INDEX

Professor Kirchmeier examines the recent decline in support for the death penalty in the United States and the resulting emergence of a movement to impose a moratorium on executions. After discussing the history of the death penalty abolition movement in the United States, he identifies five major and seven minor events that have contributed to the growth of the Death Penalty Moratorium Movement. Then, he compares the current Moratorium Movement to other similar reform periods: the 1960s Death Penalty Abolitionist Movement; legislative abolition of the death penalty in several states during the mid-1800s and early 1900s; death penalty abolition in other countries; and the Anti-Lynching Movement of the early 1900s. Based on the history of these other movements, Professor Kirchmeier discovers various lessons for today’s Moratorium Movement, including lessons about strategy and the roles of public opinion and leadership. Finally, using these lessons from history and looking at recent events, he considers the future of the Moratorium Movement. Professor Kirchmeier concludes that for the Movement to continue to be successful: (1) there must be no major national distracting forces; (2) the Movement must continue to broaden its arguments and not be overly dependent upon one issue, one person, or one strategy; (3) the Movement must continue seek support from unexpected voices; and (4) the Movement must stay focused on the goals of achieving popular support and creating new leaders. Finally, Professor Kirchmeier predicts that the Moratorium Movement is strong enough to continue to have lasting effects.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Moratorium ,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Despite the interest in the death penalty, no statistical studies have isolated the social and political forces that account for the legality of this punishment. Racial or ethnic threat theories suggest that the death penalty will more likely be legal in jurisdictions with relatively large black or Hispanic populations. Economic threat explanations suggest that this punishment will be present in unequal areas. Jurisdictions with a more conservative public or a stronger law and order Republican party should be more likely to legalize the death penalty as well. After controlling for social disorganization, region, period, and voilent crime, panel analyses suggest that minority presence and economic inequality enhance the likelihood of a legal death penalty. Conservative values and Republican strength in the legislature have equivalent effects; A supplement time-to-event analysis supports these conclusions. The results suggest that a political approach has explanatory power because threat effects expressed through politics and effects that are directly political invariable account for decisions about the legality of capital punishment.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This article discusses the paradoxical motivations and problems behind legislative changes from one method of execution to the next, and particularly moves from electrocution to lethal injection. Legislatures and courts insist that the primary reason states switch execution methods is to ensure greater humaneness for death row inmates. History shows, however, that such moves were prompted primarily because the death penalty itself became constitutionally jeopardized due to a state’s particular method. The result has been a warped legal “philosophy” of punishment, at times peculiarly aligning both friends and foes of the death penalty alike and wrongly enabling legislatures to delegate death to unknowledgeable prison personnel. This article first examines the constitutionality of electrocution, contending that a modern Eighth Amendment analysis of a range of factors, such as legislative trends toward lethal injection, indicates that electrocution is cruel and unusual. It then provides an Eighth Amendment review of lethal injection, demonstrating that injection also involves unnecessary pain, the risk of such pain, and a loss of dignity. These failures seem to be attributed to vague lethal injection statutes, uninformed prison personnel, and skeletal or inaccurate lethal injection protocols. The article next presents the author’s study of the most current protocols for lethal injection in all thirty-six states where anesthesia is used for a state execution. The study focuses on a number of criteria contained in many protocols that are key to applying an injection, including: the types and amounts of chemicals that are injected; the selection, training, preparation, and qualifications of the lethal injection team; the involvement of medical personnel; the presence of general witnesses and media witnesses; as well as details on how the procedure is conducted and how much of it witnesses can see. The study emphasizes that the criteria in many protocols are far too vague to assess adequately. When the protocols do offer details, such as the amount and type of chemicals that executioners inject, they oftentimes reveal striking errors and ignorance about the procedure. Suchinaccurate or missing information heightens the likelihood that a lethal injection will be botched and suggests that states are not capable of executing an inmate constitutionally. Even though executions have become increasingly hidden from the public, and therefore more politically palatable, they have not become more humane, only more difficult to monitor.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Lethal Injection, Electrocution,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Ohio’s aggravated felony-murder rule and felony-murder death penalty specification provisions apply where a death occurs “while committing or attempting to commit” certain enumerated felonies. In a line of cases beginning in 1996, the Ohio Supreme Court broadly interpreted this statutory language to include situations where the intent to commit the underlying felony was formed subsequent to the death, as a complete afterthought. With these cases, the Ohio Supreme Court departed from the majority view that the intent to commit the underlying felony must precede or co-exist with the death. The author argues that this new statutory interpretation represents an unwarranted expansion of the felony-murder rule that disregards the statutory language, ignores the underlying purpose of the rule, and dispenses with traditional safeguards designed to ameliorate its harshness. The author further argues that applying this new statutory interpretation to the felony-murder death penalty specification potentially selects for death those who are not necessarily the most deserving of this ultimate punishment. The author suggests that the solution must be a legislative one.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Capital offences, Arbitrariness,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The United States has repeatedly failed to notify detained foreign nationals of their rights to consular notification and access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In capital cases, US non-compliance with this ratified Treaty has led to litigation by foreign governments and individual lawyers in domestic courts and international tribunals. While these efforts have had mixed results in individual cases, litigation by Mexico, Germany and other actors has led to increased compliance with Article 36, and a growing recognition of the significance of US treaty obligations.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Foreign Nationals,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

