Issue Of Capital Punishment Research Articles

나가야마 노리오(永山則夫)와 현대 일본의 소년범죄

Norio Nagayama was a 19-year-old serial killer in 1968 in Japan. Nagayama’s life and works were also evaluated as a contact point for showing the lowest classes in the 1960s and 1970s. In this article, I will progress a comprehensive study of various academic issues by focusing on juvenile crime. Also, examine how he influenced Japan’s current view on juvenile crime and find out the possibility of modern interpretation. First, as for the legal impact, established the criteria for choosing a juvenile death penalty, such as the ‘Nagayama Standard,’ informs that the argument of severe punishment of juvenile crimes, and death penalty issues were reviewed early in Japan. Second, Nagayama’s notes led to an apology for the victim’s family without showing off the crime itself. Accordingly, Japan learned that the cause of crime can be found in the (non)fictions of juvenile criminals. It confirmed that it is important to set up a place for thinking about analyzing and transmitting various causes of juvenile crimes through non-fictions or literary works. Finally, Nagayama’s novels were meaningful as a realisㄴtic work and record to find the cause of a juvnile’s crime.

DEATH PENALTY AS AN AFFRONT TO HUMANITY AND GLOBAL CIVILISATION: NIGERIA AS A CASE STUDY

The death penalty in Nigeria and indeed all over the world has become a subject of perpetual discourse. This is because protagonists and antagonists are at each other throats on the need for its retention or abolition. It is a thorny and emotional controversy that has not shown any sign of abating. The issue of death penalty transcends regional divide, political ideology, race and civilisation. This piece is an appraisal of death penalty application in Nigeria and its continued relevance in view of the dominant global pulse of human rights, recent positive developmental strides in the areas of civilisation and the error prone criminal justice system. The paper using doctrinal research methodology finds that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) does not prohibit its application. The study however finds that there is changing perception of crimes and punishment globally. As a result, international law is becoming paternalistic-moving towards the abolition of death penalty. The study therefore is a clarion call to the law makers to roll back the provision of death penalty and adopt life jail as a viable alternative. By so doing, Nigeria will not trail behind international trends in human rights and civilization. It will also make her stand on a higher pedestal than the depraved offender.

Counter hegemonic representation of Islamic media in Indonesia on death penalty issue

<p class="MediumShading1-Accent12"><span lang="IN">During the first two years of Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla Government (2014-2015) in Indonesia, precisely 18 death row inmates who were guilty of drugs had been executed. The government believed that death penalty is the effective solution to overcome the high rate of narcotics crime. It becomes an interesting case due to the pressure of hegemony of the European Union over the government of Indonesia. One of the major national media in Indonesia, namely Republika.co.id, supports the implementation of death penalty. This studied aims to reveal the counter-hegemonic representation of Republika.co.id in opposing the hegemony of the EU related to the issue of Human Rights, particularly death penalty. This study applied Critical Discourse Analysis by Norman Fairclough and critical theory of Hegemony by Antonio Gramsci. The result shown that Republika represents counter-hegemonic in its reporting since it rejects the EU’s attitude considered to impose its standard principles of human rights on Indonesia.</span><strong></strong></p>

The Leviathan’s Achilles’ Heel. On Deconstruction and Conscription

Este ensayo trata de situar el problema del servicio militar en el pensamiento de Jacques Derrida. La primera parte explora esta cuestión en el seminario La bestia y el soberano, entre el Leviatán de Hobbes y tres fábulas clásicas. La segunda parte solicita algunas referencias clásicas como Rousseau, Heidegger y Renan, con el fin de cuestionar la conscripción tal y como está ejemplarmente implicada en la Francia contemporánea. La tercera y última parte convoca a Kant, la Iglesia Católica y el problema de la pena de muerte para esbozar la función del servicio militar desde el punto de vista de la deconstrucción del cosmopolitismo.

