MYTH
The death penalty deters violent crime and makes society safer.
FACT
Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.
Evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. Many people have argued that abolishing the death penalty leads to higher crime rates, but studies in the USA and Canada, for instance, do not back this up. In 2004 in the USA, the average murder rate for states that used the death penalty was 5.71 per 100,000 of the population as against 4.02 per 100,000 in states that did not use it. In 2003 in Canada, 27 years after the country abolished the death penalty the murder rate had fallen by 44 per cent since 1975, when capital punishment was still enforced. Far from making society safer, the death penalty has been shown to have a brutalizing effect on society. State sanctioned killing only serves to endorse the use of force and to continue the cycle of violence.
It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill. Amnesty International has found that at least one in 10 of the prisoners put to death in the USA since 1977 had suffered from serious mental disorders rendering them unable to rationally comprehend their death sentence, its reasons or its implications. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.
The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.
MYTH
The death penalty reduces drug crime.
FACT
In March 2008, the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the use of the death penalty for drugs offences: “Although drugs kill, I don’t believe we need to kill because of drugs.” The use of the death penalty for drug offences is a violation of international law. Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” In April 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, acting as an expert witness in a challenge to Indonesia’s Constitution, told the Constitutional Court that “[d]eath is not an appropriate response to the crime of drug trafficking.” Apart from Indonesia, China, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia Singapore and Thailand are some of the countries which execute people for drug offences. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of the death penalty for such crimes acts as a stronger deterrent than long terms of imprisonment.
MYTH
A person who commits an horrendous crime or who kills another individual deserves to die.
FACT
An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.
Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.
In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
MYTH
The worldwide moratorium on capital punishment is in effect another attempt by the West to "impose their cultural values on us".
FACT
Amnesty International welcomes the multiplicity of discourses on human rights grounded in different cultures and religions and believes that different visions contribute to our understanding of human rights. At the same time, the organization believes that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. Although they may have been often developed in a Western context, they are not Western in content but derive from many different traditions and are acknowledged by all the members of the United Nations as the standards by which they have agreed to abide.
It should be noted that the numerous nations who have abandoned the use of capital punishment come from differing regions and cultures. It therefore cannot be claimed that abolition of the death penalty is solely advocated by one section of world society.
MYTH
The threat of execution is an effective strategy in preventing terrorism.
FACT
Those people willing to commit large-scale acts of violence aimed at inflicting terror upon a society do so knowing that they could come to serious physical harm and therefore show little or no regard for their own safety. Executions of such people often provide welcome publicity for the groups they belong to and create martyrs around which further support may be rallied for their cause. Yet many countries have attempted to control terrorism by using the death penalty. In November 2005, Iraq passed the Iraqi Anti Terrorism Law. This law provides only a vague definition of terrorism and lists a number of terrorist acts all of which – even those where there has been no loss of life – carry the death penalty. Scores of executions have been carried out in Iraq under this and other laws.
MYTH
The death penalty is fine as long as the majority of the public support it.
FACT
Amnesty International recognizes the right of nations to create laws. However, such laws must be formulated within the boundaries of respect for human rights. History is littered with human rights violations that were supported by the majority but in modern times are looked upon with horror. Slavery, racial segregation and lynching all had widespread support in the societies where they occurred but constituted gross violations of the victims’ human rights.
It is understandable that populations look to their leaders to take decisive action against violence, and express anger at those guilty of brutal crimes. Amnesty International believes politicians should lead the way in standing up for human rights by opposing the death penalty and explaining to their constituents why such actions cannot be undertaken by the state.
After more than 30 years of research on the death penalty, Amnesty International believes that public support for capital punishment is overwhelmingly based on a desire to be free from crime. This is illustrated by polls in the USA and other countries which show significant drops in support for the death penalty when life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is offered as an alternative. In the USA, a May 2006 poll by the Gallup Company found support for the death penalty dropped from 65 per cent to 48 per cent when life imprisonment without parole was offered as an option.
MYTH
Executions provide the most cost-effective solution to violent crime.
FACT
A society cannot condone violence and sacrifice human rights as a cost-cutting measure. The decision to take a human life should not rest on financial motives. Using the death penalty to reduce prison populations is futile. For example, the USA has a prison population of approximately 2.2 million but only around 3,000 prisoners are condemned to death. If the entire population of death row were executed, it would make no discernible difference to the prison population.
MYTH
The lethal injection is the most painless and humane way to kill an individual.
FACT
Problems have arisen in the use of lethal injection. In the first lethal injection execution in Guatemala on 10 February 1998, those charged with carrying out the lethal injection against Manuel Martínez Coronado were apparently so nervous (reportedly due in part to the distressing sounds of the prisoner's wife and children weeping) that it took them a long time to attach the line that was to deliver the poison. Then a power cut during the execution stopped the flow of poison and it took the prisoner 18 minutes to die. The entire ordeal was broadcast live on state television. In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched, with problems arising when the prisoner's veins are in poor condition due to intravenous drug use.
The recent case of Romell Broom, a 53-year-old male African American was subjected to a failed attempt by the State of Ohio to execute him by lethal injection. On 18 September, Romell Broom’s lawyers filed a lawsuit in the District Court aimed at preventing the State of Ohio from ever trying to execute him again, or at least “from trying again using the same flawed and unconstitutional procedures and protocols they used on September 15, 2009.” They argued that the failed attempt, in which the execution team repeatedly tried and failed to find a useable vein through which to lethally inject the prisoner, “was a form of torture that exposed Broom to the prospect of a slow, lingering death”. Romell Broom has signed an affidavit recalling the state’s attempt to execute him. (See “Stay Extended Following Failed Execution” for details, or refer to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/104/2009/en).
The USA introduced execution by lethal injection almost 30 years ago, applying it for the first time in 1982. Since then, nearly 900 prisoners have been killed by this method in the USA, and it has all but replaced the alternative methods- electric chair, hanging, gassing and shooting. Nearly 20 years after its introduction into USA law, lethal injection was adopted by China, Guatemala, the Philippines (although the Philippines abolished the death penalty in June 2006), Taiwan and Thailand.
Lethal injection avoids many of the unpleasant effects of other forms of execution: bodily mutilation and bleeding due to decapitation, smell of burning flesh in electrocution, disturbing sights and/or sounds in lethal gassing and hanging, the problem of involuntary defecation and urination. For this reason it may be less unpleasant for those involved in carrying out the execution. However, lethal injection increases the risk that medical personnel will be involved in killing for the state, in breach of long-standing principles of medical ethics.
Any form of execution is inhumane. All known methods can be painful and have their own unpleasant characteristics. Moreover, it must be remembered the death penalty is not only about the minutes during which the prisoner is brought from the cell and killed; a prisoner lives with the penalty of death hanging over their head from the moment he or she is sentenced to the moment of unconsciousness and death.
The search for a "humane" way of killing people should be seen for what it is – a search to make executions more palatable to those carrying out the killing, to the governments which wish to appear humane, and to the public in whose name the killing is to be carried out.
Case Scenario
STAY EXTENDED FOLLOWING FAILED EXECUTION
A US federal judge has extended a stay of execution in the case of Romell Broom by two months. Romell Broom, a 53-year-old male African American death row prisoner, was subjected to a failed attempt by the State of Ohio to kill him by lethal injection on 15 September.
Judge Gregory Frost on the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a temporary restraining order on 18 September, staying Romell Broom’s execution until 28 September. In an order on 22 September, Judge Frost extended this restraining order by two months. This order currently expires at 11.59 pm on 30 November 2009.
