Death Penalty

OVERVIEW

When a serious crime occurs, society often clamors for the death penalty against the perpetrators, believing that such events will not recur once the offender is executed. Amnesty International respects these opinions as part of democratic discourse. However, we believe that in reality, crime and violence will persist — only with new perpetrators.

Amnesty International raises awareness about the death penalty with the aim of promoting a sustainable, effective crime prevention system and supporting an efficient justice process to reduce violence and prevent future offenses. Our work is not about helping murderers, as is often misunderstood or alleged.

The death penalty is a premeditated, cold-blooded act of killing by the state — a punishment that is cruel, inhuman, and an affront to human dignity, often carried out in the name of “justice.”

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally — regardless of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method of execution. Extensive research from around the world clearly shows that there is no conclusive correlation between the death penalty and crime rates.

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by states as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, people are served death sentences for drug-related offences, which are not crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed under international law and standards. In others, this cruel punishment is reserved for security offences and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 when the crime for which they have been convicted was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities. In many instances the death penalty has been imposed after unfair trials and appeals – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time. Secretive state practices also means that we still do not know exactly how many people are executed each year in several countries – including China.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.
The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

Our campaigning against this abhorrent punishment works. We will continue until we have put an end to the death penalty.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General, Amnesty International

113

countries had abolished the death penalty in law by the end of 2024

1,518

the number of executions Amnesty International recorded in 2024 – up 32% from 2023

1,000S

of people were likely executed in China but the numbers remain classified

ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Pressure for the abolition of the death penalty in Japan intensified after the death sentence of an 88-year-old man, who had spent more than 45 years on death row, was overturned after a judge found that evidence in his original trial for murder was fabricated.

Public executions continued in Afghanistan, and there were reports that the Taliban may resume the stoning to death of women for “adultery”.

Executions of people convicted of drug-related offences continued in several countries, including China and Singapore. The extent to which the death penalty was used in China, North Korea and Viet Nam remained unknown, but was believed to be extensive. A new law in China placed further restrictions on disclosing information about the practice and new judicial guidance encouraged the use of the death penalty against individuals supporting Taiwanese independence.

Within ASEAN, according to Amnesty International Global Report: Death Sentences and Executions 2023, it is specified that execution figures remain a state secret in Vietnam, in Singapore, executions dropped from 11 in 2022 to 5 in 2023, in Malaysia, at least 18 new death sentences were recorded before the mandatory death penalty was repealed on July 4, 2023. On 11 May, the State Administration Council of Myanmar adopted the Arms Act, which makes the unlawful possession of a weapon belonging to the state punishable by death.

Thailand, as of March 31, 2025, 383 people were on death row — 344 men and 39 women. Of these, 82.91% were convicted of drug-related offenses.

JUVENILE EXECUTIONS

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still resort to the death penalty in these situations. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 176 executions of people who were below the age of 18, in 11 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many people who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime as the other ten countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 122 of them since 1990.

EXECUTION METHODS USED IN 2024

Beheading
Hanging
Lethal injection
Shooting
Nitrogen gas asphyxiation

WHERE DO MOST EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE?

In 2024, the countries with the highest number of executions were China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 1,518 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 87% of all reported executions took place in just two countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2010-2024

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in April 2025

HOW MANY DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR?

Death sentences

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,087 in 46 countries in 2024. At least 28,085 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2024.

Executions

Amnesty International recorded at least 1,518 executions in 15 countries in 2024, up by 32% from 2023.

WHY SHOULD THE DEATH PENALTY BE ABOLISHED?

The death penalty is irreversible and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 200 people sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

The death penalty does not deter crime

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

The death penalty is often used within skewed justice systems

In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

The death penalty is discriminatory

The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

The death penalty is used as a political tool

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia, use the death penalty to punish political opponents or quash dissent.

CASE STUDY: TAKING A STAND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

It’s critical to act because every two months the state executes someone else. It’s an issue of life and death.
TJ Riggs

Twenty-year-old TJ Riggs is a student at Samford University and Amnesty International’s Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator in Alabama. He is passionate about fighting for those on death row, racial justice in the US state and the power of letter writing

TJ has been campaigning on behalf of Rocky Myers, a Black man with an intellectual disability, who was under sentence of death for murder, despite no evidence directly linking him to the crime scene and the retracted statement of a key witness. The judge imposed a death sentence against the jury’s wishes. He was later abandoned by his lawyer, missing key deadlines to appeal for review at federal level. Racism and socio-economic bias affected proceedings against him.

“In my freshman year of college at Samford University, I was tasked with taking over our chapter of Amnesty International. Student groups do all sorts of different activism. I really got involved and plugged into the Alabama death penalty network. After that initial year of being president of the student chapter, I was asked to apply and serve in the role of Amnesty’s Alabama State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator.

Alabama is in a uniquely bad state for executions, especially recently in terms of both legislation and in terms of process. There are things happening in this state that weren’t happening in other states, and Alabama is changing the norm on capital punishment in a way that unfortunately is being modelled by other state governments. It’s critical to act because every two months the state executes someone else. It’s an issue of life and death.

However, I firmly believe that change is possible. One of the best parts about the job is how well connected and organized Alabama death penalty activism is. There are a lot of organizations in the state that are really dedicated to fighting the death penalty and to fighting Alabama’s long history of racial injustice, specifically when it comes to how the justice system operates in terms of the death penalty.

For those who want to support Amnesty’s campaign to end the death penalty, write a letter to someone on death row. Write a letter to our government. I’ve written countless letters at this point, and I think a lot of people in this state have.”

AMNESTY’S FAQ ON THE DEATH PENALTY

When a serious, shocking, and heinous crime occurs, it is common to hear and see calls from the media, public figures, the general public, and political leaders to enforce the death penalty. This stems from the belief that such a severe punishment can deter and prevent future crimes. In reality, however, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is an effective solution to crime.

On the contrary, studies from many countries indicate that the death penalty has no correlation with increases or decreases in crime rates. For example, a comprehensive United Nations study on the relationship between the death penalty and homicide rates concluded that: “The research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely ever to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis.”

October 10 is observed every year as the World Day Against the Death Penalty, established to promote awareness and understanding of death penalty issues. The death penalty violates the most fundamental human right — the right to life — and constitutes both physical and psychological torture for all those involved.

We take this opportunity to answer some of the most frequently asked questions from the public, in the hope of fostering better understanding about the campaign to End the Death Penalty, encouraging constructive dialogue, and inspiring proposals from all sectors to help guide justice system reform and work together toward sustainable solutions.

Q: Why does Amnesty oppose the death penalty? Is Amnesty supporting criminals?

A: Amnesty calls for abolition to promote a fair and preventive justice system, prevent repeat offenses, and reduce violence sustainably. We do not support criminals, but stand for human rights, especially the right to life — enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The death penalty is a premeditated, cold-blooded act of killing by the state — a punishment that is cruel, inhuman, and an affront to human dignity, often carried out in the name of “justice.”

Q: Is opposing the death penalty disrespectful to victims and their families?

A: Amnesty International’s opposition to the death penalty does not mean that we are lenient toward, or forgiving of, those who commit crimes. Offenders must go through a fair judicial process, but we call for changes to the form and method of punishment. Our stance is not aimed at downplaying or ignoring the seriousness of criminal acts.

Victims of human rights violations are at the heart of Amnesty’s work. It would therefore be unreasonable for Amnesty to disregard the suffering of victims’ families. We deeply sympathize with, and extend our condolences to, all parties involved. However, the cruel nature and irreversible consequences of the death penalty make this method incompatible with modern norms. The death penalty is an inappropriate and unacceptable way to address serious crime.

Q: For those who commit serious crimes or kill others, isn’t it only right that they should die?

A: We cannot stop killers by killing them — even if it is done in the name of justice. When we do so, the state, or we ourselves, are behaving no differently from the killer.

Moreover, criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system in the world is so fair and flawless that it can justly decide who deserves to live and who should die. Rushed decision-making influenced by personal judgment and public opinion can affect the entire process — from the initial arrest to the final appeal for a pardon.

When the death penalty is applied, there will inevitably be cases where some people are executed while others who have committed similar or even more serious crimes escape punishment. Those executed may not, in fact, have been the most serious offenders to begin with. Many are poor and unable to afford legal representation, or they may have been victims of errors or injustices in the process.

Q: Is it not necessary to execute certain prisoners to prevent them from reoffending?

A: In reality, there is no evidence proving that the death penalty can prevent reoffending. In practice, we apply the death penalty to prisoners who are already in custody, separated from society, and confined in prison. It is therefore unlikely that such prisoners would be able to commit further violence in society. For this reason, using the death penalty as a preventive measure is unnecessary. Moreover, it can lead to irreversible miscarriages of justice, with the risk that some prisoners who are actually innocent may be executed.

Logically speaking, we cannot truly assess whether those sentenced to death would reoffend, because execution takes away their lives, which in theory means they no longer have the opportunity to do anything — whether good or bad. It also goes against the principle of rehabilitating offenders.

Some may argue that imprisonment alone cannot prevent former inmates from reoffending once they are released. The answer lies in reviewing the procedures for granting pardons. In many countries, there are strict assessment processes to evaluate a prisoner’s readiness before allowing them to reintegrate into society, with the aim of preventing repeat offenses.

Q: Is it true that only guilty people are sentenced to death or executed?

A: Shockingly, many innocent people have been executed. In the United States, DNA testing of death row prisoners has revealed that a significant number of them were, in fact, innocent. In Japan, there is the famous case of Iwao Hakamada, a former professional boxer who became the longest-serving death row inmate in the world, spending 46 years awaiting execution. He was convicted of robbing and murdering his employer, the employer’s wife, and two children, before setting their house on fire in Shizuoka Prefecture, central Japan, in 1966. He was arrested and detained that same year. Initially, he denied all charges but later confessed after 20 days of interrogation. During the trial, the presiding judge was in the process of writing a “not guilty” verdict, but a senior judge forced him to pass a guilty verdict and impose the death penalty. The police and the prosecutor in this case were closely connected and wanted the case to proceed smoothly. Unable to live with the guilt, the judge who had been coerced resigned six months after the verdict.

In principle, when accused of a crime, a defendant has the right to a fair trial. A defendant who is denied proper legal proceedings in a criminal trial, or subjected to an unfair trial, is effectively denied justice. This violates international standards, the rule of law, and the rights to life, to a fair trial, and to be free from torture and other cruel treatment.

The decision on who is executed and who is spared often depends not on the severity of the crime but on factors such as race or other identities, economic or social status, the defendant’s ability to understand and navigate the trial process, or whether they have sufficient legal representation and access to a competent lawyer. Other factors may also influence a defendant’s ability to challenge the injustices of a criminal justice system that can push them toward death.

Therefore, abolishing the death penalty guarantees that no innocent person will ever be executed again. We call on all states to implement measures to halt executions while working toward complete abolition. Abolishing the death penalty demonstrates a society’s commitment to justice and fairness — far better than offering an apology after a wrongful execution, because no apology can revive a human life.

Q: Isn’t the death penalty a way to bring justice to the victim’s family?

A: When violence occurs in any family, resulting in the loss of a loved one, the state’s urgent duty is to bring the perpetrator to justice. This process must be transparent, swift, accurate, and fair, ensuring that no offender goes unpunished. The faster and fairer the justice process is, the more it can help heal the victims, survivors, and their families.

In addition, what bereaved families need after losing their loved ones is long‑term financial assistance and psychological support. The latter, in particular, is something the state must take seriously, as many families remain unable to recover emotionally even years after the incident.

