. Today, nearly all death sentences are imposed for homicide.
Looking to objective indicators of the evolving standards of decency, the Court has reserved the death penalty for those most culpable offenders: The actual killer, or the accomplice who attempts to kill, intends to kill, or is a major participant in an accompanying felony and possesses a reckless indifference to human life, is death‐eligible (Tison v. Arizona, 1987). But the mentally retarded (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002), the insane (Ford v. Wainwright, 1986), and those under sixteen at the time of the offense (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988) are not.
Between the Gregg decision in 1976 and 1 July 2003, there were 882 persons executed in 33 jurisdictions. Over three‐fourths of these executions occurred below the Mason‐Dixon line, led by Texas (311) and Virginia (89). The pace of executions rose sharply in the 1990s, perhaps in part as a consequence of the 1996 Anti‐Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's trimming back of federal habeas corpus relief mechanisms. At midyear 2003, over 3,500 persons awaited execution: 98 percent male, and 54 percent of minority race.
Significant decisions in 2002 and in 2003 (regarding ineffective assistance of penalty phase counsel, Wiggins v. Smith), indicate the Court majority is willing to exert controls over the development of capital punishment policies and procedures that they had largely left to state legislatures, courts, and governors. Still, since many state judges and all the others face electoral challenges, conventional political processes will continue to play a major role in shaping future death penalty polices, including possible moratorium measures.
See also Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty.
Bibliography
— Lief H. Carter; revised by Margery M. Koosed
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: capital punishment |
For more information on capital punishment, visit Britannica.com.
| Encyclopedia of Judaism: Capital Punishment |
Two forms of capital punishment are mentioned directly in the Bible, the more common being stoning, which consisted of all the people hurling stones at the condemned until he died. Although stoning seems to have been the standard biblical form of execution following due process of law (see for instance Lev. 24:23), on several occasions (e.g. Ex. 17:4; Num. 14:10; II Chr. 10:18) it appears as a spontaneous and almost reflexive expression of communal wrath. Thus, stoning seems to have been the expression of vindicta popula predating Sinaitic legislation that remained the presumed form of punishment for severe offenses thereafter.
Burning is the specified punishment for two offenses (Lev.20:14 and 21:9). Burning, however, may not have served as a primary form of execution but rather may have been used to attach a special stigma to a particular offense, the corpse of the offender having been burnt after execution by stoning (Josh. 7:25). All three cases of burning mentioned in the Pentateuch are related to sexual offenses. Burning too seems to have been a recognized penalty prior to Sinaitic legislation (Gen. 38:24).
Apparently to heighten the deterrent power of capital punishment, Deuteronomy 21:22 commands that the body of anyone executed for a capital offense be impaled on a stake and left on public display. The following verse, however, forbids leaving the body on display over night, "for he that is hanged is a reproach unto God; that you defile not your land" (Deut. 21:23). In contrast to prevailing Mesopotamian custom according to which an individual could be punished for a crime committed by a member of his family, the Bible limited liability for criminal acts to the perpetrator. Families do not bear collective responsibility for crimes, as is established in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin [only]." The formulation of this verse suggests that it came to override an existing practice.
Criminal responsibility, and with it capital punishment, extended to animals as well. The ox that gores a human to death (Ex. 25:28-29) as well as the animal involved in bestiality (Lev. 20:16) are to be put to death. This has no parallel in the Ancient Near East and is conceivable only in the religiously based Hebrew legal code.
Talmudic discussions seem to show a shift in attitude towards capital punishment epitomized by the statement of Rabbis Akiva and Tarfon in the following passage (Mak. 1:10). R. Eleazar ben Azariah said that a Sanhedrin that put a man to death even only once in 70 years was considered bloodthirsty. R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said "Had we sat on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed." The Jewish legal system was clearly confronting the classic tensions regarding the morality and efficacy of capital punishment at this time.
The Talmud indicates, in addition to stoning and burning, two additional forms of execution: slaying (by sword) and strangling. Thus, the Talmud lists four methods of execution, the administration of which was governed by two central principles. The first principle was application of the biblical injunction of "love your neighbour as yourself" (Lev. 19:17) to the condemned criminal. The operational result of this was the formulation "choose for him the most humane death possible" (Ket. 37b, Sanh. 45a). The second principle specified that execution be modeled on the taking of life by God: as when God takes a life only the soul is taken while the body remains unharmed, so must the method of execution leave the body unharmed. Thus, for example, stoning no longer consisted of the convicted offender being stoned to death by the people. The offender was killed by being pushed from a high place. The place was to be high enough that death be instantaneous and low enough to ensure that the body not be mutilated by the fall (Sanh. 6:4; 45a).
Not only did talmudic law revise the methods of execution, it severely circumscribed the court's ability to convict those accused of capital crimes. A few of the limitations were: capital crimes could be tried only before a court of 23 judges; conviction could be obtained only on the testimony of two eyewitnesses; circumstantial evidence as well as hearsay evidence was inadmissible; witnesses related to each other or to the accused by blood or marriage were disqualified; conviction could not be obtained unless the accused had been warned in advance that his crime was punishable by death and unless he acknowledged the warning verbally. (See also Maimonides, Yad, Sanh. 12.)
Thus, where the Bible mandates the death penalty for numerous offenses, believes it to be an effective deterrent, cautions against showing mercy to those convicted, and demands its administration in order to purge society of evil, talmudic law renders the administration of capital punishment practically impossible. The Talmud, of course, derives its regulations from the biblical text by means of the accepted hermeneutical principles. The traditional view, therefore, is that the talmudic attitude is simply the articulation of the Bible's intent. Recent scholars, however, tend to view the talmudic circumscription of capital punishment as a de facto reversal of biblical legislation. In any case, the rabbis, despite their leniency in the administration of capital punishment, reserved the right to use its acknowledged deterrent power even when not mandated by the Bible should the general state of society or particular circumstances warrant it (Sanh. 46a). Thus Jewish communities, during periods when granted such jurisdiction by the ruling power (e.g., Muslim Spain), continued to administer capital punishment even as punishment for offenses not considered capital crimes by the Bible. The exercise of this power was particularly common with regard to informers (see Maimonides, Yad, ḤoveI u-Mazzik 8:10).
Since the death penalty could be administered only by a qualified Sanhedrin, there is no existing Jewish body considered competent to administer capital punishment today.
With the establishment of the State of Israel, the question of the administration of capital punishment by a Jewish court became relevant. Since the new State took over the existing corpus of British mandatory law, the administration of capital punishment was a theoretical possibility. During the first murder trial to be held under Israeli jurisdiction, the Chief Rabbis notified the Minister of Justice of their opposition to the death penalty in the absence of a qualified Sanhedrin. The death penalty was officially abolished in 1954 in the Penal Code Revision Law. Until that time several death sentences were issued, but none was carried out. The death penalty was retained, however, under the Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law and for treason committed in time of war. The prescribed method of execution under the legislation cited is hanging for civilians and shooting for members of the military. In the only instance of capital punishment in the history of the State, Adolf Eichmann, convicted of genocide, was hanged in Ramleh prison in 1962.
| British History: capital punishment |
Capital punishment was formerly of central importance in all European criminal justice systems. Although the history of capital punishment in Scotland has been little studied, it is clear that hanging was the standard method of executing on both sides of the border. Under English law, decapitation, hanging, drawing, and quartering, or (in the case of women) burning at the stake were reserved for traitors.
