News Release

Death knell for the death penalty

Peer-Reviewed Publication

The Lancet_DELETED

The death penalty is barbaric and the entire practice should be ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, states the lead Editorial in this week’s issue of The Lancet.

On December 18, the UN voted to abolish the death penalty worldwide. The vote, while non-binding and largely symbolic, is important, says the Editorial. Since 1948, when the UN passed its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 125 countries have abolished the death penalty. However, the USA stands with countries including China, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan in retaining the penalty.

“One of the most alarming outcomes of the death sentence is the exoneration of the condemned, sometimes through DNA evidence” states the Editorial. In the USA, over the past 44 years, 126 death-row inmates have been discovered to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

The death penalty has many other grounds for criticism. It is arbitrarily and inconsistently applied: there is little correlation between where murders occur and where the death penalty is imposed. There is also little evidence of a deterrent function. Indeed, the Editorial says: “there is strong evidence to the contrary”—the American south, where more prisoners are executed than any other part of the country also has the highest murder rate; conversely, the northern part of the country has the lowest rate of executions, and the lowest murder rate. Other factors such as race and socioeconomic status may skew sentencing.

Furthermore, in the USA, where lethal injection is the most common method, there have been highly publicised botched executions, including one that required two rounds of drugs and took 34 minutes. A study published in The Lancet in 2005* also showed that the combination of drugs used does not necessarily produce anaesthesia.

Because of these and many other troubling questions that have been raised about the fairness and morality of the death penalty, the US Supreme Court will decide in its 2007–08 term on several cases involving the death penalty. Some states currently have moratoria on the death penalty, as they await the high court’s decision, “which is likely to have national ramifications”, claims the Editorial.

The Editorial concludes: “One task remains— for the Court to rule the entire practice unconstitutional. If the rest of the death-penalty countries then follow suit, the whole barbaric business can be properly consigned to the dustbin of history.”

###

The Lancet press office T) +44(0)207 424 4949 pressoffice@lancet.com

Notes to Editors

*Koniaris L, Zimmers TA, Lubarsky DA, Sheldon JP. Inadequate anaesthesia in lethal injection for execution. Lancet 2005; 365: 1412-1414.

View the PDF associated with this press release at http://multimedia.thelancet.com/pdf/press/Death Penalty 05_01p1_2eds.pdf.


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.