Your search “ ”

Occasionally, physicians’ personal values conflict with their perceived societal duties. One example is the case of lethal injection for the purpose of capital punishment. Some states require that such lethal injections be performed by physicians. At the same time, leading medical societies have concluded that physicians should avoid participating in capital punishment. Physicians’ attitudes toward involvement in capital punishment may depend on how they balance their responsibilities to individuals against their duties to society. Other factors may include a desire to provide a more painless death for the prisoner or concern over the competency of other health care personnel. In a previous survey, we found that a majority of physicians condoned involvement of their fellow physicians in capital punishment. For the current study, we conducted another survey to ascertain physicians’ attitudes about their own involvement in capital punishment, as well as factors associated with these attitudes.

• 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,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

In this essay, I suggest a different and particularly feminist reason for reexamining, and rejecting, the death penalty. The death penalty perverts society’s response to the tragedy of a woman being raped and murdered by relying on a form of racism that is gendered in nature and by making the horrific nature of the crime of rape-murder a more important consideration in determining punishment than the individual characteristics of the person who committed it.

• 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
  

Do black jurors view a crime or its appropriate punishment differently than their white counterparts? Are their perspectives influenced by the race of the defendant or victim? Are blacks on white-dominated capital juries intimidated or coerced into voting for the death penalty?

• 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
  

It turns out that voir dire in capital cases is woefully ineffective at the most elementary task—weeding out unqualified jurors.Empirical evidence reveals that many capital jurors are in fact unqualified to serve. Moreover, the ineffectiveness of the process is far from even-handed. A juror is not “death-qualified” if she would always vote against a death sentence, regardless of the circumstances, and a handful of the jurors who actually serve in capital cases are in fact unqualified for this reason.

• 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
  

Questions regarding the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous decision are often asked of judges and similar uninformative responses are generally given. Is ignoringjuror concerns the proper method for handling jury inquiries about the result of juror non-unanimity in capital sentencing? Or should courts inform capital juries up-front of the consequences of their failure to reach a unanimous verdict?

• 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
  

One of the largely unique aspects of the American jury system is that it confers upon the parties the unilateral power – in the form of peremptory challenges – to remove prospective jurors for any non-racial or non-gender-based reason. This article presents an overview of the literature on peremptory challenges, and an empirical analysis of their use in Philadelphia capital cases in the 1980s and 1990s.

• 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 Fair Trial,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Until the landmark decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in Hufhes and Spense v The Queen, the convetional wisdom was that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty could not be challenged in Commonwealth Caribbean countries as unconstitutional and that, in any event, the savings clauses contained in the constitutions would prevent any such challenge. As a consequence, the constitutional courts in the Commonwealth Caribbean are now being asked to consider a number of specific issues in relation to the mandatory death penalty: first, whether it is constitutional; and second, whether any chanllenges to the mandatory death penalty are barred by the savings clauses found to a varying degree, within each Caribbean constitution of and implications for global and regional developments are highly significant.

• 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 Mandatory Death Penalty,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The present, sixth quinquennial report contains a review of the trends in the application of the death penalty, including the implementation of the safeguards, during the period l994-2000. It is a revised, updated version of the report of the Secretary-General on the subject (E/2000/3) that was submitted to the Council at its substantive session of 2000, to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its ninth session and to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-sixth session. Sixty-three countries participated in the survey. There was again a relatively poor response from retentionist countries, especially those making the most use of capital punishment. One major conclusion to be drawn is that, since l994, the rate at which countries have embraced abolition has remained unchanged.

• Document type United Nations report
  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 عقوبة الإعدام وتنفيذ الضمانات التي تكفل حماية حقوق الذين يواجهون عقوبة الإعدام : م ذكّرة من الأمين العامСмертная казнь и применение мер, гарантирующих защиту прав тех, кому грозит смертная казнь : Доклад Генерального секретаряPeine capitale et application des garanties pour la protection des droits des personnes passibles de la peine de mort: Rapport du Secrétaire général死刑和保护死刑犯权利的保障措施的执行情况: 秘书长的报告La pena capital y la aplicación de las salvaguardias para garantizar la protección de los derechos de los condenados a la pena de muerte: Informe del Secretario General

The report shows an encouraging trend towards abolition and restriction of the use of capital punishment in most countries. It also shows that much remains to be done in the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of persons facing the death penalty in those countries that retain it.

• Document type United Nations report
  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 عقوبة الإعدام وتنفيذ الضمانات التي تكفل حماية حقوق الذين يواجهون عقوبة الإعدام : م ذكّرة من الأمين العامСмертная казнь и применение мер, гарантирующих защиту прав тех, кому грозит смертная казнь : Доклад Генерального секретаряLa pena capital y la aplicación de las salvaguardias para garantizar la protección de los derechos de los condenados a la pena de muerte : Informe del Secretario GeneralLa pena capital y la aplicación de las salvaguardias para garantizar la protección de los derechos de los condenados a la pena de muerte : Informe del Secretario GeneralCapital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty: Report of the Secretary-Generalعقوبة الإعدام وتنفيذ الضمانات التي تكفل حقوق ال ذين يواجهون عقوبة الإعدام :تقرير الأمين العامСмертная казнь и осуществление мер, гарантирующих защиту прав тех, кто приговорен к смертной казни: Доклад Генерального секретаряPeine capitale et application des garanties pour la protection des droits des personnes passibles de la peine de mort: Rapport du Secrétaire généralPeine capitale et application des garanties pour la protection des droits des personnes passibles de la peine de mort: Rapport du Secrétaire général死刑和保护死刑犯权利的保障措施的执行情况: 秘书长的报告死刑和保护死刑犯权利的保障措施的执行情况: 秘书长的报告

One major goal of these recommendations is to create additional safeguards against the endemic tendency of decision-makers in the criminal justice system to “pass the buck.” The system is far too lax in catching errors and injustices in part because many of those who might catch these errors and injustices do not fully understand their own duty to ensure that a death sentence is the appropriate punishment. Several of these recommendations are addressed to those who occupy critical roles in the capital punishment system, including the defense attorney, the prosecutor, the jury, the trial judge, and the reviewing courts. They emphasize that each, individually, has the responsibility to ensure, to the best of his or her ability, that justice is done.

• Document type NGO report
  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 Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127