Evidence from burial sites suggests that capital punishment was known in Anglo-Saxon England. Calculating levels of capital punishment for this and the medieval period is impossible, although it seems they were low. This changed drastically in the Tudor period. By Elizabeth's reign many convicted criminals were executed, a trend which continued after 1603.
The 18th cent. provides better documentation on ceremonies and crowd reactions at executions. It also experienced a lower level of executions than the early 17th, with many convicted persons being reprieved, notably before being transported to the American colonies. The early 19th cent. experienced a rapid transition in thinking on punishment. Transportation to Australia or incarceration in one of the new prisons became the standard punishment for serious, non-homicidal offenders. By the mid-19th cent. capital punishment was restricted to murderers and, after 1868, was carried out inside prisons rather than in public. By that date the abolition of the death penalty was already being mooted. Debate on this issue surfaced intermittently in the 20th cent., leading to its abolition for all practical purposes in 1965.
| US Government Guide: capital punishment |
The penalty of death for a person convicted of a serious crime, such as intentional murder, is called capital punishment. Capital is derived from the Latin word capitalis, which means “of the head.” Throughout human history, beheading a person has been the most frequent form of killing someone as punishment for a serious crime. Current methods of carrying out capital punishment in the United States are electrocution, firing squad, hanging, poison gas, and lethal injection. The use of lethal injection has become the most common way of carrying out the death penalty in the United States; it is the method used in 17 states.
Capital punishment has been practiced in the United States since the founding of the republic. During the founding period, several crimes were punishable by death in the 13 states: murder, treason, piracy, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, sodomy, counterfeiting, horse theft, and slave rebellion. Today, in the 36 states that permit capital punishment, premeditated murder is virtually the only crime for which the punishment is death. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. The United States government may impose the death penalty for certain federal crimes, such as treason.
In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty could not be imposed without legal guidelines that define precisely the crime and conditions for a sentence of death. A jury in Georgia had convicted William Furman, a black man, of murdering a white man and had sentenced him to death. Under Georgia law, the jury had complete power to decide whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty. The Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed an appeal on Furman's behalf. It argued that state laws that gave a jury free rein to impose capital punishment could be unfair. The NAACP lawyers pointed to evidence that blacks convicted of murdering whites were much more likely to be punished by death than whites convicted of murder.
A divided Court (5 to 4) agreed with the NAACP position and, for the first time, nullified a death penalty on the basis of the 8th Amendment, which forbids “cruel and unusual punishments.” Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall argued, in separate concurring opinions, that the death penalty is morally wrong and is always a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause of the 8th Amendment, as applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Three other Justice—William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, and Byron White—wrote separate concurring opinions in which they agreed only that the Georgia system for imposing capital punishment, at issue in this case, was unconstitutional because it led to random and unfair decisions about who should receive the death penalty.
After the Furman decision, there was a halt in the use of the death penalty by all 50 state governments. The Georgia government passed a new law regarding capital punishment to address the problems raised by the Court in Furman. It created a two-phase procedure for imposing the death penalty in murder cases: the trial phase and the sentencing phase. In the trial phase, a jury would determine a defendant's guilt or innocence. If the defendant was found guilty, the state could request the death penalty. During phase two, there would be a second jury trial with the sole purpose of deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The Georgia law specified mandatory guidelines for determining whether to impose capital punishment. Thus, the law was designed to limit the jury's discretion and eliminate the kind of arbitrary application of the death penalty to which the Court objected in the Furman case.
The new Georgia law on capital punishment was tested in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), in which the Court decided that the death penalty for people convicted of first-degree murder is constitutional. The Court also upheld the Georgia law and praised it as a model for other states to follow. Many states have either adopted the Georgia law or created a similar one. The Gregg decision appears to have settled the capital punishment issue in favor of the death penalty, as long as it is imposed only in convictions for murder in the first degree and only according to certain clearly spelled out procedures and conditions.
Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were the two dissenters in the Gregg case. They continued to argue that capital punishment is always a violation of the 8th Amendment's “cruel and unusual punishments” clause. By contrast, the defenders of limited uses of capital punishment argue that the U.S. Constitution sanctions the death penalty. They point to the 5th and 14th Amendments, which restrain the government from taking away a person's “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” These constitutional provisions imply that a person may, under certain conditions, be deprived of life, as long as due process of law is observed. A large majority of Americans have agreed, in public opinion polls, that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for first-degree murder.
See also Cruel and unusual punishment
Sources
| US History Encyclopedia: Capital Punishment |
The history of capital punishment in the United States provides a means of understanding the dynamics of change and continuity. Changes in the arguments for and against capital punishment are indicative of larger developments regarding the saving and taking of human life by the state. The death penalty, optional or mandatory, is invoked for "capital crime," but no universal definition of that term exists. Usually capital crimes are considered to be treason or terrorist attacks against the government, crimes against property when life is threatened, and crimes against a person that may include murder, assault, and robbery. Criminal law is complex and involves many legal jurisdictions and social values. The existing statutory law and the circumstances of any case can mitigate the use of capital punishment. The power of a jury to decide for or against capital punishment is the dynamic element in its history.
Arguments for and Against Capital Punishment
The arguments for the death penalty and for its abolition have remained fairly constant since the seventeenth century. Advocates for the death penalty claim that the practice is justified for several reasons: retribution, social protection against dangerous people, and deterrence. Abolitionists' response is that the practice is not a deterrent; states without the practice have the same murder rates over time as those with the law. Moreover, the imposition of the death penalty comes from many factors, resulting from cultural and social circumstances that might have demonstrated irrationality and fear on society's part. The result might be a miscarriage of justice, the death of an innocent person.
Religious groups have put forth several arguments regarding capital punishment. One argument states that perfect justice is not humanly possible. In the past God or his representatives had authority over life and death, but the people or their representatives (the state and the criminal justice system) have become God in that respect, an act of tragic hubris.
A secular argument against capital punishment is that historically the verdict for capital punishment has been rendered most frequently against the poor and against certain ethnic groups as a means of social control. Another argument claims that the death penalty is just an uncivilized activity.
The discovery of DNA provides an argument against capital punishment by stressing that the absence of a positive reading challenges other physical evidence that might indicate guilt. The finality of judgment that capital punishment serves is thus greatly limited. The fullest legal and judicial consequences are still evolving in American jurisprudence.
While these arguments whirl around the academy, the legal system, and public discourse, one method of understanding the issue is to examine its historical nature. Western societies in the seventeenth century slowly began replacing public executions, usually hangings, with private punishment. The process was slow because the number of capital crimes was great. By the nineteenth century, solitary confinement in penitentiaries (or reformatories) was the norm, with the death penalty reserved for first-degree murder.
History of Capital Punishment
Initially moral instruction of the populace was the purpose of public execution. As juries began to consider the causes of crime, the trend toward private execution emerged. In both cases the elemental desire for some sort of retribution guided juries' decisions.
