The Death Penalty

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This wasn't a case of cherry picking at all. I refuted your claim to me that the question wasn't 'what's your hunch'? Because ... it was.

The other questions cannot measure what they are trying to measure. They are useful, but It is impossible to tell if the DP works as a deterrent or not given it's extremely rare application. Period.

And just because the majority of 'experts' feel the DP wouldn't serve as a deterrent doesn't mean people must accept it as the gospel. History is littered with countless moments where the overwhelming majority of 'experts at the time' were proven wrong by a minority and that their 'hunches' were not correct.

I see, so now you place inverted commas around the word experts. Of course, they can't be real experts, because they disagree with you. I suppose their opinions are worth no more than the average man on the street, right?

The questionnaire was answered by 84% of 'every living person who (1) was a Fellow in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) had won the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) was a president of the ASC between 1997 and the present.
The American Society of Criminology was founded in 1941 and is the world’s largest organization of academic criminologists, boasting a membership in 2008 of 3,500 criminologists from fifty countries. ASC presidents who served prior to 1997 were not included in this survey because they were already surveyed by Radelet and Akers in 1996, and we did not want the opinions of this group to unfairly weight the 2008 results. Using this methodology, we identified ninety-four distinguished scholars as our pool of experts.'

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

You quoted me earlier saying no 'surveys' said anything at all like "what's your hunch?"... and in your reply, the very first question you produced to show how legitimate the surveys are, the question reads: Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

So, in other words, it is asking "what's your hunch?" Hardly scientific.

That question measures people's 'feelings' on the subject. It doesn't measure the true effectiveness of the DP one way or another. No study ever could given its current capacity.

These are people who have worked up close with the DP all their lives, and understand more about criminology and the potential deterrence effects of the DP than anybody else. Of course any study of any potential deterrent effects of the DP can only be a purely empirical study - based on the available evidence, and the history of it's use. It's not asking for their feelings. It's asking what they think. You're cherry-picking, and twisting the meaning of the question. Why don't you also address the other 5 questions asked in the survey?

This wasn't a case of cherry picking at all. I refuted your claim to me that the question wasn't 'what's your hunch'? Because ... it was.

The other questions cannot measure what they are trying to measure. They are useful, but It is impossible to tell if the DP works as a deterrent or not given it's extremely rare application. Period.

And just because the majority of 'experts' feel the DP wouldn't serve as a deterrent doesn't mean people must accept it as the gospel. History is littered with countless moments where the overwhelming majority of 'experts at the time' were proven wrong by a minority and that their 'hunches' were not correct.

Thirty, you're still clinging to this utter fallacy that just because the final results of research may be inconclusive that the entire body of research is worthless. That is absolutely not the case. These people are the experts in their field. Just because it was their educated opinion they were asked for instead of hard evidence does not make it worthless. They still know a hell of a lot more about the subject matter than we do.

Imagine you're in a hospital with a mysterious illness, and a team of expert doctors are called in to give their opinion on the symptoms as they presented themselves before the definitive tests were to be carried out. would you consider their opinions to be utterly worthless because they were only opinions? Would you say it's just a case of them giving their "hunch"? Of course not - they're experts and it's an expert, educated opinion they are giving, not just a hunch.

Honestly, the more you carp and nitpick the more tenuous your argument becomes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This wasn't a case of cherry picking at all. I refuted your claim to me that the question wasn't 'what's your hunch'? Because ... it was.

The other questions cannot measure what they are trying to measure. They are useful, but It is impossible to tell if the DP works as a deterrent or not given it's extremely rare application. Period.

And just because the majority of 'experts' feel the DP wouldn't serve as a deterrent doesn't mean people must accept it as the gospel. History is littered with countless moments where the overwhelming majority of 'experts at the time' were proven wrong by a minority and that their 'hunches' were not correct.

I see, so now you place inverted commas around the word experts. Of course, they can't be real experts, because they disagree with you. I suppose their opinions are worth no more than the average man on the street, right?

The questionnaire was answered by 84% of 'every living person who (1) was a Fellow in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) had won the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) was a president of the ASC between 1997 and the present.
The American Society of Criminology was founded in 1941 and is the world’s largest organization of academic criminologists, boasting a membership in 2008 of 3,500 criminologists from fifty countries. ASC presidents who served prior to 1997 were not included in this survey because they were already surveyed by Radelet and Akers in 1996, and we did not want the opinions of this group to unfairly weight the 2008 results. Using this methodology, we identified ninety-four distinguished scholars as our pool of experts.'

If you'd stop skimming, you would have read the part where I said the results are useful, but qualified that by later saying it is impossible to 'definitively' declare the DP as an ineffective (or effective deterrent) given the weak data used to measure its validity.

What is your deal? I'm not spinning this to suggest the DP is an effective deterrent. I'm simply stating that the measures currently in place to determine it's effectiveness- or lack of effectiveness- are not infallible.

The reason we continue to discuss this very point is the fact that you continue to shove the notion that the DP is not a deterrent at me. I'm not prepared to accept this as you are and shouldn't have to given the poor construct of its premise. I have no problem with you choosing to believe it, but if you are tossing it in there as an absolute, then be prepared to hear to the contrary.

How is it possible to deny the fact that it is hard to legitimately come to a definitive conclusion about a tool that is used 0.0007% of the time?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

You quoted me earlier saying no 'surveys' said anything at all like "what's your hunch?"... and in your reply, the very first question you produced to show how legitimate the surveys are, the question reads: Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

So, in other words, it is asking "what's your hunch?" Hardly scientific.

That question measures people's 'feelings' on the subject. It doesn't measure the true effectiveness of the DP one way or another. No study ever could given its current capacity.

These are people who have worked up close with the DP all their lives, and understand more about criminology and the potential deterrence effects of the DP than anybody else. Of course any study of any potential deterrent effects of the DP can only be a purely empirical study - based on the available evidence, and the history of it's use. It's not asking for their feelings. It's asking what they think. You're cherry-picking, and twisting the meaning of the question. Why don't you also address the other 5 questions asked in the survey?

This wasn't a case of cherry picking at all. I refuted your claim to me that the question wasn't 'what's your hunch'? Because ... it was.

The other questions cannot measure what they are trying to measure. They are useful, but It is impossible to tell if the DP works as a deterrent or not given it's extremely rare application. Period.

And just because the majority of 'experts' feel the DP wouldn't serve as a deterrent doesn't mean people must accept it as the gospel. History is littered with countless moments where the overwhelming majority of 'experts at the time' were proven wrong by a minority and that their 'hunches' were not correct.

Thirty, you're still clinging to this utter fallacy that just because the final results of research may be inconclusive that the entire body of research is worthless. That is absolutely not the case. These people are the experts in their field. Just because it was their educated opinion they were asked for instead of hard evidence does not make it worthless. They still know a hell of a lot more about the subject matter than we do.

Imagine you're in a hospital with a mysterious illness, and a team of expert doctors are called in to give their opinion on the symptoms as they presented themselves before the definitive tests were to be carried out. would you consider their opinions to be utterly worthless because they were only opinions? Would you say it's just a case of them giving their "hunch"? Of course not - they're experts and it's an expert, educated opinion they are giving, not just a hunch.

Honestly, the more you carp and nitpick the more tenuous your argument becomes.

So... once again... your passive aggressiveness rears its head. As I just expressed to Byrnzie, in the post you both referred to, I said the results from the survey are useful... but hardly conclusive. This is the only thing I have contended. I haven't taken the flawed data and tried to spin it to support my belief system as an absolute.

It was 5 pages ago when you said this: But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.

Agreed?

* Note that I never initially offered the study to suggest the DP worked as a deterrent. I offered it to counter the definitive statement made as to its lack of effectiveness as a deterrent. I have maintained that neither side can claim the DP works for them with regards to deterrence.

Say nothing of the recent abstract concepts you've eloquently attempted to spew out at me that I have largely ignored... you're now flip-flopping from an earlier admission... and you're calling my argument tenuous?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Earlier in this thread, it was suggested that the if DP had been applied at sentencing for both a serial murderer and a child murder, an inmate and a prison guard would still be alive- at least in these two cases, effectively serving as a deterrent.

It was countered that the 'additional' murders had nothing to do with the alternative sentencing that afforded killers another chance to kill. Instead, the murders had everything to do with the process associated with housing the murderers.

It was then later suggested that it is more the investigative and trial processes at fault for falsely convicting people than the DP. To which it was countered that the DP is inextricably linked to the entire process and as such... subject to its fair share of scrutiny and criticism.

It's interesting that one position would seek to hold the DP somewhat on trial for malicious and unethical prosecution tactics- scoffing at the notion that the penalty is exclusive from and not connected to the unethical tactics which result in an innocent man sentenced for a crime he did not commit... yet, on the other hand, willing to divorce the DP from seemingly much more related processes such as the sentencing and imprisonment phases for murderers.

Part in parcel... only sometimes.

callen

Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing is wrong. Guaranteeing innocent humans will be put to death due to having the death penalty is immoral and horrible. Texas kills more people than any other state and people are robbed and killed everyday. It is not a deterrent. Humans that kill aren't reasonable. Hence why they kill. There is no good that comes from DP.

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty, you're still clinging to this utter fallacy that just because the final results of research may be inconclusive that the entire body of research is worthless. That is absolutely not the case. These people are the experts in their field. Just because it was their educated opinion they were asked for instead of hard evidence does not make it worthless. They still know a hell of a lot more about the subject matter than we do.

Imagine you're in a hospital with a mysterious illness, and a team of expert doctors are called in to give their opinion on the symptoms as they presented themselves before the definitive tests were to be carried out. would you consider their opinions to be utterly worthless because they were only opinions? Would you say it's just a case of them giving their "hunch"? Of course not - they're experts and it's an expert, educated opinion they are giving, not just a hunch.

Honestly, the more you carp and nitpick the more tenuous your argument becomes.

So... once again... your passive aggressiveness rears its head. As I just expressed to Byrnzie, in the post you both referred to, I said the results from the survey are useful... but hardly conclusive. This is the only thing I have contended. I haven't taken the flawed data and tried to spin it to support my belief system as an absolute.

It was 5 pages ago when you said this: But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.

Agreed?

* Note that I never initially offered the study to suggest the DP worked as a deterrent. I offered it to counter the definitive statement made as to its lack of effectiveness as a deterrent. I have maintained that neither side can claim the DP works for them with regards to deterrence.

Say nothing of the recent abstract concepts you've eloquently attempted to spew out at me that I have largely ignored... you're now flip-flopping from an earlier admission... and you're calling my argument tenuous?

Yes, I acknowledged the inconclusiveness of the results of the meta-study (and have consistently continued to do so) and I offered to take it off the table. Which you agreed to. Yet when I come back after a few weeks away, I find you've very much still got it on the table. So forgive me if I react and respond to the ongoing conversation, but that's kinda the point of forums. And the discussion about that deterrence issue has changed focus since then, as you are now invalidly dismissing the entire process and not just the conclusions. I think there is a case for you being called out on that, and I see no inconsistency or flip-flopping in doing so, but I see plenty of inconsistency in your position.

I'm glad you raised the issue of you ignoring my comments. If I remember correctly, I challenged you in the past about your tendency to pick and choose what you respond to - very often leaving the core issues of the debate completely unanswered. I think your response at the time was "You don't expect me to answer all your points, do you?"

Well, my answer is this: if you want to have any hope of making a credible case for your defence of the death penalty, then yes - I do expect that, and nothing less. I have answered every aspect of your responses to me, and unless you can do the same you don't have much hope at all of making a convincing argument. You can attempt to dismiss them as "abstract" all you want, but any abstract or theoretical points I've raised, I've away sought to connect to the concrete facts. But then you try to dismiss that as "dramatic." You would do far better to debate issues than dismiss them.

Let's make no bones about it: your position as it stands at the moment is by no means a strong one. You rely on subjective bases for your position. You ignore many of the most fundamental questions of the whole debate. Your argument is riddled with holes that you seem to think don't exist if you don't address them. I'm sorry if you think I'm being passive-aggressive or whatever but while I have been respectful to you in the past, but it is extremely wearying and frustrating to have to constantly repeat the same points to someone who can't be bothered to respond to anything he doesn't like the sound of. You may have been respectful in your responses to me, but you have been disrespectful in how much you have ignored my points.

If you are going to come here to debate this issue, then you debate this issue - all of it. Unless you're willing to address the core issues that I've put to you over and over again, and you've ignored over and over again, then you're not really debating the issue at all.

So, here are some questions for you:

How do you account for the hypocrisy that condemns a person for killing someone while commending a state for killing? That denying someone's right to life is evil in one case but noble and just in another? How is it just to say, "you have no right to kill someone else, but we have the right to kill you"? What gives us that right?
How is it justice to kill a black man for a crime but allow a white man to live for the same crime?
How is it justice that someone will be killed in California but not in Connecticut for the same action?
How is killing someone justifiable when it is provably unnecessary?
How is it justice to proceed with the execution of someone when you are fully aware that they may not be guilty?
How is it justice to kill someone who you know to be mentally disabled, knowing also that it is unconstitutional and a crime under international law to do so?
How is it justice to kill a person on evidence that has been falsified, coerced or retracted?
How is it justice to call for the killing of a person by falsely claiming in a court of law that it will deter others from crime when there is no evidence that it will do any such thing?
How is it justice to kill someone because their crime disgusts you when you know that justice must necessarily be dispassionate, impartial and objective?

These are mostly questions that I've raised again and again that have gone unanswered. Answer these and maybe we can get someplace, instead of all of this tangential treading water. Answer these and maybe you'll be able to have a credible position. But until then, you don't.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Earlier in this thread, it was suggested that the if DP had been applied at sentencing for both a serial murderer and a child murder, an inmate and a prison guard would still be alive- at least in these two cases, effectively serving as a deterrent.

It was countered that the 'additional' murders had nothing to do with the alternative sentencing that afforded killers another chance to kill. Instead, the murders had everything to do with the process associated with housing the murderers.

Except nobody said that it had everything to do with the process associated with housing the murderers. What was said was that a better, safer, system could be put in place to prevent violent criminals from going undetected within prisons, especially when in the presence of fellow prisoners.

http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.

Pingfah

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Pingfah said:

It doesn't equate, but that's hardly the point, your problem could just as easily be with the absurdly over the top sentencing for drug related crimes. Nor does that really have the first thing to do with whether the death penalty is ethical or appropriate or not, which is a point completely divorced from relative sentencing from one crime to another. One might describe your whole line of reasoning there as a red herring.

Finally, my called for objective justice isn't about treating psychopaths more objectively, everybody should be treated objectively regardless of the severity of their crimes. Do you seriously think a legal system that is not objective is a good idea? Because I have news for you, our entire system of justice is predicated upon that very principle, it may fail in achieving that, but that objectivity is the ultimate goal. That's because the system can only be relied upon to deliver fair results if it strives to apply that principle consistently.

I honestly do not understand why people are having such a hard time grasping such a blindingly simple concept.

You used the term 'objective' to diminish the value of 'emotion'. Of course I think a legal system should be objective, but the impact of the crimes has its place when determining justice.

You speak of delivering fair results through objective (uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) practices. This concept should work two ways... not just the way you think it should. I see dramatic lack of objectivity in various cases: for example, in Norway where they were forced to deal with a man who killed 77 people (mostly children). Is setting him up with a PS3, video games, internet, and providing him an allowance and a recreational program for the duration of 20 years a shining example of objectivity at work? Is this part of the blindingly simple concept I have such a hard time with?

You are really very confused in your arguments to me, which amount to little more than ranting about perceived leniency rather than any cogent argument for the death penalty. No of course mass murderers shouldn't be given PS3s in jail, but at no point have I ever said anything of the sort or implied at ALL that I think objectivity shouldn't swing both ways. Nor have I even touched upon the treatment of convicted murderers once in prison, because it's, you know, not relevant.

My position is that we should not KILL people because we think it will make victims feel better, not that we should turn prison into a Butlins holiday camp, and it is not any of the spurious fucking nonsense you are ascribing to me here.

Anyway, as others have noted, Glen Ford is probably very happy that the Appeals system for Death Row inmates doesn't function as some here has said they would prefer, because he would be dead now. There's really no further argument required. The US system of justice is unreliable (and I would suggest there is no system of justice reliable enough), and all moral arguments aside, the death penalty is too risky.

Byrnzie

I think it's a good time to take a time-out to thank $30 unpaid for his contribution to this thread. He's certainly consistent in his opinion. He's a good egg. I just hope he never gets a job as a prison guard #:-S

I think this is a classic case of agreeing to disagree.

