Inthe United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a pledge among nations to promote fundamental rights as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. The political elite in Europe often condemn the US as human rights violators since we still use the death penalty on murderers, which they insist is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But they couldn't be more wrong. Abolitionists interpret from Article 3 in that Declaration to proclaim each person's right to protection from deprivation of life, especially murderers!
The death penalty in Australia It is almost 40 years since the last man was hanged in Australia. Today, the death penalty has been abolished in every Australian jurisdiction. Opposition to the death penalty attracts bi-partisan political support. Yet in a region where many of our closest neighbours still maintain the death penalty, I believe Australia can - and should - take a stronger stand against state sanctioned execution.
There are many convincing Should the death penalty be mandatory against the death penalty. Our Prime Minister opposes the death penalty for 'pragmatic reasons' because 'the law makes mistakes'. The rationale that the death penalty acts as a deterrent has been discredited and dismissed.
In fact, the chilling response of one of the Bali Bombers' to his death sentence - 'it will be a martyr's death and that is what I am looking for' 2 reminds us that, for terrorists, the prospect of the death penalty may even serve as an incentive.
Ultimately, I believe, the most compelling argument against the death penalty is simply that we should respect the sanctity of human life. The belief that we should respect the inherent dignity and value of human life is the foundation of all human rights and reflects a deeply held moral vision of the type of world we want to live in.
Public servants must prepare the messy business of the termination of human life [the death penalty] is a left over from an earlier and more barbaric time'. Yet recent events - the fate of Nguyen Tuong Van and the news that members of the 'Bali nine' will face execution - confirms that even though Australia is an abolitionist country, the issue of the death penalty still concerns Australians, and, perhaps most importantly, the Australian Government.
In an era where law enforcement requires international cooperation Australian commitment to the universal abolition of the death penalty should be uncompromising - not vary from case-to-case depending on the crime, citizenship and country.
We need to make sure that our mutual assistance and agency assistance arrangements reflect Australia's commitment to abolishing the death penalty.
The question is, having set ourselves upon a path to a higher civilisation, are we prepared to go the distance?
Are we prepared to oppose the death penalty wherever and whenever it occurs? While the ICCPR recognises the right to life as a fundamental and non-derogable right, international human rights law does not require countries that retain the death penalty to abolish it, although it severely restricts its use.
However, the obligations of countries that have abolished the death penalty and ratified the Second Optional Protocol are much more stringent. As a signatory to the 2nd Optional Protocol Australia can not reintroduce the death penalty and must ensure that no one within Australia's jurisdiction is executed.
In a region where many of our nearest neighbours maintain the mandatory death penalty for a wide range of offences it is inevitable that occasionally Australians will find themselves on death row. And, in rare circumstances, Australians may find themselves facing the death penalty in a foreign country as a result of the actions of Australia.
There has, for example, been considerable media coverage about the question of whether or not the actions of the Australian Federal Police exposed members of the so-called 'Bali Nine' to the risk of the death penalty. This raises the issue of how Australia should respond to a request for assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions when providing assistance may expose a person to the risk of the death penalty.
There are two key ways in which Australia can provide a foreign country with information about a criminal investigation or prosecution. The first way is by Mutual Assistance. Mutual Assistance is a more formal process whereby Governments can ask other Governments for assistance in criminal investigation and prosecutions.
The second way is by agency to agency assistance. Under agency to agency assistance - which includes police to police assistance - Australian law enforcement agencies can share information about criminal investigations with their overseas counterparts.
Mutual Assistance Currently, section 8 1A of the Mutual Assistance Act provides that a request for mutual assistance must be refused if the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of an offence where the death penalty may be imposed unless the Attorney-General believes there are 'special circumstances' which mean that assistance should be granted.
I am concerned that section 8 1A and 8 1B of the Mutual Assistance Act do not take a strong enough stance to prevent a person being exposed to the death penalty as a result of assistance provided by Australia. While the Mutual Assistance Act offers some protection, this protection is undermined by the fact that the Act does not provide for the mandatory refusal of a request for mutual assistance in relation to an investigation which may expose a person to the risk of the death penalty.by Richard C.
Dieter, Esq. Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center June It is tempting to pretend that minorities on death row share a fate in no way connected to our own, that our treatment of them sounds no echoes beyond the chambers in which they die.
Such an illusion is ultimately corrosive, for the reverberations of injustice are not so easily confined. Qatar's death penalty laws and how they are applied, including death row and execution numbers, death-eligible crimes, methods of execution, appeals and clemency, availability of lawyers, prison conditions, ratification of international instruments, and recent developments.
Mauritanian authorities should reverse the recent adoption of a law on apostasy related crimes making the death penalty mandatory for “blasphemous speech” and “sacrilegious acts,” Updated | As Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz remains eligible for the death penalty, a Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate has call ed for a more extreme—and reportedly unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, we believe that the state should not give itself the right to kill human beings – especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the.
For people convicted of killing other people, should the death penalty be given as a form of punishment to prevent deterrence amonst future or present criminals.