The European Union calls for the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights and the complete abolition of the death penalty as a condition for the accession of new members to the Union (Copenhagen criteria)[32], as well as to the Council of Europe, which has campaigned for its abolition in several European countries. The European Charter of Human Rights prohibits the death penalty for signatory states and recognises the right of prisoners to benefit from the most favourable legislation (Charter, European Convention on Human Rights or national constitutions). Consequently, the death penalty will not and cannot be applied in practice in Europe. [33] In fact, we do not hide the fact that there is a bias that contradicts the use of the death penalty. However, I must emphasize that this is not based on political motives, but on an objective analysis of the existing doctrine in this regard (doctrine that we summarize in the article). Although there is a perception of the effectiveness of the death penalty in reducing crime, studies have not proven this to be true. – The third is moral and therefore cannot be evaluated by empirical studies. This is due to the fact that the death penalty is a retaliatory measure against society for the damage caused by the commission of a crime. Therefore, it is assumed that this maximum penalty should be applied to the most serious crimes involving death. “In 2005, a group of death row prisoners challenged the federal execution process. This lawsuit has been under investigation for 14 years. The trial was paralysed for several years during which time the government said it did not have access to the medicines needed for executions,” Robert Dunham, chief executive of the Death Penalty Information Centre, told BBC Mundo. The Enlightenment has not yet reached the foundations of criminal law, and we are faced with an era marked by disproportionate sentencing, arbitrariness and diffuse and disoriented criminal law.

It was only with the arrival of the classical school that this situation changed. Garcia, C. (1979). Capital punishment. Situation. Barcelona: Editorial Antalbe. Is the death penalty the answer to drug-related offences? According to the efforts of enlightened people like Cesare Beccaria, the guillotine was the symbol of the reign of terror at the time of the French Revolution. Karl Marx wrote that “the world has never been corrected or intimidated by punishment.” In the twentieth century, authoritarian states used the death penalty as a method of political oppression. Obviously, we are greatly simplifying the content conveyed by C.

Beccaria. What we would like to emphasize here is that this work is leading to major changes in criminal law, leading to greater humanization of sentences. Opponents of the death penalty point to the risk of convicting innocent people and the inadequacies of judicial systems in some countries. Apart from this, according to the report, it is difficult to integrate into a single statistical model the many factors that can influence the relationship between the death penalty and crime. For example, the reduction in the murder rate can only coincide with the period of application of the death penalty and is linked to variables that have nothing to do with executions. The issue of the death penalty is highly controversial. Proponents believe that its realization reduces crime, prevents its recurrence and is a form of punishment for murder. Critics argue that it does not reduce crime more than life imprisonment; They are worse than crime and constitute de facto discrimination against poor minorities who may not have sufficient resources in the legal system.

[5] – According to a meta-study commissioned by an expert panel of the National Research Council of the US National Academies of Sciences, there is insufficient evidence to know what the impact of the death penalty is on homicide. The imposition of a more or less severe sentence has a deterrent effect. However, the uncertain seriousness of taxation destroys any possibility of intimidation. Strong public support for the death penalty is usually accompanied by a lack of reliable information: it is often wrongly assumed that it reduces crime. Many governments are quick to promote this illusion, even when there is no evidence to support it. The fundamental factors underlying the use of the death penalty, including the risk of execution of an innocent person, the lack of due process in judicial proceedings and the discriminatory nature of the death penalty, are generally not understood, contributing to a truly informed view of the death penalty. According to the United States Death Penalty Information Center, this verdict comes with variable costs that take into account six aspects: legal fees, pre-trial costs, jury selection, trial, detention and appeal. Because this is the maximum applicable sentence, the process of sentencing a person to death is generally longer, as much more care must be taken to impose the death sentence. That is, a “death by death” could try to justify itself: if a person who uses his free will and knows the consequences of his actions decides to kill another, it is right and proper that he dies for it. Turkey, which has been trying to join the European Union in recent years, has reformed its legal system.

The last execution in Turkey took place in 1984, after which there was a de facto moratorium on their use. In August 2002, the possibility of applying the death penalty in peacetime was removed from Turkish law, and in May 2004, the Constitution was amended to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances. In 2004, Turkey adopted Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. [34] García Valdés (1979:34) highlights a similar fact. Referring to nineteenth-century English statistics, he points out that “the vast majority of those sentenced to death were persons who had already witnessed execution by death.” .