Between hammer and anvil: the Russian Constitutional Court’s position on abolition of the death penalty

The key factor in maintaining a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia is its membership in the Council of Europe, which requires compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the abolition of the death penalty. One of the proponents of maintaining Russia’s adherence to the Convention is the Russian Constitutional Court. However, the return of the death penalty as a capital punishment finds some support in Russia. Therefore, the Constitutional Court has to maintain a balance between two forces: internal pressure from public opinion and a number of conservative government representatives, and fidelity to the fundamental principles of the Russian Constitution and international law, backed up by international obligations undertaken by Russia. The purpose of this article is to identify and analyze contradictions among the priorities of the Russian Constitutional Court in its implementation of foreign and domestic legal policy through a political and legal analysis of its argumentation regarding the abolition of the death penalty. In turn, full-fledged analysis of the Court’s argument is possible only by taking into account the domestic and international contexts. The article is structured as follows: firstly, it examines the evolution of the question of the abolition of the death penalty in Russia and the main decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court related to the introduction and maintenance of a moratorium on the death penalty. Secondly, it examines the domestic context of decisions taken by the Court from the perspective of key actors (the professional community, government officials, public opinion). Thirdly, it considers the international context of decision-making (the development of relations between Russia and the Council of Europe, the Russian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as foreign experience with the issue of abolition of the death penalty). In conclusion, the article analyzes the main arguments of the Russian Constitutional Court to justify the need to abolish the death penalty and discusses the role of the Constitutional Court in resolving the death penalty issue.

Political Contextuality of Martin McDonagh’s Hangmen: An Intervention in the Debate over Capital Punishment in Britain

Martin McDonagh’s Hangmen (2015) is a contextual play as the work derives its material from an actual historical event, the abolition of capital punishment in the 1960s, and presents this topic at a time in which the same issue is debated again in 2015. The play refers to two distinct socio-historical backgrounds, 1960s Britain as the context of the plot, and the 21 st century as the context of the audience/reader. Hangmen takes place in a very specific date in history, the year in which hanging was suspended in Britain. The portrayal of what seems to be the last hanging case in the country makes it possible to problematise the integrity of the judicial system at the time. Presentation of the rivalry between two famous executioners in the country, Harry Allen and Albert Pierrepoint, also underlines the play’s socio-political relation to a certain context. What is equally noteworthy about Hangmen is McDonagh’s choice of this topic at a time in which the issue of capital punishment is raised again in Britain. Concerning recent arguments about the reintroduction of death penalty in 2015, it is observed that McDonagh also initiates a discussion concerning the legitimation of state violence through a depiction of the history of hanging. In light of this observation, the aim of this article is to discuss McDonagh’s topical dark comedy as a political intervention in the debate over death penalty in Britain by providing appropriate case studies of several hanging offences in the history of Britain.

The Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against

In October 2014, Ambassador and Head of the European Union Delegation to Zambia and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Mr. Gilles Hervio, authored an article entitled “Against the Death Penalty,” which was featured in various news media outlets, including Zambia Weekly. In the article, Mr. Hervio urged Zambians and the Zambian government to seriously consider the prospect of providing for the abolition of the death penalty in their country’s new Republican constitution. The “death penalty” or “capital punishment” is a contentious issue worldwide. By definition, it is the lawful infliction of death by government authorities as a form of punishment for very serious crimes, such as murder, espionage, treason, economic sabotage, large-scale drug trafficking, aggravated robbery, and other serious felonies. Over the years, there have been calls and a sustained and resolute effort by opponents of capital punishment to rid the world of such punishment because, according to Mr. Hervio (2014), it “represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity.” This article is an attempt at making a contribution to the topical issue of capital punishment. The remainder of the article is, therefore, devoted to a survey of the following themes: (a) murder versus other crimes; (b) the arguments for and against the death penalty; (c) guidance on the subject of capital punishment from several religious denominations; (d) the issue of prison escapes; and (e) a few observations regarding the death penalty. The article also provides a summing up at the end.