Anyway, enough of that. Let the venom continue >:)

JonnyPistachio

callen said:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing is wrong. Guaranteeing innocent humans will be put to death due to having the death penalty is immoral and horrible. Texas kills more people than any other state and people are robbed and killed everyday. It is not a deterrent. Humans that kill aren't reasonable. Hence why they kill. There is no good that comes from DP.

I agree Callen.

chadwick

:-t

putting to rest vile dudes is great

chadwick

edit

wolfamongwolves

chadwick said:

:-t

putting to rest vile dudes is great

petejm043

I use to be for the death penalty until two things happened in my life. The first I worked in a prison as a corrections officer many years ago. As much as those inmates would like to say that it doesn't bother them being locked up, they just try to convince themselves of that... but deep down inside they want to be free just like any human being. Prison is a total shit hole. Any person that is locked up and say that it doesn't bother them is totally insane. The second situation is how many individuals who have been on death row recently have been released because they were innocent. Imagine sitting in a cell with your life on the line...years wasted...and you are innocent. Glenn Ford, a Louisiana inmate on death row for nearly 30 years was released from prison a few days ago. If Ford had been execute by the state before the new evidence came to light, the State of Louisiana, would have murdered and completely innocent man.

After seeing what I saw while I was a corrections officer and so many cases like Glenn Ford pop up recently, I am beginning to think it may be better to leave these individuals locked up in a cell forever. I get the feeling that not a day goes by that they don't think of the horrible crime that they committed. I think that adds to their pain. Even though they may not admit it. On the other hand, it gives those individuals currently on death row, like Glenn Ford who are innocent a chance to fight without having to beat the clock.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/inmate-death-row-30-years-released-prison-article-1.1719277#ixzz2vzqJqMSq

JonnyPistachio

petejm043 said:

I use to be for the death penalty until two things happened in my life. The first I worked in a prison as a corrections officer many years ago. As much as those inmates would like to say that it doesn't bother them being locked up, they just try to convince themselves of that... but deep down inside they want to be free just like any human being. Prison is a total shit hole. Any person that is locked up and say that it doesn't bother them is totally insane. The second situation is how many individuals who have been on death row recently have been released because they were innocent. Imagine sitting in a cell with your life on the line...years wasted...and you are innocent. Glenn Ford, a Louisiana inmate on death row for nearly 30 years was released from prison a few days ago. If Ford had been execute by the state before the new evidence came to light, the State of Louisiana, would have murdered and completely innocent man.

After seeing what I saw while I was a corrections officer and so many cases like Glenn Ford pop up recently, I am beginning to think it may be better to leave these individuals locked up in a cell forever. I get the feeling that not a day goes by that they don't think of the horrible crime that they committed. I think that adds to their pain. Even though they may not admit it. On the other hand, it gives those individuals currently on death row, like Glenn Ford who are innocent a chance to fight without having to beat the clock.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/inmate-death-row-30-years-released-prison-article-1.1719277#ixzz2vzqJqMSq

Thanks for sharing Petejm. I'd have to agree. I know a few people that spent a few years in prison just for small stuff and they said it was really bad. I cant imagine a lifetime for murder or rape what the average inmate must go through.

petejm043

JonnyPistachio said:

petejm043 said:

I use to be for the death penalty until two things happened in my life. The first I worked in a prison as a corrections officer many years ago. As much as those inmates would like to say that it doesn't bother them being locked up, they just try to convince themselves of that... but deep down inside they want to be free just like any human being. Prison is a total shit hole. Any person that is locked up and say that it doesn't bother them is totally insane. The second situation is how many individuals who have been on death row recently have been released because they were innocent. Imagine sitting in a cell with your life on the line...years wasted...and you are innocent. Glenn Ford, a Louisiana inmate on death row for nearly 30 years was released from prison a few days ago. If Ford had been execute by the state before the new evidence came to light, the State of Louisiana, would have murdered and completely innocent man.

After seeing what I saw while I was a corrections officer and so many cases like Glenn Ford pop up recently, I am beginning to think it may be better to leave these individuals locked up in a cell forever. I get the feeling that not a day goes by that they don't think of the horrible crime that they committed. I think that adds to their pain. Even though they may not admit it. On the other hand, it gives those individuals currently on death row, like Glenn Ford who are innocent a chance to fight without having to beat the clock.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/inmate-death-row-30-years-released-prison-article-1.1719277#ixzz2vzqJqMSq

Thanks for sharing Petejm. I'd have to agree. I know a few people that spent a few years in prison just for small stuff and they said it was really bad. I cant imagine a lifetime for murder or rape what the average inmate must go through.

We need prison reform really bad. It doesn't make sense to have a drug addict or alcoholic, both who need help and treatment sleeping in a cell with a rapist or murderer. But stuff like that happens. I don't know who makes the rules but it doesn't make sense to me.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

I think it's a good time to take a time-out to thank $30 unpaid for his contribution to this thread. He's certainly consistent in his opinion. He's a good egg. I just hope he never gets a job as a prison guard #:-S

I think this is a classic case of agreeing to disagree.

Anyway, enough of that. Let the venom continue >:)

I was away on holidays and never bothered to access the site until today.

I see a few posts that I should probably respond to, but for lack of time, energy, or will at the current moment... I'll respond to this one.

Just like most threads in this forum, this isn't an 'agreement' thread as much as it is a 'disagreement' thread. Conflict that is inherent with such controversial topics can be positive allowing for meaningful discussion provided it doesn't have the negative effect of polarizing people for their positions.

Agreeing to disagree.

wolfamongwolves

The ten most brutal places in the world:
Amnesty International report sees spike in global executions

Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia accounted for 80 per cent of all public executions in 2013

Heather Saul
Thursday 27 March 2014

China carries out more executions than any other country, a new report has estimated.

"Thousands" of people were executed in 2013, the Death Sentences and Executions 2013 report by Amnesty International concluded, followed by 369 in Iran and 169 in Iraq.

But Amnesty could not release the exact figure of public executions in China because data on the use of the death penalty there is considered a state secret.

The number of known executions around the world rose by almost 15 per cent in 2013, and the United States was among the five countries putting the most people to death, the report said.

It highlighted a “sharp spike” in the number of people executed in 2013 when compared to the previous year, with publicly disclosed executions last year totalling 778, compared with 682 in 2012.

Excluding China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia accounted for 80 per cent of all executions in 2013.

"The killing sprees we saw in countries like Iran and Iraq were shameful," Salil Shetty, Amnesty International's Secretary General, said in a statement.

“Only a small number of countries carried out the vast majority of these senseless state-sponsored killings."

It listed the known methods of execution, including beheading in Saudi Arabia, electrocution in the US and lethal injection in China, Vietnam and the United States. Several countries were listed as using hanging and shooting.

Europe, however, remained execution free in 2013 for the first time since 2009, although Belarus - the only country to still enforce the death penalty - sentenced four people to death.

At least 23,000 people were on death row across the world as of the end of 2013. It also counted 1,925 people sentenced to death in 57 countries last year, up from the year before.

"We oppose the death penalty in all cases, without exception," Jose Luis Diaz, the group's representative at the United Nations, said on Wednesday. "It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment."

wolfamongwolves

Here's the report:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/amnesty_death_penalty_report_2014_final_0.pdf

And here's some of what it says about the US:

The USA was the only country in the Americas to carry out executions in 2013, as in every year but one of the past decade.

The number of executions in the USA fell again, with an approximate 10% drop from the 43 executions of 2012. Last year 39 executions were carried out in nine states, 82% of which were in the Southern states. Texas alone accounted for 41% of all executions, an increase from 34% in 2012.

The US-based Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reported how a small number of local jurisdictions are responsible for the majority of death sentences. For instance, the more than 1,300 prisoners executed since 1976 were sentenced to death in just 15% of the counties in the USA.

The use of capital punishment remains significantly lower than a decade earlier – there were 138 death sentences in 2004 – and dramatically down from the 1990s, when the annual number of death sentences averaged nearly 300.

A continued decline in the use of the death penalty in the USA was reflected not only in lower numbers of executions and death sentences compared to previous decades, but also in abolitionist initiatives in state legislatures. In May, Maryland became the 18th abolitionist state, and the fourth state to abolish the death penalty in the past five years.

The death penalty in the USA continued to be marked by error, inconsistency, racial disparities and, in a number of cases, a lack of adherence to specific provisions of international law or safeguards.

Texas carried out the execution of Mexican national Edgar Arias Tamayo in violation of an order from the International Court of Justice requiring that he have judicial “review and reconsideration” of the impact on his case of the denial of his consular rights after arrest. He was not advised of his right to seek consular assistance and the Mexican authorities did not learn of the case until a week before the trial. Without access to the sort of assistance the consulate subsequently provided, Edgar Tamayo’s trial lawyer failed to present evidence of the deprivations and abuse his client suffered as a child, his developmental problems, a serious head injury he sustained when he was 17 and its impact on his behaviour, including a worsening dependency on drugs and alcohol. In 2008 a psychologist put Edgar Tamayo’s intellectual functioning in the “mild mental retardation” range, which would render his execution unconstitutional under US law.

On 12 June, William Van Poyck was executed in Florida after 25 years on death row. Claims persisted that he had received inadequate legal representation at the trial, including the defence lawyer’s failure to present the full mitigating evidence of his client’s background of childhood abuse and mental health problems. Three of seven Florida Supreme Court judges dissented against upholding the death sentence, arguing that the case represented a “blatant example of counsel’s failure to investigate and prepare a penalty phase defense”. Final appeals based on this issue, and on evidence that it was William Van Poyck’s co-defendant who had actually shot the victim, who was a prison guard, were unsuccessful. This codefendant, who was also given the death penalty, died in 1999 as a result of massive injuries sustained during an alleged beating by guards.

Paul Howell’s execution in Florida was stayed on 25 February, one day before it was scheduled, to allow a federal appeals court to consider whether his claim of inadequate legal representation could be reopened in light of recent US Supreme Court rulings in other cases. The claim related not only to his initial appeal lawyer’s missing a deadline to file an appeal, thereby defaulting it, but also to the failure of his trial lawyer to present certain mitigating evidence, including of physical childhood abuse and deprivations in his native Jamaica, as well as details of mental health problems as an adult. In September the court ruled against Howell. One of the three judges dissented, describing Howell’s representation at trial and on initial appeal as “incompetent, ineffective and deeply unprofessional”.

Florida passed the Timely Justice Act (TJA) aimed, in part, at speeding up the pace of executions. Such legislation is inconsistent with international human rights standards which seek eventual abolition of the death penalty, and ignores the reality of Florida’s high error rate in capital cases. Florida accounts for some 15% of the more than 140 inmates released from death rows in the USA since 1973 on grounds of innocence. When Florida’s Governor Rick Scott signed the TJA into law on 14 June 2013, Representative Matt Gaetz, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives, responded by tweeting his thanks, adding: “Several on death row need to start picking out their last meals”.

Murder charges against Reginald Griffin in Missouri were dismissed on 25 October, making him the 143rd person to be released from death row in the USA on grounds of innocence since 1973, according to the US-based Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). He had been sentenced to death in 1983 for the murder of a fellow prison inmate. The Missouri
Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2011 because the state had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defence, and ordered that he be retried or released.

Legislation passed in Alabama in April allowed the Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant posthumous pardons in cases involving racial or social injustice. Three black men, Charles Weems, Andy Wright and Haywood Patterson, were posthumously exonerated in Alabama in November in relation to their wrongful convictions by all-white juries for the rape of two white women in 1931. After years on death row, they and their co-defendants had been released. The three posthumously pardoned in 2013 were the last of the group not to have been pardoned or to have had charges dismissed.

Concerns over racial discrimination also marked the 500th execution in Texas since judicial killings resumed in the USA in 1977. The case concerned Kimberly McCarthy, a black woman sentenced to death for the murder of her white neighbour. At her 2002 retrial the jury consisted of 11 white people and one black person, selected from a jury pool in which African-Americans were under-represented and from which three of the four black individuals who were on it were dismissed by the prosecutor during jury selection.

A petition filed in June 2013 by Kimberly McCarthy’s new lawyer, seeking to present evidence of racial discrimination during the jury selection and to challenge the failure of her previous lawyers to raise the claims at trial or appeal, was dismissed on the grounds that the claims should have been raised earlier. Kimberly McCarthy was executed by lethal injection on 26 June.