Death Pentalty in the World Today

1. Introduction

Capital punishment or the death penalty is a person who is put to death by the state as a punishment as a legal process for a crime. While the person actual process of killing is an execution, the manner is a death sentence that someone be punished by the judicial decree. Currently there are 58 nations practice capital punishment, 97 countries have abolished it, and the remainders have not used it for 10 years or allow it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime. It is a matter of active in various nations and states, positions and culture region.

There are 2 of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment. Currently most countries abolished capital punishment. Although many nations have abolished, over 60% of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place, such as the people’s republic of china, India, the United States of America and Indonesia. In most places that practice capital punishment for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes, such as apostasy in Islamic nations (the formal renunciation of the state religion). In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is also a capital offence. In china, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are punished by the capital punishment.

In militaries around the world courts- martial have imposed death sentences for offences such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny. Life imprisonment also named as a life sentence is a punishment for a serious crime which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life or until paroled. Examples of crimes for which a person could receive this sentence include murder, severe child abuse, rape, and high treason, severe or violent cases of drug dealing or human trafficking, or robbery resulting in death or grievous bodily harm. This sentence does not exist in all nations. Portugal was the first country in the world to abolish life imprisonment.

The convict could spend rest of the sentence, until he or she dies; early release is usually depending on past and future conduct, possibly with certain restrictions or obligations. In contrast, when a fixed term of imprisonment has ended, the convict is free. The length of time convicts are entitled to stay usually several decades, after this period, the court will review the sentence to determine whether or not it should be reduced. Life imprisonment in Australia is carried out for serious offences including treason, murder, and commercial drug trafficking by the state and territory supreme courts in Australia. In New South Wales, the average prison term for murder is 25 years; there are only four people received life sentences for murder in 2009 and non in 2010. Incarceration is the detention of a person in prison, typically as punishment for conviction of committing a crime. It serves four essential purposes with regard to criminals:

• To isolate criminals to prevent them from committing more crimes
• To punish criminals for committing crimes
• To deter others from committing crimes
• To rehabilitate criminals

In 2006 the incarceration rate in Australia, was 163 prisoners per 100,000. Probation is what occurs when a criminal offender has been released into the community under supervision. It is the most common form of criminal punishment. Parole is what occurs when a criminal offender has already served some portion of his prison sentence, and has been permitted to serve the rest of his sentence in the community with supervision. Under probation and parole, offenders receive community supervision. The Department of Corrective Services manages around 9000 adult offenders at any one time.

Between 4000-4500 of these offenders are completing their sentence in the community. Probation and Parole staff contribute to community safety through effective and responsible offender management which focuses on reducing reoffending. Death penalty in the world in history is that the first death penalty law is established as far back as the eighteenth century B.C. in the code of king Hammurabi of Babylon, which identified the death penalty for 25 different crimes, but not included murder. Death sentences were carried out by methods such as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.

In the tenth century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain. For in the sixteenth century, some common methods of execution at that time were boiling, burning at the state, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering. Several historical penalties including breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slaw slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, neck lacing or blowing from a gun. Among countries around the world, almost al European and many pacific area states and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States, the federal government and 33 of the states, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia, for example, Japan and India and Africa, such as Botswana and Zambia retain it. Global facts and figures

• At least 18,750 people were on death row at the end of 2011
• At least 676 people were executed in 20 countries in 2011

Most executions took place in China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, USA and Yemen China executed more people than the rest of the world put together In the Middle East, the number of confirmed executions increased by almost 50 percent During 2011, only 20 out of 198 countries carried out executions Foreign nationals were disproportionately affected by the use of the death penalty In Belarus and Vietnam prisoners were not informed of their forthcoming execution Public executions were known to have been carried out in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Somalia Death penalty in Australia is that capital punishment has been formally abolished in Australia. Ronald Ryan was hanged in Victoria, who was the last of 114 people executed in 1967 since 20th century, and prior to his execution, Queensland and New South Wales had already abolished the death penalty for murder. Brenda Hodge became the last person sentenced to death in August 1984, she was commuted to life imprisonment and she was paroled in 1995. It was removed as a punishment for murder in all states by 1984 when the state of Western Australia abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Between Ryan’s execution and 1984 occasional death sentences were passed in Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, but were commuted to life imprisonment.

In 2010 federal legislation prohibited capital punishment in all Australian states and territories. Australia is a federation of States. The Federal Government abolished the death penalty in 1973: Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973. All Australian States and Territories have abolished the death penalty. Though the death penalty for murder was abolished in NSW in 1955, NSW was the last state to completely abolish the death penalty when in 1985 capital punishment was abolished for treason and piracy. Death sentences were carried out under Aboriginal customary law, the first executions carried out under European law in Australia took place in Western Australia in 1629. Capital punishment had been part of the legal system of Australia since British settlement and during the 19th century, crimes that could carry a death sentence included burglary, sheep stealing, forgery, sexual assaults, murder and manslaughter and there is one reported case of someone being executed for “being illegally at large” and during the 19th century, there crimes saw about 80 people hanged each year throughout Australia. Before and after federation, each state made its own criminal laws and punishments. 2. Body

2.1. Different methods of death penalty

This part will introduce several main kinds of death penalty methods from two aspects. First, different methods of death penalty will be introduced from history briefly. The second aspect will focus on modern methods of execution.

Historical penalties

Through the ages, there are many types of harsh death penalty. Severe
historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, and execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, scaphism, neck lacing or blowing from a gun. These penalties are now rarely used as they are too cruel. However, some penalties are still in use in some countries such as stoning and decapitation. Main modern methods of execution

Stoning

Stoning stands apart from other forms of capital punishment in that the entire community participates in the killing. History:
Stoning is arguably the world’s oldest form of execution. It is as old as written literature, and the most common death penalty described in the Bible. It is practiced primarily in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

How It Works: The prisoner is buried either up to his waist (if male) or up to her shoulders (if female) and then pelted with stones by a crowd of volunteers until obviously battered to death. Under the terms of most fundamentalist courts, the stones must be small enough that death cannot reasonably be expected to result from only one or two blows, but large enough to cause physical harm. The average execution by stoning is extremely painful, lasting at least 10 to 20 minutes.