Pandangan Mufasir Indonesia Terhadap Isu-Isu Hak Asasi Manusia

This article argues that the attitude of Indonesian mufassir is not always parallel in respond to the concept of Human Rights. This is shown from our discussion of three contextual issues in human rights: freedom of religion, freedom to find a mate, and death sentence, which are exemplified by comparing to the three Indonesian mufassir: Hamka’s Tafsir al-Azhar, Hasbi ash-Shiddieqy’s Tafsir al-Nur and Tafsir al-Bayan, and Quraish Shihab’s Tafsir Al-Mishbah. The article concludes: First, in respond to the human rights issues, Indonesian commentators tend to be responsive. All three exegetes denied those who claimed that Islam was spread with violence and those who opposed the death penalty. Second, on the relationship between human rights and Islam, the commentators have similarities and differences with human rights. Among these similarities, for example, is the issue of religious freedom. As for the issue of freedom to choose a mate and a death sentence, they are taking a different position from human rights. On the issue of death penalty, the commentators emphasize to not only looking from the side of the killer, but also from the right of the murder.

The New Natural Lawyers, Contraception, Capital Punishment, and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium

The New Natural Lawyers, Contraception, Capital Punishment, and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium Christian D. Washburn (bio) In the years following Humanae Vitae, the encyclical enjoyed little support from Catholic theologians; but a few moral theologians, led by Germain Grisez, heroically came to its defense.1 These theologians attempted to use their New Natural Law theory (NNLT) in the service of the magisterium, but their arguments proved inadequate to stem the tide of dissent. In 1978, John C. Ford and Germain Grisez took a new approach, publishing an article arguing that the Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. Their article was so successful that Russell Shaw's 1978 summary of their argument is still on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.2 The NNLT, however, has led a number of its proponents to hold views on other theological issues that are clearly contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, most notably on the issue of capital punishment.3 The NNL theorists do not merely argue that capital punishment should prudentially be set aside, given the numerous problems associated with its contemporary use, but that capital punishment should be condemned as intrinsically evil. Ironically, many of the arguments that [End Page 19] these theologians now advance in defense of their teaching on capital punishment are essentially the same arguments made in support of contraception by those engaged in dissent in the 1970s and '80s. This article will argue that the received Catholic teaching on capital punishment has been proposed infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium and that the case that Ford and Grisez made against contraception can be made even more strongly for capital punishment. To this end, this article will first explain the New Natural Law theorists' view on the magisterial consensus on moral issues and then explain the teaching of Lumen Gentium 25 on the ordinary universal magisterium. Following the example of Ford and Grisez, the article will then examine the various sources for knowing the acts of the ordinary magisterium such as the papal magisterium, the Fathers of the Church, canon law, and the consensus of theologians to show that the criteria set forth in Lumen Gentium have indeed been met with respect to capital punishment. Finally, this article will examine some of the theological problems that result from the NNL theorists' position on capital punishment. Ordinary Universal Magisterium This article will assume Ford and Grisez's account of the ordinary universal magisterium, and will briefly summarize their explanation of the Second Vatican Council's explanation.4 In Lumen Gentium 25, Vatican II articulated the conditions under which the ordinary universal magisterium can teach in a definitive way: "Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ infallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world, provided that they remain in communion with each other and with the successor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter of faith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be held definitively."5 Theologians see in this text four conditions to be met in determining whether an infallible act of the ordinary universal magisterium [End Page 20] exists. The first condition is that although dispersed throughout the world, the bishops are in hierarchical communion with one another and with the pope.6 The second condition is that the bishops teach authentically on a matter of faith or morals. This means that each bishop must intend to speak with the authority of his office and not merely as a private theologian or as a believer. The phrase "faith and morals" was customary by the sixteenth century but admitted a wide range of meanings.7 In contemporary theology, the term "faith" refers to those matters of belief that pertain to the deposit of faith. The term mores signifies propositions about those acts that are to be done or avoided. The third condition is that the bishops agree in one judgment about a doctrine. Lastly, bishops must propose the teaching as something "to be held definitively by all...

The Death Penalty Under International Law

The issue of death penalty under international law can be described by pointing out specific legal norms or lack of them in treaties regarding human rights (e.g. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), humanitarian law (i.e. Geneva Conventions), international criminal law (i.e. Rome Statute). Moreover, international institutions address issue of death penalty in soft law and in judicature. Following history of those norms, abolistic tendencies are explicit and particularly strong in the post-World War II international society.

Applying the ‘Prohibition from Essence-Violation’ on the Death Penalty Issue - A Comment on the 2008-Hunka-23 Case of Korean Constitutional Court -

Applying the ‘Prohibition from Essence-Violation’ on the Death Penalty Issue - A Comment on the 2008-Hunka-23 Case of Korean Constitutional Court -

INDONESIA’S DEATH PENALTY EXECUTION FROM THE REALIST VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

During the first half of 2015, Indonesia executed fourteen prisoners who had been convicted of smuggling drugs to and from Indonesia. Twelve of them were foreigners. This execution led to withdrawal of the ambassador of Brazil, Netherlands, and Australia, whose citizens are among those executed. Criticism came from around the world, and small number of Indonesians. Most critics cited human rights abuse; and death penalty is against international law. However, the lack of further explanation can make the statement misunderstood. The distinctive nature of international law is one factor that makes death penalty issue is still debatable. Another factor is the inconsistent world’s reaction on human rights issues, showing realistic behavior in international relations. Therefore it is important to understand the nature of international law from the realist perspective of international relations in explaining death penalty in Indonesia. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate Indonesia’s death penalty from the realist perspective of international law.Keywords: realism, international law, international relations, death penalty

Kriminaliniai mitai

The aim of the article is to analyze the notion of myth of criminality, a view on the conditions of justice built around stereotypes that are formed in the interaction between the members of society, mass media and the institutions of power. The author attempts to develop the analysis on a few levels giving special attention to issue of death penalty in Lithuanian society: the relation between social understanding of the conditions of justice and the reality of justice; the role of the mass media and institutions of power in constructing knowledge of the crime situation; the way that the myths depict the situation; the main features of myth of criminality; the functions of myth of criminality in social life. The author argues that the task of conceptualizing the process of the formation of myths of criminality cannot be separated from the critique of those myths. Yet, the risk of recreating the myths in other forms requires to understand the development of the critique as a reflexive task.

On death penalty issues

On death penalty issues

Death penalty and Crime deterrence-A review of Quantitative evidences

The issue of death penalty and crime deterrence has been a debate. A review was undertaken on the Quantitative evidences that found the mixed results both deterring effect as well non-deterring effect. Several studies have documented deterring effects of capital punishment. However, the published studies on capital punishment and deterrence effects include a number of statistical models and conclusions are contradictory. Hence, these types of studies needed a lot of care for the confirmation of hypothesis of statistical models.

“Mom, They are Going to Kill My Dad!” A Personal Narrative on Capital Punishment From a Convict Criminology Perspective

Capital punishment, although opposed by numerous scholars and banned in several countries, continues to be practiced in many locations under a popular rationale associated with retributive justice. While there has been extensive debate on this issue for decades among scholars, policymakers, correctional professionals, and the media; other important voices, specifically the voices of family members of executed convicts, have been ignored or discounted. Situated within a convict criminology perspective, this paper focuses on a personal narrative of how the issue of capital punishment was experienced by the partner (second author of this paper) of an executed convict. This narrative powerfully illustrates complexities and unintended social injustices toward family members that can occur from capital punishment.

Framing Capital Punishment in Japan: Avoidance, Ambivalence, and Atonement

This article examines how two of Japan’s largest newspapers frame death penalty issues. Through a content analysis of 7,153 Asahi and Nikkei articles in the 66-month period from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012, 11 death penalty frames are identified: inevitability, atonement by dying, atonement by living, victims’ rights and emotions, human rights, miscarriage of justice, calls for discussion, life without parole, deterrence, public support, and retribution. In addition to frames, we examined who the main voices are in each article on capital punishment. We found that avoidance and ambivalence are the two main approaches taken by Asahi and Nikkei to cover death penalty issues, and the most surprising finding is the high salience of atonement as a frame for thinking about capital punishment. In Japan, atonement is used to justify (atone by dying) and oppose (atone by living) the death penalty. Although atonement by living in prison and atonement by dying at the gallows imply radically different outcomes, the flexibility of the atonement frame may suggest new possibilities for Japan’s anti-death penalty movement.

