Waver 1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Capital Punishment:  
An Examination of the Controversial Issue 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ashley Waver 
May 10, 2019 
Global Perspectives 
Mr. Torlée 
 Waver 2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“Killing a monstrous offender is easier to justify than killing a flawed human being.”  
(Robert M Bohm) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Waver 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Preface ……………………………………………………………………………………. Pg. 4 
 
Definition ………………………………………………………………..…………...…… Pg. 4 
 
Significance …………………………………………………………………..…………… Pg. 5 
 
Background ………………………………………………………………....….………… Pg. 11 
 
Expert ………………………………………………………………………...…...…....… Pg. 18 
 
Role of Control ………………………………………………………………………...… Pg. 21 
 
International Organizations …………………………………………………………..… Pg. 23 
 
Case Studies …………………………………………………………………………….… Pg. 25 
​ United States of America …………………………………………………....……… Pg. 26 
Pakistan ……………………………………………………………………...……… Pg. 32 
Philippines ………………………………………………………………….…..…… Pg. 37 
 
Canadian Connections ……………………………………………………………...…… Pg. 44 
 
Logic of Evil ………………………………………………………………………….…… Pg. 47 
 
Religion …………………………………………………………………………….…...… Pg. 50 
 
Politics ……………………………………………………………………….………….… Pg. 53 
 
Solutions …………………………………………………………………...………...…… Pg. 56 
 
Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………....…. Pg. 62 
 
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………..…. Pg. 76 
 
 
 
 
 
 Waver 4

PREFACE 
Despite the many steps taken to enforce judicial freedoms worldwide, capital punishment 
remains a significant issue. This leaves the commitment of an offence in the power of the 
government. Capital punishment allows the political officials to legally kill a condemned inmate 
for the consequences of their actions. It takes away their right to life as well as other fundamental 
rights and freedoms. However, the death penalty provides protection for civilians, not having to 
worry about a dangerous offender roaming the streets. Capital punishment is a global 
controversy dating back to the colonial times. The issue is a deep rooted debate that processes 
very strong options on both sides.  
The objective of this report is to examine all aspects of capital punishment including the 
global controversy, analyzing politics, religion and the duality facing the issue. The United States 
of America, Pakistan and the Philippines will be closely investigated to gain a deeper 
understanding of the reality regarding capital punishment.  
 
DEFINITION 
The death penalty has been recognized as a weapon of social control. In human history, 
there are constrictions and regulations towards the penalty. It is no longer tolerable compared to 
the executions carried out in the 1800s (Procon, n.d.). In a way this issue is similar to slavery. In 
the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was dominant part of the social norm (Virginia Humanities, 
n.d.). Different countries adopted this method of labour more than others, however, it occurred 
frequently as a worldwide total. Throughout history, slavery has been recognized as an unlawful 
practice and abolished. Today, if someone were to commit an act of slavery, the individual 
would result in a serious punishable offence. On a worldwide spectrum, there has not been a 
consensus formed around the controversial issue of capital punishment. Recently, the death 
penalty has been following similar historical footsteps to that of slavery in abiding by the 
international trend.  
A similar ideology applies to evolution of capital punishment cases, which defines as 
“punishment by death: the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes,” 
(Merriam-Websters Dictionary, n.d.). However, the definition has a different meaning for every 
 Waver 5

individual. Along with this issue, the widespread public opinion develops a controversy which 
defines as; “a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views: dispute,” 
(Merriam-Websters Dictionary, n.d.). Globally, part of the world believes in withholding the 
aspects of the death penalty and the other part believes in abolishing the method of punishment 
all together. Many support the death penalty in theory but a smaller number supports capital 
punishment in practice, with few people having control over their participation. Offenders are 
ultimately human beings that make appalling decisions and follow the wrong aspect of life. The 
crime committed can be so heinous that not a single person could handle seeing the dangerous 
offender on the streets. With society denying the fact that the lesson of their punishment can be 
learned through prison or if its necessary to take a life.  
In death penalty cases, the humane element extends beyond the people involved to 
include a wide network of citizens who by employment or choice become immersed in this 
vague aspect of the criminal justice system when considering execution. Most individuals in the 
process are seriously damaged by the end. 
It is essential that the death penalty is heard through its many voices and sides to 
understand the concept of the issue as a whole. While provided insight to the controversial 
aspects of; prosecutors, defence attorneys, judges, jurors, wardens, execution witnesses, 
governors as well as the victims, offenders and they're surrounding loved ones. An examination 
of every factor, both in favour or against capital punishment will be considered as an outlook in 
this paper. 
 
SIGNIFICANCE 
Capital punishment is a significant controversial issue worldwide for many reasons. The 
collateral damage is widespread and in many cases unique to the people caught in its web, 
evident in testimonies as well as other research. Over the years, the death penalty debates have 
emphasized questions of crime and punishment from the sides of the victim and the perpetrator. 
With this issue, two perspectives are recognized by society and public officials. There are 
currently 58 countries which believe in ethically enforcing the execution of inmates (Rogers and 
 Waver 6

Chalabi, 2011). However, the death penalty remains illegal in 142 countries to this date, and is 
increasing at a steady rate (Amnesty International, n.d.).  
Participants in the capital punishment process have what they believe to be good reasons 
and arguments for their role in the promotion of the death penalty. This side of society believes 
that crime is an intolerable issue which needs to be controlled in a more severe manner, 
specifically through capital punishment. Murder, rape, and human trafficking are firm examples 
of contributors that would be considered for execution regardless of the defendants wishes. 
Studies advise that justice shouldn’t be considered when criminals have violated several victims 
and their surrounded loved ones. Laws are set in place to keep people safe and it is believed that 
a death sentence should be served when these rules are not obeyed to a certain extent.  
However, strong evidence suggests that two-thirds of the world's nations are able to 
achieve the moral goals of the death penalty with an alternative of non capital punishment. The 
capital form of discipline is a barbaric and inhumane practice in the way of an uncivilized 
society. It has no moral purpose, being used as unfair practice. Sentencing guidelines of the death 
penalty cannot be reversed, once it's done, another life is taken, whether that is the face of an 
innocent person or a dangerous offender. As a remedy for crime, it has no effect on the criminals 
when infringing on the law as they don’t plan on getting caught. This side of society believes that 
capital punishment is a crime itself. 
As of today, the controversy has lead to several years of debates for both promoting and 
rejecting the death penalty. Some of these issues include cultural arguments, political points of 
view, economics and justice. Each of these factors contributing to the argument of holding death 
sentence upon an individual and whether the method of executions is imposed in an arbitrary and 
discriminatory manner or completely abolishing this practice as a whole. 
 
Economic Considerations 
From the accusation of a capital offence, to the date of execution is approximately 15 
years and five months since 2013 for every inmate (Procon, n.d.). This includes the review of 
each case by the standard court as well as the appeal process. Therefore, the enforcement of the 
death penalty is extremely intricate and costly. California has spent four billion dollars since 
 Waver 7

1978, when the death penalty was last reinstated (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The 
costs begin with the police investigation of the offence and end with the costs of burial. All of 
the financial hardships that result along the way must be evaluated before an assessment of the 
economic efficiency before the death penalty. This section identifies the various costs associated 
with the death penalty. Due to the complexity of the investigation, judicial and imprisonment 
systems, there are many unnecessary employments that would not be implemented with the 
abolishment of the practice. Many of the specialized careers include detectives, prosecutors, 
defence attorneys, judges, jurors, wardens, executioners, execution witnesses and governors, who 
are essential to capital punishment with their involvement. In the 1990s, Alabama attorneys were 
paid $20 an hour for out of court time, with a limit of $2000 per case for capital cases (Bohm, 
2010). This number has been slowly increasing over the years with Florida having a $3500 
payment limit (Bohm, 2010). After all the appeals have concluded, the convicted murderer faces 
imprisonment and then execution. Execution related costs include around the clock watch of an 
inmate once his death warrant has been signed. This ensures the safety of the inmate through 
high security cells, and makes sure he or she does not kill them self before the execution date. 
The cost in overtime for guards for each watch is approximately $17, 288 (Bohm, 2010). The 
death row inmate is also granted a final meal which adds to the expenses. The killing method of 
the condemned inmate costs around $188 and the burial of the lifeless body costs $658 (Bohm, 
2010). The total cost of a single capital case from beginning to end is anywhere from $2.3 to 
$3.36 million dollars (Bohm, 2010). With the abolition of capital punishment, the millions of 
dollars spent on the death penalty process could be used for more effective methods of reducing 
violent crime. 
 
Judicial Considerations 
Doctors are trained to do no harm and preserve human life when there is any hope of 
doing so, not to do the service of death. This is a fundamental practice of medicine and an oath 
doctors live by. Recently, the controversy has been with Anesthesiologists performing lethal 
injections on condemned inmates (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). However, it is 
believed that this goes against everything a doctor pursues when earning their degree including 
 Waver 8

the oath (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). It is also proven they want experienced 
Anesthesiologists to perform the lethal injections because there is moderate chance of 
complications for the inmate (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). For the most part, the 
drug must be directly injected into a vein (Bryant, 2018). The paralysis medication, however, 
will be effective if injected outside the vein (Bryant, 2018). If an intravenous needle is not 
inserted properly when anesthesia is administered, the inmate will feel the effects of both the 
paralytic and potassium chloride used to stop the heart (Bryant, 2018).The goal of authorized 
officials is not to torture the offender, but for them to serve their punishment. Some states 
worldwide do not require the use of doctors for capital punishment, or perform a different 
method of execution. Although, most states do require the use of medical attention to prepare the 
inmate for the injection while remaining after they succumb to their injuries (Bohm, 2010). This 
ensures the humanity of the inmate, making sure the procedure is controlled, monitored and done 
correctly with background in the field of expertise. 
 
Many argue that the death penalty is an arbitrary or barbaric method of punishment which 
goes against the fundamental rights and freedoms of the human life (ACLU, n.d.). Inherently, it 
violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel punishment (Cornell Law, 2018). 
Furthermore, it is believed that the state should not give itself the right to kill human beings 
(ACLU, n.d.). Human rights promote the standards of justice, peace, equality and freedom. 
These rights are enforced to guarantee individual expression regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, 
opinion, and social origin. Human rights are essential in the development of communities and the 
world as a whole. Capital punishment completely goes against the right to life. It is debatable if 
an individual should be granted justice when taking the life of another human being. For further 
understanding, refer to Appendix E. 
 
When attending to the justice of the condemned inmate, specific precautions have to be 
taken to ensure the individual is guilty of the crime and not a wrongly convicted individual. In 
the appeal system, all capital punishment cases are reviewed and discussed very carefully with a 
significant amount of evidence. However, mistakes can often be found right up to the execution 
 Waver 9

date of the innocent inmate. Currently, over 115 people in 25 states have been released from 
death row due to innocence since 1973 (Baird, 1995). The Supreme Court addressed the 
constitutionality of executing someone who claimed innocence in the Herrera V Collins case 
(Baird, 1995). The court noted that the possibility of executing someone who conclusively 
demonstrates that he or she is actually innocent is rare (Baird, 1995). The court provided the 
opportunity for inmates to prevent execution through clemency, when pleading innocence. 
However, Herrera was not granted clemency and executed in 1973 (Baird, 1995). Since this case, 
concern regarding the execution of the innocent has grown. The court also held that in the 
absence of other constitutional violations, new evidence of innocence is no reason for another 
federal trial (Baird, 1995). This was the turning point of DNA testing. In 1993, Kirk 
Bloodsworth was the first capital conviction case in the United States which was overturned due 
to DNA evidence (Baird, 1995). A nine year old girl was found in a wooded area where she had 
succumb to her injuries after being brutally beaten, raped and murdered (Baird, 1995). Kirk 
Bloodsworth was convicted of sexual assault, rape and first degree murder and sentenced to 
death in 1985 (Baird, 1995). The trail was appealed and withheld in which Bloodsworth was 
proven guilty with two consecutive life sentences (Baird, 1995). After several years a blood 
sample from the crime scene was sent to the lab and further investigated. Final results concluded 
that Bloodsworth’s DNA did not match the sample tested (Baird, 1995). On June 28 1993, Kirk 
Bloodsworth was granted a pardon clemency and released from prison (Baird, 1995). By the time 
of his release, Bloodsworth had almost spent a decade on death row for a crime he did not 
commit (Baird, 1995). A similar occurrence has been recognized by more than 200 people across 
the United States who have been discharged by DNA since 1989 (Innocence Project, 2007). 
DNA cases can enlighten the knowledge on issues plaguing the criminal justice system. 
 
With the commission of a crime, participants in the capital punishment process are 
adversely affected physically and psychologically for both the victim as well as the perpetrator 
(Bohm, 2010). The death penalty does not only have an impact on the inmate but also on the 
family and loved ones of the convicted individual. Their lives become thrusted into chaos and 
emotion ranging from revenge on the part of the victim’s family to fear on the part of the 
 Waver 10

offender’s family (Bohm, 2010). Friends and family members of the victim are often wanting 
closure while the loved ones of the defendant are seeking empathy or compassion (Bohm, 2010). 
Although, evidence regarding closure often results in mixed emotions, whether these executions 
actually relieve the pain and suffering of the victims family is debatable (Bohm, 2010). 
Furthermore, if the executions lift pain and suffering off of the victims family members, it is 
often reflected onto the offenders family (Bohm, 2010). By the end of the trial, whether or not 
their loved one is found guilty, most capital defendants family members have lost hope in the 
criminal justice system (Bohm, 2010). However, the offenders family may have supported the 
death penalty prior to their involvement with the process, few of them actually support capital 
punishment following this devastating occurrence (Bohm, 2010). Once a death sentence is put 
forth, surrounded loved ones are left to deal with feelings of shame, depression, trauma, suicide, 
anxiety and the constant threat or playback that the country will soon excuse someone so deeply 
loved (Bohm, 2010). Moral disengagement is facilitated by the dehumanization of the capital 
defendant (Bohm, 2010). This starts with the media portraying the capital offender as a monster 
or animal for the crimes committed. They experience an unbearable sense of helplessness or 
powerlessness due to the pending execution (Bohm, 2010). For some of them, this pain and 
suffering never ends. For many victims families, the capital punishment process adds to their 
pain, so traumatic that their involvement with the criminal justice system is referred to as 
secondary victimization (Bohm, 2010). Studies proved that this psychological trauma is likely to 
be worse than the actually murder itself (Bohm, 2010). However, a majority of the victims 
family members support the death penalty, a large number do not. In the absence of capital 
punishment, secondary victims would not be insulted when the death penalty is not sought for a 
loved ones killer (Bohm, 2010). Although, some families want the offender to experience the 
pain they put others through. The complex and painful emotions that come with each case do not 
go away once the judicial system comes to a fine conclusion of punishment (Bohm, 2010). 
 
Gender and Race Considerations 
Women face widespread discriminatory practices in capital punishment prosecution and 
detention. Hundreds of women have been unjustly sentenced to death around the world, their 
 Waver 11

cases have been overlooked by activists and scholars as well as the international community. 
Death sentences are often given to women who are illiterate, mentally ill, intellectually disabled, 
or are members of marginalized groups (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Unfortunately, 
gender based violence is frequently neglected by defence attorneys and judges in countries that 
have capital punishment. It is also proven that courts do not judge women based on their 
committed crimes but their wrong doings as women as well (Death Penalty Information Center, 
n.d.). In moderation, both the death sentencing rate and death row population remains a small 
comparison from women to men (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The execution of 
female offenders is more rare than men, with only 575 documented executions of women from 
1632 to 2016 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.).  
 
One of the major claims about the death penalty is that it has been and continues to be 
pursued in a racially discriminatory manner. Most of the racial discrimination has focused on the 
ethnicity of the offender (Please see Appendix C). Evidence has demonstrated that blacks are 
charged, convicted, sentenced to death and executed in significantly larger numbers compared to 
the related population with different racial backgrounds (Bohm, 2010). Critics state that capital 
punishment is subject to racial disparity instead of racial discrimination. Although, it is also 
proven that blacks commit capital crimes in disproportionate numbers compared to any other 
race and not directed to this ethnicity as an oblivion to the death penalty (Bohm, 2010). In recent 
years, there has been less racial discrimination towards the victim. Some studies have shown that 
capital punishment has depended on the victims race. In 1976, 80% of 1100 people executed 
were convicted of killing a white victim, even considering that blacks and whites are murder 
victims in equal numbers (Bohm, 2010). Unfortunately, death penalty critics believe the reason 
for this is that white life is valued over black life in today's society. 
 
BACKGROUND 
The death penalty dates back as far as the eighteenth century in the Code of King 
Hammurabi of Babylon (Baird, 1995). The death penalty was carried out in such ways as 
crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive and impalement (Baird, 1995). The death 
 Waver 12

penalty was the sentence for twenty-five different crimes (Baird, 1995). In the tenth century 
hanging became the more common method of execution (Baird, 1995). The death penalty was 
reduced to a minimum excluding in times of war. This did not last very long as in the sixteenth 
century, in Britain, Henry VIII executed as many as 72,000 people (Baird, 1995). Henry VIII 
used several methods to execute such as boiling, burning at the stake, hanging and beheading 
(Baird, 1995). Some of the crimes for the death penalty included marrying a Jewish person, not 
confessing a crime and treason (Baird, 1995). Over the next two centuries the death penalty 
continued to increase in popularity. By the 1700s, 222 crimes had a sentence of the death penalty 
(The Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). These crimes included stealing, cutting down a 
tree and robbery (The Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Due to the severity of the death 
penalty many juries would not convict the defendant of the crime if it was not serious. This 
created a significant issue which led to a reform(The Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). 
From 1823 to 1837 the death penalty sentencing was reduced to only 122 crimes in Britain (The 
Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The death penalty continued to create a significant 
amount of interest for both sides. This is when the abolitionist movement began. There was an 
essay in 1767 written by Cesare Beccaria which stated there was no justification for the 
government to take one's life (The Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This position had a 
significant impact throughout the world. Austria and Tuscany abolished the death penalty from 
their judicial system (Baird, 1995). The abolitionist movement also affected the United States 
and reduced the death penalty for only crimes that involved murder (Baird, 1995). In the early to 
mid-nineteenth century the abolitionist movement continued to gain momentum especially in the 
northeast (Baird, 1995). Several states in the United States of America reduced the number of 
death penalty sentences for their crimes (Baird, 1995). In 1846, Michigan was the first state to 
abolish the death penalty for all crimes excluding treason (Baird, 1995). A few years later, Rhode 
Island and Wisconsin eliminated the death penalty completely (Baird, 1995). By the end of the 
nineteenth century several countries followed suit: Venezuela, Portugal, Netherlands, Costa Rica, 
Brazil and Ecuador (Baird, 1995). Even though the momentum was moving toward eliminating 
the death penalty, most states continued to hold onto capital punishment and some states in the 
United States of America increased the number of crimes with the death penalty as the sentences 
 Waver 13

(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This was especially the case for crimes by slaves 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). In 1838, laws began to change to make the death 
penalty more acceptable to society (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Laws against 
mandatory death sentencing began to pass and were put in place. The mandatory death 
sentencing was replaced with the enactment of discretionary death penalty statues. Tennessee 
and later Alabama put the discretionary death penalty in place which was seen as a reform 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This was a significant victory for the abolitionist 
movement as the statue eliminated the mandatory death sentencing by 1963 (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). The focus on capital punishment slowed down as the focus became 
greater for antislavery. After the Civil war, in 1888, the electric chair was introduced and built in 
New York (Baird, 1995). The first electric chair execution took place in 1890 with the death of 
William Kemmler (Baird, 1995). Soon other states adopted the method of execution by the 
electric chair (Baird, 1995). Even though several states eliminated the death penalty, it wasn't 
until the first half of the twentieth century that a reform took place called the Progressive Period 
(Baird, 1995). From 1907 to 1917, six states completely eliminated the death penalty with three 
more reducing it to only treason and first-degree murder of a police officer (Baird, 1995). This 
movement was very short lived by the commencement of the Russian Revolution and the United 
States entering into World War I (Baird, 1995). As a result, five of the six states reinstated the 
death penalty by 1920 (Baird, 1995). In 1924, the use of cyanide gas was introduced as a new 
method of execution (Baird, 1995). This was because Nevada wanted to execute their inmates in 
a more humane way (Baird, 1995). The first execution by lethal gas was Gee Jon (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). The state of Nevada tried to pump Gee Jon's cell with gas as he slept; 
however this did not work (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This is when the gas 
chamber was developed. From 1920 to 1940 the death penalty gained popularity as North 
Americans were dealing with the Great Depression (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The 
1930s had more executions than any other decade, averaging 167 per year (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). In the 1950s capital punishment began to decline (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). The number of executions dropped significantly for the following 
decades. From 1960 to 1976 there were only 191 executions in total (Baird, 1995). Capital 
 Waver 14

punishment had hit an all time low. The 1960s continued to examine the death penalty and its 
legality (Baird, 1995). In the early 1960's the death penalty was perceived to be cruel and an 
unusual punishment (Baird, 1995). This is when the Supreme Court began to examine the way 
the death penalty was sentenced and executed. As of today, the world is slowly showing trends 
of both states and provinces abolishing the death penalty. In 1976, Canada came to the 
conclusion that other methods were a more effective punishment for death row inmates, and 
eliminated this practice as a whole (Baird, 1995). 
 
For many, it is hard to comprehend the complexity of the capital punishment process. In 
the Supreme Court, Justice William Brennan was the first to articulate a Furman, a decision 
making system which the Court has used repeatedly since the developed controversy of 
executions (Bohm, 2010). According to Justice William Brennan, death is different from any 
other legal cases, it is an unusually severe punishment regarding its pain and enormity (Bohm, 
2010). Many in the Supreme Court believed that the death penalty defies the basic purpose of 
criminal justice. It goes against everything embodied by the concepts of humanity. Due to these 
extreme differences, capital cases are handled differently from other cases.  
The capital punishment process begins when a potential capital crime, such as murder, is 
reported to the police. The investigation of a capital crime is examined more carefully and if an 
investigation is successful, a suspect is arrested. Once a suspect has been taken into custody, he 
or she is read their fundamental rights. The suspect is then transported to the police station and 
booked. This is the process where the suspect’s name, the charges for which they were arrested, 
fingerprints, photographs are recorded and entered into the police blotter. In capital punishment 
cases the offender is provided two defence attorneys in the chance they cannot afford their own. 
Following a booking, a prosecutor reviews the facts of the case and decides whether a suspect 
should be charged with a crime or possibly crimes. If the prosecutor decides the suspect is 
chargeable, they will prepare a charging document. However, the crimes a suspect is charged 
with may differ from those at the time of arrest. If the prosecutor proves there is enough evidence 
to convict the defendant of a crime, the prosecutor will seek an indictment for the capital offence 
which will then employ grand juries. A grand jury is generally a group of citizens ranging from 
 Waver 15

12 to 23 individuals, who meet and determine whether there is a probable cause that the suspect 
is guilty of the charges brought through by the prosecutor (Bohm, 2010). After hearing the 
prosecutors evidence and witness, the grand jury makes the probable cause, usually through a 
majority vote towards a trial bill. After the charges have been fulfilled, they are brought before a 
lower court judge for an initial appearance where the defendant is given notice of charges and 
read their fundamental rights once more. In cases where the suspect is arrested without warrant, 
their initial appearance is within 48 hours of their arrest (Bohm, 2010). During the initial 
appearance, a bond hearing is held which is a monetary guarantee deposited with the court 
allowing the offender to be released from prison while awaiting the next stage in the appeal 
process. If the bond is denied, which is likely in capital crimes, the suspect is incarcerated until 
the preliminary hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is for a judge to determine 
whether there is a probable cause to support the charges imposed by the prosecutor. Defendants 
have no right to speak to a jury during preliminary hearings. If the judge determines that there is 
probable cause in the offences charged, the offender is bound for possible sentencing. After a 
preliminary hearing, the defendant is allowed to enter a plea. 
During death penalty cases, principles of the super due process are represented in 
bifurcated trials. These sentences require jurors to weigh aggravating or mitigating factors of a 
case through a two stage trial of automatic appellate review and proportionality review. While 
other trials have combined guilt and penalty phases, condemned inmates have these separated 
into two different phases. During the guilt phase, the jury determines whether the defendant is 
deemed guilty or innocent. During the penalty phase, the only question considered by the jury is 
whether the guilty defendant should be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. 
Sentencing guidelines are provided in death penalty trial to set standard for judges in determining 
if the capital case is appropriate for death row. Courts also conclude the jury is allowed to 
consider the offenders background including the circumstances of the crime. To charge a suspect 
with a capital offence, the prosecutor must be able to prove at least one aggravating factor. 
Aggravating factors are situations or factual information that increases the blame upon the 
convicted act of the criminal. The three types of aggravating factors include; those that focus on 
offender characteristics, those that focus on the manner in which the felony was committed and 
 Waver 16

those that focus on the victims characteristics (Bohm, 2010). However, the aggravating factors 
may differ between states, with Mexico has seven and California has 22 (Bohm, 2010). The 
purpose of aggravating factors is to narrow the eligibility of capital punishment, whereas 
mitigating factors are in favour of the offender and are weighed against aggravating factors. 
Mitigating factors are situations or factual information that do not justify or excuse a capital 
crime but reduce the degree of the punishment. Examples of mitigating factors include, 
immaturity, no record of prior criminal activity and being under the influence of another person. 
The Supreme Court has ruled that during the penalty phase, a lawyer can present any mitigating 
factors. The primary consideration of mitigating factors is to grant mercy for the defendant's 
punishment. If the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, the sentence is death. 
Although, if the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors, the sentence is life in prison 
without the option of parole.  
The first and only appeal required is the automatic appeal which occurs regardless of the 
defendants wishes. Most jurisdictions provide one or two lawyers for the automatic appeal 
(Bohm, 2010). The trial record is presented at the appeal, this includes all of the documentation 
from trial court, including the evidence presented and the trial transcript. The defendant's 
attorney then files a brief which describes all of the errors that occurred at the trial and argues 
against death sentence. The states attorney general then files a brief based on the claims in the 
appellants brief. This can be argued upon in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then 
analyses the arguments before the sentence. A written opinion addresses each of the appellants 
claims which can either continue or reverse the conviction of the inmate. Although, a reversed 
sentence occurs with fewer than 10% of all capital punishment cases (Bohm, 2010). In this 
process, the defendant may put forth a petition towards the Supreme Court known as a writ of 
certiorari (Bohm, 2010). This is only reviewed if there is question in court regarding the 
appellant or the constitution. If the court decides not to review a case, it is considered final which 
means the death row inmate no longer has a say. In addition to the automatic review, the 
defendants have the option to partake in collateral review. Capital offenders may oppose their 
convictions and sentencing through both the state and the country. Just like the automatic appeal 
reviews are available, however, they are heard at the discretion of the court in which they must 
 Waver 17

grant the death row inmate permission. Few death row inmates whose appeal have been denied 
by the Supreme Court may still try to have their case reviewed constitutionally by the writ of a 
habeas corpus (a court order directing a law officer to produce a prisoner in court to determine 
whether he or she is being legally detained or held in prison) (Bohm, 2010). In all death penalty 
cases, an execution warrant is approved by a warden to carry out the death sentence. Both the 
date and place for execution are finalized at this point. After prison officials receive the death 
warrant, the inmate’s belongings are transferred from a death row cell to a deathwatch cell. The 
prisoner will be moved accordingly to execution date or provincial preference. Another moving 
factor would be the security of the incarcerated prisoner, if it is ever jeopardized. If the inmate is 
deemed suicidal or if it is believed that another inmate aims to kill the condemned prisoner, this 
same apply. During a deathwatch, a corrections officer is either in the cell with the inmate or 
right outside the cell 24 hours a day (Bohm, 2010). The role of the officer is to keep the inmate 
under control, recording a detailed log of the inmates actions. Many countries maintain a 
visitation policy during deathwatch. For security purposes the inmate is only allowed two visitors 
at a time. The death warrant does not set an exact time, although executions are usually held at 
12:01am (Bohm, 2010). It has become a regular time for executions due to the fact that it 
provides extra security because inmates are locked down at this time of night. The publicity is 
reduced because the execution takes place after the 11:00 pm news and past the deadline for 
morning newspaper (Bohm, 2010). It allows the state or province a full 24 hours to carry out the 
death sentence (Bohm, 2010). However, execution methods have evolved to lethal injections 
which are held at 6:00 pm to better accommodate the work schedule of the execution team 
(Bohm, 2010). This also reduces the cost of overtime for the capital punishment employees. 
Since the public has been more accustomed to capital punishment in anti abolition countries, the 
time is no longer a big issue because there is little public protest and no reason to hide the 
execution. On the execution day, the prison is closed. Only those who are involved with the 
execution are allowed in. In this process, a briefing is held for individuals that are assisting the 
inmate and the execution equipment is also checked. The inmate receives his last meal. A few 
hours before the execution, the inmate is given a description of everything that is about to 
happen (Bohm, 2010). Approximately 30 minutes before the execution, the inmate is brought to 
 Waver 18

the death chamber and is strapped into the gurney (Bohm, 2010). The inmate is connected to an 
intravenous line and heart monitor. At this time, witnesses are escorted to the viewing gallery 
and the inmate can make his final statements. The warden then checks with the governor and 
attorney general to ensure the execution will proceed. If there are no changes, the warden reads 
the death warrant to the incarcerated prisoner.  
Today, lethal injections are the principal method of execution. However, there is no 
policy for this method. There are different details as to procedure, the amount of drugs used, who 
performs the injections, how well the executioners are trained and paid. Most states use a 
combination of four chemicals; sodium thiopental, sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and 
potassium chloride (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The sodium thiopental and sodium 
pentothal are used in surgery which induces a deep sleep and loss of consciousness in a short 
period of time (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The pancuronium bromide is a muscle 
relaxant, in large doses it stops breathing by paralyzing the lungs, specifically the diaphragm 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The last drug, sodium chloride, induces cardiac arrest 
and stops the heart beat permanently (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). It is critical that 
these chemicals are administered in a certain order, to ensure the safety of the inmate. Between 
each chemical the intravenous line is flushed with saline solution. Usually, death occurs four 
minutes after the first chemical is injected (Bohm, 2010). However, there have been cases where 
this process has taken up to 34 minutes (Bohm, 2010). A doctor then monitors the inmate and 
pronounces time of death. The witnesses exit the viewing gallery and are required to sign a 
return warrant of execution. This proves the execution has taken place. The inmates body is then 
disconnected from the intravenous line and the corpse is taken. 
 
EXPERT: Judge Janice Lemaistre 
In Canada, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the appeal system. The court 
embraces the laws of Canada and the civilization of society. Three main branches of government 
are very important to the function of the Supreme Court as a whole, consisting of the executive, 
legislative and judicial branch. The role of the judicial system is crucial to the sentencing of 
offenders including those who commit capital crimes.  
 Waver 19

On March 5, 2019, an interview was conducted with Judge Janice Lamaistre, a complete 
copy of the interview transcript can be found in Appendix A, Figure A. Judge Janice Lamaistre is 
a court of appeal judge in the Supreme Court of Manitoba. Judge Lamaistre focuses on 
implementation and upholding the laws that are made by the legislative branch of government, 
while providing every human being justice through impartiality. Impartiality means that judges 
are not influenced by policy, sympathy or any other factors which would affect their duty to 
uphold the laws of Canada. In felony or capital cases, trial judges manage or referee each case to 
ensure the defendant receives a fair trial.  
Judges are honourable officials who hear both the side of the victim and offender, as well 
as their perspective on the criminal case. In Canada, the criminal code establishes the purpose 
and principles of the laws for judges to abide by when sentencing, particularly section 718. The 
code sets out a fundamental standard for punishable offences, making murder, stealing and 
assaults officially wrong. Followed principals include deterring the offender from committing a 
capital offence. The awareness of offences by citizens is critical to the theory of the code, stating 
a person is more likely to not commit a offence when having knowledge of the punishment itself. 
Another principal is separation from society, if a dangerous offender is a threat to be roaming the 
streets, that will be considered in the sentencing process. As a judge, Janice Lemaistre explained 
that all people are good but choose to commit punishable crimes. In court, influential factors are 
considered for the commitment of the offence, where rehabilitation treatment can be offered. The 
goal of rehabilitation is allowing the individual to address and correct their behaviour to 
eliminate the issue of it happening again. Rehabilitation allows the opportunity for discharge, 
meaning the crime was committed with circumstance and would never repeat itself. However, 
sentencing options can include jail as well. Designed to protect society by providing deterrence 
and denunciation, separating offenders from society. The division of crime committed is between 
summary and indictable offences. Summary offences pertains to theft, which is less serious and 
indictable offences pertains to intentional murder which is a very serious crime. A committed 
assault would have a jail term not exceed five years, however, an aggravated assault would have 
a maximum penalty of 14 years. In the criminal code, there is a maximum sentence. An 
automatic life sentence in prison would be murder, unless it was unintentional then the sentence 
 Waver 20

would be reduced. In countries with the capital punishment, indictable offences would attract the 
death penalty, including offences that are punishable through life in prison. 
Since the abolishment of capital punishment, the Canadian judicial system has been 
impacted and changed significantly. All of the penalty provisions would have to be changed in 
terms of severity of crime. Revision of the criminal code would be required in sentence changing 
and adding for the laws of capital punishment, many applicable to life in prison cases. The 
criminal code can be viewed in Appendix D. Adjustments would be made to the imposition of 
penalties when a crime is committed. Factors of rehabilitation would not longer be considered, 
enduring the removal from the criminal code. Reinstating the death penalty would promote 
retribution which goes against the function of the judicial system. It’s not about the individual, 
it’s about what is best for society.  
Capital punishment would severely affect the violation of human rights for the victim, 
offender and the justice system as a whole. A charter of human rights is enforced to protect 
individuals and the government. The offender is protected by the charter, however, the victim is 
not, they are protected through the declaration. When a murder is committed, the charter isn’t 
violated, the criminal code is, resulting in arrest. Although, the government can be obligated to 
violate the charter. Imposing a cruel or unusual punishment contradicts section twelve of the 
charter, another aspect of analyzation if capital punishment is brought back to Canada. However, 
section one under the charter allows breaches of the charter when the principles of fundamental 
justice permit it and when reasonable limits prescribed by law are demonstrously justified by a 
free and democratic society. Limits are put on charter when it benefits society as a whole. A 
similar approach would be taken to capital punishment, that yes it is a cruel and unusual 
punishment, however, it may be necessary to take the life of a dangerous offender to ensure the 
safety and security of the surrounding community. 
Janice Lamaistre also recognized that society needs to move forward with the global 
issue in coming to final conclusions. It is essential that governments focus on what is deemed 
right or wrong in a worldwide setting, instead of remaining impartial or putting it off to the side. 
However, may factors apply to what is right or wrong on a global scale, due to religion, politics 
 Waver 21

and other influences. Demonstrating the controversy of capital punishment, if this practice will 
ever come to final conclusions. 
 
