Comparative Abolition Of Capital Punishment
I. Introduction to Comparative Abolition of Capital Punishment
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been abolished in many countries through legislation, constitutional reforms, or judicial interpretation. Comparative analysis involves looking at different legal systems—common law, civil law, and hybrid systems—to understand why and how abolition occurred.
Key themes include:
Human rights and constitutional guarantees – Many countries cite the right to life and prohibition against cruel punishment.
Judicial interpretation – Courts often play a central role in declaring death penalty unconstitutional or restricting its application.
Legislative reforms – Parliamentary or legislative decisions often reflect societal change.
International influence – Treaties and conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, influence national abolition.
II. Notable Cases and Examples
1. Furman v. Georgia (1972) – United States
Facts: William Furman was sentenced to death for a burglary that led to an accidental killing. The case challenged the arbitrary application of the death penalty.
Legal Issue: Whether the death penalty constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the death penalty, as applied, was arbitrary and capricious. The lack of consistent standards led to discriminatory and unpredictable imposition.
Outcome: Death sentences nationwide were temporarily halted; states had to revise statutes to ensure uniformity.
Significance: Furman triggered reforms in death penalty statutes and highlighted judicial oversight in abolition debates.
2. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: Jens Soering, a German national in the UK, faced extradition to the United States where he could receive the death penalty for murder.
Legal Issue: Could the UK extradite him without violating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)?
Court Reasoning: The European Court emphasized that exposure to the death penalty, particularly in conditions of “death row phenomenon” (psychological stress, prolonged waiting), violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment).
Outcome: Extradition was blocked unless assurances against execution were provided.
Significance: This case reinforced the human rights argument against capital punishment in Europe, influencing countries to move toward abolition.
3. Abolition in Canada – Reference Re: Section 745 of the Criminal Code (1993)
Facts: Canada had a mandatory death penalty statute for murder, which was challenged as unconstitutional.
Legal Issue: Whether Section 745 of the Criminal Code violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by imposing death without judicial discretion.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that mandatory death sentences violated Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security) and Section 12 (protection against cruel and unusual punishment).
Outcome: Canada abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1998; the case was pivotal in highlighting constitutional grounds for abolition.
Significance: Demonstrated the role of judicial interpretation in aligning national law with human rights norms.
4. Trop v. Dulles (1958) – United States
Facts: Charles Trop, a US soldier, was sentenced to loss of citizenship (equivalent to a civil death penalty) for desertion. Although not a literal death penalty, the case addressed the evolving standards of cruel punishment.
Legal Issue: Whether revoking citizenship as punishment violated the Eighth Amendment.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court introduced the concept of “evolving standards of decency,” a principle later applied in death penalty jurisprudence.
Outcome: Trop’s sentence was overturned.
Significance: Trop established the “evolving standards” doctrine, influencing later death penalty abolition cases by connecting societal morality with constitutional interpretation.
5. S v. Makwanyane (1995) – South Africa
Facts: South Africa faced constitutional challenges to the death penalty after apartheid, questioning its compatibility with the new Bill of Rights.
Legal Issue: Whether capital punishment violated the rights to life and dignity under the South African Constitution.
Court Reasoning: The Constitutional Court held that the death penalty was inherently inconsistent with the rights to life and human dignity, and that there was no evidence it was more effective than imprisonment in deterring crime.
Outcome: Death penalty abolished for all crimes in South Africa.
Significance: First major post-apartheid ruling emphasizing human rights and dignity as primary grounds for abolition in a transitional democracy.
6. Soering-Like Influence in India – Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: India examined whether long delays on death row constituted cruel and inhuman punishment.
Legal Issue: Whether execution after prolonged incarceration violated Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that “death row phenomenon” violates the right to life and must be considered before carrying out capital punishment.
Outcome: Reinforced safeguards; though India retained the death penalty, courts imposed strict review processes.
Significance: Shows judicially moderated capital punishment, influenced by comparative international human rights jurisprudence.
7. Abolition in the European Union
Example: The EU mandates abolition for member states as a precondition of membership. Cases such as Soering and human rights litigation reinforced the EU’s strong anti-death penalty stance.
Significance: Illustrates regional legal instruments’ role in comparative abolition, where courts enforce supranational human rights norms.
III. Comparative Analysis
| Country / Case | Legal Basis for Abolition | Key Reasoning | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA (Furman v. Georgia) | Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments | Arbitrary application; cruel & unusual | Temporary halt; statutory reforms |
| Canada (Section 745 Ref) | Charter of Rights & Freedoms | Mandatory death violates right to life & security | Death penalty abolished 1998 |
| South Africa (Makwanyane) | Constitution, Bill of Rights | Inconsistent with human dignity; ineffective deterrent | Death penalty abolished 1995 |
| UK / Soering | ECHR Article 3 | Exposure to execution = inhuman treatment | Extradition blocked without assurances |
| India (Chauhan) | Article 21, Constitution | Death row delays = cruel punishment | Safeguards implemented; de facto moderation |
Key Lessons:
Human rights frameworks—constitutional or international—are central to abolition.
Judicial review often precedes or accelerates legislative reform.
Societal and evolving moral standards influence courts (e.g., Trop v. Dulles).
Comparative influence: courts look at foreign precedents to justify abolition (e.g., India citing Soering).
IV. Conclusion
Comparative abolition of capital punishment shows a clear trend toward human rights and dignity-based reasoning. Case law demonstrates:
Courts often balance societal morals, effectiveness, and cruelty in assessing the death penalty.
Abolition can be gradual (restrictions and safeguards) or absolute (complete legislative abolition).
International instruments and comparative jurisprudence accelerate reform and standardize norms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments