Table Of ContentThis page intentionally left blank
Capital Punishment
StrategiesforAbolition
Whatarethecriticalfactorsthatdeterminewhetheracountryreplaces,
retainsorrestoresthedeathpenalty?Whydosomecountriesmaintain
thedeathpenaltyintheorybutinrealityrarelyinvokeit?Byaskingthese
questions,theeditorshopetoisolatethecoreissuesthatinfluencethe
formulationoflegislationsothattheycanbeincorporatedintostrategies
foradvisinggovernmentsconsideringchangestotheirpolicyoncapital
punishment.Theyalsoseektoredressthecurrentimbalanceinresearch,
whichtendstofocusalmostexclusivelyontheexperienceoftheUSA,
bycoveringarangeofcountriessuchasSouthKorea,Lithuania,Japan
andtheCaribbeanCommonwealth.Thisvaluablecontributiontothe
debatesaroundcapitalpunishmentcontainscontributionsfromleading
academics,campaignersandlegalpractitionersandwillbeanimportant
resource for students, academics, NGOs, policy makers, lawyers and
jurists.
is the Founder and Director of the Centre
forCapitalPunishmentStudies,WestministerUniversityLawSchool,
London.PriortojoiningWestminsterin1989hewasaProbationOfficer
forfifteenyears.Hehaspublishedextensivelyoncapitalpunishment.
. is Professor of Human Rights Law at the
National University of Ireland and Director of the Irish Centre for
HumanRights.Hehaspublishednumerousbooksandarticlesandis
editor-in-chiefofCriminalLawForum.
Capital Punishment
Strategies for Abolition
Editedby
Peter Hodgkinson and William A. Schabas
cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521815901
© Cambridge University Press 2004
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2004
isbn-13 978-0-511-18630-1 eBook (EBL)
isbn-10 0-511-18630-4
eBook (EBL)
isbn-13 978-0-521-81590-1 hardback
isbn-10 0-521-81590-8 hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Listoffigures page vii
Listoftables viii
Notesonthecontributors ix
1 Capitalpunishment:improveitorremoveit? 1
2 Internationallawandthedeathpenalty:reflectingor
promotingchange? 36
.
3 Doctorsandthedeathpenalty:ethicsandacruel
punishment 63
4 Replacingthedeathpenalty:thevexedissueof
alternativesanctions 92
5 ReligionandthedeathpenaltyintheUnitedStates:
pastandpresent 116
.
6 Onbotchedexecutions 143
. .
7 DeathasapenaltyintheShari’a¯ 169
.
8 AbolishingthedeathpenaltyintheUnitedStates:an
analysisofinstitutionalobstaclesandfutureprospects 186
v
vi Contents
9 CapitalpunishmentintheUnitedStates:moratorium
effortsandotherkeydevelopments 208
.
10 TheexperienceofLithuania’sjourneytoabolition 233
11 ThedeathpenaltyinSouthKoreaandJapan:‘Asian
values’andthedebateaboutcapitalpunishment? 253
-
12 Georgia,formerrepublicoftheUSSR:managing
abolition 273
13 CapitalpunishmentintheCommonwealth
Caribbean:colonialinheritance,colonialremedy? 282
.
14 Publicopinionandthedeathpenalty 309
.
15 Capitalpunishment:meetingtheneedsofthefamilies
ofthehomicidevictimandthecondemned 332
Index 359
Figures
10.1 Attitudestothedeathpenalty page241
10.2 Functionofthedeathpenalty 241
10.3 Institutionsthatshoulddeterminetheabolitionofthe
deathpenalty 242
10.4 Typesofcrimethatshouldbepunishedby
thedeathpenalty 243
10.5 Publicexecutionofcriminals 244
10.6 Capitalpunishmentforjuvenilesandwomen 245
10.7 Supportforthedeathpenaltyifrespondentbelieves
thatsocietyhassufficientmeansforre-socialisation
ofcriminals 245
10.8 Supportforthedeathpenaltyifrespondentbelieves
thatcriminalscanbesufficientlyisolated 246
10.9 SupportforthedeathpenaltyifallLithuania’s
neighboursdecidetoabolishit 247
10.10 ThedeathpenaltyandLithuania’sintegration
intotheEU 247
vii
Tables
3.1 The1992AMApolicyonmedicalparticipationinthe
deathpenalty page69
3.2 Elementsofdeathpenaltypolicyofselected
professionalassociations 79
6.1 BotchedexecutionsinUScapitalcases,1977to
31December2001 147
6.2 Rateofbotchedexecutionsbystate,1977
to31December2001 149
6.3 Totalexecutionsandbotchedexecutionsbymethod,
1977to31December2001 150
6.4 Numberofcasesinvolvingevidencethata
non-instantaneousand/orpainfuldeathoccurred 152
6.5 Evidenceofalingeringdeath:timeofexecution 156
10.1 NumberofexecutedcriminalsinLithuaniasince
re-establishmentofindependence 235
10.2 Numberofmurdersbetween1990and1995 235
10.3 Theattitudeoftheelitetothedeathpenalty 249
viii
Description:The editors of this study isolate the core issues influencing legislation so that they can be incorporated into strategies that advise governments in changing their policy on capital punishment. What are the critical factors determining whether a country replaces, retains or restores the death penal