Unsavory Overtones: Stoning is primarily enforced by Islamic fundamentalist sharia law, often for bizarre reasons. In 2004, 13-year-old Zhila Izadyar was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the “crime” of being raped by her older brother. Although the sentence was later overturned due to international outcry, equally horrific stoning sentences are quietly carried out throughout the developing world on a regular basis. Sentences to death by stoning or stoning without a sentence have occurred in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi-Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in recent years. The most recent stoning in Iran was in 2007 when Jaffar Kiani was stoned to death for adultery. Decapitation (Beheading)

Execution by beheading, whether it is carried out by sword or guillotine, is one of the most gruesome forms of capital punishment. At least it’s usually quick. History: Beheading was probably the most humane form of punishment available in the ancient world, with the possible exception of the administration of poison. In some nations that adhere to Islamic Sharia law, beheadings are still a commonly used method of execution. Most notably, it remains the preferred method of execution in Saudi Arabia. How It Works: The victim is restrained, usually forced to kneel, and the executioner removes the head by way of a sword or knife. In renaissance-era Europe (most famously in the aftermath of the French Revolution), the process was automated by way of a device called a guillotine, which dropped a heavy blade through the prisoner’s neck–allowing for a clean, instant decapitation. Complications: Beheading can actually be a fairly humane form of punishment, provided that the executioner is strong and reasonably competent.

When the executioner is less strong or less competent than would be desirable, however, death can be slow and excruciatingly painful. Decapitation by sword (or axe, a military weapon as well) was sometimes considered the “honorable” way to die for an noblemen. However, in some countries such as China, decapitation is considered as a less honorable capital punishment than other ways like the gallows or poisoning because of differing cultural values. For example, Chinese believe that to separate any part of the body from oneself intentionally is disrespectful to his or her ancestors, who have brought the person’s life. Execution by shooting

There are two types of execution by shooting: fire squad and single person shooting. Fire squad The firing squad is considered by many to be the most honorable method of execution, and for that reason it was specifically not used on war criminals. While the method differs widely from country to country, generally the condemned is blindfolded and restrained. A group of men then fire a single bullet in to the heart of the prisoner. In some cases, one of the shooters is given a blank – so that afterwards he will feel less guilt. None of the shooters knows who has a blank or, in fact, if any of them do. Executions can be carried out with the condemned either standing or sitting. There is a tradition in some jurisdictions that such executions are carried out at first light, or at sunrise, which is usually up to half an hour
later. This gave rise to the phrase “shot at dawn”. In the United Arab Emirates, firing squad is the preferred method of execution. Single person shooting

This method also has different ways to execute.

In the People’s Republic of China, shooting as a method of execution takes two typical formats, either an assault rifle shot in the back of the head or in the neck or a shot by an automatic rifle in the back from behind. In Taiwan, the customary method is a single shot aimed at the heart (or at the brain stem, if the prisoner consents to organ donation). Prior to the execution, the prisoner is injected with strong anesthetic to leave them completely senseless. In Mongolia, the method of execution today, inherited from Soviet legislation, remains a bullet to the neck from a .38 revolver. Hanging

There are four ways of performing a judicial hanging: suspension hanging, the short drop, the standard drop, and the long drop. Hanging has been a common method of capital punishment since medieval times, and is the official execution method in many countries and regions today. A mechanized form of hanging, the upright jerker, was also experimented with in the 18th century, with a variant of it used today in Iran.

Suspension

Suspension, like the short drop, causes death by using the weight of the body to tighten the trachea with the noose. Prisoners are often reported to have little or no struggle before they go limp, because their jugular vein and carotid arteries are blocked and blood flow to the brain is reduced. The Royal Navy formerly hanged mutineers by hoisting them up from the deck of the ship by their necks, using a rope passing over a yardarm. Short drop

The short drop is performed by placing the condemned prisoner on the back of a cart, horse, or other vehicle, with the noose around the neck. The object is then moved away, leaving the person dangling from the rope. A ladder was also commonly used with the condemned being forced to ascend, after which the noose was tied and the ladder pulled away or turned (hence the colloquial slang for hanging “to be turned off”), leaving the condemned hanging. Another method involves using a stool, which the condemned is required to stand on, being kicked away. The condemned prisoner slowly dies of strangulation, which typically takes between ten and twenty minutes, resulting in a considerably more protracted, grisly and painful death as compared to the standard or long drop hanging, which is intended to kill by using the shock of the initial drop to fracture the spinal column at the neck. Before 1850, the short drop was the standard method for hanging, and is still common in suicides and extrajudicial hangings (such as lynchings and summary executions) which do not benefit from the specialized equipment and drop-length calculation tables used by the newer methods. Standard drop

The standard drop, which arrived as calculated in English units, involves a drop of between 4 and 6 feet (1.2 and 1.8 m). It was considered a humane improvement on the short drop because it was intended to be enough to break the person’s neck, causing immediate paralysis and immobilization (and probable immediate unconsciousness). This method was used to execute condemned Nazis under United States jurisdiction after the Nuremberg Trials. The formality of a doctor pronouncing death was done some seventeen minutes later. Long drop

This process, also known as the measured drop, was introduced to Britain in 1872 by William Marwood as a scientific advance on the standard drop. Instead of everyone falling the same standard distance, the person’s height and weight were used to determine how much slack would be provided in the rope so that the distance dropped would be enough to ensure that the neck was broken, but not so much that the person was decapitated. The careful placement of the eye or knot of the noose (so that the head was jerked back as the rope tightened) contributed to breaking the neck predictably. There have been some instances where the long drop method has caused decapitation – the most recent of which was the hanging of Saddam Hussein’s half brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, in Iraq in 2007. Nowadays, Singapore, Japan, India and some Arab countries use hanging as their preferred method of execution. Lethal injection

Lethal injection gained popularity in the twentieth century as a form of execution intended to supplant other methods, notably electrocution, hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, and beheading, that were considered to be more painful. It is now the most common form of execution in the United States of America. Lethal injection is the practice of injecting a person with a fatal dose of drugs (typically a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) for the express purpose of causing the immediate death of the subject. The condemned person is strapped onto a gurney; two intravenous cannulae (“IVs”) are inserted, one in each arm. Only one is necessary to carry out the execution; the other is reserved as a backup in the event the primary line fails.

A line leading from the IV Line in an adjacent room is attached to the prisoner’s IV, and secured so the line does not snap during the injections. The intravenous tubing leads to a room next to the execution chamber, usually separated from the offender by a curtain or wall. Typically a prison employee trained in venipuncture inserts the needle, while a second prison employee orders, prepares and loads the drugs into the lethal injection syringes. Two other staff members take each of the three syringes and secure them into the IVs. After the curtain is opened to allow the witnesses to see inside the chamber, the condemned offender is then permitted to make a final statement. Following this, the warden will signal that the execution may commence, and the executioner(s) (either prison staff or private citizens depending on the jurisdiction) will then manually inject the three drugs in sequence. During the execution, the condemned’s cardiac rhythm is monitored. Death is pronounced after cardiac activity stops.

Death usually occurs within seven minutes, although the whole procedure can take up to two hours, as was the case with the execution of Christopher Newton on May 24, 2007. According to state law, if a physician’s participation in the execution is prohibited for reasons of medical ethics, then the death ruling can be made by the state Medical Examiner’s Office. After confirmation that death has occurred, a coroner signs the condemned’s death certificate. The People’s Republic of China began using this method in 1997, Guatemala in 1998, the Philippines in 1999, Thailand in 2003, and the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 2005.Vietnam reportedly now uses this method. The Philippines has since abolished the death penalty. 2.2 The reasons of abolishing capital punishment

More than two thirds of countries around the world have abolished capital punishment. Most others use it rarely if ever; and a clear majority has supported a UN Resolution against it in each of the last three years (2010: 109 vs 41).The taking of human life has been strongly condemned by most world religions and philosophies over the centuries. International human rights law has in turn sought to uphold this most sacrosanct of rights in a number of treaties. The life of an individual is clearly protected from being arbitrarily taken by the state.While some people think that the death penalty is an effective way of fighting crime and criminals, I strongly believe that death penalty should be abolished because innocent people are sometimes executed and it is violation of human rights and religion beliefs.

Human Rights as a Basis for Abolition and Reform

Every human being has the inherent right to life and this right must be protected by law. However, this right is not as sacrosanct and inviolable as it sounds. The main principle in human rights law is that no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life meaning that states can take human life providing laws and procedures are followed. There are a number of situations where a state may deprive persons of their lives without breaching international human rights law. In some cases, these exceptions are based on the premise that violence used in self-defence is justified. Examples include: – imposition of the death penalty;

– providing it is a result of a judicial process and does not contravene certain minimum safeguards imposed by human rights law;

Most supporters of the death penalty believe that it is justified on one or more of the following grounds: as a means of retribution (ie they deserve it)
as a deterrent to others;
to prevent any danger of re- offending because it’s cheaper than keeping people in prison. Opponents argue against the death penalty on one or more of the following grounds: killing someone is always wrong, and two wrongs can never make a right; whatever people might think, there is in fact no evidence of a deterrent effect; life without parole is just as effective a way to prevent someone reoffending as executing them; saving money can never be a justification for taking someone’s life; and finally, mistakes are bound to happen, and that means people being put to death for a crime they didn’t commit (what if that were you or someone you loved?).

Explanations for these opponents

First of all, the death penalty diminishes the humanity of everyone it touches. As Sojourner Truth told the Michigan legislature during one debate on whether to reinstate capital punishment, “We are the makers of murderers if we do it.” Second, since our system of justice can never be mistake-free, it is inevitable that an error will be made in a capital case and an innocent person will be executed. In fact, DNA evidence has demonstrated the innocence of at least 17 death-row inmates since 1993, according to the Innocence Project. Third, the question of cost is also compelling. At a time when states face massive budget shortfalls, a study examining the cost of the death penalty in Kansas found that death penalty cases are 70 percent more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. A report by the Urban Institute found that taxpayers paid at least $37.2 million for each of five executions carried out in Maryland. Fourth, the death penalty disproportionately falls on poor people and people of color. Blacks and Latinos make up more than 55 percent of the current death row population, despite comprising only about 25 percent of the U.S. population.

The vast majority of people on death row are poor. Fifth, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. States that use it don’t have lower murder rates than states that do not. Plus, life imprisonment would protect the public just as well as execution does. Finally, there is a more fundamental reason. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States took a leadership role in drafting an “international bill of rights” that recognized all people have certain inherent rights. This core human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put it simply: Life is a human right. This makes the death penalty our deepest human rights abuse. As long as governments have the right to extinguish our lives, they maintain the power to deny us access to every other right.

2.2 Religions and capital punishment
Most major world religions take varied positions on the morality of capital
punishment. Religions are often based on a body of teachings, such as the Old Testament and the Qur’an, which contain many cases of criminals being executed.