Generally English law provided the definition of capital offenses in the colonies. The numbers of offenses were great but mitigating circumstances often limited the executions. The first execution of record took place in Virginia in 1608. The felon was George Kendall, who was hanged for aiding the Spanish, a treasonable act. Hanging was the standard method, but slaves and Indians were often burned at the stake.
Both the state and the church favored public executions in Puritan New England. Sermons touted the importance of capital punishment to maintain good civil order and prepare the condemned to meet his maker. He was a "spectacle to the world, a warning to the vicious." Over time the event became entertainment and an occasion for a good time; much later vicious vigilante lynchings served a similar purpose. Order had to be maintained.
The American Revolution sparked an interest in re-form of the death penalty as appeals for justice and equity became public issues. William Penn and Thomas Jefferson were early critics of capital punishment. The rebellion against Great Britain was more than a mere "political" event. Encouraged by Montesquieu's writings, Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crime and Punishment (1764), and others, philosophers began the ideological critique of capital punishment. Benjamin Rush's Enquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments upon Criminals and upon Society (1787) was a pioneer effort toward reforming the method of executions.
For a time, events moved quickly in the young republic. Pennsylvania established the world's first penitentiary in 1790 and the first private execution in 1834. The adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791 set the stage for the interpretative struggle over "cruel and unusual punishment [being] inflicted." John O'Sullivan's Report in Favor of the Abolition of the Punishment of Death by Law (1841) and Lydia Maria Child's Letters From New York (1845) were important items in antebellum reform. In 1847 Michigan abolished capital punishment. But the Civil War and Reconstruction pushed the issue off the national agenda for several years.
The Supreme Court
In 1879, the Supreme Court upheld death by firing squad as constitutional in Wilkerson v. Utah. By the end of the twentieth century Utah was the only state using that method. In 1890 in re Kemmler, the Supreme Court ruled death by electric chair to be constitutional. In a sense this case validated the use of private executions over public hangings. Enamored with the wonders of electricity, Gilded Age reformers believed this method was more humane. In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber that a second attempt at execution, after a technical failure on the first try, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. On humanitarian grounds, in 1921 Nevada passed the "Humane Death Bill" permitting the use of the gas chamber. The Supreme Court approved the bill and invoked Kemmler when Gee Jon appealed it. Jon then became the first person to die in the gas chamber on 8 February 1924.
With the rise of twentieth-century communications and the civil rights movement, public opinion slowly become more critical of execution. In a multitude of cases the issue was debated on two fronts: cruel and unusual punishment and the standard of due process and equity as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Furman v. Georgia (1972) created a flurry of legislative activity with its ruling that the administration of capital punishment violated both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Other cases, such as Gregg v. Georgia and Woodson v. North Carolina (1976), further confused the complex issue by once again allowing the constitutionality of capital punishment in some cases and not in others.
As membership on the Supreme Court changed, the prospect for the national abolition of capital punishment grew dimmer. Advocates of death by lethal injection came forward and claimed the method was humane, efficient, and economical. The Supreme Court has been hesitant to make a definitive statement as to whether or not capital punishment is constitutional. The result is a sizable body of cases dealing with due process. In 1995 the number of executions reached its highest level since 1957. The Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, established in 1845, was the first national organization to fight capital punishment. Their goal has yet to be reached.
Bibliography
ABC-Clio. Crime and Punishment in America: A Historical Bibliography. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-Clio Information Services, 1984. Excellent guide to the literature.
Brandon, Craig. The Electric Chair: An Unnatural American History. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1999. A candid narrative about the place of the "chair" in America.
Friedman, Lawrence. Crime and Punishment in American History. New York: Basic Books, 1993. First-rate account.
Lifton, Robert Jay, and Greg Mitchell. Who Owns Death?: Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions. New York: William Morrow, 2000. The authors oppose capital punishment; however, the narrative regarding the conflicts among prosecutors, judges, jurors, wardens, and the public is informative.
Marquart, James W., Selfon Ekland-Olson, and Jonathan R. Sorensen. The Rope, the Chair, and the Needle: Capital Punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994. A detailed and informative state study.
Masur, Louis P. Rites of Execution: Capital Punishment and the Transformation of American Culture, 1776–1865. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. A brilliant cultural analysis.
Vila, Bryan, and Cynthia Morris, eds. Capital Punishment in the United States: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1997. With a chronology of events and basic legal and social documents, a basic source.
—Donald K. Pickens
| Columbia Encyclopedia: capital punishment |
History
Capital punishment was widely applied in ancient times; it can be found (c.1750 B.C.) in the Code of Hammurabi. From the fall of Rome to the beginnings of the modern era, capital punishment was practiced throughout Western Europe. The modern movement for the abolition of capital punishment began in the 18th cent. with the writings of Montesquieu and Voltaire, as well as Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments (1764). In Great Britain, Jeremy Bentham was influential in having the number of capital crimes reduced in the 18th and 19th cent. Some of the first countries to abolish capital punishment included Venezuela (1863), San Marino (1865), and Costa Rica (1877).
Current International Practice
As of 2004, 81 countries had entirely abolished the death penalty, including the members of the European Union. Some other countries retained capital punishment only for treason and war crimes, while in others, death remained a penalty at law, though in practice there had not been any executions for decades. Among countries that retained the death penalty for ordinary crimes were many in the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. The United States and China were believed to impose capital punishment most frequently.
In the United States
Since the 1970s almost all capital sentences in the United States have been imposed for homicide. There has been intense debate regarding the constitutionality, effect, and humanity of capital punishment; critics charge that executions are carried out inconsistently, or, more broadly, that they violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the Eighth Amendment. Supporters of the death penalty counter that this clause was not intended to prohibit executions. In the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment as then practiced was unconstitutional, because it was applied disproportionately to certain classes of defendants, notably those who were black or poor. This ruling voided the federal and state death penalty laws then in effect but left the way open for Congress or state legislatures to enact new capital punishment laws, a process that began almost immediately.
In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the court allowed capital punishment to resume in certain states; in 1977, Gary Gilmore, executed by a firing squad in Utah, became the first to die under the new laws. Today, 36 states and the federal government have reinstituted the death penalty. In 1982, Texas became the first state to execute a prisoner using lethal injection; some 75% of executions now employ this method. By 2006, however, concerns over evidence suggesting that some persons had experienced extremely painful executions due to the poor administration of the standard three-drug procedure for lethal injections led several courts to review how the injections were conducted and set stricter standards for them. In 2008 the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the three-drug method for lethal injections on the grounds that it could cause extreme pain. The gas chamber, hanging, the firing squad, and, most commonly, the electric chair are still used in some states; Florida's electrocutions, however, were heavily criticized following several grisly malfunctions, and in 2008 Nebraska's supreme court declared the electric chair to be cruel and unusual punishment. Texas easily leads all other states in the number of executions carried out, although it imposes the death penalty in murder cases less often than the national average.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for death-row prisoners to file appeals, but it also has made a few rulings that have overturned death sentences or restricted their imposition. In 1988 the Court barred the execution of juveniles who were younger that 16 when they committed a crime; a 2005 decision extended this to offenders under the age of 18. In 2002 the Court barred the execution of mentally retarded offenders, overturning its 1989 ruling on the matter. Also in the same year the Court ruled that the death penalty must be imposed through a finding of a jury and not a judge.