The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution versus Death Penalty as a Form of "Cruel and Unusual" Punishment

The present research deals with the issue of death penalty in the US which creates tension whether it remains as a justified and valid form of punishment. It discusses the history of capital punishment, its adoption in the US, the way some US States started to abolish a "cruel and unusual punishment", the attempted reforms. it further analyses current approach of death penalty, the reforms focused on the process by which it is applied and with the limits of what is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". The cases that made changes in the US legal system are also reviewed. Forms of executions, federal death penalty, court decisions regarding people with mental disabilities, juveniles, religion, women, the issues of race, innocence, financial facts, the roles of International Organizations and current statistics of the Bureau of Justice, DPIC, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, regarding death row inmates by state, number of executions by region is presented and reviewed. The research displays public opinion and analyses current situation in the US by presenting Gallup annual Crime Surveys, DPIC and Lake Research Partners polls. It poses a question whether a just society requires death penalty for the taking of a life. The research concludes that the U.S is a party to several fundamental human rights treaties that impact capital punishment, though it has refrained from being a party to the treaties that have most direct effects through invoking domestic law. By involvement of the U.S. in these treaties it will initiate the reform and restrict the death penalty from a human rights perspective. It will reduce exercising any unnecessary measures which threaten innocent life.

The Current Trend in International Law on the Issue of Death Penalty Does Not Comply with the Reality

The Current Trend in International Law on the Issue of Death Penalty Does Not Comply with the Reality

Abolition of Death Penalty with Special Reference to Pakistan Part 2

Death penalty has been used since time immemorial with an aspect of harsh punishment for taking others life or committing serious crimes. It had a retributive as well as deterrent element for protecting lives and property of others and securing peace of the society. In the contemporary human rights regime efforts are afoot at international level to completely abolish the death penalty with an aim to protect and respect human rights and dignity of individuals.After massive killings and disasters of 2nd World War with the growing concern of Human Rights victorious allied forces established United Nations. Fifty one states adopted its charter as initial members. Subsequently United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) 1966, International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966 came forward to preserve and protect human rights from multiple focuses. Various provisions of these basic documents in combination with subsequent documents prohibited any treatment or punishment which was torturous, degrading or inhuman. Article 6 of ICCPR advocated the inherent right to life and required state parties to abolish death penalty as capital punishment and limit it to only serious crimes. The second Optional Protocol of ICCPR, was adopted in 1989 by UN, which aimed at complete abolition of death penalty with the only possible exception to war crimes.Death penalty exercised in major parts of the world as capital punishment was then started to be considered against the dignity, respect and honor of human beings and in violation of fundamental human rights. This discourse leads to on going debate on the issue of death penalty as a capital punishment. States propagating the abolition of death penalty are called abolitionists where as those which are in favor of retaining the death penalty in their domestic legislation systems, are called retentionists. These countries are further divided into: retentionists for all crimes, and retentionists for major crimes. UN based organs and international specialized agencies are propagating the signing and ratification for 2nd Optional protocol to ICCPR, as well as monitoring its implementation Presently 72 countries are stat party to this protocol, where as 35 states are signatory to it subject to ratification. It is said that more than two third of the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. United States of America has not signed the document yet; though its 15 states have abolished Death Penalty where as 35 still retain it. European Union has completely abolished Death Penalty in its member countries. Islamic countries in general except Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Uzbekistan, And Turkmenistan have not signed the 2nd optional protocol to ICCPR 1989.In consequent with International debate and efforts for the abolition of death penalty the issue is raised and discussed in Pakistan also, depicting both external and internal pressures. In Pakistan’s legislative system death penalty is enforced in around 27 crimes of various nature embodied in Constitution of Pakistan, High Treason Act, Pakistan Criminal Code (PPC), Army Act of Pakistan, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Huddod), Pakistan Arms Ordinance, Railways (Amendment) Act, Control of Narcotics Substances Act, Anti Terrorism Act and prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance.The present study aims to comprehend the contemporary debate regarding Death Penalty at global level and its constituent effect on conditions in Pakistan. Importance of retaining death Penalty or its limitation to serious crimes, obligatory by Islamic Law or necessary for ensuring a just society are explored by: providing historical references; Islamic provisions of crimes and their punishments; and by collecting expert opinion of legal fraternity, both teaching and practicing. A questionnaire has been formulated focusing the issue, to solicit the expert opinion of lawyers, Judges and Islamic Scholars, which will be included in the research paper.