On December 10, 1998, the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, former President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order No. 13107 stating, “It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States, being committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, fully to respect and implement its obligations.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

State legislatures principally have been responsible for the acceptance and evolution (and even sometimes the abandonment) of capital punishment in the American criminal justice system from the colonial and founding eras, through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and now into the twenty-first century. A number of colonial legislative enactments, though influenced by England’s embrace of the punishment of death, uniquely defined and often significantly confined which crimes were to be subject to capital punishment.[1] State legislatures further narrowed the reach of the death penalty through the early nineteenth century as states, prodded often by vocal abolitionists and led by developments in Pennsylvania, divided the offense of murder into degrees and provided that only the most aggravated murderers would be subject to the punishment of death. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also saw states, as the product of legislative enactments, move away from mandating death as the punishment for certain crimes by giving juries discretion to choose which defendants would be sentenced to die. Throughout all these periods, statutory enactments have also played a fundamental role in the evolution of where and how executions are carried out.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

At the same time, the countries that most vigorously employ the death penalty are generally ones that the United States has the least in common with politically, economically, or socially, and ones that the United States is wont to define itself against, as they are among the least democratic and the worst human rights abusers in the world. In recent years, the top five employers of capital punishment were China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States.3 Moreover, in the past twelve years, only seven countries in the world are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of their crimes: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the United States.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This paper discusses some case law on detention issues by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) that supervises the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as HRC case law on the so-called “death row phenomenon,” which involves forcing a person to live under conditions that spawn intense fear, distress, and the virtual destruction of the personality while awaiting execution.

• Document type Article
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_pays in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 107
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Death Row Phenomenon,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The report also discusses the issue of capital punishment and makes reference to death penalty cases in which the Special Rapporteur has intervened in reaction to reports that the sentences concerned had been passed in violation of international restrictions and human rights standards.

• Document type International law - United Nations
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_pays in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 107
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Trend Towards Abolition,
• Available languages حالات الإعدام خارج نطاق القضاء أو بإجراء اتموجة أو تعسفاً تقرير المقرر الخاص اسمة جهانقير, مقدم مطابقا لقرار لجنة الحقوق الانسان 2001/45Внесудебные казни, казни без надлежащего судебного разбирательства или произвольные казни: Доклад Специального докладчика г-жи Асмы Джахангир, представленный в соответствии с резолюцией 2001/45 Комиссии по правам человекаExécutions extrajudiciaires, sommaires ou arbitraires: Rapport de la Rapporteuse spéciale, Mme Asma Jahangir, présenté en application de la résolution 2001/45 de la Commission des droits de l’'homme法外处决 即审即决或任意处决: 特别报告员阿斯玛 贾汉吉尔女士 根据人权委员会第 2001/45 号决议提交的报告Las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias: Informe de la Relatora Especial, Sra. Asma Jahangir, presentado en cumplimiento de la resolución 2001/45 de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos