Analysis of the Right to Life in the context of Death Penalty Essay Sample

Analysis of the Right to Life in the context of Death Penalty
Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Analysis of the Right to Life in the context of Death Penalty
The right to life of the person and its various applications in different contexts is presently one of the most debated subjects. The debate has been steered with notable changes in topics, including the widespread demand for abortion and the debates on the use of euthanasia. Still, capital punishment is viewed as the biggest impediment to the complete implementation of the right to life. Like the other elements of the debate, capital punishment opens its scope to influential aspects of the right to life in political, social, economic, legal, and ethical constructs. However, the circumstances under which capital punishment is executed, such as the sanctioning by various legal systems with limited considerations of the facts, have made it highly debatable. Questions are asked on whether capital punishment contravenes the tenets of the right to life even though other humane options could be employed. In this paper, the focus is anchored on the analysis of the right to life in the death penalty context. Overall, capital punishment should be eliminated bearing its ills and the inputs of various legal jurisprudences such as the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), albeit mildly.
The Right to Life
The right to life is fundamental in various constitutions of the world. Countries have instilled the Human Rights Act in their laws to protect the right to life. In those legal jurisdictions where the right to life is upheld, every person is granted the right to life and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of that life. In the context of international laws, the right to life constitutes the obligation of states to be the primary protectors of the right to life among their citizens. The right to life is also enshrined in the moral obligations of humanity. It is universal for people to protect the lives of each other as each life is deemed valuable.[Tran, Kien and Cong Giao Vu. "The Changing Nature of Death Penalty in Vietnam: A Historical and Legal Inquiry." Societies 9, no. 3 (09, 2019).]
The right to life is applied differently, albeit inalienability, in various situations. In some constitutions, the right to life accommodates prevention of the use of force by public authorities, the delivery of medical treatment, and the investigations of public entities' conduct, especially when individuals die in their care. In more controversial aspects, the right to life has extended to define aspects such as abortion and capital punishment. Governments must impose the right to life. To that effect, the negative duty implies that public entities need to refrain from taking the lives of individuals, while the positive duty implies the need by public entities to protect the lives of individuals especially in cases where people are faced with immediate risks. Amidst all the above declarations, the international law and various constitutions, including the US, have not explicitly abolished capital punishment. That begs the question of whether such laws are structured to violate the right to life.[Ayukawa, Jun. "Claims-Making and Human Rights in Domestic and International Spheres." Qualitative Sociology Review 11, no. 2 (04, 2015).]
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment is a legal imposition that is viewed as an impediment to the fundamentals of the right to life. Also known as the death penalty, capital punishment is the execution to death of an offender who has been found guilty of a criminal offense by a court of law. Notably, capital punishment is different from extrajudicial killings that are conducted without adherence to the law. While the death penalty is often employed interchangeably with capital punishment, their implications can be different. That is, even in appeal, the imposition of capital punishment is not necessarily followed by execution. That is because most justice systems explore the possibility of commutation to life imprisonment instead. Crimes that constitute capital punishment are referred to as capital crimes, and they vary from one jurisdiction to another. Some of the crimes that have attracted capital punishment include those against the state, such as aircraft hijacking, piracy, sedition, espionage, treason, and an attempt to overthrow the government. An individual can also be sentenced to capital punishment if he/she commits capital felonies, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, child sexual abuse, cases of aggravated rape, and murder.[Tran, Kien and Cong Giao Vu. "The Changing Nature of Death Penalty in Vietnam: A Historical and Legal Inquiry." Societies 9, no. 3 (09, 2019).]
Capital punishment has existed in human history marking the difficulties to abolish it completely. Under the laws of Draco of Greece in the 7th century, capital punishment for crimes such as rape, arson, treason, and murder was commonplace. Plato, however, argued that capital punishment should only be used for the incorrigible, thereby marking the first public opposition to capital punishment. The practices by Greeks were mirrored among the Romans who employed capital punishment to punish a variety of crimes even though citizens were exempted shortly in the republic. The engraftment of capital punishment extends to some of the world's renowned religions. Followers of Christianity and Judaism have found justification for capital punishment because whoever causes another's death through murder should also be murdered. In Islamic beliefs, capital punishment for crimes such as apostasy of Islam, adultery, and robbery are allowed. However, Muslims do not sanction capital punishment for murder. Instead, the family of the victim can decide on whether they need material compensation, murder of the perpetrator, or whether authorities should punish the perpetrator. In some ancient cultures, such as the Heian period of 794-1185, Japanese leaders traded capital punishment with the deportation of the defenders to remote regions. While the religious and cultural beliefs could imply the acceptance of capital punishment on various grounds, it has been established that most cultures preferred trading it for other punishments. That marks the current arguments on the viability of capital punishment under various legal jurisdictions.[McRae, Dave. "Indonesian Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective." Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 173, no. 1 (2017): 14.]
The Death Penalty under the International Law
International law has grown as the primary ground for the interpretation of various laws. To that effect, ICCPR has grown vital in the understanding of capital punishment. ICCPR does not explicitly advocate for the abolishment of capital punishment. The same position is mirrored by the international customary law that does not prohibit capital punishment explicitly. Part of the mild declarations must have emanated from the issues surrounding the implementation of the laws and the treaties. At the time of ICCPR drafting between 1947 and 1966, only ten countries had abolished the death penalty. That implies the international sway that supported the upholding of the death penalty. The implementation of ICCPR, however, instilled a new dimension in the inputs of capital punishment. Currently, only a few countries have not abolished capital punishment in their constitutions. Notable among the countries that still uphold the death penalty include Taiwan, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, China, and the United States. Even with most nations abolishing capital punishment, still, over 60% of the global population lives in countries where the action is practiced. Perhaps, the continuing controversies surrounding the abolition of capital punishment have delayed its complete abolition globally.[Agozino, Biko. "Hanging by Invitation: Capital Punishment, the Carceral Archipelago and Escalating Homicide Rates in the Caribbean and Africa." African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies : AJCJS 9, no. 1 (05, 2016): 18]
The idea of capital punishment stemming from the ICCPR declaration has courted controversies in countries and states with variations in political and cultural ideologies. The European Union is one of the international organizations whose position on capital punishment has attracted controversies. Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union abolishes the adoption of capital punishment among member states. The declarations in article 2 are accompanied by Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights that effectively abolishes the death penalty. However, the protocols only constitute members who have ratified them. As such, some members have not explicitly abolished capital punishment, including Azerbaijan, Russia, and Armenia. The UN has steered the development of a global moratorium on executions to eventually abolish capital punishment globally. Until then, the world must remain guided by the primary declarations in ICCPR.[Agozino, 18] [Jonas, Obonye. "Human rights, extradition and the death penalty: Reflections on the stand-off between Botswana and South Africa." Sur International Journal on Human Rights 10, no. 18 (06, 2013): 199.]
Only specific aspects of the ICCPR declaration have managed to instill notable impacts in the trajectory of capital punishment globally. Specifically, Article 6 of ICCPR has instilled declarations that still form grounds for implementing or abolishing capital punishment. Article 6 states that every human being has the inherent right to life. That right must be protected by law, and no individual should be deprived of that right arbitrarily. In that first declaration of Article 6, it is notable that ICCPR does not explicitly condemn states or countries from capital punishment. The second declaration of the article clarifies the first by noting that the death penalty can only be imposed on serious crimes in those countries that have not abolished the death penalty. Also, the punishment can only be rendered according to a final determination by a competent court. The fourth declaration notes that any individual subjected to capital punishment is eligible for commutation, pardon, or amnesty. The ICCPR Article 6 declarations also extend to juvenile rights. In the fifth declaration, ICCPR insists that the sentence of death cannot be imposed on persons under 18 years and cannot be executed on pregnant women. Ultimately, the sixth declaration opens a platform for the abolition of capital punishment, stating that nothing in the declarations should be used to prevent or delay the abolition of capital punishment by any state. From Article 6 of the ICCPR elements, it is notable that the convention intends to abolish capital punishment. However, at the time of its establishment and even currently, the majority of the global population lived in countries where capital punishment was legal, thereby making it challenging for ICCPR to override the majority of the global legal jurisdictions.[Ayukawa, Jun. "Claims-Making and Human Rights in Domestic and International Spheres." Qualitative Sociology Review 11, no. 2 (04, 2015).] [McRae, Dave. "Indonesian Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective." Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 173, no. 1 (2017): 18.]
There are specific limitations that ICCPR has imposed in the implementation of capital punishment considering the content of Article 6. Primary among the limitations is that the defendants must be accorded fair trial before they are subjected to the death penalty. Also, ICCPR suggests that the death penalty should only be imposed on individuals who are guilty of capital crimes. In cases where ICCPR rights have been violated, Article 6 prohibits the implementation of capital punishment. On the same ground, ICCPR prohibits the death penalty against retroactive imposition. It is also remarkable that individuals who have been rendered eligible for the death penalty are still viable for a pardon regardless of their crimes. Ultimately, pregnant women and children below the age of 18 cannot be subject to capital punishment under any circumstances. In the context of Article 6, more limitations have been suggested to accommodate various incidences in contemporary society. Currently, there are strong suggestions to abolish the execution of individuals with mental illnesses and mothers with dependent rights. While ICCPR is clear in its grounds for the implementation of capital punishment, there are ambiguous declarations that demand in-depth examination. Some of the limitations are as follows:[Hill, Katie R. "American and European Union Approaches to the Death Penalty: America should Consider a New Perspective." Revista De Direito Internacional 10, no. 2 (2013).] [Jonas, Obonye. "Human rights, extradition and the death penalty: Reflections on the stand-off between Botswana and South Africa." Sur International Journal on Human Rights 10, no. 18 (06, 2013): 199.]
The Right to Fair Trial
The right to a fair trial is a declaration in Article 6 that has demanded examination on what constitutes a fair trial. The human rights committee has interpreted the right to a fair trial to mean that it is illegal to subject any individual to capital punishment without proper adherence to all the other declarations in Article 6. Such include, but not limited to, review of the right in a higher tribunal, executing the hearings in an impartial and independent tribunal, trials are held without undue delay, sufficient allocation by the defendant to prepare for defense, provision of legal counsel of an individual's choosing, presumption of innocence, translation of the charges into an individual's language, and being informed promptly and in detail of the charges. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed the right to a fair t...