Christianity
Christians argue both for and against the death penalty using secular arguments (see Ethics: Capital punishment), but like other religious people they often make an additional case based on the tenets of their faith.For much of history, the Christian Churches accepted that capital punishment was a necessary part of the mechanisms of society. In favour of the death penalty

It’s in the Bible,“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”( Genesis 9:6). According to Old Testament, The death penalty is consistent with Old Testament Biblical teaching, and suggests that God created the death penalty.The New Testament embodies what must be the most famous execution in history, that of Jesus on the cross. But paradoxically, although the tone of the whole of the New Testament is one of forgiveness, it seems to take the right of the state to execute offenders for granted.Christians who support the death penalty often do so on the ground that the state acts not on its own authority but as the agent of God, who does have legal power over life and death. Against the death penalty

“Only God should create and destroy life”，this argument is used to oppose abortion and euthanasia as well.Many Christians believe that God commanded “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 21:13), and that this is a clear instruction with no exceptions. In light of the word of God, and thus of faith, life–all human life–is sacred and untouchable. No matter how heinous the crimes … [the criminal] does not lose his fundamental right to life, for it is primordial, inviolable, and inalienable, and thus comes under the power of no one whatsoever (Father Gino Concetti, L’Osservatore Romano, 1977）.

Capital punishment is incompatible with a teaching that emphasises forgiveness and compassion. Some Christians argue that in many countries the imposition of the death penalty is biased against the poor. Since Christian teaching is to support the poor, Christians should not support the death penalty. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the general Christian stand that life should always be supported. This stand is most often taught in issues such as abortion and euthanasia, but consistency requires Christians to apply it across the board.

Buddhism and capital punishment

Because Buddhism exists in many forms, under many organisations, there is no unified Buddhist policy on capital punishment.In terms of doctrine the death penalty is clearly inconsistent with Buddhist teaching. Buddhists place great emphasis on non-violence and compassion for all life. The First Precept requires individuals to abstain from injuring or killing any living creature.The Buddha did not explicitly speak about capital punishment, but his teachings show no sympathy for physical punishment, no matter how bad the crime. Buddhism and punishment

Buddhism believes fundamentally in the cycle of birth and re-birth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital punishment is administered it will have compromising effects on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations. As far as punishment in this world is concerned, Buddhism has strong views: •inhumane treatment of an offender does not solve their misdeeds or those of humanity in general – the best approach to an offender is reformatory rather than punitive

•punishment should only be to the extent to which the offender needs to make amends, and his rehabilitation into society should be of paramount importance •punishing an offender with excessive cruelty will injure not just the offender’s mind, but also the mind of the person doing the punishing •it is impossible to administer severe punishment with composure and compassion •if the crime is particularly serious, the person may be banished from the community or country Judaism and capital punishment

Anyone reading the Old Testament list of 36 capital crimes might think that Judaism is in favour of capital punishment, but they’d be wrong. During the period when Jewish law operated as a secular as well as a religious jurisdiction, Jewish courts very rarely imposed the death penalty. The state of Israel has abolished the death penalty for any crime that is now likely to be tried there. To really understand Jewish law one must not only read the Torah but consult the Talmud, an elaboration and interpretation by rabbinical scholars of the laws and commandments of the Torah.The rabbis who wrote the Talmud created such a forest of barriers to actually using the death penalty that in practical terms it was almost impossible to punish anyone by death. The rabbis did this with various devices:

•interpreting texts in the context of Judaism’s general respect for the sanctity of human life •emphasising anti-death texts such as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ •interpreting texts to make them very narrow in their application •refusing to accept any but the most explicit Torah texts proposing the death penalty •finding alternative punishments, or schemes of compensation for victims’ families •imposing procedural and evidential barriers that made the death penalty practically unenforceable The result of this is that there are very few examples of people being executed by Jewish law in rabbinic times.

2.4 Crime rate change in Australia due to abolition of capital punishment

In Australia the capital punishment has been abolished by Death Penalty Abolition Act in 1973. Table 1 shows that the different date of abolition of death penalty in different location in Australia. According to the table, the abolition of death penalty in NSW as 1955 and WA as 1984 where is the last place to abolish capital punishment in Australia. The state of ACT and NT cancelled the death punishment in 1973 while the SA and VIC abolish in 1976, 1975 respectively. Table 1 also point out the reduction of using capital punishment in each jurisdiction since 1820. The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronal Ryan at Pentridge Prison in 1967. The argument never stopped, many people believe death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment due to it had been administered in arbitrary manner that need to be cancelled. The following figure and graph show the change of different crime in Australia through the capital punishment was abolished.

Change in public opinion polls in Australia

Even though Australia has cancelled death penalty, it doesn’t mean it could never be reintroduced. The criminal justice system is not infallible that the history of the death penalty is replete with examples where sentences of death have been commuted to less severe forms of punishment so people stand in abolishing capital punishment. However, the abolition in Australia does not mean it also applied to oversea. In 1986 the 30 member council of the Police Federation of Australia wanted to reopen the death penalty as particularly vicious crimes is committed. The opinion of public vary in many in official survey. In a more reliable survey by Australian Public Opinion Polls, results ranging from 70 per cent in specifically crime area such as child murder, rape murder to only 43 per cent in general case of murder. It reflects the public opinion of defining the level of crime and also the view of death penalty.

As graph 1 shows, as the time goes by public trend to disagree death penalty to be reintroduced for murder. In the graph it is clearly stated that the percentage of public disagree reintroduce death penalty increased sharply between 1988 and 2003. Therefore, overall public do not likely to accept death penalty anymore as the social development.

Effects of death penalty: sentencing differences

As the abolition of capital punishment, the sentencing of convict becomes different. In table 2 shows the changes of number of convictions for murder and manslaughter in 5 years prior to abolition compare to the average number of convictions for murder and manslaughter in 5 years after to abolition. It is clearly pointed out that the number of convictions increased generally. Only in state of New South Wales the average number decreased. In Victoria and Queensland the percentage of manslaughter convictions before cancelled the death penalty was higher after abolition. In New South Wales, although the proportion of manslaughter verdicts rose after cancellation, the proportion fell dramatically from 26 per cent to 17 per cent over the same period with murder/manslaughter cases which resulted in acquittals.

In an earlier study of Johnston 1962, it found out that there is quite convincing evidence which pointed convictions for murder were less likely in jurisdictions with the possibility that the offenders would be gave death penalty. In this case, juries could not be always in the right place. The availability of capital punishments also increases the number of incidence of insanity verdicts. The reason of such a verdict is that it considers the prisoner be pleasure, the indeterminate form of disposition and to avoids the death penalty. According to Victorian data for the five years prior to cancellation of death penalty, there were 30 convicted murderers and 24 persons acquitted on account of insanity with total 54 people while in the next five years of abolition of capital punishment there were 43 convicted murderers but only 13 persons acquitted on account of insanity in total 56.

Effects of death penalty: Crime rates changed

The most noticed topic of abolition of death penalty would be weather the crime rate actually reduced? In the graph 2 it is easy to find that the number of homicides cases actually increasing in Australia over the 20 years period. However, graph 2 also point out that the homicide rate actually fallen over the same period. Since 1975 death penalty has been abolished, homicides cases number climbed to around 500 in 1980 and reach the peak in 1983 at about 600 cases. In compare, due the population increase the homicides rate fell to the bottom in around 1977 at approximately 5.2 per cent. For the murder cases, it remains the same level since the capital punishment abolished for both number of murder and murder rate.

Graph 2.
Reported homicide and murder cases – Australia 1965-84

Reported homicide and murder rates per 100 000 persons aged 10 and over – Australia 1965-84

* Includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter but excludes manslaughter
by driving. Source: Mukherjee et al., forthcoming.

As people believe that death punishment can scared the murder rate and keep it in the low level, however, it is not true. For example, there were 131 murders in the decade prior to the abolition of death penalty in Queensland. In comparison, there were only 129 murders in the decade after abolished capital punishment. In table 2 shows the main states of Australia that only in south Australia happened a sudden increase the number of murder and manslaughter convictions in the five years period after cancelled death penalty compare to the same amount of time before it. Furthermore, the report on homicide from South Australian office of Crime Statistics also pointed out that the abolition of the capital punishment did not effect on homicide crime trends in the state.

Graph 3. Post-war homicide rate, Australia, 1950-1994,
Rate = Number of per homicides per 100 000 population

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, compiled in Mukherjee, Scandia, Dagger & Matthews (1989 with updates).

Moreover, the information of many surveys both in local and international also proved that the abolition of death penalty has not resulted in any significant increase in the murder rates. Graph 3 shows the homicide rate from 1950 to 1994. In the graph we can easily find that after 1975 Australia abolished the death punishment the homicide rate not changed too much. However, the post war period the crime rate rocketed. In this graph we can get that the crime rate does not directly connect to the death penalty. Indeed, the war and other elements which make the society unstable can lead to the increase of the crime rate. Not only in murder and homicide rate but also the other crimes such as assault, rape and robbery.

Graph 4 shows the rate of serious assault, rape and robbery in Australia between 1973 and 1992 period. From the graph rape rate remains the same level through the whole period at around 3 per cents. For the other 2 crime rates, both of them show the increasing trend. But if we just look at the period of abolishing death penalty, it is obviously that abolition of capital punishment has a very little influence of serious assault and robbery rate. From 1973 to 1975, robbery rate decreased lightly while serious assault rate increased slowly. From 1975 to 1980, robbery rate increased lightly. Serious assault rate also climbed slowly at the same time. Therefore, the abolition of capital punishments did not impact on these crime rate as well as murder and homicide rate.

Graph 4. Police recorded serious assault, rape and robbery, Australia, 1973-74 to 1991-92, Rate = number of crimes per 100000 population

Source: Walker 1994, pp. 6-7.

Effects of death penalty: Awareness

Public also notice the deterrent effect of capital punishment in Australia. Even the abolition of death penalty has the small influence of crime rate people still believe there are some helps on the deterrent crime. The research from Bulltin pointed out that if executions exert a general deterrent effect on homicide one would expect more publicized executions to exert a bigger deterrents effect. That means the death penalty can only have a short term effect. After the effect period, people need more death penalty examples to keep awareness. In this point of view, the awareness of public for the crime would not be affected by the death penalty. And it also explain the reason of the crime rate remain no changes in the period of death penalty abolition.

2.5 Death Penalty and Australians Overseas
There are different legal system in Eastern countries and Western countries. In this report, I am going to introduce legal system and death penalty in Indonesia. Then move on two cases about drug trafficking which especially relate to Australians violate the law in Indonesia.

Legal system of Indonesia

The Indonesian legal system is a Civil Law. Civil Law systems do not use juries. Instead, decisions as to guilt or innocence are made by a panel of three judges. One of these judges is the Chair and is usually more senior than the other two judges. Typically, the judges produce a single, joint judgment. It is virtually unknown for a judge to dissent from the decision of the other two members of the panel and dissenting judgments are rarely produced and never released (except, recently, in the Commercial Court).

Indonesia has an inquisitorial system instead of adversarial system. In an inquisitorial system, the judges conduct an enquiry into the truth of what occurred, that is, the facts behind the legal issues in dispute. For this reason, judges control the proceedings and may directly question witnesses. In Indonesia, there is no precedent system (Lindsey 2000). Courts are not bound by decisions of courts at the same level or higher. This means that there is little need for law reporting in Indonesia and certainly not for published authoritative sets of judgments (Lindsey 2000).

The Crime Justice System

The Indonesian criminal code in force since independence is basically the Netherlands Indies Criminal Code, which was put into effect in 1918 (Indonesia-Criminal Law 1992). It incorporates certain amendments promulgated by the revolutionary government in 1946. Since 1958 it has been applied uniformly throughout the national territory. As of 1992, penalties for major offenses included death, imprisonment for periods up to life, local detention, and fines.