On 18 September, Romell Broom’s lawyers filed a lawsuit in the District Court aimed at preventing the State of Ohio from ever trying to execute him again, or at least “from trying again using the same flawed and unconstitutional procedures and protocols they used on September 15, 2009.” They argued that the failed attempt, in which the execution team repeatedly tried and failed to find a useable vein through which to lethally inject the prisoner, “was a form of torture that exposed Broom to the prospect of a slow, lingering death”. Among other things, the lawsuit also argues that prior to the execution attempt, “Broom was denied the right to consult with his counsel privately” and that after it became apparent that the execution process was going awry, his lawyer was denied access to her client and he was denied access to her. Romell Broom has signed an affidavit recalling the state’s attempt to execute him (see overleaf).
Romell Broom has been on death row for nearly a quarter of a century. He was sentenced to death in 1985 for the rape and murder of 14-year-old Tryna Middleton in September 1984. After the death sentence was upheld on appeal, Romell Broom sought to join an ongoing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s lethal injection process. However, the courts dismissed his attempt, ruling that the challenge should have been made earlier.
STAY EXTENDED FOLLOWING FAILED EXECUTION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In an affidavit on 17 September, Romell Broom described what happened to him two days earlier as the state prepared to kill him. He recalls that after his final federal appeal had been denied, the warden of the prison had come to his cell and “read the death warrant to me”. After this, two nurses had proceeded to try to find useable veins: “The female nurse tried three separate times to access veins in the middle of my left arm. The male nurse tried three separate times to access veins three times in the middle of my right arm. After those six attempts, the nurses told me to take a break”.
After a break of about two and a half minutes, the female nurse again tried to access a vein in Broom’s left arm. He recalls that “she must have hit a muscle because the pain made me scream out loud”. The male nurse then again turned to the right arm. At first he was able to access a vein, but when he attempted to insert the intravenous (IV) line, “but he lost it and blood started to run down my arm”. The team then took another break, by which point, Romell Broom says he “was in a great deal of pain”.
After applying hot towels to and massaging Romell Broom’s left arm, the male nurse “attempted to access my veins once in the middle of my left arm, and three more times in my left hand”. Romell Broom recalls that the nurse commented that “heroin use affected my veins”: “I was upset with this comment because I never used heroin or any intravenous drugs”.
Romell Broom’s affidavit continues by stating that he had tried to assist the execution team “by helping to tie my own arm”, and “a correction officer came over, tapped on my hand to indicate that he also saw the vein and attempted to help the nurse locate the vein”. The affidavit recalls that then “the death squad leader advised me that we were going to take another break and again told me to relax”, at which point “I became very upset. I began to cry because I was in pain and my arms were swelling. The nurses were placing needles in areas that were already bruised and swollen.” Romell Broom asked to be allowed to speak to his lawyer, but this request was denied.
Romell Broom states that the “head nurse” then came into the room and “attempted to access veins in my right ankle”. The needle apparently hit a bone and “was very painful”. The head nurse then attempted to access a vein in the lower part of Broom’s left leg, at the same time as the male nurse tried to access on in Broom’s right ankle. After these attempts failed, the head nurse left the room, taking a needle with her. The male nurse then twice attempted to locate access veins in Broom’s right hand. At this stage, according to Romell Broom, “it appeared as though they had given up on the left arm because at that point it was bruised and swollen.” The level of pain, he requires, “was at its maximum” at this stage: “I had been poked at least 18 times in multiple areas”. The execution attempt was then discontinued.
At that point, Romell Broom was facing an execution date of 22 September. His affidavit states: “Waiting to be executed again is anguishing. It is very stressful to think about the fact that the State of Ohio intends to cause me the same physical pain next week. I am constantly reminded of the fact that next week I will have to undergo the same torture that the State of Ohio exacted on me on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 because there has been no change to Ohio’s execution protocol, and there has been no change to my veins”.
UA: 245/09 Index: AMR 51/105/2009 Issue Date: 24 September 2009
What do you think about the death penalty? Please send your feedback to
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it