The state should deliver justice, not revenge. Victims and their families deserve justice. Calling for the abolition of the death penalty does not mean forbidding punishment for offenders — we reiterate that those who commit crimes must be punished and brought to a fair trial. However, the government should not exploit the grief and anger of victims’ families as a justification for violating the human rights of those convicted, nor should it perpetuate the cycle of violence in society.

Many families of crime victims have joined anti–death penalty campaigns over the years, showing that not all victim families support capital punishment; some even feel remorse over the execution of perpetrators. Furthermore, in some countries that have abolished the death penalty, the state provides financial assistance to the families of crime victims — showing that society can respond to violence in more constructive and appropriate ways.

Q: If there’s no death penalty, what should be done with offenders?

A: In many countries without the death penalty, great importance is placed on crime prevention — finding ways to stop such crimes from happening again. When crimes do occur, authorities analyze the causes and the offender’s background from every possible angle, conduct research into root causes, and implement solutions. At the same time, offenders must undergo rehabilitation so they can return to society as reformed individuals rather than repeat offenders. While no system can completely eliminate crime, as members of society, we should work together to make our communities safer and reduce crime.

Norway, for example, does not focus solely on punishment but on restoring justice to society — asking how communities can return to normal, how victims’ families can recover, and how offenders can be rehabilitated. One prisoner recounted being sent to live in the mountains without fences, surrounded by nature, and upon returning to society, being closely monitored and supported. Offenders are not released until they are certified as ready.

Q: If prisoners are released and reoffend, isn’t execution the best solution?

A: We need a new perspective on offenders — not just viewing them as villains who deserve harsh punishment, but recognizing that they are also products of the same society we live in. Punishment should aim to repair and rehabilitate, not to exact revenge. When someone commits a crime, it signals that something in our society has gone wrong. The solution is not to remove them from society permanently, but to identify and fix the underlying problems.

Of course, what these individuals did was wrong, and the state must urgently bring them to justice through a process that is transparent, swift, accurate, and fair. The more just and efficient the process, the better it can serve as a form of healing for victims, survivors, and their families.

As for demands to execute those with heinous behavior — yes, everyone feels anger and hatred toward what they have done. But if we truly abhor their actions, we should not commit the same act ourselves. Otherwise, we become no different from them — “criminals” who simply delegate the act of killing to an executioner.

Q: Is the campaign to abolish the death penalty an attempt by Western countries to “impose their cultural values” on us?

A: Amnesty International welcomes the fact that many cultures and religions have teachings related to human rights in various ways, and we believe these teachings can foster greater understanding of human rights. At the same time, we believe that human rights are universal, interdependent, and indivisible.While human rights concepts may have developed within a Western context, they are not exclusive to Western culture — they have also been shaped by diverse traditions worldwide, and all UN member states have accepted them as standards and committed to upholding them.

It is worth noting that many countries that have abolished the death penalty have different religions and cultures, so it cannot be said that abolition is solely an agenda pushed by people from one region of the world.

WHAT IS AMNESTY CALLING FOR?

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, without exception — regardless of the type of crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method of execution. Numerous studies from around the world clearly show that the death penalty has no correlation with increases or decreases in crime rates.

WHAT IS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DOING TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY?

For over 45 years, Amnesty International has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty International monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty International’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2024, was released in April 2025.

The organization’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia , and Middle East and North Africa regions; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions by the UN General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and applying pressure on behalf of people facing imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty International started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 113 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CALLS ON THE THAI GOVERNMENT TO:

Officially declare an immediate moratorium on executions in practice, in line with the 3rd National Human Rights Master Plan, with the intention of ultimately enacting legislation to abolish the death penalty.
Amend laws to reduce the number of offenses punishable by death.
Sign and ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims to abolish the death penalty.
Governments retaining the death penalty must take urgent steps to abolish it and, in the meantime, establish an official moratorium on executions.

Death penalty