ROLE OF CONTROL 
It's all about perspective and perception, with the death penalty being such a controversial 
topic, there is a variety of views and opinions when it comes to the distribution of power. Only in 
a handful of countries is capital punishment legal, the practice is unacceptable everywhere else 
on a worldwide scale. With over millions of condemned inmates executed to this day, however, 
the penalty goes beyond one's self or bad choice but affects the entire globe as well. Despite this, 
several countries take different approaches to this issue, by either enforcing or eliminating the 
involvement of executions as part of a penalty.  
The role of control is certainly evident when considering the government's involvement. 
They determine whether the individual is responsible for their criminal actions in the country or 
whether the practice is going to be completely eliminated. Several countries are slowly starting 
to adopt the abolition trend. Specifically in Canada, the legislative branch obtains the power 
when it comes to the laws. 
The legislative branch is one of the three divisions of government that works with the 
executive and judicial branches (Study, n.d.). The main responsibility for this section of 
government is the debate, amendment and creation of laws (Study, n.d.). The constitution 
outlines the overall power of the legislative branch. Consisting of two parts, the House of 
Commons and the Senate. Although, the House of Commons carries the most authority because 
its members are elected by the people whereas the Senate is appointed by the Governor General. 
Members of Parliament introduce, debate and pass legislation for all Canadians. Members are 
elected from 338 ridings across Canada (Elections Canada, 1970). Each member represents the 
many concerns and issues facing constituents. Once a bill is passed through the legislative 
branch, the Prime Minister must sign the bill in order for it to become a law. However, the 
legislation can override the Prime Minister’s vote if both houses agree to do so with a two-thirds 
votes by all of its members (Study, n.d.). The same process would when be enforced for the 
death penalty, although, this process is more extensive due to the complexity of the punishment. 
 Waver 22

The legislative government has the power and ability to create, pass or deny any laws regarding 
executions as punishment, without any outer influence. Capital punishment is a way for the 
government to take power away from the criminal as part of a consequence for what he or she 
has committed.  
Public support for the death penalty has fluctuated throughout the century, and continues 
to this day. People often assess capital punishment and the ethical procedure of the practice. If an 
individual murders another human being as a personal violation and takes their life away, it is 
often deemed wrong for the government to do the same to the offender even though this practice 
is still used in several countries. Ultimately, the government would be violating the charter. 
Nowadays, people are capable of the most heinous crimes and the only way to keep the public 
safe is through execution. If a dangerous offender is freed from prison, escapes or is granted 
parole, the public is afraid of allowing they're surrounding community to come in contact with a 
killer who has the potential to commit a crime again. In fact, 76% of all inmates end up back in 
jail after a five year release from prison (Hatcher, 2017). The criminals committing these 
offences have had innocent individuals suffer through immense pain and fear, while they now 
get to spend their life in prison, where they are safe and treated with respect. All human beings 
make mistakes, however, the condemned inmate doesn’t ever get to experience the terror they 
put others through. The only way for someone to go through this is by enforcing the death 
penalty and have these people serve for what they did. Due to the extreme costs of capital 
punishment, the public doesn’t want their taxes going to the execution of someone when life in 
prison without parole is less expensive, having a similar effect on the inmate. Cases without the 
death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers 
$90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population (Death Penalty Information Center, 
n.d.). As previously stated, opinions of society are always developing into the enforcement or 
denial of the death penalty and to why that is. 
Imagine being notified by a homicide detective that a loved one has been brutally 
murdered. Unfortunately, this news is a reality for many friends and families of victims 
worldwide. They have gone through an unimaginable experience and cannot help but feel anger 
 Waver 23

and revenge towards the offender. In Ohio, a mother waited 15 years for the murderer of her two 
daughters to die, admitting her immense anger that she would have had no problem injecting the 
needle herself (Bohm, 2010). That she could lie down and have a good night's sleep knowing 
that justice had been served (Bohm, 2010). Along with these emotions, grieving is a major 
factor. After the inmate has been killed, wishing they could have done more to protect their loved 
one. 
Offenders family members are the forgotten victims of capital punishment. These people 
cannot bear to think the person they knew could commit a crime so heinous to get them on death 
row. Dealing with the hardship of it all and the frustration of the appeal process is difficult. An 
eleven year old boy heard a judge pronounce the death sentence of his brother (Bohm, 2010). 
This young boy had no idea when the execution of his brother would be carried out, he would 
have to imagine the electrocution (Bohm, 2010). The nightmares haunted him for ten years in a 
row and he couldn't find anyone to express his feelings to, nobody else could relate to what this 
eleven year old boy was going through (Bohm, 2010). The anger he had towards his brother kept 
growing as time progressed. This poor boy had his whole family dynamic changed by one choice 
and to them, life without parole would have been a dream (Bohm, 2010). Many say a loved ones 
stay on death row is a living death. 
This global issue needs more attention worldwide, over the year the attention for the issue 
has immensely decreased and people are no longer caring. Disregarding the effects it has on 
people, their greater society and even worldwide. Everyone should care.  
 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS  
Many different organizations play an integral role in dealing with the issue of capital 
punishment in the world today. International organizations can strongly influence societies 
awareness about the issue as well as those who have the power. They develop plans that outline 
concepts of capital punishment in which nations and individuals can follow. With capital 
punishment, both international organizations and non government organizations are used to 
promote the elimination of the death penalty. However, these titles cannot be used 
interchangeably as they had two different meanings. International organizations are only 
 Waver 24

“international government organizations established as subjects of international law, capable of 

entering into agreements among themselves or with states,” (Wikibooks, n.d.). Whereas a non 
government organization are “any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a 
local, national or international level,” (NGO, n.d.). International organizations are funded by the 
government, and non government organizations are privately funded.  
 
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) 
The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty is a non government organization, that 
includes an alliance of more than 120 non government organizations, to strengthen the 
abolishment of capital punishment worldwide (Death Penalty Worldwide, n.d.). This 
organization was founded as a result of the final declaration of the first world congress against 
the death penalty, in 2001 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). To achieve the goal of 
execution abolishment, World Coalition advocates for the elimination of this practice in 
countries that maintain it to this date. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty makes their 
statement through lobbying international organizations in the states, supporting local and 
national abolitionist forces as well as organizing campaigns. Every year on October 10 is World 
Day Against the Death Penalty (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). This is one of the 
promotions World Coalition Against the Death Penalty has done since 2003, for their movement 
to eliminate the execution of those on death row to this date (Death Penalty Information Center, 
n.d.). World Day Against the Death Penalty is to raise awareness of the conditions, 
circumstances which affect prisoners with death sentences.  
 
United Nations 
The United Nations is an international organization that was founded after the second 
World War in 1945 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The goal of this organization is to 
obtain world peace and security. They promote social progress, better living standards as well as 
human rights all around the globe. They have taken on a wide variety of issues to ensure they are 
meeting the fundamental standards of the organization. The United Nations adopted a resolution 
on December 17, 2018, a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment (Death Penalty 
 Waver 25

Information Center, n.d.). This resolution expressed concern regarding the death penalty and 
urged countries which continue to enforce this practice ensure that death sentences are not the 
product of discriminatory or arbitrary laws. This moratorium was proposed by Brazil and 83 
other nations marking the seventh global announcement to put an end to executions (Death 
Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Italy sponsored the first moratorium with the support of 105 
countries (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). In 2018, the vote resulted 121 agreeing with 
the moratorium and 35 disagreeing (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.).  
 
Amnesty International 
Amnesty International is a non government organization established in 1961, supporting 
human rights for everyone throughout a worldwide scale (Death Penalty Information Center, 
n.d.). As of today, Amnesty International has more than seven million members (Amnesty 
International, n.d.). This organization holds that the death penalty is a violation of human rights, 
in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruelty. They believe the 
practice of capital punishment is an inhuman and degrading punishment. These standard rights 
are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 
in 1948 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Amnesty has been campaigning to abolish the 
death penalty around the world for over 40 years (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). They 
monitor the execution use by all states to hold governments accountable for this severe method 
of punishment. They publish reports analyzing death penalty trends for each country. Their latest 
report was published April 2018, called The Death Sentences and Executions 2017 (Death 
Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The organization’s work to oppose capital punishment 
includes targeting, advocacy and campaigning in areas which the death penalty still exists, 
strengthening the international standards of its use. Since Amnesty International was founded, 
only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty, as of today, that number has increased to 106 
countries (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Now, more than two-thirds of the worlds 
geographical region is in favour of the elimination of the death penalty. 
 
CASE STUDIES 
 Waver 26

An inspection of three different countries will ensure a thorough understanding towards 

capital punishment and its controversy. Today, we observe a minority of countries continuing to 
pursue the death penalty as a fair practice, however, there is a worldwide trend towards the 
abolition of the death penalty, currently at an increase: 97 states have abolished the death penalty 
for all crimes, 73 have signed the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights and 109 have voted in favour of the third United Nations Resolution 
adopted on December 21, 2010, calling on states to enforce a moratorium on executions with a 
future in abolishing capital punishment (Batta, 2014). The following examination of capital 
punishment worldwide will include a thorough analysis of United States of America, Pakistan as 
well as the Philippines (refer to Appendix H, Figure A, B and C, for geographical location in 
perspective to other countries).  
 
Case Study 1: United States of America 
In 2008, the USA carried out 37 executions (Death Penalty Information Center). This was 
among the lowest rate of death penalty inmates since 1995 and the only carried throughout nine 
states (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Texas was responsible for 18 of the 37 
executions that took place (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). In 2009, the number 
increased to 52 due to the fact that death row sentences were delayed in 2007 and 2008 during 
the examination of lethal injections (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Still, half of the 
executions took place in Texas (Allen, 2011). Since 1977, 83% of executions have taken place in 
Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and 
Florida (Allen, 2011). About one-third of these executions took place in Texas (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). However, 30 states in the USA have the death penalty which is fading 
quite quickly as move governments are adopting the trend of abolishing the practice (Gramlich, 
2019). In 2009, there were 106 capital convictions (Allen, 2011). This continued to be one of the 
lowest sentencing rates for seventeen years straight after 1977, when executions were put back in 
place (Allen, 2011).  
A memorable movement towards the abolition was the Supreme Courts decision 
regarding Furman V. Georgia. Before this judicial decision, the number of deaths in the USA 
 Waver 27

were declining at a fast rate with 21 executions in 1963, 15 in 1964 and 2 in 1967 (Allen, 2011). 
The Supreme Court called for a moratorium on the active death penalty to challenge the 
constitution regarding this method of punishment. In 1972, was the Furman decision, where the 
Supreme Court declared capital punishment to be unconstitutional (Allen, 2011). The Court 
came to the conclusion that the penalty was cruel and unusual while violating the eighth 
amendment.  
For most, this represented the end of the American death penalty, however, this was not 
the case. Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall wrote letters requesting the complete abolishment 
of capital punishment. Through banning the death penalty, the USA would move away from 
inhumane acts and towards civilization, joining 70 other jurisdictions (Allen, 2011). In Furman’s 
case, the penal laws must be rewritten so they are nonselective and non barbaric. Before 
changing the constitution, these laws were simply unfair and discriminatory. Some specific 
conditions included the individuals that make $50, 000 or more would be exempt from the death 
penalty (Allen, 2011). Those who are black, never had schooling beyond fifth grade or made 
$3000 or less were applicable for the punishment (Allen, 2011). These rules are unconstitutional, 
including the way they function. The laws were supposed to provide citizens of the USA 
protection, instead they were very focused on helping specific groups of people and not everyone 
as a whole. However, the constitutionality of this law was challenged. In the Supreme Court, on 
March 31, 1976, a vote was taken regarding the law, with a majority approval (Oyez, n.d.).  
The main concern regarding Furman was the offenders sentenced to death in an arbitrary 
manner. Both North Carolina and Louisiana rejected the Furman because they had not met the 
concerns of the law (Allen, 2011). The Gregg V. Georgia was introduced, coming to the 
conclusion that capital punishment was constitutional as long as the eighth amendment was 
followed (Allen, 2011). The death penalty could no longer be referred to as cruel or unusual at 
this point. In present day, the states that continue to use this method of punishment in America 
obey these laws. When reducing offences eligible for the death penalty, it was debated if rape 
should be considered a capital crime. In the Supreme Court, it was voted upon, with the outcome 
agreeing that rape was considered a despicable offence and completely disobeyed the eighth 
amendment. The severity of the crime reflects the outcome of the punishment, with rape being 
 Waver 28

one of the most barbaric crimes, the penalty would be execution. However, this was not observed 
in the Harmelin V. Michigan case. This was a mandatory life imprisonment instead of the death 
penalty where the proportion from victims crime to offenders punishment was not equal. In the 
Kennedy V. Louisiana case, there was an appeal in the Supreme Court for a man convicted of a 
capital crime for raping his eight year old stepdaughter (Allen, 2011). The court considered the 
Gregg V. Georgia law including the eighth amendment, which the death of the child was not 
intended. Discussing whether rape should only be a punishable offence in the death of another 
individual.  
On June 25, 2008, expanded the protection of the eighth amendment and when the death 
penalty should be applied (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). One of the cases examined 
was Ford V. Wainwright. During his time in prison, Wainwright had become mentally unstable 
serving his time on death row. With the USA’s judicial system questioning if this individual 
could be executed. A similar occurrence happened in the past where a mentally unhealthy 
individual was executed. An uproar started, determining this practice as cruel and degrading, 
under specific mental conditions (Allen, 2011). Chief Justice Warden, Troy V. Dulles, decided 
that eighth amendment was not specific enough for particular cases and that other laws needed to 
be enforced regarding the death penalty (Allen, 2011). The Court also declared in the Thompson 
V. Oklahoma case, that a 15 year old individual convicted of murder is not allowed to be 
executed (Allen, 2011). A year later, another law was made in the Stanford V. Kentucky case 
regarding age and executions (Allen, 2011). In the Penry V. Lynaugh case, the Supreme Court 
had made a decision to reverse the law regarding the execution of the mentally ill. However, 
Chief Justice Warren overturned both the Stanford V. Kentucky and Penry V. Lynaugh cases. In 
2002, Penry V. Lynaugh was revisited in the Atkins V. Virginia case, stating that times have 
changed since the decisions made in 1989, therefore, laws had to change (Allen, 2011).  
As the laws evolve and improve, the court takes in influence from the professional 
associations and religions leaders. These influences have made imposing the death penalty on 
mentally ill defendants to be mistaken and unreliable. The judicial branch of government came to 
the consensus that the voice of organizations and public polls was inefficient, as the means of 
justice is not the hands of the people. The rejection of societies views in the USA caused a divide 
 Waver 29

on opinions regarding the death penalty. In 2005, this divide was noticed in the Roper V. 
Simmons case, including the consideration of Stanford V. Kentucky (Allen, 2011). In the USA, 
the majority of states have not imposed capital punishment on offenders under the age of 18, 
followed by the eighth amendment (Death Penalty Curriculum, n.d.). The Court, specifically 
Justice Stephens, declared that the stability and emotional unbalance of young people can 
contribute as a factor of crime. America wanted there laws to reflect those of the rest of the 
world. However, the international laws did not follow the eighth amendment, in which allowed 
the execution of seventeen year old offenders. After this case, Iran was the only country to 
execute children in 2008 (Esfandiari, 2012). A year later, Iran and Saudi Arabia were the only 
two countries following this (Allen, 2011).  
In some countries, prisoners have there sentences dismissed if they have been on death 
row for a number of years. Zimbabwe has cancelled executions if the inmate has been in prison 
for more than six years and three months (Allen, 2011). In Jamaica, death sentences that exceed 
five years are automatically commuted (Allen, 2011). In India, the Court declared that more than 
eight years between conviction and date of execution violates their constitution (Allen, 2011). 
However, these international influences have not affected the USA due to the fact that there has 
been a significant amount of death row inmates in prison for more than twelve years (Allen, 
2011). The Knight V. Florida case supported the invalidation of the capital punishment situation. 
The USA needed to rely on the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of 
Zimbabwe and India for guidance. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual 
punishment, however, it requires a time consuming appeal process. In the USA, the eighth 
amendment has limited the number of conditions or sentences eligible for the death penalty, 
possibly leading to complete abolition in the future.  
In Illinois, Anthony Porter was exempt from execution two days before the scheduled 
date, after spending 15 years on death row (Grumman and Parsons, 2018). He was deemed 
mentally ill, which was brought to the court's attention through his lawyers. State journalists 
reopened his case, investigating and reporting evidence that was never uncovered by the police. 
This later lead to his release and complete dismissal of the case. Anthony Porter turned out to be 
an innocent man. After the discovery of Porter’s situation, the original offender was arrested and 
 Waver 30

convicted of the committed crime. Another 13 people turned out to be wrongfully convicted, 
awaiting execution (Allen, 2011). Upon these cases, the Illinois House of Representatives was 
appointed regarding the reviewal of the death penalty.  
In 2002, Governor George Ryan called a moratorium on executions to review the errors 
regarding the innocent convictions (Grumman and Parsons, 2018). At this time, more people 
were in favour of abolishing the death penalty in Illinois, if they were to continue the practice 
changes had to be made including legal procedures. The death penalty is a complex issue and 
process with very few answers and many factors that can go wrong. However, there is no method 
that will ever guarantee that no innocent person is ever sentenced to death. In 1998, when 
Governor Ryan was elected, he was deemed the first elected official to be a supporter of the 
death penalty (Allen, 2011). After the report was submitted to the Illinois Government regarding 
the consistent problem of innocent people awaiting executions, he became against the practice. 
On January 11, 2003, before Governor Ryan was leaving office, he commuted all death 
sentences in Illinois, showing his reflection on the practice (Grumman and Parsons, 2018). This 
affected 167 condemned inmates (Wilgoren, 2003). He also pardoned four people on death row 
convicted of murder, claiming the Chicago police physically punished them until they confessed 
(Allen, 2011). Since the death penalty was reintroduced to Illinois in 1976, it has been the most 
arbitrary the state have ever seen (Allen, 2011). Due to Governor Ryan’s efforts to eliminate or 
lessen the severity of the practice, he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 (NBC 
News, 2005). However, the death penalty continues in Illinois. Governor Ryan’s abolishing 
influences has lead to the formation of several NGOs including the Illinois Coalition to Abolish 
the Death Penalty which was founded in 1976 (Allen, 2011). This organization is promoting the 
success of the bill for eliminating the death penalty.  
Despite Illinois hard work in attempting to abolish capital punishment, New Mexico is 
surpassing their efforts. On March 18, 2009, a bill was signed by Governor Bill Richardson, to 
reverse the states death penalty laws (Allen, 2011). This was the second state in the USA to 
eliminate this practice since 1976, New Jersey was the first in 2007 (Allen, 2011). Just like 
Governor Ryan, Governor Richardson came into office as a supporter of the punishment. 
Although, the 130 inmates on death row were discharged in the past 10 years, four being in New 
 Waver 31

Mexico which changed his mind (Allen, 2011). After the bill to abolish the death penalty was 
introduced to legislature 12 years before the reversal of the punishment (Allen, 2011). Several 
churches and religious organizations helped promote the elimination. Capital punishment 
debated economic arguments, religion and ethics, usually brought up by opponents of the death 
penalty. Life without parole is cheaper, and it allows for life instead of death.  
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley explained capital punishment as a reflection of a 
human being, state and wider community including the moral goals of the present time. It has an 
impact on every individual whether directly involved in the situation or not. After this, death 
penalty cases were limited with high standards of evidence, including DNA, videotape 
confession or linking the suspect to the offender (Allen, 2011). Citizens Against State Execution, 
an organization, accepted the bill as it promotes justice, not abolishment but a step closer. 
Montana reflected similar moral and financial issues regarding the abolishment of the 
death penalty. Ronald Smith, the first Canadian citizen on America’s death row, for 27 years 
(Allen, 2011). At this stage, Montana was in favour of abolishing the penalty, however, the bill 
was rejected on March 30, 2009 by the House of Representatives (Allen, 2011). In Montana, the 
last three state executions took place in May 1995, February 1998 and August 2006 (Allen, 
2011). Due to the lack of employment and the attempts to abolish the penalty, most cases end up 
being commuted including Ronald Smith’s. However, not all cases are like this.  
In 1995, 35 year old John Santine planned out an assassination of his business rival 
Charles Serafino (Allen, 2011). He recruited three teenagers to help him with the project, Jason 
Getsy being one of them. Serafino survived the shooting, unfortunately his mother did not. 
Everyone part of Santine’s plan was charged with murder. Santine, despite his murder 
conviction, he was convicted of hired murder and sentenced to life imprisonment along with two 
of the teenagers. Jason Getsy was accused of hired murder and sentenced to death. Getsy was 
scheduled for execution in 1998, while attesting to Santine’s condition despite his initiation of 
the plan (Allen, 2011). In 2006, the US Court of Appeals voted to overturn Getsy’s case, the 
outcome was successful (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). The court came to the 
conclusion that hired murder requires at least two participants, since Getsy was the only one 
sentenced to death, the verdict was inconsistent. Upon the reviewal of the case, Getsy’s death 
 Waver 32

sentence was reinstated, due to the fact that there wasn't enough reasoning for the overturn of his 
case. Considering Getsy was a teenage boy, hired for money, had no initiation of the plan and 
remained the only individual involved sentenced to death. One of the Judges, explained that 
Getsy’s case is the explanation of why death penalty cases in the state are characterized as 
arbitrary and biased. On July 17, 2009, the court voted in favour of Governor Ted Strickland 
granting Getsy clemency (Allen, 2011). Considering these efforts, Getsy’s execution was still 
scheduled for August 18, 2009, and put on Amnesty International’s urgent list for human rights 
campaigning (Allen, 2011). Governor Strickland continued to enforce the execution. A 
worldwide movement failed to save Jason Getsy and he was executed. In 1989, Troy Davis was 
another individual convicted of murdering a police officer (Allen, 2011). He has been on death 
row since the day he was sentenced in Atlanta, Georgia. Davis has done everything to prove his 
innocence, still he remains on death row. There was no physical evidence that linked Davis to the 
crime and no murder weapon was found. There are several individuals and campaigns voicing 
his condition and expressing their concern. On October 22, 2008, the European Parliament 
recommended the commutation of Davis’s case to Georgia (Allen, 2011). On August 17, 2009, 
his case was released and Davis was free after 19 years in prison (Allen, 2011). After these 
capital cases the USA has done more to ensure the execution of innocent civilians does not 
occur. The death penalty does not continue to proceed in an arbitrary or unfair manner. However, 
the USA is adopting the trend of abolition for the future, as the number of states continuing to 
enforce this punishment is decreasing at a steady rate. 
 
Case Study 2: Pakistan 
Pakistan was one of the world’s leading countries for the number of executions in 2008 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). With the abolition world trend at a low rate, this caused 
Pakistan responsible for even more executions. As the world’s execution rate was decreasing in 
recent years, Pakistan was increasing. In 2008, Pakistan’s world total executions declined 
significantly, with only 36 of 2390 deaths (Allen, 2011). In 2009, Pakistan carried out no 
executions at all (Allen, 2011). During 1947, the time of independence, only two offences carried 
out the death penalty, as of today that number has raise to 27 different offences (Allen, 2011). 
 Waver 33

These charges include blasphemy, stripping a woman of her clothes and sabotaging the railway. 
This far exceeds serious crimes in which capital punishment should be enforced for international 
crimes. Other capital offences include ones passed by the Islamic Hudud Ordinances in 1979 
(Ghassemi, 2009). This consists of sexual encounters between individuals who are not married 
also known as zina offences and rape. In these cases, the complainant must have four male 
witnesses or the individual could face the charge of adultery.  
In Pakistan, the capital punishment standards for execution are very broad. Capital 
charges mainly consist of actions that violate the International Law. Under the zina and 
blasphemy laws these violations can be used to shun sexuality or moral sense. Both of these laws 
remain an issue due to the death they impose which is stoning to death. In Pakistan, stoning to 
death has never been implemented but simply awarded in the country. On December 1, 2006, 
Pakistan’s former president Pervez Musharraf signed into law (Rferl, 2008). Under the Pakistan 
Penal Code, a bill finalized rape laws and got rid of these brutal conditions. This bill eliminated 
the death penalty for couples having intercourse outside marriage, instead they face five years in 
prison (Allen, 2011). Blasphemy offences remain a serious capital conviction and were not 
lessened in punishment like the others. During the dictatorship of General Zia Ul-Haq, 
blasphemy laws were introduced. In 1980, a section in the Pakistan Penal Code was added 
regarding the use of derogatory terms used towards a highly respected individual in the Islamic 
religion, which earned a three year sentence (Allen, 2011). This law changed in 1986, where 
comments disrespecting the Holy Prophet in a derogatory manner was sentenced to death with a 
possibility of life in prison (Allen, 2011). This law became more specific where the degrading 
terms can be spoken or written whether that is direct or indirect. The measure of this law was not 
severe enough so the Federal Court came to the conclusion that this law was only sentenced to 
death, with no exceptions considering any conditions. Ever since this section was introduced to 
the Pakistan Penal Code, these laws have been abused and used to harass other religions such as 
Christianity, not legally breaking the law.  
Over the years, hundreds of people have been charged with this offence under these 
particular laws. In these cases, charges have been brought in a arbitrary manner, through 
minority religious beliefs or accusations against Muslims who have come up with impactful 
 Waver 34

ideas. These charges were placed to intimidate people and punish those who belong to a religious 
minority, causing envy, economic rivalry or political gain. However, the number of blasphemy 
convictions are not actually accused of what the offence consists of. Blasphemy charges have 
been for an individual's religious beliefs, jealousy, political opposition or one's personal hatred. 
These charges were brought upon Christians due to their neighbourly grudge or individuals 
interrupted blasphemy trials, threatening the offender and demanding the death penalty. Former 
President Musharraf prepared to modify the blasphemy laws due to Catholic and Human Rights 
influence. Consistent pressure from Islamic Fundamentalists and the fear of a national strike 
caused Musharraf to change his mind, the blasphemy laws stayed the same. In 2000, 15 
blasphemy cases were recorded against Christians and Hindus, 26 were against Muslims (Allen, 
2011). Several cases have been overturned by the courts, with no death sentences taking place 
causing inmates to be caught up in the wait of the appeal system. In Pakistan, it is extremely rare 
for death sentences or death row cases to be made public, as this can be an offence itself. Even 
though the former president had failed at ending the abuse of blasphemy laws, he had some 
success in eliminating the death penalty for condemned inmates.  
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child outlined the death penalty as a violation 
of the legal goal. Article 37 states, “Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without 
possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years 
of age,” (Allen, 2011). This law was placed by the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance under 
Musharraf’s government on July 1, 2000, for all offences committed by children (Allen, 2011). 
Despite this law, a 13 year old was convicted to 273 years in prison in 2001 (Allen, 2011). On 
December 6, 2004, a 14 year old child was put on death row (Allen, 2011). In this case, the judge 
of the Lahore High Court decided to revoke the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance law.  
South Asians for Human Rights, a non government organization, reported on the 
reflection of capital punishment cases. In Pakistan, the police services are poor and the 
independence of the judicial branch is lacking. Most capital cases reflect the contaminated police 
investigations, therefore wrong convictions or unfair trials. The appeal process can be influenced 
by witnesses, intimidation of police officials, political or social pressure. In 1990, there was a 
Qisas and Diyat Ordinance law passed (Allen, 2011). The law allows for the victim to inflict pain 
 Waver 35

on the offender in the same way the victim experienced pain. It obligates the offenders to feel the 
guilt of the crime committed and how that can affect another individual or family. This law can 
only be in place if the victim and family accepts it. In Pakistan, capital punishment also acts as a 
financial discrimination. If you cannot pay to save your life, as some defendants are not able to 
get enough money for the required charge, they are executed. This financial discrimination is not 
as evident in the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance law. This practice is also known as honour killings, 
which became illegal in 2004 (Allen, 2011). The law lets brutal murders continue with freedom. 
After the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance law was removed from the Pakistan Penal Code, the 
offenders of honour killings were not afraid of punishment due to the fact that these crimes were 
committed with the permission of family.  
Samia Sarwar was a Pakistan citizen who tried to get a divorce from her abusive husband. 
Her parents opposed the divorce and hired an assassin to kill her, for her decision. Her parents 
then forgave the killer for their daughter's murder. As of today, Pakistan does no long abide by 
this law. This law has taught Pakistan an alternative method of justice, without inflicting pain on 
another individual. A murder is not longer considered a crime under Pakistan law. It is a private 
issue and settled as a dispute between two families. This protects the state from providing justice 
and protection to the citizens of its country. The meaning of law, rules and protection of a 
community has been eliminated. It is up to the society to protect themselves from crime.  
The failure of the Pakistan judicial system has lead to the formation of hatred and 
discrimination whether that is through individuals or groups of people, has combined a brutal 
society. There are several horror stories regarding the daily life of violent turmoil. In 2009, there 
was a killing attempt of a Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore (Masood, 2016). Before this, Zia 
Mian had put together an analysis of Albert Camus’s observations. In her paper, Mian discussed 
the risk Pakistan had of becoming bloodshed.  
A 14 year old girl attended a Catholic school in Sukkur, she wrote a blasphemous answer 
on one of her school tests (Allen, 2011). This caused a call for death upon the girl and her school 
principal. The case in Sukkur, has caused students to attack the school, throwing stones, breaking 
windows and defacing public property. The students would stand outside the school and protest 
for the principal's death, hanging signs and chanting. The desire for blood and death was a 
 Waver 36

normal in Pakistan, reflecting the outlook Pakistan was reaching in the future, with the political 
leaders not doing anything to help the judicial situation. At this point, Pakistan remained one of 
the top killers in the world, with 7400 people on death row (Allen, 2011). In previous years, the 
goal was to decrease crime rate due to the deterrence of the death penalty, however, executions 
especially those by hanging have increased.  
In February 2008, a new government was elected (Allen, 2011). April 18, 2008, two 
months later, Pakistan approved the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights (Allen, 2011). The government signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights as well as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
Treatment. The signing of these three documents, crucial to the United Nations, was a big step 
for Pakistan in moving forward and acknowledge the human rights of people within the country. 
On June 15, 2008, the Human Rights Watch presented a petition to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza 
Gilani (Allen, 2011). This petition outlined more than 7000 individuals who were affected by 
capital punishment, currently on death row, including 40 women (Allen, 2011). The death rate in 
Pakistan was accompanying the highest in the world, and increasing significantly every year. 
Those sentenced to death are usually poor or illiterate and some face discrimination for being 
apart of minority religions. Many of these sentences did not abide by the process of law and did 
not meet the international standards of a fair trial. Prime Minister Gilani was informed by the 
Human Rights Watch about a moratorium, for the reviewal of the death penalty. There was a 
trend of previous changes made to the capital punishment laws. In 1988, when Benazir Bhutto 
was elected as Prime Minister, her first action regarding the death penalty was to change all 
death sentences to life in prison (Refworld, n.d.). This recommendation was approved by the 
Cabinet on June 3, 2008 and the death penalty was on its way to abolition (Allen, 2011). This 
applied to most prisoners except those who planned to assassinate the prime minister and 
terrorism. The final approval of the law had to go through the President Musharraf. 
Unfortunately, he was forced to resign in September of 2008 and his place was taken by Asif Ali 
Zardari, Benazir Bhutto’s spouse. As part of gaining presidency, Zardari promised he would 
continue what his wife started before her assassination and commute all 7024 death sentences to 
life in prison (Allen, 2011). Between the proposal of Bhutto and the promise of Zardari, 15 
 Waver 37

people on death row were hanged (Allen, 2011). The commutation faced opposition by the 
government including Jamiat Ulema Islam, who is head of the religious party. Another 
individual who did not agree with the idea was Abdul Hameed Dogar, Pakistan’s Chief of 
Justice. The problem for commutation was influenced by these individuals or organizations, 
forming the Law Ministries legal opinion. It would be a violation of the Islamic Law, disagreeing 
with the Supreme Court rulings and ignore the loved ones who have been murdered. Capital 
punishment given to offenders in murder cases, cannot be pardoned or commuted without the 
victims consent. When President Zardari signed into law on November 8, 2008, a new capital 
offence was added (Allen, 2011). This offence consisted of terrorism through the internet or 
computers. This decision was criticized by the National Commission for Justice, Human Rights 
Watch and Peace of the Catholic Church, three non government organizations. The government 
went from trying to abolish the practice of executions to adding another element to the penalty 
and increasing the number of deaths. Pakistan's Law Ministry procrastinated commutation to 
limit the influence of the death penalty. As of today, Pakistan has not adopted the law of 
commutation, however, it is showing efforts for the future. In 2009, there were few to no 
executions that took place (Allen, 2011). In the same year, 270 people were sentenced to death 
and the 7000 inmates remained on death row (Allen, 2011). Recently, Pakistan went from having 
one of the highest executions recorded to one of the lowest. Only one individual was executed in 
2012 and zero in 2013, showing a declining rate as the years proceed (Allen, 2011). Whether 
Pakistan decides to abolish the death penalty in the future solely depends on the political power 
of the country.  
 
Case Study 3: Philippines 
93 executions in nine countries were carried out through Pakistan in 2017 which is a 
decline from 130 in 11 countries from 2016 (Amnesty International, n.d.). As part of history, 
Asia has demonstrated a declining rate in the death penalty, slowly adopting the trend of 
abolishment for the future. However, the continent of Asia has been known to carry out the 
highest amount of executions, especially in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan 
(Amnesty International, n.d.). The Philippines remains a distinct example of an asian country to 
 Waver 38

abolish the death penalty, through its rich history, political factors and further influences or 
cases. 
In the Philippines, the first abolition of capital punishment was a reflection of the corrupt 
regime of Ferdinand Marcos. He was president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986 (Britannica, 
2019). When Marcos was in power, this country was ruled under martial law for nine years from 
1972 to 1981 (Britannica, 2019). Martial law is the takeover of a country's legal system through 
the military (Legal Career Path, n.d.). There is no independent judiciary to oversee law 
enforcement when a country obtains martial law. Ultimately, the military controls the detention 
and punishment of individuals within the particular country. In the Philippines, before the 
abolition of the practice, capital offences included murder, rape and treason. President Marcos 
added drug trafficking as another offence that deserved capital punishment due to the fact that it 
was against the regime which was the main reason for execution.  
President Marcos had political support from Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, two 
United States presidents. Both presidents were defenders against Communism, allowing 
Ferdinand Marcos to have the ability to kill with an exemption from the punishment. His regime 
started to fall apart upon the arrival of Marcos chief rival, Benigno Aquino in 1983 (Allen, 
2011). Aquino was a former senator for the Philippines. When returning from his three year exile 
in the United States, Aquino had worn a bullet proof vest to protect himself as a safety 
precaution. Within seconds of leaving his plane at the Manila Airport Aquino was shot in the 
back of the head and killed. After this occurrence on August 21, the world became aware of the 
Philippines capital condition, including the regime which marked an important date in the 
country's history (Allen, 2011). President Marcos had created a fact finding commission by the 
Supreme Court Chief Justice as well as an independent board of inquiry to investigate the 
Aquino assassination. This resulted in a widespread disagreement and uproar with the outcome 
of Marcos efforts. Everyone that was accused of being involved with the murder was freed and 
granted innocence, including high ranking military officials.  
On August 1985, there was an effort put forth to challenge President Marcos, however, 
he was able to have it dismissed (Allen, 2011). The pressure from foreign allies and 
dissatisfaction of the public forced Marcos to call a presidential election in 1986 (Allen, 2011). 
 Waver 39

Aquino’s spouse, Corazon, ran against Marcos. Despite the results of the election, Ferdinand 
Marcos and his wife Imelda Marcos had no choice but to leave the Philippines and immigrate to 
Hawaii, through the People Power movement. With Corazon Aquino as the new president, she 
proposed a law on April 23, 1986, (Allen, 2011). This appointed a 50 member commission in 
order to form a new constitution that would truly reflect the rights of the Filipino people (Allen, 
2011).  
The first draft of the constitution was presented to the president on October 15, 1986, and 
the new constitution took effect on February 11, 1987, (Allen, 2011). The constitution 
enlightened the commitment to the rule of law after Marcos presidential time. Corazon conflicted 
positive change in the Philippines when it came to the law, promoting truth, justice, equality and 
freedom of the regime. The new constitution imposed several articles in favour of abolishing the 
death penalty at this time. Article three in the bill of rights discussed that capital punishment 
should not be enforced, with an exception of heinous crimes and degrading, cruel or inhumane 
punishment would not be inflicted otherwise (Allen, 2011). At this point, the Philippines was the 
first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty, so it was unknown what crimes would be 
considered heinous. The constitution allowed enough of an opening for pro-execution forces to 
attest to the laws, or impeach the president following the constitution. After months of voting 
upon the 1987 constitution, it was finalized and efforts were made to reinstate the death penalty 
as part of a punishment process (Allen, 2011). The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights 
Advocates opposed to reinstating capital punishment due to the fact that it would cause pressure 
by the police and military to be more prominent. The only reasons for changing the law was 
through military forces submitting their opposition with the new constitution to the United States 
Congress. The bill was supported by the Philippines Chief General Fidel Ramos, part of the 
Armed Forces. He was the individual who attempted to re-introduced capital punishment for 
rebellion, murder and drug trafficking. Despite the oppositions of Non Government 
Organizations, the House of Representatives voted for restoration by 130 votes to 25 (Allen, 
2011).  
In 1990, the Senate concluded that voting upon a certified bill would be suspended for 
one year (Allen, 2011). Once the year passed, no decision was made. The competition between 
 Waver 40

the two sides of controversy had remained at a still. At this point, the public opinion was moving 
towards favouring restoration of capital punishment. A series of horrific occurrences of rape, 
kidnapping and murder had the public scared of the extremely high levels as to which these 
crimes were bring committed, figuring the death penalty was the only solution. The public 
viewed the death penalty as a way of fighting crime. Fidel Ramos was able to take advantage of 
the concerned society. In the 1992 election, every political office in the Philippines was 
competing for 17,205 positions with 82,450 people (Owen, n.d.). Imelda Marcos was elected as a 
congress woman and her son Ferdinand Jr was elected as president, following his father's 
footsteps. When he was elected, Marcos declared that the restoration of the death penalty is a 
legislative priority. Capital punishment was re-enforced on December 13, 1993, (Allen, 2011). In 
this law, 46 crimes were considered heinous, therefore subjected to the death penalty (Allen, 
2011). 21 crimes are automatically sentenced to death penalty, however, 25 are eligible for this 
punishment (Allen, 2011). The abolishment of the practice had been enforced for several years, 
no executions had taken place.  
Five years after restoration, a man was executed on February 5, 1999, (Allen, 2011). Leo 
Echegaray was convicted of raping his step daughter, Rodessa Echegaray in April of 1994 
(CNN, n.d.). The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates reported a debate between 
both sides of the controversial death penalty argument (Allen, 2011). The majority of people 
supporting the execution of Leo Echegaray. This sentence has allowed for many other views to 
be formed around Echegaray’s case. Including 27 women organizations who did not support the 
execution of this individual (Allen, 2011). These organizations have working against rape and 
other forms of violence with both women as well as children. These organizations do believe Leo 
Echegaray is guilty of an unspeakable crime which needs to be punished, not through the method 
of killing another human being. This does not label this organization favouring Echegaray’s case, 
as they supported anti-death penalty for various other reasons. The death penalty would not put 
an end to violence against women and children. The culture of violence would increase, creating 
more criminals and in turn more victims. The death penalty would not arrest those convictions, 
and violence would continue to occur. Capital punishment stands as a prominent and ensured 
protection from the criminal. There is another solution to the problem, Leo Echegaray could be 
 Waver 41

condemned to life in prison and truly monitored by prison officials. Echegaray needs to reflect 
and analyze his actions and how that has influenced women as well as children including 
Rodessa. Other organizations that did not support the execution of Leo Echegaray consists of 
Coalition Against Death Penalty which was formed in 1992 by Catholic Bishops Conference of 
the Philippines, Amnesty International, Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace (Allen, 
2011). In 1997, the Free Legal Assistance Group joined the movement (Allen, 2011). The 
controversy was reached an escalating point in Echegaray’s case where the appeal system 
reprieved his conviction for six months. However, the pro-death penalty forces were stronger, 
announcing Leo Echegaray’s execution would be held February 5, 1999, (Allen, 2011). 
However, the anti-death penalty forces such as the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights 
Advocates, pressured for another review of Echegaray’s case during the six months he was 
reprieved. It was proven the house vote regarding the reviewal of Leo Echegaray’s criminal case 
would be rejected even before the voting period. The House of Representatives Congressman 
never reviewed that case and Echegaray remained on death row. From 1998 to 2001, Joseph 
Estrada was the Philippines president, during this time he was urged to abolish the death penalty 
for one last time, considering Leo Echegaray’s conviction (Allen, 2011). The abolition of capital 
punishment never occurred during Estrada’s presidency, as he strongly opposed the idea. More 
than 80% of Filipinos supported the death penalty, making it a long road to abolishing the 
practice for the second and final time (Allen, 2011). At this point in the case, favouring and 
opposing forces remained at a constant competition as each side gained strength. The 
controversial issue was prominent on the media as 11 journalists and government officials were 
giving authorization to watch the prisoner die (Allen, 2011). The issue was carried out in 
everyday life, as schools in the area were shut down and other prisons were put on alert 
regarding Echegaray’s execution. The Philippines took several precautions in case of possible 
rioting. Considering these unstable social conditions, six other executions, excluding Leo 
Echegaray’s, took place during 11 months after this major controversy (Allen, 2011). Capital 
punishment did not serve all purposes as expected. The crime rate skyrocketed from 12 people in 
1994 to 956 people in 1999 being convicted of a capital crime and placed on death row (Allen, 
 Waver 42

2011). After Leo Echegaray’s death, the number of people on death row raised to 1400 inmates 
(Allen, 2011). The punishment did not result in a deterrent as expected.  
During the 2000 birthday of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church urged a 
moratorium on the death penalty (Allen, 2011). This movement had a goal of delivering a 
petition of one million signatures to the United Nations on December 10, 2000, Human Rights 
Day (Allen, 2011). On March 24, 2000, a temporary moratorium was announced until January 
2001 (Allen, 2011). This message reached condemned inmates all over the Philippines, in which 
they were very appreciative of the more time they had to live. Renato Robles, was convicted of 
rape and murder, given an execution date on April 5, 2000, (Allen, 2011). When he received the 
information regarding the moratorium, he tore up the goodbye letter he was writing to his mother 
for Robles upcoming death sentence which was postponed.  
On the other side of the controversy, anti-crime groups opposed the decision. President 
Estrada’s decision had reached the European Union and an extension on the moratorium was 
granted as well as 108 executive clemencies. On Human Rights Day, President Estrada reviewed 
the death penalty law. December 10, 2000, the president announced he would change inmates on 
death row to life in prison (Allen, 2011). Joseph Estrada was seeking a bill to reverse the capital 
punishment law. During this process, the president found himself facing the death penalty. He 
illegally obtained 80 million dollars of the United States money from accepting bribes (Allen, 
2011). Joseph Estrada was accused of benefiting off of the governments and taking money from 
tobacco taxes. These offences had him convicted to a maximum sentence, the death penalty and 
removed from presidency. Gloria Arroyo replaced Estrada. As the Philippines new president, she 
decided to extend the moratorium Estrada had put in place for an additional three years, which 
was influenced by the Catholic Church and her personal opinion. Several non government 
organizations as well as the church supported her decision as no other executions took place after 
the seven in 1999 (Allen, 2011).  
On October 2001, there was a change in parliament where it was decided by President 
Arroyo that criminals need to fear committing crimes, as they are aware of the most severe 
punishment (Allen, 2011). This decision was pressured by anti-crime organizations, victims and 
the rise of kidnappings in several areas around the Philippines. Present Arroyo also reversed the 
 Waver 43

law that limits capital punishment to only heinous crimes. At this point, drug traffickers were 
eligible for the death penalty. The debate favouring and opposing the death penalty sparked 
again, and NGO’s urged the president to finalize the death penalty law, by ending the practice 
instead of a moratorium. Three individuals on death row inflicted this decision, all regarding the 
raping of their daughters, with their execution dates before October 2002 (Allen, 2011). Eduardo 
Agbayani was accused of the same convictions and on his executions date his six daughters 
made a personal plea. By the time this went through the lethal injection had already taken effect 
and the execution process had begun. Filemon Serrano and Alfredo Nardo were both scheduled 
for execution on October 16, 2002, through Arroyo’s government (Allen, 2011). The Catholic 
Bishops Conference of the Philippines, called upon abolition for the death penalty. Capital 
punishment would only complicate the world's problems instead of reducing crime which was 
expected when the law was reinstated.  
Under the Heinous Crimes Law, only parliamentary officials could grant condemned 
inmates a pardon, commutation or clemency. President Arroyo proceeded with the executions, 
only postponing the previous three individuals for three months. A bill written by hundreds of 
legislatures to end the death penalty changed her mind in postponing those three inmates. 
President Arroyo was against the death penalty when she was a senator, however, her views 
changed as she gained presidency due to the fact that kidnapping remained at an incline. Since 
kidnapping was on a declining rate, Arroyo revised the capital punishment law. Chair of the 
House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, Loretta Rosales, gave a speech for a bill 
as an act of abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. On October 1, 2002, President 
Arroyo suspended all executions (Allen, 2011). Pressure from the Filipino community caused the 
government to change the laws once again and President Arroyo lifted the moratorium. This 
immediately affected two individuals, Roberto Lara and Roderick Licayan. They were both 
convicted of a kidnapping in 1998 (Allen, 2011). Prosecutors attested that the case should be 
reopened because Lara and Licayan did not receive a fair trial. Eventually the Supreme Court 
granted them another trial but they were both sentenced to 30 years in prison (Allen, 2011). 
During the federal election in January 2004, the Episcopal Commission on Prison 
Pastoral Care interviewed five candidates to announce they are against the death penalty (Allen, 
 Waver 44

2011). Two organizations including the Episcopal Commission put together a church service for 
Lara and Licayan. October 11, 2004, was World Day Against the Death Penalty and Episcopal 
Commission on Prison Pastoral Care was urging President Arroyo to abolish the punishment 
(Allen, 2011). This pressure continued throughout the Philippines in 2005, considering Arroyo 
became more open to the idea of ending the practice (Allen, 2011). Early 2006, anti-death 
penalty organizations were starting to see success in their goals as the Philippines moved closer 
to eliminating capital punishment (Allen, 2011). On April 15, 2006, President Arroyo made the 
decision to reduce all death sentences to a less severe punishment, affecting 1200 inmates (Allen, 
2011). One day later, Arroyo agreed that she would support the legislation to eliminate the death 
penalty from the Philippines. Various moral violations, helped President Arroyo come to the 
conclusion that death should not be a punishment option. Arroyo certified the abolition bill as 
urgent, to be reviewed by the House of Representatives in May, where the debates would take 
place. After several years of controversy in the Philippines, the Congress approved the bill. Due 
to the urgency, people questioned Arroyo’s situation as political gain, which turned out to be the 
opposite. Anti-crime organizations expressed their fear and hesitation towards the abolishment of 
the law due to the fact that it would only make matters regarding crime rate worse. The 
government would receive opposition from the victims of heinous crimes, as they want justice. 
Despite the controversy, capital punishment was officially abolished. As of today, the 
Philippines has not brought back the death penalty and continues to believe in the moral 
violations of the practice. The Philippines will actively campaign and work towards the world 
elimination of killing individuals for committed crimes.  
 
CANADIAN CONNECTIONS 
Within Canada’s vivid history, the practice of capital punishment has undergone 
significant change and political improvements. Before the Canadian Confederation in 1867, 230 
criminal offences were punished by the death penalty, enforced by the British law (Nicholson, 
2014). During this time, the death penalty was carried out through public hangings. One of the 
earliest Canadian executions took place in 1749 (Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.). The practice of 
hanging an individual mainly took place in North America, 70% of executions through this 
 Waver 45

method took place in the USA and every execution in Canada was through hanging (Bohm, 
2010). Criminal offences from stealing grapes or trading with indigenous people would be 
punishable by death. The use of capital punishment in Canada declined and the Canadian law 
determined that extreme acts such as murder, rape and treason were eligible for the death 
penalty. A year after the Confederation, the death penalty was relocated to Canadian prisons, 
instead of public viewing (Nicholson, 2014). During the 19th century, punishments such as 
floggings (the whipping or beating of a human being) or brandings (the process of engraving or 
burning a symbol onto a human being) were no longer being used and a lesser sentence was 
given such as fines, labour or time in prison (Nicholson, 2014). In 1937 and 1954, was the 
establishment of the Royal Commission committees where Canada tried to make all the required 
paperwork and administration the same (Nicholson, 2014). The committee suggested the 
imposition of the death penalty but in a more humane manner. This includes a change in methods 
of execution and consistent fair trials. At this time, Canada’s government had failed at abolishing 
the death penalty. The Royal Commissions committee came to the conclusion that rape should be 
removed from the list of capital offences. In 1956, another Senate Committee report was issued, 
examining the practicality of abolishing capital punishment, restricting the penalty to individuals 
over the age of 18 (Nicholson, 2014). In 1960, Canada introduced categories for crime including 
both capital and non capital offences to the Bill of Civil Rights (Nicholson, 2014). Planned 
murder also known as first degree murder would consist of a capital crime and be punished by a 
mandatory hanging due to the intent of the crime. Later changes were made to ensure safety 
during executions and further restrictions towards the death penalty. 
Even though the constitution stayed in Canada until 1976, the justice system solely relied 
on capital punishment (Nicholson, 2014). Between the years of 1867 and 1962, 1300 Canadians 
were sentenced to death, only 710 were actually executed (Nicholson, 2014). The Liberal and 
Conservative governments were able to commute about half of the sentences they reviewed 
through the British Monarch. As the government power strengthened, it allowed for more 
abolition attempts. During Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s time in office, 1957 to 1963, there were 
66 people sentenced to death of which 52 he commuted (CBC, n.d.). In his time, Pearson’s 
Liberal government commuted every death sentence to live imprisonment without parole (Spratt, 
 Waver 46

2015). Although it was not until the late 1960s where the remarkable abolition movements were 
put forth by the Canadian government (Nicholson, 2014). The government started by attempting 
to make laws regarding cases in order to make them more humane. When a movement to abolish 
the death penalty in Canada was rejected the government suspended executions. The moratorium 
lasted for five years as a trial period, winning the vote 170 to 105 (Nicholson, 2014). The 
proposal had an exception of murder cases. The mandatory alternative for murder cases would be 
life imprisonment. In 1972, the Liberal Government renewed the moratorium, only winning the 
vote by 13 (Nicholson, 2014). Prior to the end of the second moratorium, the Canadian 
government abolished the death penalty as a whole. Changes were made to the criminal code 
even before the abolition of capital punishment. Canada’s last executions took place 15 years 
before abolishing the death penalty in December 1962, showing the process of elimination 
through the government (Nicholson, 2014).  
Canada’s attempts to terminate the death penalty started in 1914 (Nicholson, 2014). They 
were introduced as Private Members Bills. In 1976, Trudeau’s Liberal Government proposed a 
peace and security movement which brought the official abolishment of the practice in Canada 
(Nicholson, 2014). Solicitor General Warren Allmand brought a proposal before parliament 
regarding the Criminal Code in which the death penalty would be removed from, through a bill 
called the Criminal Law Amendment. This bill stated that all murders punishable by death would 
be sentenced to 25 years in prison, also known as a life sentence (Nicholson, 2014). Expert 
opinions were provided by the Department of Justice regarding the impact the death penalty had 
on Canada. The debate during the second reading of the bill took two months, and the next step 
was a free vote, where the penalty was officially abolished on July 26, 1976, (Spratt, 2015). The 
difference only consisted of seven votes where 131 were supporting the abolition and 124 were 
against it (Nicholson, 2014). From that point on, the punishment was eliminated from Canadian 
law regardless of the public opinion.  
Since 1976, Canada has shown many political trends which reinstate the decision made to 
abolish the practice (Nicholson, 2014). Especially in the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms, which discusses the human rights of an individual including the right to life. Brian 
Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government proposed a movement to bring back the death 
 Waver 47

penalty, however, it was defeated in a free vote. Canada has had two specific criminal cases in 
which the abolishment of capital punishment was challenged. These cases took place in 1991 and 
2000, where the inmates were sent to the USA for execution, both times these individuals were 
hiding, escaping or avoiding arrest (Nicholson, 2014). The Supreme Court of Canada came to the 
conclusion that these individuals disobeyed the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. 
However, Canada did keep the death penalty for specific military offences such as treason which 
was under the National Defence Act. In 2005, Canada ensures abolishment for the future through 
signing the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(UN Treaties, n.d.). This prevents reinforcing the penalty in the future, and the abolition is 
protected if there are ever legal issues. This is considered the final stage in abolishment. In 
Canada, the death penalty debate settled as the country strived towards elimination. Canada’s 
movement towards abolishment was recognized as a social achievement and the development in 
human rights. Through abolishment, Canada made the decision to strive for developing 
punishments. The death penalty has changed political trends and the formation of policies as 
national debates continue. The abolition process involved historical changes of politics, culture 
and norms. There is always time and potential for capital laws to change, especially for 
controversial laws like the death penalty. 
 
