Most countries around the world have **abolished** the death penalty; meaning they *used* to have it, but have banned it, with bans generally coming into force from the 1970s-1990s. These days even countries which do allow a death penalty rarely use it.
When people discuss the pros and cons of the death penalty today, they generally argue in absolutist terms, e.g.: the risk of executing innocents, that the state shouldn’t kill its own citizens, lifetime incarceration is worse than the release of death etc. But clearly historical societies felt the death penalty *was* appropriate. So what changed in the mid-to-late 20th century to make countries favour abolishment?
In: 4
World War 2 caused a lot of death all over the world. As a consequence, the United Nations were formed. They published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Among other things, these human rights state that every person has a right to life. Many democratic states, especially European ones that were formed during that time, took this as the foundation for their political system.
A change in the philosophy of punishment.
In old European and current American ethics, the purpose of punishment after a crime is committed is retribution. The criminal has harmed society, so society harms the criminal in return. That’s why American prisons are bad places where people are sent to be punished.
In modern ethics, it is recognized that harming the criminal does not undo the crime that they have committed. Retribution’s only purpose is to maybe make the victim feel better. But building a legal and criminal system based around protecting people’s feelings is stupid. So the purpose of punishment shifts to 1) protect society by removing the criminal from it and 2) rehabilitate the criminal to fix whatever it was that made them a harm to society so they can eventually be reintroduced.
Even if the criminal cannot be rehabilitated, killing them serves no purpose that permanently imprisoning them does not. The effect is the same, they will never rejoin society and their crimes are not undone. So there’s no purpose in killing them.
Some countries abolish the death penalty because they think it is wrong or ineffective. Some reasons why countries abolish the death penalty are:
* It is irreversible and can kill innocent people. Sometimes, people who are sentenced to death are later found to be innocent or wrongly convicted. There is no way to undo the mistake or compensate them for their suffering. For example, in the USA, since 1973, at least 185 people have been exonerated from death row.
* It violates human rights and dignity. Many people believe that every human being has the right to life and the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. These rights are protected by international treaties and declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The death penalty goes against these rights because it takes away someone’s life and causes them pain and fear.
* It does not reduce crime or violence. There is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime or violence more than other punishments, such as life imprisonment. Some studies have even suggested that the death penalty may increase violence by creating a culture of revenge and brutality. For example, in Canada, after abolishing the death penalty in 1976, the homicide rate declined by 44% by 2003.
* It is unfair and discriminatory. The death penalty is often applied in an arbitrary and biased way, depending on factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, or political opinion. The death penalty also depends on the quality of legal representation, which is often poor or inadequate for poor or marginalized people. For example, in Iran, ethnic minorities such as Kurds and Baluchis face a higher risk of execution than others.
* It is brutal and inhumane. The death penalty involves killing someone in a deliberate and cold-blooded way. The methods of execution can cause severe physical and psychological suffering to the person being executed and to those who witness it. The death penalty also affects the families and friends of both the victim and the offender, who may experience trauma, grief, or guilt.
**How did the death penalty change over time?**
In medieval Europe, the death penalty was influenced by Christianity and feudalism. The church supported the death penalty as a way of protecting society from evil and maintaining God’s justice. The feudal lords used the death penalty as a way of asserting their authority and power over their subjects. The methods of execution were often public and spectacular, such as burning at the stake, beheading, or drawing and quartering.
In the modern era, the death penalty was influenced by the Enlightenment and the human rights movements. The Enlightenment thinkers challenged the traditional views of the death penalty and argued for its reform or abolition. They criticized the death penalty as irrational, barbaric, and ineffective. They also advocated for the rights of individuals and the limits of state power. The human rights movements campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty as a violation of human dignity and equality. They also exposed the flaws and abuses of the death penalty system, such as wrongful convictions, discrimination, and torture.
The abolition of the death penalty started in the 18th century in some European countries, such as Portugal (1867) or Italy (1889). The abolition movement gained momentum in the 20th century, especially after World War II and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The abolition movement also spread to other regions of the world, such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The abolition movement faced challenges and setbacks in some countries, such as the USA, China, or Iran, where the death penalty is still widely used.
The short answer for Europe: WWII
Long answer: So in Europe the groups in favour of the death penalty pre world war 2 were mostly traditionalist right leaning pro-nomian political groups and those opposed were mostly progressive reformist-protestant groups. The latter had an overlap with socialist leaning groups who opposed the death penalty in theory but supported its use (under Lenin and Stalin in “crisis / emergency periods”) in practice. During world war 2 the Nazis had effective control over most of the continent and actively courted the support of traditionalist right wing groups (after all this was how they came to power in Germany, by absorbing the (democratic) nationalist party).
After the war these groups were often accused of collaborationism/ treason, a crime which typically carried the death penalty, as a result across Europe the more right leaning groups/parties started to support abolition of the death penalty, particularly in Germany where the leadership of the reformed (anti-Nazi) national party had absorbed at lot of former rank and file working class/ right wing Nazi supporters/members but also a lot of lower middle Nazi politicians. Joining them were left leaning groups such as the communist/socialist parties, which were theoretically progressive but in reality were worried that during the cold war the death penalty would be applied to them as soviet agents/sympathisers. So they swapped from pro death penalty in some circumstances to abolition in all cases.
The only groups which stayed consistent were progressive groups who had been opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, who expanded their reach during the post war consensus and with the wide spread adoption of human rights legislation, which itself was a reaction to the Nazis inhuman actions.
This created a lot of political pressure in European countries to abolish the death penalty even in countries like the UK which never had much extremist presence. (as their right wing were anti-german and anti-nazi and left wing were more soc-dem reformers than pro soviet leftists). As a result of this the European union also included death penalty abolition as a condition of membership and so when the post soviet sates joined in the early 2000s they too abolished the death penalty.
the main thing was a change in the philosophy behind ” just punishement”
many nations came ot the conclusion that if we are to honor the universal human right to life(as stated in the UN charter) we as a society should aim ot be better than the people we need ot incarcerate. killing the people we incarcerate isnt justice, its vengeance.
you also gotta consider that in many nations that abandoned Capital punishement they done so out of necessity due to lack of political and public will to continue the practice:
– Because its been proven that capital punishement doesnt work as a deterrent for violent crime.
– its not easy to give out capital punishement if you are forced to witness the realities behind it: this is why methods like firing squads , hanging, Beheading were phased out for methods deemed ” more humane”.
the ” humane” part here has nothing to do with the confort of the person being executed or their dignitiy, its about distancing the people issuing this punishement from the reality of what they are doing(killing someone, often in a gruesome way, but masked by the method).
The death penalty has long been a tool of those that impose it to get rid of troublesome people. It was also practical as their wasn’t really alternatives (like jail, garnishing wages, etc.).
It’s bad form in western democracies to kill people that bother you, and we have lots of exciting and effective ways to punish people without it.
Modern forensic science made it easier to prove that people were innocent. That means that it was easier to prove executed people were innocent. As long as people believed that only guilty people were being killed (and thus it wouldn’t affect them) there was widespread support. Once the idea that you could be executed for something you didn’t do took hold, (and thus everyone was at risk) support fell rapidly. I’m minded of the lady who was released yesterday after 20 years for ‘murdering’ her kids – when it was discovered they just had a genetic disease. If the death penalty had been in force she would have been dead long ago.
Latest Answers