Editing Capital punishment (section)

==Controversy and debate<!--'Anti-death penalty' redirects here-->==
{{See also|Capital punishment debate in the United States}}
Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane<ref name="amnesty-ill">{{Cite magazine|title=Cruel and Unusual: Executing the mentally ill|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/page.do?id=1105184In|author=Dan Malone|magazine=Amnesty International Magazine|date=Fall 2005|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116081317/http://www.amnestyusa.org/page.do?id=1105184In|archive-date=16 January 2009}}</ref> and criticize it for its irreversibility.<ref name="amnesty-irreversible">{{cite web|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/Death_Penalty/page.do?id=1011005&n1=3&n2=28|title=Abolish the death penalty|publisher=Amnesty International|access-date=25 January 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080119233113/http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/Death_Penalty/page.do?id=1011005&n1=3&n2=28|archive-date=19 January 2008}}</ref> They argue also that capital punishment lacks deterrent effect,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/ |title=The Death Penalty and Deterrence |publisher=Amnestyusa.org |date=22 February 2008 |access-date=23 May 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170823161110/https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/ |archive-date=23 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/capitalpunishment.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20010813164705/http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/capitalpunishment.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=13 August 2001 |title=John W. Lamperti &#124; Capital Punishment |publisher=Math.dartmouth.edu |date=10 March 1973 |access-date=23 May 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies |title=Discussion of Recent Deterrence Studies &#124; Death Penalty Information Center |publisher=Deathpenaltyinfo.org |access-date=23 May 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090429191414/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies |archive-date=29 April 2009}}</ref> or has a [[brutalization]] effect,<ref name=sf>{{cite journal|last1=King|first1=D. R.|title=The Brutalization Effect: Execution Publicity and the Incidence of Homicide in South Carolina|journal=Social Forces|date=1 December 1978|volume=57|issue=2|pages=683–687|doi=10.1093/sf/57.2.683}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1214/p09s01-coop.html | title=Why not all executions deter murder | work=Christian Science Monitor | date=14 December 2005 | access-date=17 April 2022 | author=Shepherd, Joanna}}</ref> discriminates against minorities and the poor, and that it encourages a "culture of violence".<ref name="deathPenaltyFocus">{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42|title=The High Cost of the Death Penalty|publisher=[[Death Penalty Focus]]|access-date=27 June 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080428180241/http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42|archive-date=28 April 2008}}</ref> There are many organizations worldwide, such as Amnesty International,<ref>{{cite web|url =http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf|title =Death Penalty Facts|url-status=live|archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20151026041955/http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf|archive-date =26 October 2015}}</ref> and country-specific, such as the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), whose main purpose includes abolition of the death penalty.<ref>Brian Evans, [http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/the-death-penalty-in-2011-three-things-you-should-know/ "The Death Penalty In 2011: Three Things You Should Know"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731081723/http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/the-death-penalty-in-2011-three-things-you-should-know/ |date=31 July 2013 }}, [[Amnesty International]], 26 March 2012, in particular the map, [http://betablog.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/death_penalty_world_map.jpg "Executions and Death Sentences in 2011"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217160324/http://betablog.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/death_penalty_world_map.jpg |date=17 February 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment |title=ACLU Capital Punishment Project (CPP) |publisher=Aclu.org |access-date=14 April 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130412231652/http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment |archive-date=12 April 2013}}</ref>

Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/articles/sunstein1.pdf|title=Home – Stanford Law Review|first=Stanford Law|last=Review|website=www.stanfordlawreview.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150903214330/http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/articles/sunstein1.pdf|archive-date=3 September 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html|title=Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate|first=Adam|last=Liptak|date=18 November 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117190641/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html|archive-date=17 November 2015|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> is a good tool for police and prosecutors in [[plea bargain]]ing,<ref>{{cite web|author=James Pitkin|url=http://wweek.com/editorial/3411/10288/|title="Killing Time" &#124; January 23rd, 2008|publisher=Wweek.com|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080124040746/http://wweek.com/editorial/3411/10288/|archive-date=24 January 2008}}</ref> makes sure that convicted criminals do not offend again, and that it ensures justice for crimes such as homicide, where other penalties will not inflict the desired retribution demanded by the crime itself. Capital punishment for non-lethal crimes is usually considerably more controversial, and abolished in many of the countries that retain it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/06/what-it-means-if-the-death-penalty-is-dying/the-death-penalty-needs-to-be-an-option-for-punishment|title=The Death Penalty Needs to Be an Option for Punishment|website=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161207140843/http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/06/what-it-means-if-the-death-penalty-is-dying/the-death-penalty-needs-to-be-an-option-for-punishment|archive-date=7 December 2016}}</ref><ref>Schillinger, Ted (2007) ''[[Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead]]'', film about retributive justice and capital punishment</ref>

===Retribution===
{{See also|Revenge#Revenge dynamics}}
[[File: Karl Morgenschweis prays for condemned prisoner.jpg|thumb|Execution of a [[war crimes|war criminal]] in Germany in 1946]]
Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is morally justified when applied in murder especially with aggravating elements such as for murder of police officers, [[child murder]], [[torture murder]], multiple [[homicide]] and [[mass killing]] such as [[terrorism]], [[massacre]] and genocide. This argument is strongly defended by [[New York Law School]]'s Professor [[Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead|Robert Blecker]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nyls.edu/faculty/faculty_profiles/robert_blecker/ |title=New York Law School :: Robert Blecker |publisher=Nyls.edu |access-date=14 April 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130902231929/http://www.nyls.edu/faculty/faculty_profiles/robert_blecker/ |archive-date=2 September 2013}}</ref> who says that the punishment must be painful in proportion to the crime. Eighteenth-century philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] defended a more extreme position, according to which every murderer deserves to die on the grounds that loss of life is incomparable to any penalty that allows them to remain alive, including life imprisonment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www1.american.edu/dgolash/Kant_on_Punishment.html/ |title=Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Right |publisher=American.edu |access-date=6 July 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140217232041/http://www1.american.edu/dgolash/Kant_on_Punishment.html |archive-date=17 February 2014 }}</ref>

Some abolitionists argue that retribution is simply revenge and cannot be condoned. Others while accepting retribution as an element of criminal justice nonetheless argue that [[life without parole]] is a sufficient substitute. It is also argued that the punishing of a killing with another death is a relatively unusual punishment for a violent act, because in general violent crimes are not punished by subjecting the perpetrator to a similar act (e.g. rapists are, typically, not punished by [[judicial corporal punishment|corporal punishment]], although it may be inflicted in Singapore, for example).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml#section_4 |title=Ethics – Capital punishment: Arguments against capital punishment |publisher=BBC |date=1 January 1970 |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209003504/http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml#section_4 |archive-date=9 February 2014}}</ref>

===Human rights===
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the [[right to life]] is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a [[psychological torture]]. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment". Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate irreversible denial of Human Rights".<ref name="Abolish the death penalty">{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|title=Abolish the death penalty|publisher=Amnesty International|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100830062328/http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|archive-date=30 August 2010}}</ref> [[Albert Camus]] wrote in a 1956 book called ''Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death'':

{{Blockquote|An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/ |title=Death Penalty News & Updates |publisher=People.smu.edu |access-date=14 April 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413081015/http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/ |archive-date=13 April 2013}}</ref>}}

In the classic doctrine of natural rights as expounded by for instance [[John Locke|Locke]] and [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]], on the other hand, it is an important idea that the right to life can be forfeited, as most other rights can be given [[due process]] is observed, such as the [[right to property]] and the [[habeas corpus|right to freedom]], [[remand (detention)|including provisionally]], in anticipation of an actual verdict.<ref name=feinberg>Joel Feinberg: [http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/feinberg80.pdf Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021073901/http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/feinberg80.pdf |date=21 October 2012 }} [[Tanner Lectures on Human Values|The Tanner Lecture on Human Values]], 1 April 1977.</ref> As [[John Stuart Mill]] explained in a speech given in Parliament against an amendment to abolish capital punishment for murder in 1868:

{{Blockquote|And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer – all of us would answer – that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ethics.sandiego.edu/books/Mill/Punishment/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130508233912/http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Mill/Punishment/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=8 May 2013 |title=John Stuart Mill, Speech on Capital Punishment |publisher=Sandiego.edu |access-date=6 July 2014 }}</ref>}}

In one of the most recent cases relating to the [[death penalty in Singapore]], activists like [[Jolovan Wham]], [[Kirsten Han]] and Kokila Annamalai and even the international groups like the [[United Nations]] and [[European Union]] argued for Malaysian drug trafficker [[Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam]], who has been on [[death row]] at Singapore's [[Changi Prison]] since 2010, should not be executed due to an alleged intellectual disability, as they argued that Nagaenthran has low IQ of 69 and a psychiatrist has assessed him to be mentally impaired to an extent that he should not be held liable to his crime and execution. They also cited international law where a country should be prohibiting the execution of mentally and intellectually impaired people in order to push for Singapore to commute Nagaenthran's death penalty to [[life imprisonment]] based on protection of human rights. However, the [[Singapore government]] and both Singapore's [[High Court of Singapore|High Court]] and [[Court of Appeal of Singapore|Court of Appeal]] maintained their firm stance that despite his certified low IQ, it is confirmed that Nagaenthran is not mentally or intellectually disabled based on the joint opinion of three government psychiatrists as he is able to fully understand the magnitude of his actions and has no problem in his daily functioning of life.<ref>{{cite news|date=11 November 2021|title=High Court found Malaysian drug trafficker did not have mild intellectual disability: Singapore envoy|website=The Straits Times|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-found-malaysian-drug-trafficker-did-not-have-mild-intellectual-disability|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="straitstimes.com">{{cite news|title=Death penalty protest at Speakers' Corner as it reopens 2 years after Covid-19 closure|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/death-penalty-protest-at-speakers-corner-as-it-reopens-2-years-after-covid-19-closure|website=The Straits Times|date=3 April 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=16 April 2022 |title=Nagaenthran son of K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General |url=https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCA_26 |website=Singapore Court of Appeal |quote=[31] In Nagaenthran (CM) (at [71] and [75]), the High Court found that the appellant had borderline intellectual functioning; not that he was suffering from mild intellectual disability.}}</ref> Despite the international outcry, Nagaenthran was executed on 27 April 2022.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.todayonline.com/world/singapore-executes-malaysian-drugs-charges-after-rejecting-mental-disability-appeal-1884021|title=Singapore executes Malaysian on drugs charges after rejecting mental disability appeal|website=Today|date=27 April 2022|access-date=27 April 2022|archive-date=27 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220427032144/https://www.todayonline.com/world/singapore-executes-malaysian-drugs-charges-after-rejecting-mental-disability-appeal-1884021|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Non-painful execution===
{{Further|Cruel and unusual punishment}}
[[File:SQ Lethal Injection Room.jpg|thumb|A gurney at [[San Quentin State Prison]] in California formerly used for executions by [[lethal injection]]]]
Trends in most of the world have long been to move to private and less painful executions. France adopted the [[guillotine]] for this reason in the final years of the 18th century, while Britain banned hanging, drawing, and quartering in the early 19th century. Hanging by turning the victim off a ladder or by kicking a stool or a bucket, which causes death by strangulation, was replaced by [[Hanging#Standard drop|long drop "hanging"]] where the subject is dropped a longer distance to dislocate the neck and sever the spinal cord. [[Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar]], [[Qajar dynasty#Qajar Shahs of Iran, 1789–1925|Shah of Persia (1896–1907)]] introduced throat-cutting and [[blowing from a gun]] (close-range cannon fire) as quick and relatively painless alternatives to more torturous methods of executions used at that time.<ref>{{cite book|chapter-url=http://explorion.net/ride-india-across-persia-and-baluchistan/chapter-vii-ispahan-shiraz?page=3&quicktabs_3=1|title=A Ride to India across Persia and Baluchistan|year=1901|chapter=Ispahan – Shiraz|publisher=Explorion.net|access-date=23 February 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718200923/http://explorion.net/ride-india-across-persia-and-baluchistan/chapter-vii-ispahan-shiraz?page=3&quicktabs_3=1|archive-date=18 July 2011}}</ref> In the United States, electrocution and gas inhalation were introduced as more humane alternatives to hanging, but have been almost entirely superseded by lethal injection. A small number of countries, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia, still employ slow hanging methods, decapitation, and stoning.

A study of executions carried out in the United States between 1977 and 2001 indicated that at least 34 of the 749 executions, or 4.5%, involved "unanticipated problems or delays that caused, at least arguably, unnecessary agony for the prisoner or that reflect gross incompetence of the executioner". The rate of these "[[List of botched executions|botched executions]]" remained steady over the period of the study.<ref>Borg and Radelet, pp. 144–47</ref> A separate study published in ''[[The Lancet]]'' in 2005 found that in 43% of cases of lethal injection, the blood level of [[hypnotic]]s was insufficient to guarantee unconsciousness.<ref>Van Norman p. 287</ref> However, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2008 (''[[Baze v. Rees]]'') and again in 2015 (''[[Glossip v. Gross]]'') that lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.<ref>Paternoster, R. (18 September 2012). Capital Punishment. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved 15 June 2016, from {{cite book |title=Capital Punishment |series=The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195395082.001.0001 |date=29 September 2011 |last1=Paternoster |first1=Ray |editor1-first=Michael|editor1-last=Tonry|isbn=9780195395082 }}.</ref> In ''[[Bucklew v. Precythe]]'', the majority verdict – written by Judge [[Neil Gorsuch]] – further affirmed this principle, stating that while the ban on cruel and unusual punishment affirmatively bans penalties that ''deliberately inflict'' pain and degradation, it does in no sense limit the possible infliction of pain in the execution of a capital verdict.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/bucklew-v-precythe-supreme-court-turns-cruelty/586471 |title=Unusual Cruelty at the Supreme Court |work=The Atlantic |last=Epps |first=Garrett |date=4 April 2019 |access-date=20 July 2021 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404112711/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/bucklew-v-precythe-supreme-court-turns-cruelty/586471/ |archive-date=4 April 2019 }}</ref>

===Wrongful execution===
{{Main|Wrongful execution}}
{{See also|List of wrongful convictions in the United States}}
[[File:Timothy Evans Grave.JPG|thumb|Capital punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom in part because of the case of [[Timothy Evans]], who was executed in 1950 after being wrongfully convicted of two murders that had in fact been committed by his landlord, [[John Christie (murderer)|John Christie]]. The case was considered vital in bolstering opposition, which limited the scope of the penalty in 1957 and abolished it completely for murder in 1965.]]
It is frequently argued that capital punishment leads to [[miscarriage of justice]] through the wrongful execution of innocent persons.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412|title=Innocence and the Death Penalty|publisher=Deathpenaltyinfo.org|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080701205425/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412|archive-date=1 July 2008}}</ref> Many people have been proclaimed innocent victims of the death penalty.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/innocent.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804222621/http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/innocent.html|url-status=unfit|title=Thirty Years of Executions with Reasonable Doubts: A Brief Analysis of Some Modern Executions|archivedate=4 August 2007|website=Capital Defense Weekly}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm|title=Executed Innocents|publisher=Justicedenied.org|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184742/http://justicedenied.org/executed.htm|archive-date=24 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://mitglied.lycos.de/PeterWill/penal9.htm|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090522224521/http://mitglied.lycos.de/PeterWill/penal9.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 May 2009|title=Wrongful executions|publisher=Mitglied.lycos.de|access-date=23 August 2010}}</ref>

Some have claimed that as many as 39 executions have been carried out in the face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt in the US from 1992 through 2004. Newly available [[DNA evidence]] prevented the pending execution of more than 15 death row inmates during the same period in the US,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/575.php |title=The Innocence Project – News and Information: Press Releases |publisher=Innoccenceproject.org |access-date=23 August 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702223208/http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/575.php |archive-date=2 July 2010}}</ref> but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases.<ref name="CB2">{{cite web|last=Lundin|first=Leigh|title=Casey Anthony Trial– Aftermath|url=http://criminalbrief.com/?p=17459|work=Capital Punishment|publisher=Criminal Brief|location=Orlando|date=10 July 2011|quote=With 400 condemned on death row, Florida is an extremely aggressive death penalty state, a state that will even execute for drug trafficking.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110911200202/http://criminalbrief.com/?p=17459|archive-date=11 September 2011}}</ref> {{as of|2017}}, 159 prisoners on death row have been exonerated by DNA or other evidence, which is seen as an indication that innocent prisoners have almost certainly been executed.<ref>Van Norman p. 288</ref><ref name=DPIC2015>{{cite web|title=Facts about the Death Penalty|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf|publisher=Death Penalty Information Center|access-date=23 December 2015|date=9 December 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151212150147/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf|archive-date=12 December 2015}}</ref> The National Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty claims that between 1976 and 2015, 1,414 prisoners in the United States have been executed while 156 sentenced to death have had their death sentences vacated.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence#_ftn6| title=Innocence| publisher=National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty| access-date=26 July 2019| archive-date=18 July 2019| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190718072653/http://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence#_ftn6| url-status=dead}}</ref> It is impossible to assess how many have been wrongly executed, since courts do not generally investigate the innocence of a dead defendant, and defense attorneys tend to concentrate their efforts on clients whose lives can still be saved; however, there is strong evidence of innocence in many cases.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent#also|title=Executed But Possibly Innocent &#124; Death Penalty Information Center|publisher=Deathpenaltyinfo.org|access-date=30 April 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120413152426/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent#also|archive-date=13 April 2012}}</ref>

Improper procedure may also result in unfair executions. For example, Amnesty International argues that in Singapore "the [[Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore)|Misuse of Drugs Act]] contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty".<ref>Amnesty International, [https://www.amnesty.org/documents/asa36/001/2004/en "Singapore – The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions"] (January 2004)</ref> Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act presumes one is guilty of possession of drugs if, as examples, one is found to be present or escaping from a location "proved or presumed to be used for the purpose of smoking or administering a controlled drug", if one is in possession of a key to a premises where drugs are present, if one is in the company of another person found to be in possession of illegal drugs, or if one tests positive after being given a mandatory [[drug test|urine drug screening]]. Urine drug screenings can be given at the discretion of police, without requiring a search warrant. The onus is on the accused in all of the above situations to prove that they were not in possession of or consumed illegal drugs.<ref>{{cite book|title=Misuse of Drugs Act (CHAPTER 185)|page=PART III EVIDENCE, ENFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT|url=http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=Id%3A%223f9aff0b-a3bd-41da-be16-66daab867d04%22%20Status%3Apublished%20%20TransactionTime%3A20151123000000;rec=0|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305015714/http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=Id%3A%223f9aff0b-a3bd-41da-be16-66daab867d04%22%20Status%3Apublished%20%20TransactionTime%3A20151123000000;rec=0|url-status=dead|archive-date=5 March 2016|access-date=1 April 2019}}</ref>

===Volunteers===
{{main|Volunteer (capital punishment)}}
Some prisoners have volunteered or attempted to expedite capital punishment, often by waiving all appeals. Prisoners have made requests or committed further crimes in prison as well. In the United States, execution volunteers constitute approximately 11% of prisoners on death row. Volunteers often bypass legal procedures which are designed to designate the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" offenders. Opponents of execution volunteering cited the prevalence of mental illness among volunteers comparing it to suicide. Execution volunteers have received considerably less attention and effort at legal reform than those who were exonerated after execution.<ref name="file_">{{Cite web| title = Volunteers for Execution: Directions for Further Research into Grief, Culpability, and Legal Structures| author = Rountree, Meredith Martin| work = Northwestern University School of Law| year = 2014| access-date = 2 July 2020| url = https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/VolunteersForExecution.pdf}}</ref>

===Racial, ethnic, and social class bias===
Opponents of the death penalty argue that this punishment is being used more often against perpetrators from racial and ethnic minorities and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, than against those criminals who come from a privileged background; and that the background of the victim also influences the outcome.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race |title=Death Penalty and Race &#124; Amnesty International USA |publisher=Amnestyusa.org |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140209235831/http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race |archive-date=9 February 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eji.org/deathpenalty/racialbias |title=Racial Bias &#124; Equal Justice Initiative |publisher=Eji.org |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121001080516/http://www.eji.org/deathpenalty/racialbias |archive-date=1 October 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncadp.org/pages/racial-bias |title=Racial Bias &#124; National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty |publisher=Ncadp.org |date=18 March 1999 |access-date=9 July 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140602161510/http://www.ncadp.org/pages/racial-bias |archive-date=2 June 2014}}</ref> Researchers have shown that white Americans are more likely to support the death penalty when told that it is mostly applied to black Americans,<ref name="peffley-2007">{{cite journal|last1=Peffley|first1=Mark|last2=Hurwitz|first2=Jon|title=Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America|journal=American Journal of Political Science|year=2007|volume=51|issue=4|pages=996–1012|url=http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/AJPS-20007-Peffley.pdf|access-date=3 May 2014|doi=10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00293.x|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503085353/http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/AJPS-20007-Peffley.pdf|archive-date=3 May 2014}}</ref> and that more stereotypically black-looking or dark-skinned defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death if the case involves a white victim.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Eberhardt|first1=J. L.|last2=Davies|first2=P. G.|last3=Purdie-Vaughns|first3=V. J.|last4=Johnson|first4=S. L.|title=Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes|journal=Psychological Science|date=1 May 2006|volume=17|issue=5|pages=383–386|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x|pmid=16683924|url=http://works.bepress.com/sheri_johnson/12|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170831043144/https://works.bepress.com/sheri_johnson/12/|archive-date=31 August 2017|citeseerx=10.1.1.177.3897|s2cid=15737940}}</ref> However, a study published in 2018 failed to replicate the findings of earlier studies that had concluded that white Americans are more likely to support the death penalty if informed that it is largely applied to black Americans; according to the authors, their findings "may result from changes since 2001 in the effects of racial stimuli on white attitudes about the death penalty or their willingness to express those attitudes in a survey context."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Butler|first1=Ryden|last2=Nyhan|first2=Brendan|last3=Montgomery|first3=Jacob M.|last4=Torres|first4=Michelle|date=1 January 2018|title=Revisiting white backlash: Does race affect death penalty opinion?|journal=Research & Politics|language=en|volume=5|issue=1|pages=2053168017751250|doi=10.1177/2053168017751250|issn=2053-1680|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In Alabama in 2019, a death row inmate named [[Dunn v. Ray|Domineque Ray]] was denied his imam in the room during his execution, instead only offered a Christian chaplain.<ref name="Schwartz-2019">{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692605056/supreme-court-lets-alabama-execute-muslim-murderer-without-imam-by-his-side|title=Justices Let Alabama Execute Death Row Inmate Who Wanted Imam By His Side|newspaper=NPR|date=8 February 2019|language=en|access-date=11 February 2019|last1=Schwartz|first1=Matthew S.}}</ref> After filing a complaint, a federal court of appeals ruled 5–4 against Ray's request. The majority cited the "last-minute" nature of the request, and the dissent stated that the treatment went against the core principle of denominational neutrality.<ref name="Schwartz-2019" />

In July 2019, two [[Shiite]] men, Ali Hakim al-Arab, 25, and Ahmad al-Malali, 24, were executed in Bahrain, despite the protests from the United Nations and rights group. Amnesty International stated that the executions were being carried out on confessions of "terrorism crimes" that were obtained through torture.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dailysunpost.com/bahrain-executes-3-men/|title=Bahrain executes 3 men|access-date=28 July 2019|work=Daily Sun Post|date=28 July 2019|archive-date=29 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190729134201/https://dailysunpost.com/bahrain-executes-3-men/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

On 30 March 2022, despite the appeals by the United Nations and rights activists, 68-year-old [[Malay Singaporean]] [[Abdul Kahar Othman]] was hanged at [[Singapore]]'s [[Changi Prison]] for illegally trafficking [[diamorphine]], which marked the first execution in Singapore since 2019 as a result of an informal moratorium caused by the [[COVID-19 pandemic]]. Earlier, there were appeals made to advocate for Abdul Kahar's death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment on humanitarian grounds, as Abdul Kahar came from a poor family and has struggled with drug addiction. He was also revealed to have been spending most of his life going in and out of prison, including a ten-year sentence of [[preventive detention]] from 1995 to 2005, and has not been given much time for rehabilitation, which made the activists and groups arguing that Abdul Kahar should be given a chance for rehabilitation instead of subjecting him to execution.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://transformativejusticecollective.org/2022/03/28/when-will-we-stop-killing-small-people-who-need-care/|title=When will we stop killing "small people" who need care?|website=Transformative Justice Collective|date=28 March 2022|access-date=31 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.yahoo.com/singapore-hangs-drug-trafficker-resumption-045039209.html|title=Singapore hangs drug trafficker in resumption of executions|website=Yahoo News|date=30 March 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/30/man-hanged-in-singapore-amid-concern-over-surge-of-execution-notices|title=Man hanged in Singapore amid concern over surge of execution notices|website=The Guardian|date=30 March 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref> Both the European Union (EU) and [[Amnesty International]] criticised Singapore for finalizing and carrying out Abdul Kahar's execution, and about 400 Singaporeans protested against the government's use of the death penalty merely days after Abdul Kahar's death sentence was authorised.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/singapore-new-execution-death-penalty/|title=Singapore: Shameful resumption of executions after more than two years won't end drug-related crime|website=Amnesty International|date=30 March 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/singapore-statement-spokesperson-execution-abdul-kahar-bin-othman_en|title=Singapore: Statement by the Spokesperson on the execution of Abdul Kahar bin Othman|website=European Union|date=30 March 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Will 2022 signal sea change in the death penalty for drugs?: Jakarta Post contributor|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/will-2022-signal-sea-change-in-the-death-penalty-for-drugs-jakarta-post-contributor|website=The Straits Times|date=6 April 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="straitstimes.com"/> Still, over 80% of the public supported the use of the death penalty in Singapore.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/death-penalty-majority-singapore-residents-support-shanmugam-2535331|title=Majority of Singapore residents still support death penalty in latest MHA survey: Shanmugam|website=CNA|date=3 March 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref>

===International views===
{{anchor|International organisations}}
[[File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg|thumb|left|upright=1.15|Same-sex intercourse illegal: {{legend|#800000|[[Death penalty for homosexuality]]}}
{{legend|#cc6633|Death penalty in legislation, but not applied}}]] 
The United Nations introduced a resolution during the General Assembly's 62nd sessions in 2007 calling for a universal ban.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10|title=Journée contre la peine de mort : le monde décide!|author=Thomas Hubert|date=29 June 2007|language=fr|publisher=Coalition Mondiale|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070915094641/http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10|archive-date=15 September 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng |title=Abolish the death penalty &#124; Amnesty International |publisher=Web.amnesty.org |access-date=12 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011062214/http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng |archive-date=11 October 2008 }}</ref> The approval of a draft resolution by the Assembly's third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in support of the resolution on 15 November 2007 and was put to a vote in the Assembly on 18 December.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/un-set-key-death-penalty-vote-20071209|title=UN set for key death penalty vote|publisher=Amnesty International|date=9 December 2007|access-date=12 February 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080215001040/http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/un-set-key-death-penalty-vote-20071209|archive-date=15 February 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1212297|title=Directorate of Communication – The global campaign against the death penalty is gaining momentum – Statement by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe|publisher=Wcd.coe.int|date=16 November 2007|access-date=12 December 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121028025126/https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1212297|archive-date=28 October 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/ga/news/news.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly |title=UN General Assembly – News Stories |publisher=Un.org |access-date=12 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109035000/http://www.un.org/ga/news/news.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly |archive-date=9 January 2009 }}</ref>

Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions adopted, on 20 November in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee), a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; 105 countries voted in support of the draft resolution, 48 voted against and 31 abstained.

The moratorium resolution has been presented for a vote each year since 2007. On 15 December 2022, 125 countries voted in support of the moratorium, with 37 countries opposing, and 22 abstentions. The countries voting against the moratorium included the United States, People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Iran.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Marcus |first1=Josh |title='Inhumane': Critics slam US vote against UN resolution condemning death penalty |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/united-states-un-vote-death-denalty-b2246231.html |access-date=30 January 2023 |work=The Independent |date=15 December 2022}}</ref>

A range of amendments proposed by a small minority of pro-death penalty countries were overwhelmingly defeated. It had in 2007 passed a non-binding resolution (by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions) by asking its member states for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1849885920071218|title=U.N. Assembly calls for moratorium on death penalty|work=Reuters|date=18 December 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090417030913/http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1849885920071218|archive-date=17 April 2009}}</ref>

[[File:04CFREU-Article2-Crop.jpg|thumb|Article 2 of the [[Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]] affirms the prohibition on capital punishment in the EU.]]
A number of regional conventions prohibit the death penalty, most notably, the Protocol 6 (abolition in time of peace) and Protocol 13 (abolition in all circumstances) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same is also stated under Protocol 2 in the [[American Convention on Human Rights]], which, however, has not been ratified by all countries in the Americas, most notably Canada<ref>The reason Canada has not ratified the Convention does not appear to be related to capital punishment, but because the Convention's provision on abortion is likely not consistent with the legal position in Canada relating to abortion: [https://blogs.mcgill.ca/humanrightsinterns/2019/06/23/abortion-in-the-americas-article-41-of-the-american-convention-on-human-rights/ Kelly O'Connor, "Abortion in the Americas: Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211202224059/https://blogs.mcgill.ca/humanrightsinterns/2019/06/23/abortion-in-the-americas-article-41-of-the-american-convention-on-human-rights/ |date=2 December 2021 }}.</ref> and the United States. Most relevant operative international treaties do not require its prohibition for cases of serious crime, most notably, the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]. This instead has, in common with several other treaties, an optional protocol prohibiting capital punishment and promoting its wider abolition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-death.htm |title=Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR |access-date=8 December 2007 |publisher=Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071121143327/http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-death.htm |archive-date=21 November 2007 }}</ref>

Several international organizations have made abolition of the death penalty (during time of peace, or in all circumstances) a requirement of membership, most notably the EU and the [[Council of Europe]]. The Council of Europe are willing to accept a [[Moratorium (law)|moratorium]] as an interim measure. Thus, while [[Capital punishment in Russia|Russia]] was a member of the Council of Europe, and the death penalty remains codified in its law, it has not made use of it since becoming a member of the council – Russia has not executed anyone since 1996. With the exception of Russia (abolitionist in practice) and Belarus (retentionist), all European countries are classified as abolitionist.<ref name="amnesty.org"/>

[[Capital punishment in Latvia|Latvia]] abolished {{lang|la|de jure}} the death penalty for war crimes in 2012, becoming the last EU member to do so.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-executions-in-2012 |title=The Death Penalty in 2012 |publisher=Amnesty International |date=9 April 2013 |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029232445/http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-executions-in-2012 |archive-date=29 October 2013 }}</ref>

Protocol 13 to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] calls for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (including for war crimes). The majority of European countries have signed and ratified it. Some European countries have not done this, but all of them except Belarus have now abolished the death penalty in all circumstances ({{lang|la|de jure}}, and Russia {{lang|la|de facto}}). [[Armenia]] is the most recent country to ratify the protocol, on 19 October 2023.<ref>{{cite web|language=en |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=187 |title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 187
 |access-date=14 September 2024 }}</ref>

Protocol 6, which prohibits the death penalty during peacetime, has been ratified by all members of the Council of Europe. It had been signed but not ratified by Russia at the time of its expulsion in 2022.

[[File:ICCPR-OP2 members.svg|thumb|upright=1.15|Signatories to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR: parties in dark green, signatories in light green, non-members in grey]]
There are also other international abolitionist instruments, such as the [[Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]], which has 90 parties;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter=4 |title=UNTC |publisher=Treaties.un.org |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140104212752/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter=4 |archive-date=4 January 2014}}</ref> and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (for the Americas; ratified by 13 states).<ref>{{cite web |author=Francisco J Montero |url=http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-53.html |title=:: Multilateral Treaties – Department of International Law – |publisher=OAS |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140507100541/http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-53.html |archive-date=7 May 2014}}</ref>

In [[Turkey]], over 500 people were sentenced to death after the [[1980 Turkish coup d'état]]. About 50 of them were executed, the last one 25 October 1984.<!--- Hidir Aslan ---> Then there was a ''de facto'' moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey. As a move [[Accession of Turkey to the European Union|towards EU membership]], Turkey made some legal changes. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law by [[Grand National Assembly of Turkey|the National Assembly]] in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended [[Constitution of Turkey|its constitution]] to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February 2006.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Death Penalty Cannot be Reinstated in Turkey |url=https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/turkey/death-penalty-cannot-be-reinstated-in-turkey |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=International Federation for Human Rights |language=en}}</ref> As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice, all states, having ratified Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, with the exceptions of Russia (which has entered a moratorium) and [[Capital punishment in Belarus|Belarus]], which are not members of the Council of Europe.{{citation needed|date=August 2021}} The [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practice the death penalty, the U.S. and Japan, to abolish it or lose their observer status. In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Droege |first=Cordula |date=September 2008 |title=Transfers of detainees: legal framework, non-refoulement and contemporary challenges |url=https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc-871-droege2.pdf |journal=International Review of the Red Cross |volume=90 |issue=871 |pages=669–701|doi=10.1017/S1560775508000102 }}</ref>

{{multiple image
 | width = 200
 | direction = vertical
 | image1 = Final march, manifestation finale, Genève 2010.jpg
 | image2 = Manifestation finale, Genève 2010.jpg
 | footer = 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, 2010
}}
[[Sub-Saharan Africa]]n countries that have recently abolished the death penalty include [[Burundi]], which abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2009,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/burundi-abolishes-death-penalty-bans-homosexuality-20090427 |title=Burundi abolishes the death penalty but bans homosexuality |publisher=Amnesty International |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140218040338/http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/burundi-abolishes-death-penalty-bans-homosexuality-20090427 |archive-date=18 February 2014}}</ref> and [[Gabon]] which did the same in 2010.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/index.php?iddocumento=15302086&mover=0 |title=Death Penalty: Hands Off Cain Announces Abolition in Gabon |publisher=Handsoffcain.info |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225204443/http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/index.php?iddocumento=15302086&mover=0 |archive-date=25 February 2014}}</ref> On 5 July 2012, [[Benin]] became part of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the use of the death penalty.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=17000190 |title=HANDS OFF CAIN against death penalty in the world |publisher=Handsoffcain.info |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225204334/http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=17000190 |archive-date=25 February 2014}}</ref>