LOGIC OF EVIL 
The logic of evil is the reason why an issue remains at the degree it does. The evil within 
capital punishment reflects the perspectives of everyone involved, showing the means of why its 
justified in the first place. There are several significant roles involved in the process of carrying 
out an execution. It affects many positions and even more people. It is important to understand 
the view of the death penalty, good or bad, through every career possible. 
Evil can be defined in many ways, the Oxford Dictionary Defines it as profound immoral 
and wicked, especially when referring to a supernatural force (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.). The 
phycological justification of capital punishment resides with the forces of evil in determining the 
justice of the penalty. This force can be seen within every individual directly involved with the 
execution process.  
 Waver 48

 
Perspective of a Homicide Detective and other Investigators 
The role of a homicide detective or any other investigator for that matter is a crucial role 
in the capital punishment process, they start off the case. Their job is difficult, frustrating, full of 
fear, physically demanding and emotionally draining (Bohm, 2010). The job of a homicide 
detective is to gather and preserve the evidence for further investigation, ultimately determining 
the suspect of the crime. General homicide detectives have been successful in solving several 
cases, but their job mainly comes into play in murder cases (Bohm, 2010). They face daily 
pressures to not mess up, even considering their time constraints and making sure the evidence is 
stored properly. Doing a good job is the reasoning behind solving a case. If not done properly, 
their job can possibly arrest an innocent individual. If successful, they will identify the killer and 
make an accurate arrest. Along with this job comes personal doubt and stress, even though 
homicide detectives are doing the best they can do. They have constant pressure from the victims 
family, knowing it’s someone's loved one who has been killed (Bohm, 2010). Despite the 
physically demanding factors of a homicide detective, these people are affected mentally and 
emotionally. After investigating a case for so long and making an eligible arrest, most detectives 
feel empathy and emotional distress when the family who lost a loved one is testifying in court 
(Bohm, 2010). Furthermore, homicide detectives experience pressure from their families. All of 
their time goes to solving the case and they are always on call, which makes a normal family life 
impossible. There are always new thoughts going through a homicide detectives mind. This 
thought usually pertain to the cases they are solving. This causes to have sleep deprivation 
knowing they have so much to do, and encountering flashbacks of the dead bodies or gruesome 
scenes they have visualized first hand (Bohm, 2010). A detective's job is to know everything in 
terms of the case, it’s what makes them successful, however, can be mentally damaging. The 
nature of the cases they experience are the worst imaginable. Despite each of these factors, 
homicide detectives need to ensure they are performing their best in any and every case.  
 
Perspective of a Judge 
 Waver 49

In capital cases, Judges have a significant role. They control the trials, decide the 
outcome of the defendant (Bohm, 2010). The ultimate goal of a judge is to ensure the offender 
receives a fair trial and punishment (Bohm, 2010). The most difficult aspect of being a judge is 
announcing the decision. Once they have heard both sides of the story, the judges come to the 
conclusion of the punishment. The judge has to face the victim's family, who wants death and the 
offenders family, who wants justice. The judge has to look the defendant in the eyes and tell 
them they are going to die as a punishment for the crime they committed. Judges have to 
suppress their emotions because it’s not easy having to tell someone they are going to die 
(Bohm, 2010). Most of them deal with the sunken and mixed feelings afterward. In court they 
must remain impartial, without their emotions taking over. Most judges think that is the difficult 
aspect, however, it is not. Capital trials can last anywhere from two weeks to two months, these 
cases take significant amounts of energy and resources (Bohm, 2010). Judges always have cases 
pending, everyday they have a case they have to analyze to ensure the defendant has the best trial 
and once one is done they are on to the next (Bohm, 2010). Most of the time judges have to 
review post conviction cases and sometimes this includes reopening a case if the evidence 
doesn't add up to the correct suspect or sentence (Bohm, 2010). In capital trials, judges are 
constantly judging themselves, what they could have done differently or how they could have 
handled the situation better than they did (Bohm, 2010). Death penalty trials are the most 
emotionally draining there are. There are so many things to think about and avoid in a trial. A lot 
of pressure is on the judge, by the victim, offender, there loved ones and the other employees of 
the court. There is a lot of stress on everyone involved with the case, ensuring all of the 
information is correct, especially when sentencing someone to death. There is an amount of 
tension you would not witness in any other case. Physically and mentally, these cases wear 
judges down. They do not just have to control the case but they have to control the media as 
well, keeping the case as private as possible until the judge has made a sentencing decision 
(Bohm, 2010). Part of the judges role also includes picking twelve juries for each capital case, 
when usually it's only six (Bohm, 2010). The judge is a crucial part of the sentencing process and 
a capital case, however, they face one of the hardest jobs. 
 
 Waver 50

Perspective of the Execution Team  

In capital cases, the death row corrections officer has two distinct roles. The first one is to 
protect death row inmates and tend to what they need (Bohm, 2010). The second one is to serve 
on the execution team (Bohm, 2010). These officers are usually characterized as heartless, harsh, 
boring, frightening human beings. This mainly reflects their job and not who they are as a 
person. It is also hard for them to see death row inmate being executed (Bohm, 2010). Usually, 
those awaiting death have a long period of time to serve before their execution date so these 
guards have time to built relationships with the inmates (Bohm, 2010). However, correction 
officers have to remain emotionally detached from the prisoners, as part of their job. The 
execution or deathwatch team is responsible for carrying out the death of the inmate (Bohm, 
2010). The execution team members job is described as an emotional rollercoaster (Bohm, 
2010). They make sure the job is done right and professionally without emotion involved. Many 
execution team members have been traumatized by their career, including the physical, mental 
and emotional factors that come along with the job (Bohm, 2010). People apart of the execution 
team are sworn to secrecy, in order to keep their personal and work life separate (Bohm, 2010). 
The team has to make sure everything is done on time and recorded in the book. This is 
regardless if they are a believer in the penalty or not, it is the teams duty to make sure the inmate 
is killed the right and most humane way. For most members, it’s a mental game, they cannot be 
bothered and need to learn to suppress their emotions (Bohm, 2010). This job takes focus and 
precision while being carried out through a divide and conquer method. Due to the severity of 
the procedure, each team member needs to be aware of the others roles and knowing how to 
perform their task incase the individual is not able to. There are many physiological reasons for 
dividing the execution responsibilities. They consist of denial within themselves or others if they 
are given an unreasonably large task to fulfill and killing a human being does not come easy to 
people whether it is legal or not. The execution team also needs to be prepared for every 
situation, because they never know how the inmate is going to act, some cry, try to escape, are 
angry, nervous, calm or emotionless (Bohm, 2010). Whenever cases are granted clemency, 
pardoned or stayed right before execution it severely affects the team, as well as the inmate. It’s 
 Waver 51

physically draining for the execution team because they have prepared themselves mentally and 
emotionally, having the death called off they also feel relieved (Bohm, 2010).  
 
RELIGION 
Religion can influence one’s entire being and open an individual’s mind to a greater 
perspective of life. It is incorporated in someone’s culture, phycological configuration or 
function and the way a person views the world. It can affect an individual’s morals or values. 
Religion is a spiritual connection between one’s self and a greater power that cannot be 
described. Religion is a set of transcendental beliefs passed along individuals within a similar 
spiritual community. In capital punishment, religion can have significant influences on the view 
of the practice and specific roles of people caught in it web including the victim and offender.  
 
How Religions View the Death Penalty 
Christianity has changed its perspective on the death penalty overtime and different 
denominations of Christianity have different teachings upon this practice (Grossman, 1998). 
Christians used to be extremely opposed to this method of law as capital punishment goes 
against everything a Christian stands for (Grossman, 1998). However, an offender goes against 
the ten commandments and violates every aspect of a humans freedom in life (Grossman, 1998).  
Judaism generally disagrees with the morals of the death penalty but remains a debatable 
topic for these individuals (BBC, 2009). There are many crimes in which Jewish people believe 
it is necessary to enforce this practice (BBC, 2009). However, there are many cases in which it is 
difficult implement.  
Most Islamic nations are run by the Sharia Law, in which the government follows. The 
Quran states that the taking of a life results in taking one's own (Huda, 2019). This leads Islamic 
nations to strongly enforce the death penalty (Huda, 2019). Although, few Islamic countries do 
not currently carry out capital punishment.  
Buddhism believes in the empathy or compassion for the lives of others, which is stated 
in the five precepts (BBC, 2009). They believe in healing the people who have committed crimes 
 Waver 52

instead of retaliating against them (BBC, 2009). Therefore, Buddhists are against the death 
penalty and think other methods of rehabilitation would be more effective (BBC, 2009).  
In previous years, Hinduism has not taken a stance on capital punishment and they have 
little government influence on the topic (BBC, 2009). Hindu nations have the lowest execution 
rates compared to any other countries (BBC, 2009). This is likely due to the fact that Hindu’s do 
not believe in violence, causing their opposition of the death penalty as a whole (BBC, 2009).  
 
Religious Influences on Victim  
After losing a loved one, one of the first feelings is grief or revenge, in capital cases this 
applies to the justice of the individual (Bohm, 2010). It is the worst experience imaginable, the 
unbarring pain associated with it. The family members turn to God in different ways, depending 
on how they deal with these raging emotions. They blame God for his wrongdoing, how he could 
be so cruel to such an innocent, non deserving human being (Bohm, 2010). Questioning the 
reasoning behind their loved one, what they could have possibly done to receive the pain 
inflicted upon them (Bohm, 2010). This causes may families to pull away from religious beliefs 
due to their personal horror, rage, pain and desire for revenge (Bohm, 2010). There is nothing 
God could do to fill the spot where that person once was.  
Some families are brought closer to God, feeling a connection to the lost loved one 
through a spiritual belief or feeling (Bohm, 2010). These people are desperate for help and 
healing in which religious beliefs have a great influence on (Bohm, 2010). Religion has the 
power to heal when no other method has worked.  
 
Religious Influences on Offender 
When providing support for the offenders, religious leaders and communities come 
together to ensure the individual on death row is taken care of. However, not all religious 
supporters are helpful, sometimes they turn their backs on the offender, including their family 
due to the crime committed and personal beliefs (Bohm, 2010). The mother of a death row 
inmate described her and her families return to church after their sons conviction, as they were in 
need of emotional support and a spiritual connection (Bohm, 2010). The churches attended by 
 Waver 53

this family were not attentive to their needs (Bohm, 2010). In fact they shunned them, when they 
found out this was the inmates family (Bohm, 2010). They were disappointed that the church 
was not there when they needed support the most (Bohm, 2010). Whenever religious leaders 
comforted the family or prayed for them, they left the inmate out of it, when they were in just as 
much pain as the loved ones (Bohm, 2010). It was the son that needed the prayer, but the church 
refused to mention his distress (Bohm, 2010). The family is about to lose someone they love, 
with nothing they can do to save them. Most families don’t know how to react or who to go to in 
which they turn to God to help them.  
In prison, inmates are often offered a church service through a prison chaplain where they 
find God despite their offences (Liu, 2014). A prison chaplains main role is to fulfill the 
emotional and spiritual needs of the inmate (Liu, 2014). They help guide the condemned prisoner 
and help them with the wide range of issues they may be dealing with. Prison chaplains try to 
live the last of their lives through a connection of despair and forgiveness (Liu, 2014). On the 
execution date, a prison chaplain is in the execution room tending to the offenders spiritual 
requirements if asked for (Liu, 2014). This can consist of praying for the offender, leading to the 
time of death.  
 
POLITICS 
Politics, in a vague explanation, administered and develops the general rules under the 
way people live. Politics includes different governments, rights, policies, parliamentary and 
judicial systems. The term originated from Artiste and his theories regarding governing and 
governments. Deriving from the term ​politikos, ​which began in the 1520s, meaning “affairs of 
state.” (Quora, 2015). In politics, the Greek word ​polis, d​ efining a city, community or body of 
citizens. (Ancient History, 2019). Ultimately, politics is used as a influential method for 
controlling a society. Everything known up to date, is formed from some political standpoint or 
government. The government plays a critical role in the death penalty and the form of the 
practice as a whole. 
 
International Politics 
 Waver 54

Many political factors lead to the reasoning of abolition which includes international 
pressure. After World War II, the international pressure has been growing due to human rights 
legislation and the development of anti death penalty beliefs (Allen, 2011). The political 
influence has reached far beyond a single country itself to a worldwide goal of abolishing the 
practice to enhance human dignity and portray fundamental human rights. The Council of 
Europe has been a great influencer for the abolition since the 1970s (Allen, 2011). In 1983, the 
Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the abolition of 
capital punishment, was opened for signature (Allen, 2011). It was a precondition that 
implemented an immediate moratorium on all executions. However, this protocol allows 
executions to be carried out in times of war. In 2002, No. 13 was available for signature as well 
(Allen, 2011). This protocol means countries will abolish and continue to abolish the death 
penalty in all circumstances. In 2007, 47 countries had signed No.6 and 2 had signed No.13 
(Allen, 2011). Post communist countries, identified the importance of being a member of the 
Council of Europe, including NATO in the future (Allen, 2011). Politics has influenced more 
European countries to abolish the penalty.  
Democracy governments are more likely to abolish the death penalty over non democracy 
governments due to the recognition of human rights. The respect for an individual person is the 
sole goal of a democracy government. This type of government recognizes the equal worth of all 
citizens. Officials within the political spectrum are aware of the limits to their powers. 
Democracy governments are willing to accept limits on the types of punishments available for 
the citizens of the country. Levels of democracy also play into effect, the higher level increased 
the likeliness of the death penalty being abolished. Human rights often play an important role in 
the transition of democracies. A country governed by a left wing official or party is more likely 
to abolish the death penalty over a country governed by a right wing official or party (Allen, 
2011). This is due to the beliefs of specific political opponents, including those on crime and 
punishment. On the right, or more conservative side of the political spectrum, crime is on 
individual terms and individuals are responsible for their own actions. They acknowledge crime 
as a decision made, that they deserve punishment that equals one to the offence, so there is a fair 
aspect to the justice system. Whereas, left wing politics views crime as a product of social 
 Waver 55

inequalities and unfair disadvantages (Allen, 2011). Strategies include crime prevention or social 
reforms, gun control, rehabilitation of offenders. Politics and different international political 
standpoints have very different view and opinions on the topic, including the effect it has on a 
community. 
 
Clemency 
Clemency usually provides the final opportunity to consider whether a death sentence 
should be enforced. It is known as a fail safe measure of the capital punishment process, being 
the last chance to grant an inmate his life (Bohm, 2010). Decisions regarding clemency are the 
most difficult or profound choices a governor can make. Their role is so significant because they 
have the power to sign death warrants, grant clemency and make life or death decisions. With a 
stroke of a pen, the governor can undo several hours of work over many years through 
participants in the capital punishment process. There are three types of clemency which may be 
granted upon an inmate, some of which consisting of a reprieve, commutation or a pardon 
(Bohm, 2010). See Appendix B for further details on clemency grants. 
A reprieve remains the most common type of clemency employed in capital cases. 
However, it is the most limited. A reprieve temporarily postpones the execution of the inmate. 
This allows for more time in the completion of a pending appeal and gives the governor a last 
minute chance to review the case regarding the inmates guilt. 
A commutation substitutes for a more declined punishment than the one imposed by the 
court before. Instead of being held on death row, inmates may be sentenced to life imprisonment 
without parole as a substitute. Sometimes commutations are contingent upon specific conditions 
which includes the inmate is not allowed to be subjected to a new trial or not to profit from the 
account of his or her crime. From 1976 to 2010, 245 inmates on death row had their sentences 
commuted (Bohm, 2010). This accounts for 3% of all death sentences appointed during this time 
period (Bohm, 2010).  
A pardon is the most costly form of clemency. If an inmate is granted a pardon, it means 
the prisoners crime is completely erased and the punishment is removed. The individual with a 
pardon is freed from the criminal justice system as a whole and treated as if the crime was never 
 Waver 56

legally convicted. Pardons are rarely given to those on death row or people who have committed 
capital crimes. From 1973 to 2010, only seven pardons were granted to death sentenced inmates 
(Bohm, 2010). 
 
Political Influences on Society  
Public support has not always agreed with clemency for several reasons. Society does not 
have confidence in the government to fulfil the extent of the crime. When an individual is 
convicted of life without parole, it actually means life without parole. Decades later, the 
government doesn’t overturn the conviction with a lesser sentence and release a mass killer into 
society. Therefore, a significant amount of the public agree with the death penalty in order to 
keep their families and greater community safe. Theoretically, clemency provides the best 
chance to eliminate the miscarriage of justice and gives those involved with the death penalty 
greater confidence that mistakes made earlier on in the punishment process can be corrected by 
governors. Unfortunately, it is proven that those who rely on clemency to correct errors early on, 
contradicts the promise in recent experiences. The federal courts are increasingly differing 
governors the job of correcting problems with death sentences. However, a politically safer 
strategy is the limited signing for death warrants as it can jeopardize his or her political career, 
which is why so few clemencies are granted. 
 
SOLUTIONS 
The worldwide controversy of the death penalty is decisively a serious issue, with no case 
greater or more severe than any other punishment available. Due to the complexity capital 
punishment has to offer as a global issue, the solutions are not straight forward, so it is more 
realistic striving for developing strategies compared to immediate change. In order to provide 
solutions for the widespread occurrence, the root of the problem needs to be identified. The issue 
starts with the commitment of a crime, progressing to punishment, death row and the execution 
which leads up to the greater issue of the constant controversy. The issue regarding the death 
penalty is much more than a moral dispute it comes across as, it is influenced and affected by 
 Waver 57

religion, justice as well as politics. For the purpose of this paper, solutions to abolishing the 
death penalty will be taken, following the current worldwide trend.  
 
Deterrence Considerations 
Deterrence, however, does not justify one’s life and can have the same effectiveness of 
life in prison without parole. Deterrence is also presented as a major stance in retaining the 
practice of the penalty. Deterrence is commonly known as the enforcement of a specific action 
and providing fear of the consequences (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.). The same theory applies to 
capital punishment, proving opposite results of the ideology, due to the severity of the crime. The 
death penalty’s perceived deterrence effect has been overstated and manipulated for decades. 
Nearly 78% said that having the death penalty does not lower the murder rate (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.). In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death 
penalty to appear tough on crime and 75% said that it distracts legislatures from focusing on 
effective solutions to crime problems (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). Overall, 94% 
agreed that there was little evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty (Death 
Penalty Information Center, n.d.). And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the 
committing of murder (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). 91.6% said that increasing 
executions would not act as a deterrent effect and 87.6% said that speeding up executions 
wouldn't work either (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). A survey was taken regarding the 
death penalty and homicide rates, it concluded that capital punishment does not deter murder to a 
greater extent than a lesser punishment of life imprisonment (OHCHR, 2015). The effectiveness 
of deterrence is currently on the decreasing scale, only showing the working efforts when capital 
punishment was first enforced. As a result of this, several countries worldwide have abolished 
the death penalty and the number of 142 countries, is far greater than the ratio of the countries 
continuing to enforce the practice (Amnesty International, n.d.). Please refer to Appendix F for 
further understanding on deterrence. 
 