Studies continue to show disparities in the imposition of capital punishment (it is most likely to be imposed if the victim was white and the defendant is black, but is least likely to be imposed if both victim and defendant are black), and criticism of the practice in the United States and abroad has been increasing markedly. The use of DNA fingerprinting to exonerate persons falsely convicted of rape and other crimes also has led to calls, in some instances by supporters of the death penalty, for the reexamination of the use of an ultimately irreversible sentence, and several states have appointed commissions to examine the issue. In 2002, in a surprising and controversial move, Illinois governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all the state's death row inmates, saying that conviction errors and unfair imposition make capital punishment “arbitrary and capricious.”
Bibliography
See studies by W. Berns (1981), H. A. Bedau, ed. (1982), R. Berger (1982), F. Zimring and G. Hawkins (1987), R. Hood (1989), J. Jackson (1996), I. Solotaroff (2001), and J. Jackson, Sr., et al. (2001).
| Law Encyclopedia: Capital Punishment |
The lawful infliction of death as a punishment; the death penalty.
Capital punishment continues to be used in the United States despite controversy over its merits and over its effectiveness as a deterrent to serious crime. A sentence of death may be carried out by one of five lawful means: electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, gas chamber, and firing squad. As of 1995, thirty-eight states employed capital punishment as a sentence; twelve states — Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — and the District of Columbia did not.
The first known infliction of the death penalty in the American colonies occurred in Jamestown Colony in 1608. During the period of the Revolutionary War, capital punishment apparently was widely accepted — 162 documented executions took place in the eighteenth century. At the end of the war eleven colonies wrote new constitutions, and, although nine of them did not allow cruel and unusual punishment, all authorized capital punishment. In 1790 the First Congress enacted legislation that implemented capital punishment for the crimes of robbery, rape, murder, and forgery of public securities. The nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in the use of capital punishment with 1,391 documented executions. The death penalty continued as an acceptable practice in the United States for some time.
In 1967 a national moratorium was placed on capital punishment while the Supreme Court considered its constitutionality. In 1972 it appeared that the Court had put an end to the death penalty in the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed 2d 346, declaring certain capital punishment laws to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual because juries were applying them arbitrarily and capriciously. It appeared that Furman would mark the passing into history of capital punishment in this country.
By 1976, Georgia, Florida, and Texas had drafted new death penalty laws and this time, the Supreme Court upheld them. Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only two, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, persisted in the belief that capital punishment is unconstitutional per se. Capital punishment had survived and so had the controversies surrounding it.
Though the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution permits the use of capital punishment, decisions on this issue have divided the Court and done little to convince opponents of the death penalty's fairness. Critics have argued that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, that it is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, that it lacks a deterrent effect, and that it is just plain wrong.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments." The controversy over the constitutionality of the death penalty lies in the ambiguity of the phrase "cruel and unusual." The first meeting of Congress addressed the phrase for only a few minutes. Congressman William Smith of South Carolina foreshadowed the controversy to come when he stated that the wording of the Eighth Amendment was "too indefinite."
Whereas some argue that the phrase "cruel and unusual" refers to the type of punishment inflicted (such punishments as the severing of limbs would almost certainly be considered cruel and unusual), others feel that the phrase refers to the degree and duration of the punishment. The Supreme Court has rejected both interpretations, leaving the death penalty a legal means of punishing certain criminals.
The Fifth Amendment seems to supply a clearer basis for assuming the constitutionality of the death penalty. This amendment states that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. From this language one can conclude that with due process of law, capital punishment may be imposed.
In Furman, the justices who found the death penalty to be unconstitutional pointed to the language of the Eighth Amendment as the basis of their decision. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who filed a dissenting opinion, relied heavily upon the language of the Fifth Amendment to support his argument that the death penalty was constitutional.
Racial Bias
In 1983, Professor David C. Baldus, of the University of Iowa College of Law, published a study on the capital punishment system in the state of Georgia. The figures he assembled showed that between 1973 and 1979, killers whose victims were white were eleven times more likely to be sentenced to death than were killers whose victims were black.
Baldus's study was used by death row inmate Warren McClesky in an appeal that came before the Supreme Court (McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262). Though the Supreme Court accepted the validity of the study, it found the statistics "insufficient to demonstrate unconstitutional discrimination" or "to show irrationality, arbitrariness, and capriciousness."
Other studies have yielded equally staggering numbers regarding the statistical differences between the system's treatment of blacks and whites. For example, between 1976 and 1995, a total of 245 convicts were executed; 84 percent of their victims were white, though fewer than 50 percent of all murder victims are white. Many critics argue that statistics demonstrating racial bias in the administration of capital punishment prove that the death penalty, even if constitutional in concept, is unconstitutional as applied in the United States — violating at least the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who voted with the majority in McClesky to deny a racial bias challenge to the capital punishment system, later informed a biographer that he had since come to regret his vote.
Deterrent Effect
Since the turn of the twentieth century, many studies have been conducted on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. More often than not, the results have proved inconclusive; no hard evidence exists to verify the theory that the threat of such a harsh punishment will sway criminals from their actions. In fact, some statistics indicate that the opposite is true; in some instances, states employing capital punishment have a higher incidence of homicide than neighboring states that do not employ the death penalty.
The Supreme Court justices in the Furman case, both concurring and dissenting, often referred to studies that showed no conclusive correspondence between capital punishment and the frequency with which capital crimes were committed. A later accounting revealed that during the moratorium on capital punishment, from 1967 to 1976, the national homicide rate nearly doubled. Since then, depending on the study conducted, evidence has been presented to show that capital punishment has no deterrent effect; that the implementation of the death penalty is directly related to a decrease in capital crime; and that the implementation of the death penalty is directly related to an increase in capital crime.
Though some opponents of the death penalty are quick to argue that capital punishment has no deterrent effect, many supporters feel that the purpose of capital punishment is retribution, not deterrence. Many individuals, especially those with close ties to the victim, are more often concerned that the convicted criminal pay for the crime than that other persons be deterred through punishment of the perpetrator.
Morality and Emotion
Emotions may have played a part in the Furman decision. Burger, in his dissent, warned that the Supreme Court's "constitutional inquiry … must be divorced from personal feelings as to the morality and efficacy of the death penalty." Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who joined Burger in his dissent, later renounced his belief in the death penalty for reasons that another justice saw as partly personal.
In 1994, in Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141, 114 S. Ct. 1127, 127 L. Ed. 2d 435, Blackmun wrote a dissenting opinion in which he condemned the practice of capital punishment in the United States. Blackmun argued that "no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever [could] save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies"— "arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake." Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Blackmun's position, writing that Blackmun had based his dissent on intellectual, moral, and personal reasons, rather than on the authority of the Constitution.