The newly created [[South Sudan]] is among the 111 UN member states that supported the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly that called for the removal of the death penalty, therefore affirming its opposition to the practice. South Sudan, however, has not yet abolished the death penalty and stated that it must first amend its Constitution, and until that happens it will continue to use the death penalty.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article46452 |title=South Sudan says death penalty remains until constitution amended – Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan |work=Sudan Tribune |access-date=11 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140228053742/http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article46452 |archive-date=28 February 2014}}</ref>

Among non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and [[Human Rights Watch]] are noted for their opposition to capital punishment.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Death Penalty|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/|access-date=1 September 2021|website=Amnesty International|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=10 October 2010|title=Lebanon: Don't Resurrect the Death Penalty|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/10/10/lebanon-dont-resurrect-death-penalty|url-status=live|access-date=1 September 2021|website=Human Rights Watch|language=en|quote=Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights – the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925203618/https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/10/10/lebanon-dont-resurrect-death-penalty |archive-date=25 September 2015 }}</ref> A number of such NGOs, as well as trade unions, local councils, and bar associations, formed a [[World Coalition Against the Death Penalty]] in 2002.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Presentation & History|url=https://worldcoalition.org/who-we-are/presentation-history/|access-date=1 September 2021|website=WCADP|language=en-US}}</ref>

An open letter led by Danish Member of the [[European Parliament]], Karen Melchior was sent to the European Commission ahead of the 26 January 2021 meeting of the Bahraini Minister of Foreign Affairs, [[Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani]] with the members of the [[European Union]] for the signing of a Cooperation Agreement. A total of 16 MEPs undersigned the letter expressing their grave concern towards the extended abuse of [[human rights in Bahrain]] following the arbitrary arrest and detention of activists and critics of the government. The attendees of the meeting were requested to demand from their Bahraini counterparts to take into consideration the concerns raised by the MEPs, particularly for the release of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Sheikh Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad, the two European-Bahraini dual citizens on death row.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.adhrb.org/2021/01/16-meps-urge-bahrain/|title=16 MEPs Urge Bahrain to Release EU-Bahraini Dual Nationals and End Death Penalty Ahead of Brussels Meeting|access-date=25 January 2021|website=Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain|date=25 January 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://karenmelchior.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Letter-from-MEPs-on-human-rights-abuses-in-Bahrain-in-light-of-EU-cooperation-agreement.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221010/https://karenmelchior.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Letter-from-MEPs-on-human-rights-abuses-in-Bahrain-in-light-of-EU-cooperation-agreement.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-10 |url-status=live|title=Letter from MEPs on Human Rights Abuses in Bahrain in Light of EU Cooperation Agreement|access-date=22 January 2021|website=European Parliament}}</ref>

===Religious views===
{{Main|Religion and capital punishment}}
The world's major faiths have differing views depending on the religion, denomination, [[sect]] and the individual adherent.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://catholicmoraltheology.com/death-penalty-development-a-conditional-advance-of-justice/|website=catholicmoraltheology.com|title=Death Penalty Development: A Conditional Advance of Justice}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|chapter=[[s:A manual of moral theology for English-speaking countries/Book 6#195|Book 6: Part V. The Fifth Commandment]]|title=A manual of moral theology for English-speaking countries|year=1925|publisher=Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.|first=Thomas|last=Slater S.J.}}</ref> The [[Catholic Church]] considers the death penalty as "inadmissible" in any circumstance and denounces it as an "attack" on the "inviolability and dignity of the person."<ref name="Taylor Graham-2021">{{Cite web |last=Taylor Graham |first=E. |date=2021-06-03 |title=The Death Penalty Is a Failed Sacrifice |url=https://www.hprweb.com/2021/06/the-death-penalty-is-a-failed-sacrifice/ |access-date=2023-04-24 |website=Homiletic & Pastoral Review |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="Povoledo-2018">{{Cite news |last1=Povoledo |first1=Elisabetta |last2=Goodstein |first2=Laurie |date=2018-08-02 |title=Pope Francis Declares Death Penalty Unacceptable in All Cases |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html |access-date=2023-04-24 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Both the [[Baháʼí Faith|Baháʼí]] and [[Islam]]ic faiths support capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/ka-103.html|title=Bahá'í Reference Library – The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 203–204|website=reference.bahai.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Siting the Death Penalty Internationally|first1=David F.|last1=Greenberg|first2=Valerie|last2=West|date=2 May 2008|journal=Law & Social Inquiry|volume=33|issue=2|pages=295–343|doi=10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00105.x|s2cid=142990687}}</ref>