Hood and Hoyle’s Considerations 
 Waver 58

Through the expertise of Roger Hood and Carolyne Hoyle, authors of the Death Penalty a 
Worldwide Perspective, four steps have been taken in order to ensure the progressing and 
acceleration of this movement which include the emergence of the human rights perspective and 
the development of international treaties committed to abolition. Hood and Hoyle declared that 
the new wave of abolition was the development of international human rights laws (Allen, 2011). 
There was no justification for a life being taken by the state.  
 
“The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. If 
the passions of the necessities of war have taught the shedding of human blood, the laws, 
moderators of the conduct of men, should not extend the beastly example, which 
becomes more pernicious since the inflicting of legal death is attended with much study 
and formality. It seems to me absurd that the laws, which are an expression of the public 
will, which detest and punish homicide, should themselves commit it, and that to deter 
citizens from murder, they order a public one,” - Beccaria (Kindler v. Canada). 
 
In 1786, the first permanent abolition had taken place after this statement (Allen, 2011). 
Followed by Venezuela in 1863 and Portugal in 1867 (Allen, 2011). At this time, citizens wanted 
to embrace freedom and democracy to seek protection from the power of the state. Nelson 
Mandela was a prime example of a Presidential power eliminating the death penalty on June 6, 
1995, by the Constitutional Court in South Africa (Allen, 2011). There was also a significant 
reduction in the number of capital offences. After World War II, there was a great movement 
towards the abolition indicative of human rights concerns (Allen, 2011). The atrocities 
committed during the war lead to international recognition of the fundamental importance of 
human dignity and rights. For many countries, this meant the elimination of the death penalties, 
which remains a continuation into today's society. The political movement argued against the 
right to life including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights violations. A life should not be 
taken away for any reason. The world should not engage in similar behaviour to that of the 
offender. In 1976, the death penalty was reinstated in the United States, with an approximation of 
19, 000 murders each year (Allen, 2011). In 2009, the actual number of executions was 52, 
showing the method of retribution to be useless (Allen, 2011). These capital offences should not 
be justified for a human beings own life. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted the 
 Waver 59

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Claiming Human Rights, ). Article 6 provides direct 
abolition towards the death penalty, directly stating: 

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No 
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life (Allen, 2011). 
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentences of death may be 
imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with law in force at the time of 
the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant 
and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This 
penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent 
court (Allen, 2011).  
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing 
in this article shall authorize any State party to the present Covenant to derogate in any 
way from ay obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Allen, 2011). 
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the 
sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all 
cases (Allen, 2011). 
5. Sentence to death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen 
years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women (Allen, 2011). 
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital 
punishment by any State party to the present Covenant (Allen, 2011).  

Article 6 increased pressure for countries worldwide to abolish the penalty. It has provided 
limitations and precautions on capital punishments use.  
 
Miscarriage of Justice Considerations 
As of today, there is growing evidence in the United States miscarriage of justice in 
murder cases, including capital cases. Even though the United States has a well developed legal 
system with multiple judicial guards, however, in some instance failed to provide correct 
convictions. The public confidence regarding the death penalty has decreased due to the number 
of innocent death row inmates released. In 1989, DNA testing came into effect, there were 250 
individuals exonerated after being falsely convicted, 17 of them were accused of capital crimes 
(OHCHR, 2015). Out of these 250 people, an average of them spent 13 years in prison already, 
when they were innocent (OHCHR, 2015). Meaning, there are thousands of innocent people who 
 Waver 60

have spent their lives in prison, or have been executed. The only way to guarantee the safety of 
innocent civilians from an execution standpoint is to eliminate capital punishment as a whole. 
Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated (Levy, 2016). As a percentage of all 
death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. If the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the 
rate have been exoneration (Levy, 2016). New evidential systems have been put into use, 
assisting the judicial process, including DNA testing however, they do not remain precisely 
accurate. Still convicting innocent people of capital crimes.  
Kirk Bloodsworth remains a role model example to follow in eliminating the death 
penalty, he is an innocent citizen saved from death row, as mentioned previously in the paper. “I 
am not here because the system worked. I am here because a series of miracles led to my 
exoneration. Not every person wrongfully convicted of a capital crime is as blessed. If a country 
cannot ensure that they will not kill an innocent citizen, they should not kill at all,” (OHCHR, 
2015). There is absolutely no chance of executing an individual that wrongfully convicted, 
without the penalty in place, leaving it to be the only answer for the minority of countries 
continuing to possess this practice. Many NGOs have ordered moratoriums on non abolition 
countries, or the restriction of use. Amnesty International recorded at least 690 executions in 20 
countries in 2018, a 31% decline from 2017 and a 58% decline from the 1,634 reported 
executions in 2015 (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). It was the fewest executions 
recorded by Amnesty in the past decade (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.). As of today, 
the progress towards the abolition of capital punishment has been successful, however, there is a 
significant way to go before there is no longer executions on a worldwide spectrum.  
 
Future Abolition Considerations 
On December 18, 2007, the General Assembly adopted the worldwide resolution to 
abolish the death penalty (OHCHR, 2015). Despite this, some countries still choose to use this as 
a punishment. Three reports were submitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary General 
of the resolutions regarding the implementation of the moratorium on the death penalty. The 
reports reiterated the global trend towards abolition (See Appendix G), the crucial role of 
 Waver 61

moratoriums in countries or states seeking to exterminate the practice and possibilities for future 
progress on the issue.  
Out of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, 150 of them have abolished the 
death penalty or introduced a moratorium whether that was in law or practice (OHCHR, 2015). 
Since the 2007 resolution, Argentina, Burundi, Gabon, Latvia, Uzbekistan and Togo have 
abolished the death penalty for all crimes (OHCHR, 2015). In the USA, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, Illinois and Connecticut have abolished capital punishment, with Oregon upholding a 
moratorium (OHCHR, 2015). In 1924, the Dominican Republic abolished the death penalty 
(OHCHR, 2015). In 2010, they put forth a new constitution to reinforce the right to life and the 
elimination of the capital punishment practice, along with Djibouti (OHCHR, 2015). The Crimes 
Legislation Amendment Act in Australia took effect in April 2010 (OHCHR, 2015). This 
reinstated the 1973 Death Penalty Abolition Act and continues the abolition of death penalty 
laws (OHCHR, 2015). These are all prime examples of countries or states that have abolished the 
death penalty and are making additional efforts to ensure the elimination of the punishment. A 
large number of countries worldwide are in the process of abolishing or considering the removal 
of capital punishment. Amendments within legislatures are currently in process in Burkina Faso, 
Bosnia, Herzegovina, Guatemala, Lebanon, Mali and the Russian Federation (OHCHR, 2015). 
The capital punishment elimination process was also discussed as part of a constitution reviewal 
in Ghana, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Trinidad, Tobago and Tunisia (OHCHR, 
2015). After the 2007 resolution, Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, 
Mongolia, Nicaragua and Rwanda have become part of the Second Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OHCHR, 2015). As of today, 75 countries 
are a part of this protocol (OHCHR, 2015). However, other countries have limited the number of 
crimes eligible for the death penalty. For example, the Parliament of Gambia eliminated drug 
offences in 2011 (OHCHR, 2015). In the same year, China removed 13 non violent economic 
crimes, that were considered a capital offence before this law was passed (OHCHR, 2015). 
China has also adjusted it judicial process to provide legal aid, recording of interrogations, 
introducing more hearings in the appeal process and a precise reviewal of capital cases 
(OHCHR, 2015). 
 Waver 62

A number of moratoriums have been put in place by NGOs to encourage worldwide 

freedom and justice. This includes the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which 
called a moratorium on the United States in 2012 (OHCHR, 2015). A similar instance occurred 
in the African continent in 2008 (OHCHR, 2015). A moratorium was called to postpone the 
execution process and review the abolition of the death penalty.  
Many efforts have been put forth to resolve the immaculate issue of the death penalty. 
The only way to achieve worldwide abolition is to encourage the remaining countries to abide by 
the new laws through global relations.  
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
Appendix A 
Figure A: ​Judge Janice Lamaistre Interview 
Question: What is your role in the judicial system? 
Answer: I am a court of appeal judge in Manitoba. I am a judge that is appointed by the federal 
government. As you may remember in some of your classes the government is made up of three 
separate branches, there's the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. 
Technically I am a member of the judicial branch of government. My role and responsibility is to 
implement and uphold the laws that are made by the legislative branch of government. The 
executive branch of government is responsible for policy and ascertaining what direction the 
laws should be taking. My role is separate and distinct from the role of the other branches of 
government. One of the important fascinates of being a judge in the Canadian judicial system is 
impartiality. What that mean is, we don't want our judge being influenced by policy, sympathy or 
by anything that might affect their duty to uphold laws of Canada. So one of the things I can’t do 
is make any comments about whether laws are good or bad because really my job is to uphold 
and apply the laws, my job isn't to create the laws.  
 
Question: How does the death penalty impact the judicial system? 
Answer: You have heard of the Criminal Code of Canada, I’m sure. The criminal code is the 
code of all of the criminal laws in Canada and so it for instance, makes murder illegal, stealing 
 Waver 63

illegal, assaulting someone illegal. That's where you find what the laws are is in the criminal 
code. The other thing the criminal code does is establishes the purpose and principles of the laws. 
You may be interested in having a look at the criminal code, particularly, section 718. The 
reason I say that is because that's the section that talks about the purpose and principle of 
sentencing. When we talk about the death penalty, the death penalty would be a sentencing 
option. I think in order to have context for how the death penalty would have impact on the 
Canadian judicial system, we need to start with while what are the purpose and principles of 
sentencing. So the primary purposes of the fundamental principles are to denounce unlawful 
conduct and the harm done to victims. What that means is, as a society we have gotten together 
and agreed that we don’t approve when someone assaults another person, kills another person or 
steals from another person. So that’s what we mean when we say we denounce unlawful 
conduct, we say what you have done is wrong. The second principle is to deter the offender and 
other persons from committing criminal offences. The theory behind deterrence is that if people 
know that they are going to be punished for committing a crime, then they'll think twice before 
committing the crime. If someone knows they are going to spent life in jail if they kill, them 
hopefully they will think twice and not decide to kill. There is also separation from society, so if 
we have someone who is just deemed to be to dangerous to live in society, thats something thats 
needs to be considered at sentencing. One of the principals of the law is fundamentally we 
believe that all people are good but they do bad things from time to time. We believe if the 
factors that cause people to do bad things can be addressed then people won’t do bad things in 
the future. That’s why you hear about rehabilitative and treatment programs both in jail and out 
of jail you hear about different kinds of programs that help people who have gotten themselves 
into trouble with the law. That is trying to address the goal of rehabilitation, the reason why we 
rehabilitate people is because if we can address what causing the problem that’s causing them to 
commit crime, then they won’t commit crime and that protects society. Another principal is to 
provide reparation for harm done to victims or the community. An example of a recreation would 
be if someone steals a car and damages it, then they could be ordered to pay the owner of the car 
the cost of the damage of the vehicle. To promote the sense of responsibility in offenders, that is 
to make sure someone understands that they need to take responsibility for their own actions At a 
really high level those are the purpose and principles of sentencing. Then when you talk about 
the sentencing options, there are a range of sentencing options. Anything from an absolute 
discharge which is saying you committed this crime in circumstances that will never repeat 
themselves and we down think that we need to do anything to punish you so you are going to be 
given a discharge. You can be placed on a discharge or a suspended sentence and placed on 
probation. As an example, we may say you have a drinking problem, as a result of you're 
drinking problem you did something silly, you got angry and beat somebody up. If we can 
address you're drinking problem, you won’t reoffend so we're going to put you on probation and 
send you to a program in which is going to help you with you're drinking problem. As we sort of 
go up the chain, there's jail and jail is designed to protect society and to provide deterrence and 
 Waver 64

denunciation, it also separates offenders from society, it provides some measure of rehabilitation 
as well. There are differences between the youth criminal justice system and the adult criminal 
justice system, just because of the way the laws use young offenders, which is there not morally 
culpable, their brains aren't as fully developed as adults and so they shouldn't be held to the same 
standard that adults are in the criminal justice system as there are some differences. The reason I 
tell you all of this is because I want to back to your question which was how the death penalty 
will impact the judicial system. Well, in my view the death penalty would really change a lot 
about the how the justice system functions. First of all, we have to change all of our penalty 
provisions, for instance, in the criminal code the potential penalty for stealing is a lot less serious 
than the potential penalty for murder. We would have to go through the criminal code and take a 
look at all of the sentences. We would probably look at the ones that are life in prison sentences, 
taking a look at all of those offences and we would have to say, would this be the kind of offence 
that society would want the death penalty imposed for? We would completely change what 
penalties could be imposed when someone commits a crime. The other thing I think we would 
have to do is look at our purpose and principles for sentencing are. It seems to me, if you're 
going to sentence someone to death for committing a crime, you’re not at all considering 
rehabilitation so that would have to be removed from the criminal code. You're not providing 
reparation for harm done which is a lot different, it’s more like retribution as opposed to 
vengeance. Vengeance is when you're wrong and you go and you wrong somebody else because 
you want them to hurt the way you hurt. That’s not the way our justice system functions, it’s not 
about the individual, its about whats best for society as a whole. We have to look very seriously 
and we would have to really change what some of our purposes and objectives are. It would 
require a real revamping of the justice system when it comes to sentencing and punishments that 
are imposed for crime.  
 
Question: How are death penalty cases different from any other felony cases in the judicial 
system? 
Answer: This has to do with the different levels of punishment. The way we divide our offences 
in Canada is between summary offences, those being the less serious offences such as stealing 
and indictable offences. Every crime in the criminal code has what’s called a maximum sentence, 
for instance, if you commit an assault right now and it is an indictable offence they can go to jail 
for a term not exceeding five years. If someone commits a more serious version of an assault, we 
would call that an aggravated assault, what that means is in the course of the assault you hurt 
someone really bad an example would be a stabbing or breaking an arm, something really 
serious. If you commit an aggravating assault the maximum penalty is 14 years in jail. If you kill 
someone, you're automatically sentenced to life in prison unless you didn't have the necessary 
intention to kill and then it’s a maximum life sentence. When we talk about the difference 
between indictable and summary offences it would really be only the more serious offences that 
 Waver 65

would attract the death penalty and it would probably be the offences that are punishable by life 
in prison.  
 
Question: With the death penalty there’s always a possibility of killing an innocent person, how 
would the judicial system insure there is no executions of innocent individuals? 
Answer: We’ve had what we call wrongful convictions in Canada and as science evolves we are 
better able to determine how crimes have been committed, for example, back in the early 1980’s 
DNA science was really just starting out and starting to be used in the criminal justice system 
and it was way more limited. You would have needed a really big sample of DNA and the data 
bank in terms of who's DNA that was, was limited because they didn't have a lot of peoples DNA 
on file and that’s really evolved to the point now where they really only need a pin prick or drop 
of DNA, whether that’s blood or saliva or even a piece of hair and they can determine the DNA 
makeup from that sample. Due to the collection of DNA from people for a lot of years now, they 
have a really wide data bank that they can put those DNA results into and say okay we can come 
up with another suspect. That’s one example of how science has evolved but as a result of that 
what they've done is they have gone back to cases where people have been convicted, say of 
murder, and the person has always denied that they committed the murder and to this day they 
deny they committed the murder. They go back and retest the exhibits that have been preserved 
in that murder case and they can not determine through the DNA testing whether that person is 
guilty or not. They have actually discovered a handful of people who have been in jail for 30, 40 
or 50 years convicted of murder and it couldn’t have been them because of the DNA evidence 
has exonerated them which has proven they are not guilty of the murder. When happens then is 
the government calls in a condition of inquiry and they look at how the justice system handled 
this case and how this person ended up being convicted when really they couldn't have 
committed the offence. Its through that process that the criminal justice system learns how 
people are wrongfully convicted and the justice system makes changes to prevent that from 
happening in the future. Most of the changes relate to the admissibility of evidence or how cases 
are allowed to be prosecuted in court. An example is fibre evidence. Fibres evidence it used to be 
that the crown would lead evidence of fibres and say here's evidence we've found at the murder 
scene and its fibres from a carpet and the person who we think killed the victim has a carpet with 
the same fibres would have to be them. Well, we have learned over the years that the 
manufacturing process is not that precise and there's a lot of mixing of fibres when fabrics are 
being created and so it’s really an unreliable indicator. Now we don't use that evidence in court 
at all. How would we prevent wrongful convictions of people when there's a death penalty? I 
think we would continue to try and prevent them in the same way that we do today. Trying to be 
very precise and ensure that a high standard of evidence is provided before anybody would be 
convicted of the crime. But that’s a really tricky issue. 
 
 Waver 66

Question: What are some factors that would provide people with the chance of parole when 
given a life sentence in prison? 
Answer: There is actually two systems, there is a provincial system and a federal system. I don't 
know if you have ever heard of the difference between provincial jails and federal jails but if 
someone is sentenced to less than two years in custody then they go to what's called a provincial 
jail. That would be a jail that is run by the Ontario government. If someone is sentenced to more 
than two years in jail, they go to a federal institution and that's run by the federal government. 
You would have a provincial law that would that would set out the factors to be considered when 
someone is supposed to get paroled and there's the federal system that would set out the factors 
to be considered when someone is to be given parole.  
 
