Why are we against the death penalty?

Cruelty is not a flaw in the death penalty system – it is the system.

Capital punishment relies on conditions and practices that inevitably degrade, harm and dehumanise. It results in physical, emotional and psychological suffering, which is inflicted at every stage of the criminal justice process. Suffering is not limited just to executions, nor is it limited only to people on death row.

Across the world, people sentenced to death can face extreme isolation, overcrowded or unsanitary prisons, lack of adequate medical care and severely restricted contact with family and friends. Many people spend decades awaiting execution. This causes intense distress, including anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, to the extent that courts and tribunals around the world have declared this so-called ‘death row phenomenon’ unlawful. Waiting a prolonged period to be executed is recognised by courts and UN experts as amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment in itself, which is a violation of basic rights.

Every method of execution – whether by hanging, electrocution, injection, or firing squad – carries a risk of pain, error, or prolonged suffering. Courts, experts and even state officials have acknowledged that executions, regardless of the method, are inherently violent and brutal events.

The suffering caused by death row conditions, the torment of awaiting execution and the brutality of the methods themselves are all inherent to the punishment. There is no possibility of the death penalty being carried out in observance of the prohibition against torture.

You cannot “tinker with the machinery of death” to make it humane; the only way to prevent this cruelty is to end the death penalty altogether.

The conditions on death row are extremely stringent and deplorable compared to those serving a life sentence. My cell is infested with cockroaches, centipedes, rats and mosquitoes. I am deprived of proper ventilation and recreation, since I only receive recreation once per week, whereas prisoners serving life sentences have more freedom to move around within the prison. It is also more difficult for me to have visitors than prisoners serving life sentences.

Evanson Mitcham lived on death row in St Kitts and Nevis for 16 years. Read his full story.

No matter the context, poor and marginalised people are the most likely to receive a death sentence.

People who are economically vulnerable, living with a mental illness or intellectual disability, from an ethnic minority, foreign nationals, victims of abuse and trafficking, or otherwise marginalised in society at the greatest risk of execution. They are also significantly more likely to be wrongfully convicted.

The imposition and execution of the death penalty in these circumstances represents a form of discrimination. It undermines the principle of fairness and equal protection under the law.

Every legal system in the world makes errors.

This means, where the death penalty still exists, there is an inherent and inevitable risk that an innocent person could be sentenced to death and executed.

If a state cannot ensure that it will not execute an innocent person, it should not kill at all.

The overwhelming consensus from social science research is that the death penalty does not effectively reduce or prevent crime. A death sentence does not increase public safety beyond the typical substitute of lengthy imprisonment.

Alternative policies that increase the certainty rather than the severity of punishment are more effective for reducing crime. We believe in criminal justice responses that are fair, prioritise dignity and rehabilitate. Abolition of the death penalty is not a denial of justice. It is a demand for better justice.

One of the main arguments used by states that retain the death penalty is that there is public demand for the punishment. More often than not, this is a myth.

Evidence shows that when members of the public are properly informed about the practical realities of capital punishment – for example, instances of wrongful convictions, methods of execution, or conditions of detention – as well as presented with alternatives to death sentences, the proportion in favour of retaining the death penalty significantly declines.

Many retentionist states are not transparent about their use of the death penalty, so citizens are not knowledgeable about how a capital punishment system plays out in their country.

We have carried out extensive public opinion research across a variety of continents, and within that research have seen that even for those who support the death penalty, the majority would accept abolition if the state outlawed the punishment.

The death penalty represents the ultimate and irreversible exercise of state power.

By prioritising retribution over rehabilitation, capital punishment systems risk transforming states from a protector of rights into a violator of them.

Both sides of the death penalty debate agree that addressing the needs of victims and their families in the aftermath of a traumatic crime is of utmost concern. However, much of the debate has historically relied on assumptions about their experiences and views on capital punishment.

Research shows that the death penalty can inflict further harm and retraumatise victims. This is in part due to agonising but often unavoidable delays in proceedings characterised by procedural safeguards as a person sentenced to death moves through appeals processes.

Additionally, a death penalty does not account for diversity and evolution of feelings among victims and can ultimately tie families – including those who are undecided, have changed their minds or have always been against death sentences – to a long, painful legal process that often disrupts and delays the recovery journey.

“I didn’t know if I could get through another [trial]. I sometimes could not eat for days. [They] threw off my sleeping […] I mean you think I cried a lot before? Oh my gosh, you know, another time to go through this? I didn’t know if I had the strength. […] I’m going, ‘Is the Florida justice system putting me through this again? […] Please don’t make me and my family go through this again. I’m gonna have to testify again. Oh, my God. I have to go look at the pictures. I have to go through every detail of watching the knife go into my father, the scenes of my father trying to breathe…”

Sarah (not her real name), as both a victim-survivor and a witness to her father’s murder, was required to attend each trial as the defendant moved through the appeals system, describing the experience as “ten and a half years of trials of hell”.