Death penalty Essay -- essays research papers

Fifty years after the borrowing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the trend towards worldwide abolition of the finis penalty is unmistakable. When the Declaration was adopted in 1948, eight countries had abolished the finis penalty for all detestations today, as of November 1998, the number stands at 63. More than half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, and the numbers continue to grow.Amnesty International opposes the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human justs - the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, moth-eaten or degrading punishment. Both of these rights be recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other world(prenominal) and regional human rights instruments and national constitutions and laws.Defense of life and defense of the dry land may be held to justify, in some cases, the taking of life by state officials for example, when law-enforcement officials must a ct immediately to save their mould lives or those of others or when a country is engaged in armed conflict. even up in such situations the use of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted standards of human rights and humanitarian law to inhibit abuse.The death penalty, however, is not an act of defense against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated cleaning of a prisoner for the purpose of punishment - a purpose that dissolve be met by other means.The cruelty of the death penalty is obvious not only in the execution but in the sequence spent under sentence of death, during which the prisoner is constantly contemplating his or her own death at the hands of the state. This cruelty cannot be justified, no subject how cruel the crime of which the prisoner has been convicted.The cruelty of the death penalty extends beyond the prisoner to the prisoners family, to the prison guards and to the officials who have to carry out an execution. Information from diverse parts of the world shows that the role of an executioner can be late disturbing, even traumatic. The right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment ar the two human rights well-nigh often cited in debates about the death penalty. But the death penalty also attacks other rights.In many cases prisoners are sentenced to death in trials which do not conform to int... ...ting the public on the uncertainty of the baulk effect of capital punishment. A better public understanding of crime prevention and criminal justice would produce more support for anti-crime measures which are genuine and not merely palliative. At the very least, politicians should not make demagogic calls for the death penalty, misleading the public and obscuring the need for genuine anti-crime measures. often the national debate on the death penalty is conducted in purely national terms. The international dimension needs to be brought in. Countries can assume f rom other countries experience.Over the centuries, laws and public attitudes relating to torture have evolved. It is no thirster permissible to use thumbscrews or the rack as legally basic means of interrogation and punishment. Attitudes toward the death penalty are also changing, and bringing about abolition requires courageous political leadership, leadership that will be exercised in the defense of human rights. The requirement of delight in for human rights has to take on the abolition of the death penalty. It is not possible for a government to respect human rights and retain the death penalty at the same time.