Other Issues
Other controversial aspects of capital punishment disturb the public. Between 1976, when the moratorium on capital punishment was lifted, and 1995, [bl]More than fifty mentally ill or mentally impaired individuals were put to death
Nine juveniles were executed
The cost of executing a death row inmate was three to six times as much as incarcerating him or her for life without parole Despite the controversy, the constitutionality of capital punishment has been upheld and continues to be an acceptable practice in thirty-eight states, where nearly three thousand inmates waited on death row in 1995.
See: Witherspoon v. Illinois.
| Politics: capital punishment |
The infliction of the death penalty as punishment for certain crimes. (See capital offense.)
| Wikipedia: Capital punishment |
| Capital punishment |
| Issues |
| Debate · Religious views · Wrongful execution Participation of medical professionals in American executions |
| By country or region |
| Australia · Brazil · Canada · PR China · Egypt · France · Germany · India · Iran · Iraq · Italy · Japan · Malaysia · New Zealand · North Korea · Pakistan · Philippines · Poland · Russia · Romania · Singapore · South Korea · Taiwan (ROC) · Turkey · United Kingdom · United States |
| Methods |
| Decapitation · Electrocution · Firing squad · Gas chamber · Hanging · Lethal injection · Shooting · Stoning |
Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process for retribution, general deterrence, and incapacitation. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime was originally one punished by the severing of the head.
Capital punishment has been practiced in virtually every society, and thus can be considered to be a cultural universal or close to it, excluding those with state religious proscriptions against it. It is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. A major exception is in Europe, where Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the practice.[1]
Today, most countries are considered by Amnesty International as abolitionists,[2] which allowed a vote on a nonbinding resolution to the UN to promote the abolition of the death penalty.[3] But more than 60% of the worldwide population live in countries where executions take place insofar as the four most populous countries in the world (the People's Republic of China, India, United States and Indonesia) apply the death penalty and are unlikely to abolish it at any time soon. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Contents |
Execution of criminals and political opponents has been used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment it is reserved for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy in Islamic nations (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.[13]
The use of formal execution extends to the beginning of recorded history. Most historical records and various primitive tribal practices indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. Communal punishment for wrongdoing generally included compensation by the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, shunning, banishment and execution. Within a small community, crimes were rare and murder was almost always a crime of passion.[citation needed] Moreover, most would hesitate to inflict death on a member of the community.[citation needed] For this reason, execution and even banishment were extremely rare. Usually, compensation and shunning were enough as a form of justice.[14]
However, these were viewed as ineffective responses to crimes committed by outsiders. Consequently, even small crimes committed by outsiders were considered to be an assault on the community and were severely punished.[citation needed] The methods varied from beating and enslavement to executions. However, the response to crime committed by neighbouring tribes or communities included formal apology, compensation or blood feuds.
A blood feud or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common before the emergence of an arbitration system based on state or organised religion. It may result from crime, land disputes or a code of honour. "Acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies (as well as potential allies) that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished."[15] However, in practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between a war of vendetta and one of conquest.
Severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism, or necklacing.
Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds included peace settlements often done in a religious context and compensation system. Compensation was based on the principle of substitution which might include material (e.g. cattle, slave) compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human blood, or transfers of property or blood money or in some case an offer of a person for execution. The person offered for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime because the system was based on tribes, not individuals. Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as the Viking things.[16] Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts (e.g. trial by combat). One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel.
In certain parts of the world, nations in the form of ancient republics, monarchies or tribal oligarchies emerged. These nations were often united by common linguistic, religious or family ties. Moreover, expansion of these nations often occurred by conquest of neighbouring tribes or nations. Consequently, various classes of royalty, nobility, various commoners and slave emerged. Accordingly, the systems of tribal arbitration were submerged into a more unified system of justice which formalised the relation between the different "classes" rather than "tribes". The earliest and most famous example is Code of Hammurabi which set the different punishment and compensation according to the different class/group of victims and perpetrators. The Torah (Jewish Law), also known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), lays down the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, magic, violation of the Sabbath, blasphemy, and a wide range of sexual crimes, although evidence suggests that actual executions were rare.[17] A further example comes from Ancient Greece, where the Athenian legal system was first written down by Draco in about 621 BC: the death penalty was applied for a particularly wide range of crimes, though Solon later repealed Draco's code and published new laws, retaining only Draco's homicide statutes.[18] The word draconian derives from Draco's laws. The Romans also used death penalty for a wide range of offenses.[19][20]
Islam on the whole accepts capital punishment.[21] The Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad, such as Al-Mu'tadid, were often cruel in their punishments.[22] In the medieval Islamic world, there were a handful of sheikhs who were opposed to killing as a punishment.[citation needed] In the One Thousand and One Nights, also known as the Arabian Nights, the fictional storyteller Sheherazade is portrayed as being the "voice of sanity and mercy", with her philosophical position being generally opposed to punishment by death. She expresses this though several of her tales, including "The Merchant and the Jinni", "The Fisherman and the Jinni", "The Three Apples", and "The Hunchback".[23]
Similarly, in medieval and early modern Europe, before the development of modern prison systems, the death penalty was also used as a generalised form of punishment. For example, in 1700s Britain there were 222 crimes which were punishable by death, including crimes such as cutting down a tree or stealing an animal.[24] Thanks to the notorious Bloody Code, 18th century (and early 19th century) Britain was a hazardous place to live. For example, Michael Hammond and his sister, Ann, whose ages were given as 7 and 11, were reportedly hanged at King's Lynn on Wednesday, September 28, 1708 for theft. The local press did not, however, consider the executions of two children newsworthy.[25]
Although many are executed in China each year in the modern age, there was a time in Tang Dynasty China when the death penalty was abolished.[26] This was in the year 747, enacted by Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 712–756), who before was the only person in China with the authority to sentence criminals to execution. Even then capital punishment was relatively infrequent, with only 24 executions in the year 730 and 58 executions in the year 736.[26] Two hundred years later there was a form of execution called Ling Chi (slow slicing), or death by/of a thousand cuts, used in China from roughly 900 CE to its abolition in 1905.
Despite its wide use, calls for reform were not unknown. The 12th century Sephardic legal scholar, Moses Maimonides, wrote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death." He argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." His concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission.
The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nation-states. Almost fundamental to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship. This caused justice to be increasingly associated with equality and universality, which in Europe saw an emergence of the concept of natural rights. Another important aspect is that emergence of standing police forces and permanent penitential institutions. The death penalty became an increasingly unnecessary deterrent in prevention of minor crimes such as theft. The argument that deterrence, rather than retribution, is the main justification for punishment is a hallmark of the rational choice theory and can be traced to Cesare Beccaria whose well-known treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), condemned torture and the death penalty and Jeremy Bentham who twice critiqued the death penalty.[27] Additionally, in countries like Britain, law enforcement officials became alarmed when juries tended to acquit non-violent felons rather than risk a conviction that could result in execution.[citation needed] Moving executions there inside prisons and away from public view was prompted by official recognition of the phenomenon reported first by Beccaria in Italy and later by Charles Dickens and Karl Marx of increased violent criminality at the times and places of executions.
The 20th century was one of the bloodiest of the human history. Massive killing occurred as the resolution of war between nation-states. A large part of execution was summary execution of enemy combatants. Also, modern military organisations employed capital punishment as a means of maintaining military discipline. The Soviets, for example, executed 158,000 soldiers for desertion during World War II.[28] In the past, cowardice, absence without leave, desertion, insubordination, looting, shirking under enemy fire and disobeying orders were often crimes punishable by death (see decimation and running the gauntlet). One method of execution since firearms came into common use has almost invariably been firing squad. Moreover, various authoritarian states—for example those with fascist or communist governments—employed the death penalty as a potent means of political oppression. Partly as a response to such excessive punishment, civil organisations have started to place increasing emphasis on the concept of human rights and abolition of the death penalty.
Among countries around the world, almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 35 of the states), Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it. South Africa, which is probably the most developed African nation, and which has been a democracy since 1994, does not have the death penalty. This fact is currently quite controversial in that country, due to the high levels of violent crime, including murder and rape.[29]
Capital punishment is a contentious issue in some cultures. Supporters of capital punishment argue that it deters crime, prevents recidivism, that it is less expensive than life imprisonment and is an appropriate form of punishment for some crimes. Opponents of capital punishment argue that it has led to the execution of wrongfully convicted, that it discriminates against minorities and the poor, that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment, that it encourages a "culture of violence", that it is more expensive than life imprisonment,[30] and that it violates human rights. The death penalty, like some other governmental actions deemed to be in the public interest, has been particularly susceptible to the criticism that it may lead to perverse incentives and moral hazards. From the 1970s the deterrence hypothesis has been generally rejected by a consensus of justice policy researchers and academics, sometimes (data resolution allowing) in favor of a counter hypothesis of "brutalization" of public behavior.[31]
In early New England, public executions were a very solemn and sorrowful occasion, sometimes attended by large crowds, who also listened to a Gospel message[32] and remarks by local preachers and politicians. The Connecticut Courant records one such public execution on December 1, 1803, saying, "The assembly conducted through the whole in a very orderly and solemn manner, so much so, as to occasion an observing gentleman acquainted with other countries as well as this, to say that such an assembly, so decent and solemn, could not be collected anywhere but in New England."[33] Trends in most of the world have long been to move to less painful, or more humane, executions. France developed the guillotine for this reason in the final years of the 18th century while Britain banned drawing and quartering in the early 19th century. Hanging by turning the victim off a ladder or by kicking a stool or a bucket, which causes death by suffocation, was replaced by "hanging" where the subject is dropped a longer distance to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord. In the U.S., the electric chair and the gas chamber were introduced as more humane alternatives to hanging, but have been almost entirely superseded by lethal injection, which in turn has been criticised as being too painful. Nevertheless, some countries still employ slow hanging methods, beheading by sword and even stoning, although the latter is rarely employed.
The death penalty was banned in China between 747 and 759. In England, a public statement of opposition was included in The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, written in 1395. Sir Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516, debated the benefits of the death penalty in dialogue form, coming to no firm conclusion. More recent opposition to the death penalty stemmed from the book of the Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments"), published in 1764. In this book, Beccaria aimed to demonstrate not only the injustice, but even the futility from the point of view of social welfare, of torture and the death penalty. Influenced by the book, Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg, famous enlightened monarch and future Emperor of Austria, abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the first permanent abolition in modern times. On November 30, 1786, after having de facto blocked capital executions (the last was in 1769), Leopold promulgated the reform of the penal code that abolished the death penalty and ordered the destruction of all the instruments for capital execution in his land. In 2000 Tuscany's regional authorities instituted an annual holiday on November 30 to commemorate the event. The event is commemorated on this day by 300 cities around the world celebrating Cities for Life Day.
The Roman Republic banned capital punishment in 1849. Venezuela followed suit and abolished the death penalty in 1863 and San Marino did so in 1865. The last execution in San Marino had taken place in 1468. In Portugal, after legislative proposals in 1852 and 1863, the death penalty was abolished in 1867.
In the United Kingdom, it was abolished for murder (leaving only treason, piracy with violence, Arson in royal dockyards and a number of wartime military offences as capital crimes) for a five year experiment in 1965 and permanently in 1969, the last execution having taken place in 1964. It was abolished for all peacetime offences in 1998.[34]
France abolished it in 1981, Canada abolished it in 1976 and Australia in 1985. In 1977, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed in a formal resolution that throughout the world, it is desirable to "progressively restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty might be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment".[35]
In the United States, Michigan was the first state to ban the death penalty, on May 18, 1846.[36] Currently, as of March 18, 2009, 15 states of the U.S. and the District of Columbia ban capital punishment.
The latest country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes was Togo, on June 23, 2009.[37] Many Human Rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment". Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate denial of Human Rights".[38]
| Criminal procedure | ||||||
| Criminal trials and convictions | ||||||
| Rights of the accused | ||||||
| Fair trial · Speedy trial Jury trial · Counsel Presumption of innocence Exclusionary rule1 Self-incrimination Double jeopardy2 |
||||||
| Verdict | ||||||
| Conviction · Acquittal Not proven3 Directed verdict |
||||||
| Sentencing | ||||||
| Mandatory · Suspended Custodial Dangerous offender4, 5 Capital punishment Execution warrant Cruel and unusual punishment |
||||||
| Post-sentencing | ||||||
| Parole · Probation Tariff6 · Life licence6 Miscarriage of justice Exoneration · Pardon |
||||||
| Related areas of law | ||||||
| Criminal defenses Criminal law · Evidence Civil procedure |
||||||
| Portals | ||||||
| Law · Criminal justice | ||||||
|
||||||
Since World War II there has been a consistent trend towards abolishing the death penalty. In 1977, 16 countries were abolitionist. Currently, 94 countries had abolished capital punishment, 10 had done so for all offences except under special circumstances, and 35 had not used it for at least 10 years or were under a moratorium. Fifty-eight actively retained the death penalty.[39]
At least 3,000 people (and probably considerably more) were sentenced to death during 2007, and at the end of the year around 25,000 were on death row, with Pakistan and the USA accounting for about half this figure. China carries out by far the greatest number of executions: Amnesty International has confirmed at least 470 during 2007, but the true figure has been estimated at up to 6,000. Outside China, at least 800 people were put to death in 23 countries during 2007, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and the USA the main contributors. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen executed people for crimes committed when they were juveniles, in contravention of international law.[40]
Executions are known to have been carried out in the following countries in 2007:[40]
In 2007 the largest number of verifiable executions were carried out in the six countries listed below:
Most Executions carried out in 2007
| Country | Number | Executions per million people in country |
|---|---|---|
| China | 470+ (other sources est. 5,000)1 | 0.36+ (other sources est. 3.78)1 |
| Iran | 317+ | 4.50+ |
| Saudi Arabia | 143+ | 5.18+ |
| Pakistan | 135+ | 0.78+ |
| USA | 42 | 0.14 |
| Iraq | 33+ | 1.13+ |
| 1.Based on a combination of published and anecdotal evidence, Dui Hua foundation suggests the real tally in China may be as high as 5,000 (3.78 per million people)[41] | ||
In 2008 the worldwide execution rate was at least 2,390, with the top 5 nations accounting for 93% of the total (China responsible for executing approximately 1,718, Iran 346, Saudi Arabia 102, the United States 37, and Pakistan 36).[42]
The use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in retentionist countries. Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. The death penalty was overwhelmingly practiced in poor and authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratisation of Latin America swelled the rank of abolitionist countries. This was soon followed by the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, which then aspired to enter the EU. In these countries, the public support for the death penalty varies but it is decreasing.[43] The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty (see Capital punishment in Europe). On the other hand, rapid industrialisation in Asia has been increasing the number of developed retentionist countries. In these countries, the death penalty enjoys strong public support, and the matter receives little attention from the government or the media. This trend has been followed by some African and Middle Eastern countries where support for the death penalty is high.