A public drive for the abolition of the death penalty was launched in 1980 following the execution of two persons convicted of murder. In 1992, however, the death penalty remained in force. A new Code of Criminal Procedures was promulgated on December 31, 1981 (Indonesia-Criminal Law 1992). The new code replaced a 1941 revision of an 1848 Dutch colonial regulation that stipulated legal procedures to be used in both criminal as well as civil cases. Indonesia’s use of capital punishment

The death penalty is provided for in Indonesian law for murder with deliberate intent and premeditation; attempting to assassinate the President or Vice-president or render him unfit to govern; treason; premeditated murder of the head of state of a friendly state; piracy resulting in death; theft resulting in death; producing, processing, extracting, converting or making available narcotics; crimes against humanity; and “terrorism” (Amnesty International 2004). According to the report of Amnesty International (2004), the process of legal reform in Indonesia is ongoing. Indonesia has already ratified a number of international treaties on human rights and is committed to ratify others in the near future. Within this process of reform Indonesia must ensure that the law is brought in line with international standards relating to capital punishment that establish the greatest possible protection for individuals facing the death penalty.

Drugs and the death penalty

Under Article 59 of Law 5/1997 on Psychotropic Drugs and Articles 80 to 82 of Law 22/1997 on Narcotics, the death penalty is provided for as an optional punishment for certain offences related to the production, transit, import and possession of psychotropic drugs and narcotics. At least 30 people are currently believed to be under sentence of death after having been convicted of drug-related offences. Among them are 20 foreign nationals (Amnesty International 2004).

The former President Megawati Sukarnoputri has taken a strong position on the use of the death penalty for drug-traffickers. She stated “For those who distribute drugs, life sentences and other prison sentences are no longer sufficient. No sentence is sufficient other than the death sentence. Due to the great dangers of drug abuse that has threatened our younger generations; I will uphold the capital punishment for all drug-related crimes”. (Amnesty International 2004).

Bali Nine Case

The Bali Nine are a group of Australian citizens who travelled to Bali in April 2005. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) had alerted Indonesian National Police (INP) officials in Denpasar, the capital of Bali, that the nine Australians were involved in a plan to smuggle heroin out of Bali. The AFP requested that the INP monitor the suspects and help them gather evidence, but also advised the INP to “take whatever action they deem appropriate” if they suspected that any of the Bali Nine were in possession of heroin during the observations.

The nine Australians were detained by the INP during their stay in Bali, and were found to have significant quantities of heroin (Matthew 2005). They were charged in October 2005 with violations of Articles 82(1)(a) and 78(1)(b) of Indonesia’s Law No. 22 of 1997 (the “Narcotics Law”). Article 82(1)(a) punishes anyone who “imports, exports, offers for sale, traffics, sells, purchases, offers up, accepts, or acts as an intermediary in the sale, purchase or exchange of a Category I narcotic ” with death, life in prison, or up to twenty years in jail and a fine of up to one billion rupiah. Australia tried diplomatic means to avoid capital punishment for the Bali Nine before sentencing occurred.

Specifically, in December 2005 Australia’s Foreign Minister requested that Indonesia’s Attorney General not seek the death penalty in the Bali Nine case. Similar appeals were made by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to the Indonesian Foreign Minister and by the Australian Attorney General and Minister for Justice and Customs to the Indonesian Attorney General. Despite these diplomatic efforts, in February 2006, the Denpasar District Court sentenced two of the nine, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, to death for “exporting heroin in an organized ring and possessing a prohibited class-one narcotic,” and sentenced the other seven to life imprisonment. The Bali High Court upheld the two death sentences in April 2006 and reduced the prison sentences for five of the seven others to twenty years. In September 2006, the Supreme Court rejected the appeals and increased the penalty of four of the other Bali Nine members from twenty-year jail terms to death. In March 2008, the Supreme Court reduced three of these deaths.

Schapelle Corby Case

Schapelle Leigh Corby is an Australian women convicted and imprisoned for the importation of 4.2 kilograms of high quality cannabis into Bali, Indonesia. She was sentenced 20 years on 27 May 2005 and currently serves her sentence in Kerobokan prison, Bali. On appeal, her conviction and sentence were confirmed with finality by the Indonesian Supreme Court. Her trial and conviction were a major focus of attention for the Australian media. Her due release date, with remissions, is currently 2024. In this case, Corby stated that she had no knowledge of the drugs until the body board bag was opened by customs officers. However, despite her protests, the evidence was immediately contaminated when the police manually handled it, and she was subjected to a series of interrogations which significantly breached the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The trial itself also substantially breached these rights, on a systematic basis. For example, the court refused to test the drugs for country of origin, it denied her the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, it denied her access to key evidence, and it refused to collect airport CCTV footage.

This is only a partial list of a significant number of breaches, many of them repeated throughout the legal process. The trial also became political in nature, with even the president of Indonesia commenting specifically upon it. The brutal sentence clearly reflected this aspect. Since then, Australian public opinion has been subdued via media reporting littered with smear and unsubstantiated innuendo. This in turn has shifted focus away from the actual facts above, as well as inhibiting serious investigation of the concrete events surrounding the case itself (Independent Research Paper).

If the trial takes place in Australia there would be different effects to above two cases. Due to: Different legal system

Australian criminal law was originally received from the English common law. Although all states also have some legislation on the criminal law, in some states criminal law has been codified where in other the bulk of the law is based on the common law. These may be referred to as “common law jurisdictions” and “code jurisdictions”. New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria are common law jurisdictions. These states have Crime Acts which list the most common offences and fix their penalties but do not always exhaustively define the elements of the offence. For example, Crime Act1900 (NSW), it is settled law in the common law jurisdictions that only Parliaments, not the courts, can create new offences.

Abolishment of Death Penalty

While abolitionists initially spoke of the death penalty as a right to life issue, by the 1980s and 1990s courts were interpreting it as inhuman punishment under the human rights aegis of torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment or treatment. Both characterisations are useful frameworks capable of rallying opposition to the death penalty in contemporary Australia (Death Penalty, Law Council of Australia).