Question: If the declaration of human rights states that everyone has the right to life, if someone 
violates that through murder, should the offender have the right to justice or should they be 
granted clemency? 
Answer: Let me take a second to explain the declaration of human rights and the constitution, the 
charter of human rights. The declaration of human rights imposes a common standard of 
achievement of basic rights and it’s something Canada has signed off to. The United Nations is 
out there trying to ensure that societies are respectful of basic human rights and we have said yes 
we agree, we will sign on to that. What’s important for the justice system is the charter of rights 
and freedoms in the constitution. The charter actually applies to governments and protects 
individuals. If I commit a murder, than I am protected by the charter but the person that I murder, 
they aren't entitled to charter protection. It’s not like if I do something I force my rights under the 
charter, I am still entitled to my rights under the charter. You don’t violate the charter when you 
commit murder, you violate the criminal code which sets out the laws of Canada. As I said, the 
government can violate the charter, for instance, imposing cruel or unusual punishment is against 
section 12 of the charter. What’s interesting about that, is there would have to be a whole 
analysis if we were looking at bringing back the death penalty. They would have to look at if 
capital punishment would be considered cruel and unusual punishment under the charter. 
Although there is a section under the charter, section one, that allows breaches of the charter 
when the principles of fundamental justice permit it and when reasonable limits prescribed by 
law are demonstrously justified by a free and democratic society. There are occasions when we 
put limits on some of the charter rights because we say it’s beneficial to society as a whole. That 
would be like drinking and driving laws, the police can require someone they suspect has been 
drinking and driving to submit to a test that will prove what their blood alcohol concentration is. 
Ordinarily, that would be considered an illegal search and seizure, but as a society we said that 
drinking and driving is such a dangerous thing, so many people are hurt and killed every year 
because of drinking and driving. We are prepared to allow the police to do something that would 
ordinarily be contrived to the charter. We would have to take a similar approach to capital 
punishment and we would have to say that capital punishment is really against the charter 
 Waver 67

because its cruel and unusual punishment but as a society we agree that it’s necessary if someone 
takes a life. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix B 
Clemency Grants 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A: ​This map outlines the number of clemencies 
granted in the United States of America since 1976 by 
 Waver 68

country. Figure A goes along with the chart to the right. (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​Figure C:​ This demonstrates the number 
of clemencies granted in different countries. 
(Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.) 
 
 
 
Appendix C 
Racial Discrimination 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Waver 69

 
 
 
 
Figure A: ​This diagram represents the racial aspects considered in capital punishment and the 
percentage of inmates executed due to the diversity of stereotyped races. (Death Penalty 
Information Center, n.d.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix D 
Section 718 of Criminal Code 
 

718​ The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with 
crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and 
safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: 

● (a)​ to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community 
that is caused by unlawful conduct; 
● (b)​ to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; 
● (c)​ to separate offenders from society, where necessary; 
● (d)​ to assist in rehabilitating offenders; 
● (e)​ to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and 
● (f)​ to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the 
harm done to victims or to the community. 
 
Figure A: ​Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides the sentencing outlines of specific 
offences, which determines a capital sentence. (Justice Canada, 2019) 
 Waver 70

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix E 
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 
 

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with 
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. 
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without 
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other 
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no 
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status 
of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, 
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. 
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 
4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be 
prohibited in all their forms.  
5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment. 
6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. 
 Waver 71

7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal 
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in 
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. 
8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts 
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. 
9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 
10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and 
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal 
charge against him. 
11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until 
proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees 
necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account 
of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or 
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be 
imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. 
12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or 
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Every- one has the right 
to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 
13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of 
each State. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to 
return to his country. 
14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from 
persecution.(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely 
arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of 
the United Nations. 
15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his 
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. 
16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, 
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to 
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only 
with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and 
fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 
17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) 
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes 
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with 
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, 
worship and observance. 
 Waver 72

19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom 
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and 
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. 
20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one 
may be compelled to belong to an association. 
21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or 
through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public 
service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of 
government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be 
by universal and equal su rage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free 
voting procedures. 
22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to 
realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with 
the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights 
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. 
23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable 
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any 
discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the 
right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence 
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social 
protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection 
of his interests. 
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working 
hours and periodic holidays with pay. 
25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being 
of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and 
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, 
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances 
beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and 
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social 
protection. 
26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary 
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and 
professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be 
equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full 
development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human 
rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and 
friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of 
 Waver 73

the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose 
the kind of education that shall be given to their children. 
27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to 
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.(2) Everyone has the 
right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, 
literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 
28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms 
set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. 
29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development 
of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone 
shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose 
of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of 
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a 
democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary 
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. 
30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person 
any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any 
of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. 

Figure A:​ Above is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which exemplifies the number 
of fundamental rights violated by the aspects of carrying out a death sentence (Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, 2015).  

Appendix F 
Deterrence 
 Waver 74

Figure A: ​These graphs demonstrate the decrease in the deterrence effect of capital offences, 
throughout the time spectrum of 1996 to 2008. (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.) 

 
 
Appendix G 
Worldwide Trends 
 Waver 75

Figure A: ​This graph demonstrates the inclining rate of abolishing the death penalty in countries 
around the world. Another trend represented in the graph is the declining rate of executions 
carried out. (Amnesty International, n.d.) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix H 
Case Studies  
 Waver 76

Figure A:​ This map outlines the Philippines 

geographical location in relation to other countries 
around the world (Plan Canada, n.d.). 

 
Figure B:​ This map outlines the United States 
  of America’s geographical location in relation 
  to other countries around the world 
  (Parish Captains, n.d.). 

Figure C: ​This map outlines Pakistan’s geographical  

location in relation to other countries around the world  
(Geology, n.d.). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Waver 77

Allen, & Graham, W. (1970, January 01). Can we end the death penalty? The role of NGOs in 
the world-wide campaign. Retrieved from  
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0071688 
 
Amnesty International Global Report: Death Sentences and Executions 2017. (n.d.). Retrieved 
from 
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5079552018ENGLISH.PDF  
 
Anesthesiologists Advised to Avoid Lethal Injections. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/297 
 
Arbitrariness. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness#Legal  
 
Arbitrariness News and Developments: 2006. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness-news-and-developments-2006 
 
Baird, R. M. (1995). ​Punishment and the death penalty: The current debate.​ Amherst, NY: 
Prometheus Books. 
 
Blank Map Of the United States. North America Map with States. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://www.parishcaptains.com/blank-map-of-the-northeastern-united-states/blank-map-
of-the-northeastern-united-states-north-america-states-map-blank-fresh-north-america-ma
p-with-states/  
 
Bohm, R. M. (2010). ​Ultimate sanction: Understanding the death penalty through its many 
voices and many sides.​ New York: Kaplan Pub. 
 
Branches of Government. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://www.ola.org/en/visit-learn/about-parliament/what-parliament/branches-governme
nt  
 
Britannica, T. E. (2019, March 08). Ferdinand Marcos. Retrieved from  
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferdinand-E-Marcos  
 
Bryant, B. (2018, March 05). Life and Death Row: How the lethal injection kills - BBC Three. 
Retrieved from 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/cd49a818-5645-4a94-832e-d22860804779  
 
Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital%20punishmen​t 
 
 Waver 78

Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved from  

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/capital-punishment  
 
Capital Punishment and Canada: The History. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://capitalpunishmentincanada.weebly.com/capital-punishment-and-canada-the-histor
y.html  
 
Capital Punishment by Country. (2019, May 06). Retrieved from  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country  
 
Capital Punishment in Canada | CBC News. (2010, June 07). Retrieved from  
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/capital-punishment-in-canada-1.795391 
 
Cartwright, M. (2019, May 07). Polis. Retrieved from 
https://www.ancient.eu/Polis/  
 
Claiming Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_6.html 
 
Clemency. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/clemency  
 
CNN - Philippines Executes First Prisoner in 23 Years (n.d.). Retrieved from  
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9902/05/philippines.execution.02/ 
 
Controversy. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy 
 
Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/links.cfm 
 
Cornell Law School. Pathways to Abolition of the Death Penalty. (2016, June). Retrieved from 
https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/pdf/pathways-english.pdf  
 
COSTS: New Study Reveals California Has Spent $4 Billion on the Death Penalty. (n.d.). 
Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-new-study-reveals-california-has-spent-4-billion-death-
penalty  
 
Costs of the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty 
 Waver 79

 
Cunningham, M. D., & Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and 
confinement: A critical review of the literature. Retrieved from 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11979498 
 
Dallas, K. (2016, February 17). Why is the death penalty discussed in religious terms? Retrieved 
from 
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865647796/Do-convicted-criminals-deserve-to-die-
The-religious-answer-is-oftentimes-unpredictable.html  
 
Death Penalty in Canada. (2018, July 25). Retrieved from 
https://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/issues/death-penalty-support-abolition/death-penalty-c
anada  
 
Death Row Inmates, 1953-2013. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004433 
 
Definition of NGOs. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html  
 
Deterrence | Definition of deterrence in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deterrence  
 
Diefenbaker votes to abolish capital punishment - CBC Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/dief-votes-to-abolish-capital-punishment  
 
Dieter, Richard. The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International 
Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf  
 
DPIC Analysis: Causes of Wrongful Convictions. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions  
 
Esfandiari, G., & Esfandiari, G. (2012, February 02). Executing Children. Retrieved from  
https://www.rferl.org/a/1079355.html  
 
Evil | Definition of evil in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil  
 
Executions in the United States in 2008. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-2008 
 
 Waver 80

Executions in the United States in 2009. (n.d.). Retrieved from  

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-2009  
 
Favreau, Guy. Capital Punishment: Material Relating to its Purpose and Value. (1965, June). 
Retrieved from 
http://www.lareau-legal.ca/Capital.pdf  
 
FAQs – General Questions. (1970, April 01). Retrieved from 
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq&document=faqgen&lang=e
#gen2 
 
Federal Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-penalty  
 
Federal Death Row Prisoners. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners  
 
Ghassemi, G. (2009, March 20). Criminal Punishment in Islamic Societies: Empirical Study of 
Attitudes to Criminal Sentencing in Iran. Retrieved from  
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-008-9095-2  
 
Gramlich, J., & Gramlich, J. (2019, March 14). California is one of 11 states that have the death 
penalty but haven't used it in more than a decade. Retrieved from  
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/14/11-states-that-have-the-death-penalty-
havent-used-it-in-more-than-a-decade/  
 
Graveland, B. (2019, January 15). Boswell: Death sentences for Canadians abroad – what would 
Andrew Scheer do? Retrieved from  
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boswell-death-sentences-for-canadians-abro
ad-what-would-andrew-scheer-do  
 
Grossman, M. (1998). ​Encyclopedia of capital punishment.​ Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.  
 
Grumman, C., & Parsons, C. (2018, August 29). Doubts About Death Penalty. Retrieved from 
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1999-02-07-9902070232-story.html  
 
Hatcher, M. (2017, August 08). "76% of all inmates end up back in jail within 5 years. Here's 
how I broke the cycle." Retrieved from 
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/8/8/16112864/recidivism-rate-jail-prostitution-br
eak-cycle  
 
History of the UN Seventieth Anniversary. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
 Waver 81

http://www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html 
 
Hood, Roger. The Death Penalty in International Perspective. (1881, December 11). Retrieved 
from 
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/196000/ior520031991en.pdf  
 
How Canadians Govern Themselves. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/inside_view/puzzle_content-e.h
tml  
 
Howard, John. The Death Penalty: Any Nation’s Shame. (2001, March). Retrieved from 
http://www.johnhoward.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-death-penalty-any-nations
-shame-march-2001.pdf 
 
Huda. (2019, January 10). Islamic Law on Capital Punishment. Retrieved from  
https://www.learnreligions.com/capital-punishment-in-islam-2003792 
 
Human Rights and the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/human-rights-and-death-penalty  
 
In Opposition to the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm  
 
International. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/category/categories/issues/international  
 
International Relations/International Organisations. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/International_Organisations  
 
"Judged for More Than Her Crime": New Report Examines Worldwide Use of Death Penalty 
Against Women. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7202  
 
Kasten, Martin. An Economic Analysis of the Death Penalty. (1996). Retrieved from 
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=uauje  
 
Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/kennedy-v-louisiana-no-07-343 
 
Kindler v. Canada. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/785/index.do?site_preference=mobile 
 
 Waver 82

Learn History 2. (2011, April 12). The Story of Capital Punishment 1 of 6. Retrieved from  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfJ0I9Qsea8  
 
Legislative Branch of Government: Definition, Power and Function. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://study.com/academy/lesson/legislative-branch-of-government-definition-power-fun
ction.html 
 
Legislative Services Branch. (2019, May 09). Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal 
Code. Retrieved from 
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-718.html 
 
Levy, P. (2016, February 16). One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent. Retrieved 
from 
https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889 
 
Leyton-Brown, Ken. The Practice of Execution in Canada. (2010). Retrieved from 
https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/9552/1/9780774817530.pdf  
 
Limitations on the Death Penalty (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history-7.htm 
 
Links to Death Penalty Organizations (n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/links.cfm  
 
Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2014, February 11). What Prison Chaplains Do ... and What They Think They 
Should Do. Retrieved from 
https://www.pewforum.org/2012/03/22/prison-chaplains-what-they-do/ 
 
Mandatory Justice: The Death Penalty Revised. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/30.pdf  
 
Map of Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://plancanada.ca/philippines  
 
Masood, S. (2016, August 28). 3 Suspects in 2009 Attack on Sri Lankan Cricket Team Are 
Killed in Pakistan. Retrieved from  
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/asia/3-suspects-in-2009-attack-on-sri-lankan
-cricket-team-are-killed-in-pakistan.html  
 
Miller, Monica and Hayward David. Religious Characteristics and the Death Penalty. (2007, 
June 2). Retrieved from 
 Waver 83

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6291018_Religious_characteristics_and_the_de
ath_penalty/download  
 
Mortensen, Anne. Abolition of the Death Penalty. An event history analysis of the political, 
cultural and socio-economic determinants of death penalty abolition. (2008, September) 
http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/3610/Masterthesis_Mortensen.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y  
 
Moving Away from the Death Penalty. (2015). doi:10.18356/2bdca678-en. Retrieved from 
https://www.ohchr.org/Lists/MeetingsNY/Attachments/27/moving_away_from_death_pe
nalty_web.pdf  
 
Nicholson, Michael. Unpopular Abolition: Analysis of Canadian Parliament’s 1976 Debate to 
Abolish Capital Punishment. (2014, August). Retrieved from 
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/8279/Nicholson_Michael_2
01408_MA.pdf;sequence=3  
 
Owen, N. G. (n.d.). ​The emergence of modern Southeast Asia.​  
 
Oyez. (n.d.). Received from 
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257  
 
Pakistan Map and Satellite Image. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://geology.com/world/pakistan-satellite-image.shtml 
 
Part I: History of the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty  
 
Quora. What is the origin of word politics? What is its definition? (2015). Retrieved from 
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-word-politics-What-is-its-definition 
 
Religion and capital punishment. (2019, April 03). Retrieved from  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_capital_punishment 
 
Religions - Buddhism: Capital punishment. (2009, November 23). Retrieved from  
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/capitalpunishment.sht
ml 
 
Religions - Hinduism: Capital punishment. (2009, August 25). Retrieved from 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/capitalpunishment.shtml 
 
Religions - Judaism: Capital punishment. (2009, July 21). Retrieved from 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/capital.shtml 
 
 Waver 84

Rferl. (2008, April 08). Musharraf Signs Amended Rape Law. Retrieved from  
https://www.rferl.org/a/1073146.html  
 
Rogers, S., & Chalabi, M. (2011, March 29). Death penalty statistics, country by country. 
Retrieved from 
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world 
 
Sander, Gen. The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2017. (2018, March) 
https://www.hri.global/files/2018/11/13/HRI-Death-Penalty-Report-2018-v2.pdf  
 
Slavery by the Numbers. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://www.evblog.virginiahumanities.org/2011/12/slavery-by-the-numbers/  
 
Spratt, M. (2015, January 29). Life behind bars: The politics of despair. Retrieved from  
https://ipolitics.ca/2015/01/28/life-death-prison-and-the-politics-of-despair/  
 
State by State Lethal Injection. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-lethal-injection  
 
Studies: "Death Penalty for Female Offenders". (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/studiesdeath-penalty-female-offenders 
 
Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent. (n.d.). 
Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effecti
ve-deterrent  
 
The Cyber law. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://www.scribd.com/document/365403255/the-Cyber-law  
 
The Death Penalty. (n.d.) Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history.PDF  
 
The Death Penalty: An International Perspective. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective  
 
The Death Penalty in 2009: Year End Report. (2009, December). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2009YearEndReport.pdf 
 
The Death Penalty in 2017: Facts and Figures. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/death-penalty-facts-and-figures-2017/  
 Waver 85

 
The Excellent Execution: Why Physicians Participate in Lethal Injection of Prisoners. (n.d.). 
Retrieved from 
https://ethics.harvard.edu/event/excellent-execution-why-physicians-participate-lethal-inj
ection-prisoners 
 
Three-Quarters of Death Row Prisoners are from Lower Castes or Religious Minorities. (n.d.). 
Retrieved from 
https://thewire.in/law/three-quarters-of-death-row-prisoners-are-from-lower-castes-or-reli
gious-minorities  
 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (2015) Retrieved from 
https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf 
 
UN, United Nations, UN Treaties, Treaties. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter
=4&clang=_en  
 
United Nations. (n.d.). The Death Penalty. Retrieved from  
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a98f0.html  
 
US Executions from 1608-2002. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004087 
 
What is Martial Law? (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://legalcareerpath.com/martial-law/  
 
White, C. (2007, October 06). Doctors who help give lethal injections should be punished, says 
Amnesty. Retrieved from 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001080/ 
 
Wilgoren, J. (2003, January 12). Citing Issue of Fairness, Governor Clears Out Death Row in 
Illinois. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/us/citing-issue-of-fairness-governor-clears-out-dea
th-row-in-illinois.html  
 
Wilmington, M. (2018, August 27). 'Deadline' follows Gov. Ryan's move to clear out Death 
Row. Retrieved from 
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-06-04-0406040347-story.html  
 Waver 86

 
Who We Are. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/ 
 
Who Survives on Death Row? An Individual and Contextual Analysis. (2007). 
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/capital/report_who_surviveson_deathrow.pd
f  
 
Women. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/category/categories/issues/women  
 
Women and the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty 
 
199 nominated for 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. (2005, February 25). Retrieved from  
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7026061/ns/world_news/t/nominated-nobel-peace-prize/#.X
NUWYC2ZOnc  
 
200 exonerated: Too many wrongfully convicted.​ (2007). New York: Innocence Project. 
https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ip_200.pdf