Some countries have resumed practicing the death penalty after having suspended executions for long periods. The United States suspended executions in 1972 but resumed them in 1977; there was no execution in India between 1995 and 2004; and Sri Lanka recently declared an end to its moratorium on the death penalty, although it has not yet performed any executions. The Philippines re-introduced the death penalty in 1993 after abolishing it in 1987, but abolished it again in 2006.
Some countries that retain the death penalty for murder and other violent crimes do not execute offenders for drug-related crimes. The following is a list of countries that still have statutory provisions for the death penalty for drug-related offences.
United States (Although Federal Law provides the death penalty for certain drug offenses, no one is on death row for such offences)
Iran
Singapore
India (no execution carried out for such offences)
Kuwait
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Malaysia
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Zimbabwe
Brunei
Vietnam
Laos
Iraq
Oman
Republic of China
For further information about capital punishment in these countries or regions, see: Australia · Canada · People's Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau) · Europe · India · Iran · Iraq · Japan · New Zealand ·Pakistan· Philippines · Russia · Singapore · Taiwan · United Kingdom · United States
The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime) has become increasingly rare. Since 1990, nine countries have executed offenders who were juveniles at the time of their crimes: China, D.R. Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States and Yemen.[44] China, Pakistan, the United States and Yemen have since raised the minimum age to 18.[45] Amnesty International has recorded 61 verified executions since then, in several countries, of both juveniles and adults who had been convicted of committing their offenses as juveniles.[46] China does not allow for the execution of those under 18, but child executions have reportedly taken place.[47] The United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), and for all juveniles in Roper v. Simmons (2005). Between 2005 and May 2008, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen were reported to have executed child offenders, the most being from Iran.[48]
Starting in 1642 within British America, an estimated 365[49] juvenile offenders were executed by the states and federal government of the United States.[50] In 2002, the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the execution of individuals with mental retardation, in Atkins v. Virginia.[51]
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles under article 37(a), has been signed by all countries and ratified, except for Somalia and the United States.[52] The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights maintains that the death penalty for juveniles has become contrary to a jus cogens of customary international law. A majority of countries are also party to the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (whereas under Article 6.5 also states that "Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age...").
In Japan, the minimum age for the death penalty is 18 as mandated by the internationals standards. But under Japanese law, anyone under 20 is considered a juvenile. There are three men currently on death row for crimes they committed at age 18 or 19.
Iran, despite its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is currently the world's biggest executioner of juvenile offenders, for which it has received international condemnation; the country's record is the focus of the Stop Child Executions Campaign.
Iran accounts for two-thirds of the global total of such executions, and currently has roughly 140 people on death row for crimes committed as juveniles (up from 71 in 2007).[53][54] The past executions of Mahmoud Asgari, Ayaz Marhoni and Makwan Moloudzadeh became international symbols of Iran's child capital punishment and the judicial system that hands down such sentences.[55][56]
There is evidence that child executions are taking place in the parts of Somalia controlled by the Islamic Courts Union. In October, 2008, a girl, Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow was buried up to her neck at a football stadium, then stoned to death in front of more than 1,000 people. The stoning occurred after she had allegedly pleaded guilty to adultery in a shari`ah court in Kismayo, a city controlled by Islamist insurgents. According to the insurgents she had stated that she wanted shari`ah law to apply.[57]
However, other sources state that the victim had been crying, that she begged for mercy and had to be forced into the hole before being buried up to her neck in the ground.[58] Amnesty International later learned that the girl was in fact 13 years old (i.e., a child) and had been arrested by the al-Shabab militia after she had reported being gang-raped by three men.[59]
Methods of execution include electrocution, the firing squad or other sorts of shooting, stoning in Islamic countries, the gas chamber, hanging, and lethal injection.
Capital punishment is often the subject of controversy. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it has led to the execution of innocent people, that life imprisonment is an effective and less expensive substitute,[30] that it discriminates against minorities and the poor, and that it violates the criminal's right to life. Supporters believe that the penalty is justified for murderers by the principle of retribution, that life imprisonment is not an equally effective deterrent, and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the strictest form.
Wrongful execution is a miscarriage of justice occurring when an innocent person is put to death by capital punishment.[60] Many people have been proclaimed innocent victims of the death penalty.[61][62][63] Some have claimed that as many as 39 executions have been carried out in the U.S. in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the U.S.,[64] but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases. In the UK, reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations with compensation paid for people executed between 1950 and 1953, when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year.
In China, Japan and Singapore, the death penalty is supported because of a belief that it restores natural order.[citation needed]
In Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Western Europe, the death penalty has become widely unpopular, with the majority of the population opposing it, however certain cases of mass murder, terrorism, and child murder occasionally cause waves of support for reinstitution, such as the Greyhound bus beheading, Port Arthur massacre and Bali bombings, though these are generally emotionally based and fade away.
Abolition was often adopted due to political change, as when countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, or when it became an entry condition for the European Union. The United States is a notable exception: some states have had bans on capital punishment for decades (the earliest is Michigan, where it was abolished in 1847), while others actively use it today. The death penalty there remains a contentious issue which is hotly debated. Elsewhere, however, it is rare for the death penalty to be abolished as a result of an active public discussion of its merits.
In abolitionist countries, debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries (such as Sri Lanka and Jamaica) to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. In retentionist countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a miscarriage of justice has occurred, though this tends to cause legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to abolish the death penalty.