Punishment for Drug Trafficking

Breaking this law carries penalties including disqualification from driving, heavy fines and/or imprisonment in Australia. Some states have introduced random roadside testing for cannabis and amphetamines. Penalties for breaking laws in relation to alcohol and other drugs may include fines, imprisonment and disqualification from driving. Some states and territories have drug diversion programs that refer people with a drug problem to treatment and/or education programs where they can receive help, rather than going through the criminal justice system.

Unfair trial in Indonesia

In Indonesia, as in all criminal justice systems, the application of the death penalty may lead to an irreversible miscarriage of justice. This concern is compounded by widely acknowledged problems within the Indonesian justice system. There is evidence that trials in death penalty cases have, in some cases, failed to uphold international standards for fairness. Among the violations reported to Amnesty International (2004) are:

1. Lack of access to lawyers: Some individuals who have been sentenced to death have been denied access to lawyers at the pre-trial stage, denying them the right to prepare a defence, in contravention of both Indonesia’s Code of Criminal Procedures and international standards for fair trial. There is also concern that those who have had their final appeals for clemency rejected have, in some cases, been denied access to lawyers in the time leading up to their execution.

2. Lack of access to interpreters: In some cases, there are reports that foreign nationals have not been provided with adequate interpretation both during initial questioning and trial. This has denied them the right to fully understand the charges against them and to adequately prepare a defence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also guarantees the right of a suspect “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot derstand or speak the language used in court”.

3. Torture: Torture and ill-treatment is believed to be widely practiced in Indonesia. Amnesty International (2004) has received information of cases of both political and criminal suspecunts being subjected to torture. These have included cases where charges have carried a possible death penalty. In one case, an individual sentenced to death claims to have been tortured to extract a confession.

2.6 Compare the death penalty law between Australian and Saudi Arabian Punishment is a term used in operant conditioning to refer to any change that occurs after a behavior that reduces the likelihood of that behavior to occur again in the future. There are two main types of punishments in our society today, positive and negative punishments. While both positive and negative reinforcement are used to focus on reducing or eliminating unwanted behaviors in the future. Positive Punishment is the type of punishment also known as “punishment by application.” Positive punishment involves presenting an aversive stimulus after a behavior as occurred.

For example, when a student talks out of turn in the middle of class, the teacher might scold the child for interrupting her. Negative Punishment is the type of punishment also known as “punishment by removal.” Negative punishment involves taking away a desirable stimulus after a behavior as occurred. For example, when the student from the previous example talks out of turn again, the teacher promptly tells the child that he will have to miss recess because of his behavior. The most factors affecting to abolish death penalty were due to the following factors; I. International organization as Amnesty international, Human rights groups, the charter of the united nation, protocol of the international covenant on civil and political right has voted to ban the death penalty due to its unforgiving harshness.

II. The natural of human is not a criminal, but there are factors will lead him to commit the crime. As to the Criminal itself is not the only one to blame, society is also at fault for not preventing such crimes to re-occur. III. Death penalty is the punishment that cannot be correct when considers what the truth emerged in the other. IV. Life is fundamental right. The majority of all treaties agree on a number of characteristics of these rights, so that confer sainthood it’s: a) Its rights cannot be arbitrarily deprived.

b) It cannot be waived.
c) It cannot be divided.
d) It cannot handle.

Even though life is so precious, but some countries believe that it is the only way to deal with crimes like kidnapping for ransom, parricide, murder, rape, human trafficking, terrorism and other major offenses have been rapidly committed by those heartless and cold-blooded criminals. And people who commit this kind of felony will continue to broaden their evil activities if this punishment cannot be practiced. They believe one of a direct solution for those individual susceptible to commit a heinous criminal act is capital punishment, and if it abolished many victims would not get a true justice. Death sentence is just appropriate and reasonable for those people whose behavior is perilous to other person, so that we can prevent the loss of another innocent life. The most factors affecting to stay the death penalty are as follows: I. Justice: the person how deprived other person’s life grace, he must drink from the same cup. The death penalty may fit the crime “an eye for an eye” II. Retribution.

III. Deterrent to crime: if government cannot execute killer, as a result, it make chaos in society and provide an opportunity from the killer to recommit the crime after released back into society. IV. Death penalty will put forward a standard for general deterrent to other. V. Protection of society who would undermine its security.

VI. Religious doctrine: the majority of countries have doctrine religions as Quran, Bible, Torah and Buddhism. Those counties use their laws by religion, which has occurrences where the death penalty is supported. For example the Quran says “O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered – the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, and then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct…” (Sura Al-baqara 178). Also, in the Bible it states: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21: 23-25). VII. Removal of threat from society: some criminal’s are too dangerous to live at all. VIII. Cost: the criminals who have imprisoning for life. Means the government will spend for them a large amount of money and the prisons will be overcrowded. IX. Money used to sustain those criminals could be better used on the society. X. The punishment came before the crime; the criminal only has him/her self to blame because they’ve already been warned of the harsh punishment before they committed the crime.

Why do people commit crimes?

People commit crimes for several reasons, but the most common are love, jealousy and money. Drug and alcohol abuse play a huge factor in crimes. Large numbers of people are arrested for crimes they committed while under the influence. Another key factor is upbringing, or the environment in which an individual is raised. If someone sees crime as the only way to survive and his role model does it, chances are good he’ll follow suit. Crime stretches back as far back as Cain killing his brother Abel in the Bible. As with many crimes, Abel’s murder was from Cain being jealous. While the outcome of murder remains the same, methods of murder have advanced, as have methods of torture, assault, safe cracking, robbery, carjacking and other crimes. Thanks to inventions like the Internet, identity theft and e-mail scams have become easy to perpetrate and more widespread than ever before. Money is the factor in these crimes. Some of the main reasons for crimes in now days are:

1- Population density and degree of urbanization.
2- Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. 3- Stability of population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns and transient factors. 4- Modes of transportation and highway systems.

5- Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level and job availability. 6- Cultural factors and educational, recreational and religious characteristics. 7- Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 8- Climate.

9- Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
10- Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. Source: Bureau’s “Uniform Crime Report”.
To understand the thought pattern behind a criminal mind, it is important to consider all possibilities. There is no single cause of criminal behavior. A combination of both genetic and environmental factors contributes to the thought process of a criminal. Some criminals will be motivated to engage in deeply immoral and illegal actions, while others simply break or bend the laws on a smaller but still significant scale. Crimes happen when an opportunity presents itself. In many cases, people who are aware of their surroundings and take extra precautions can avoid being the target just by being on guard. Locking homes and cars, not leaving belongings lying around and not walking down a dark alley alone at night are some obvious ways to give criminals one less opportunity to find a victim.

The regime in Saudi Arabia

The central institution of Saudi Arabian Government is the monarchy. The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Holy Qur’an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari’a). So, as we mentioned that the law of Saudi Arabia follows Islamic law, which is recognized law for death penalty in the following crimes “killer willful, highwayman, Spy), apostate and an adulterer who is married.” Saudi society has a number of issues and tensions. A rare independent opinion poll published in 2010 indicated that Saudis’ main social concerns were unemployment (at 10% in 2010), corruption and religious extremism. Crime is not a significant problem. However, Saudi Arabia’s objective of being both a modern and Islamic country, coupled with economic difficulties, has created deep social tensions.

Statistics on the number of crimes in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia is the country where the crimes have increased in recent years due to terrorism, and the political situation surrounding the state “the so-called Arab Spring”

• Car thefts   18,717
• Embezzlements
  924
• Executions
  143 executions
• Frauds
  741
• Jails
  104
• Judges and Magistrates
  707
• Manslaughters
  53
• Prisoners
  28,612 prisoners
• Prisoners > Female
  6.6%
• Prisoners > Foreign prisoners
  50.9%
• Prisoners > Per capita
  110 per 100,000 people
• Prisoners > Pre-trial detainees
  65.8%
• Software piracy rate
  51%
• Total crimes
  84,599

DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. SOURCE: Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study

Crime Rates in Australia

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security rated the overall crime situation in Sydney and throughout Australia as MEDIUM. Although Australia has a much lower violent crime rate than some other developed nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. But during recent year’s Human smuggling, human trafficking and the illegal drug trade have all impacted Australia. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that during the 2009/10 financial year police took action against 375,259 people, up by 4.8 per cent from 2008/09 figures. Young offenders aged 10 to 19, comprised about 29 percent of the total offender population across Australia. In the 2009/10 financial year, 84,100 women had police action taken against them across Australia, up by six per cent compared with the previous year. 290,400 men had police action taken against them in 2009/10, an annual increase of 4 per cent.

About 30 per cent of the women were accused of theft, whereas the most common principal offence for men was intention to cause injury and matters related to public order. Research from the Australian Institute of Criminology, shows that from 1990 until the middle of 2011, 40 per cent of people who were fatally shot by police were suffering from a mental illness. Law enforcement in Australia is served by police, sheriffs and bailiffs under the control of state, territory and the Federal governments. A number of state, territory and federal agencies also administer a wide variety of legislation related to white-collar crime. The Police are responsible for the criminal law. The sheriff and bailiffs in each state and territory are responsible for the enforcement of the judgments of the courts exercising civil law (common law) jurisdictions. It is a common misconception that in Australia there are two distinct levels of police forces, the various state police forces and then overriding that, the Australian Federal Police (AFP). In actuality, the various state police forces are responsible for enforcing state law within their own states while the AFP are responsible for the enforcement of and investigation of crimes against Commonwealth law which applies across the whole country.

3. Conclusion

The use of capital punishment still is a controversial topic in current days. More than two thirds of countries have abolished death penalty for protecting human rights and respect religions. However, some countries still have death penalty for related offences. For example, Indonesia has death penalty for drug traffickers is for protecting younger generations. Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. However, many countries still believe capital punishment might be a brutal way to people who violate the law and should be abolished.

References

• Amnesty International Report (October 2004), Indonesia – A briefing on the death penalty.
• Australian government, 2000, “Australian crime: facts & figures”.
• Australian institute of criminology, 1987, Capital punishment.
• Civil Liberties, Death by stoning, viewed Oct at 2012 http://civilliberty.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/ig/Types-of-Executions/Death-by-Stoning.htm.
• BBC, 2009, Capital punishment, viewed 20 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml#h1.
• Crime& Mystery, 2007, Top 10 Modern Methods of Execution, viewed at Oct 2012 http://listverse.com/2007/09/18/top-10-modern-methods-of-execution
• Cultures of Corruption: Evidence from Diplomatic Parking Tickets Ray Fisman.
• Edward Miguel Columbia University and NBER University of California, Berkeley and NBER 2006.
• Cultures of Corruption: Evidence from Diplomatic Parking Tickets Ray Fisman.
• Edward Miguel Columbia University and NBER University of California, Berkeley and NBER 2006.www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-executions-in-2009. David Indermaur, Oct, 1996, “Violent crime in Australia: interpreting the trends”. HreaOrganizaion, n.d., Human rights education associates, viewed 20 October 2012, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=427.
• Indonesia-Criminal law (1992). Available from .
• Independent Research Paper. Avaiable from: http://www.schapelle.net/further.html.
• Ivan potas and John Walker, feb, 1987,”capital punishment”, view at October 2012
• Meeropol, R. 2010. The death penalty is a human rights abuse,viewed 20 October 2012,
• Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
• Matthew M (2005) Police want death for Bali nine. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Send-them-all-to-the-firing-squad/2005/04/27/1114462101414.html http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/1-20/tandi03/view%20paper.aspx
• Micheal Walton, Mar, 2005, “The death penalty in Australia and overseas”.
• “Outrageous Atrocity or Moral Imperative?: The Ethics of Capital Punishment” in Studies in Christian Ethics 6.2 (1993).
• Richard,C. 2003,‘The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law’, Death Penalty Information Center, viewed 20 October 2012, < http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf> The Narcotics Law,