A Gallup International poll from 2000 said that "Worldwide support was expressed in favor of the death penalty, with just more than half (52%) indicating that they were in favour of this form of punishment." A number of other polls and studies have been done in recent years with various results
In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion.[65]
In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favour of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.[66] About half the American public says the death penalty is not imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly, according to a Gallup poll from May 2006.[67] Yet surveys also show the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with juvenile offenders.[68] Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.[69]
Support of the death penalty in 2009 is significantly lower than its peak in 1994 in the United States, though an exception would be for crimes against children, in which support for capital punishment has increased significantly.[citation needed]
The United Nations introduced a resolution during the General Assembly's 62nd sessions in 2007 calling for a universal ban.[70][71] The approval of a draft resolution by the Assembly’s third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favour of the resolution on November 15, 2007 and was put to a vote in the Assembly on December 18.[72][73][74] Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) on November 20. 105 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, 48 voted against and 31 abstained. A range of amendments proposed by a small minority of pro-death penalty countries were overwhelmingly defeated. It had in 2007 passed a non-binding resolution (by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions) by asking its member states for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".[75]
A number of regional conventions prohibit the death penalty, most notably, the Sixth Protocol (abolition in time of peace) and the Thirteenth Protocol (abolition in all circumstances) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same is also stated under the Second Protocol in the American Convention on Human Rights, which, however has not been ratified by all countries in the Americas, most notably Canada and the United States. Most relevant operative international treaties do not require its prohibition for cases of serious crime, most notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This instead has, in common with several other treaties, an optional protocol prohibiting capital punishment and promoting its wider abolition.[76]
Several international organisations have made the abolition of the death penalty (during time of peace) a requirement of membership, most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, and practices the death penalty in law, it has not made public use of it since becoming a member of the Council. Other states, while having abolished de jure the death penalty in time of peace and de facto in all circumstances, have not ratified Protocol no.13 yet and therefore have no international obligation to refrain from using the death penalty in time of war or imminent threat of war (Armenia, Latvia, Poland and Spain[77]). Italy is the most recent to ratify it, on March 3, 2009.[78]
Turkey has recently, as a move towards EU membership, undergone a reform of its legal system. Previously there was a de facto moratorium on death penalty in Turkey as the last execution took place in 1984. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February 2006. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice, all states but Russia, which has entered a moratorium, having ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practice the death penalty, the U.S. and Japan, to abolish it or lose their observer status. In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.[citation needed]
Among non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are noted for their opposition to capital punishment. A number of such NGOs, as well as trade unions, local councils and bar associations formed a World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in 2002.
There is disagreement among Buddhists as to whether or not Buddhism forbids the death penalty. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states:
Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states, "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill." These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, as is often the case with the interpretation of scripture, there is dispute on this matter. Historically, most states where the official religion is Buddhism have imposed capital punishment for some offenses. One notable exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions continued to be conducted as a form of retaliation. Japan still imposes the death penalty, although some recent justice ministers have refused to sign death warrants, citing their Buddhist beliefs as their reason.[79] Other Buddhist-majority states vary in their policy. For example, Bhutan has abolished the death penalty, but Thailand still retains it, although Buddhism is the official religion in both.
The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.[80]
Most followers of Judaism either oppose the death penalty altogether or support it only in extreme cases with absolute proof, such as well-documented cases of genocide.
In law schools everywhere, students read the famous quotation from the 12th century legal scholar, Maimonides,
Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." Maimonides was concerned about the need for the law to guard itself in public perceptions, to preserve its majesty and retain the people's respect.[81]
Scholars of Islam hold it to be permissible but the victim or the family of the victim has the right to pardon. In Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), to forbid what is not forbidden is forbidden. Consequently, it is impossible to make a case for abolition of the death penalty, which is explicitly endorsed.
Sharia Law or Islamic law may require capital punishment, there is great variation within Islamic nations as to actual capital punishment. Apostasy in Islam and stoning to death in Islam are controversial topics. Furthermore, as expressed in the Qur'an, capital punishment is condoned. Although the Qur'an prescribes the death penalty for several hadd (fixed) crimes—including rape—murder is not among them. Instead, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (wergild) as compensation.[82]
"If anyone kills person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Qur'an 5:32). "Spreading mischief in the land" can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole, and destabilise the society. Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: (1) Treason, when one helps an enemy of the Muslim community; (2) Apostasy, when one leaves the faith; (3) Land, sea, or air piracy; (4) Rape; (5) Adultery; (6) Homosexual behaviour.[83]
Although some interpret that Jesus' teachings condemn the death penalty in The Gospel of Luke and The Gospel of Matthew regarding Turning the other cheek, and John 8:7 in which Jesus intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress, rebuking the mob with the phrase "may he who is without sin cast the first stone", others consider Romans 13:3-4 to support it. Also, Leviticus 20:2-27 has a whole list of situations in which execution is supported. Christian positions on this vary.[84] The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is preached as 'Thou shalt not kill' by some denominations and as 'Thou shalt not murder' by others. As some denominations do not have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians of such denominations are free to make a personal decision.[85]
In a June, 2004 memo to the U.S. Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI (then known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made this statement : "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." [86]
The Church has traditionally accepted capital punishment as per the theology of Thomas Aquinas (who accepted the death penalty as a necessary deterrent and prevention method, but not as a means of vengeance; see also Aquinas on the death penalty).
In Evangelium Vitae, the Church teaches that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, and that with today's penal system such a situation requiring an execution is either rare or non-existent.[87] The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds a similar view [88]
The Lambeth Conference of Anglican and Episcopalian bishops condemned the death penalty in 1988:
This Conference: ... 3. Urges the Church to speak out against: ... (b) all governments who practice capital punishment, and encourages them to find alternative ways of sentencing offenders so that the divine dignity of every human being is respected and yet justice is pursued;....[89]
The United Methodist Church, along with other Methodist churches, also condemns capital punishment, saying that it cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking human life.[90] The Church also holds that the death penalty falls unfairly and unequally upon marginalised persons including the poor, the uneducated, ethnic and religious minorities, and persons with mental and emotional illnesses.[91] The General Conference of the United Methodist Church calls for its bishops to uphold opposition to capital punishment and for governments to enact an immediate moratorium on carrying out the death penalty sentence.
In a 1991 social policy statement, the ELCA officially took a stand to oppose the death penalty. It states that revenge is a primary motivation for capital punishment policy and that true healing can only take place through repentance and forgiveness.[92]
In 2000 the Southern Baptist Convention updated Baptist Faith and Message. In it the convention officially sanctioned the use of capital punishment by the State. It said that it is the duty of the state to execute those guilty of murder and that God established capital punishment in the Noahic Covenant.
Several key leaders early in the Protestant Reformation, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, followed the traditional reasoning in favour of capital punishment, and the Lutheran Church's Augsburg Confession explicitly defended it. Some Protestant groups have cited Genesis 9:5–6, Romans 13:3–4, and Leviticus 20:1–27 as the basis for permitting the death penalty.[93]
Mennonites, Church of the Brethren and Friends have opposed the death penalty since their founding, and continue to be strongly opposed to it today. These groups, along with other Christians opposed to capital punishment, have cited Christ's Sermon on the Mount (transcribed in Matthew Chapter 5–7) and Sermon on the Plain (transcribed in Luke 6:17–49). In both sermons, Christ tells his followers to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies, which these groups believe mandates nonviolence, including opposition to the death penalty.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity generally has a negative view of the death penalty, but there is little said either way in this religion.
The Rosicrucian Fellowship and many other Christian esoteric schools condemn capital punishment in all circumstances.[94][95]
| This article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links. (June 2009) |
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Capital punishment |
| Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Capital punishment |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| Witherspoon v. Illinois | |
| cruel and unusual punishment | |
| Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty |
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Encyclopedia of Judaism. The New Encyclopedia of Judaism. Copyright © 1989, 2002 by G.G. The Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | British History. A Dictionary of British History. Copyright © 2001, 2004 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Government Guide. The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more | |
![]() | Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Capital punishment". Read more |
Mentioned in