The document discusses the history of capital punishment in the United Kingdom and United States. It details how the UK gradually abolished the death penalty over the 20th century, becoming fully abolished in 1998. In contrast, capital punishment still exists in the US in 33 states. The document argues the US should follow the UK's example and abolish the death penalty based on moral arguments and evidence against its effectiveness and justification.

1. Cahill
The Death Penalty: Why the United States Should Follow the Example of the United Kingdom
to Abolish Capital Punishment
Student I.D.: 200042222
Date: 18 Jul 2012
Name: Chloe Cahill
Capital punishment has been the topic of much debate for centuries, throughout the entire
1

2. Cahill
world. In fact, it is still in debate today, especially in the United States, where it is still practiced.
The general population is torn between supporting the death penalty and supporting its abolition.
In the United Kingdom, however, things are quite different. The death penalty was officially
abolished for all crimes in 1998 as part of the Human Rights Act, although no one had actually
been executed since the deaths of Peter Anthony Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans in 1964. For
those who were still in line to be executed, the sentences were changed. Despite the legislation
abolishing capital punishment, there still remain strong groups that support the reintroduction of
the death penalty in the United Kingdom. Similar arguments surround capital punishment in the
United States. In both nations, the main debates include whether or not the death penalty is an
effective deterrent of crime, whether it prevents recidivism, and if it is ethical and justified to
execute human beings. Of course, there are other arguments as well, that are linked to these. On
the basis of moral arguments, historical, and current evidence, the death penalty ought to be
abolished.
Capital punishment has a long history in the United Kingdom, specifically England.
Before any modern arguments arose against the death penalty, England followed something that
was later dubbed, “the Bloody Code.” This “refers to the large number of capital offences that
were created in England and Wales in the eighteenth century,” (Seal 16). Because there was no
formal police or any other from of law enforcement, capital punishment served as a general
means of punishment for a wide variety of crimes. As of 1688, there were fifty crimes punishable
by death. Most involved property offenses, and historians today suspect that this is due to the
classism prejudice between the rich and the poor. By the 1800s, the number of crimes punishable
by death had quadrupled, totaling at two hundred and twenty two. At this time, “[t]he modern
movement to abolish the death penalty ha[d] its roots in the liberal utilitarian and humanistic
2

3. Cahill
ideas spawned by the enlightenment in Europe,” (Hood 332). The fact that the death penalty was
so widespread, used for so many crimes, and dubbed “the Bloody Code,” insinuates that it is as
barbaric as it seems. However, thanks to Cesare Beccaria and his treatise, “Dei Delitti e Delle
Pene,” which translates into “On Crime and Punishments,” several views on the death penalty
changed. This book was one of the first modern arguments against the death penalty, and
released at the height of the Enlightenment, an opportune time for new ideas and innovative
thinking. Perhaps it was the timing of his treatise that made Beccaria’s arguments so popular, or
maybe it was the thinking itself. Whatever the reasoning, his disagreement with the death penalty
sparked Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany to abolish it in Italy in 1786, the first permanent
abolition in modern times. Not only that, but the Grand Duke also eliminated torture and
destroyed all the instruments used to execute offenders. This radical thinking started to slowly to
take hold on other countries, and many decades later, England followed Grand Duke Leopold’s
example in Italy.
Before the Punishment of Death act in 1832, England had the most offenses punishable
by death, which is surprising, considering the state of the death penalty in England today versus
in the United States. The amount of punishable offenses is leftover from the Bloody Code and its
extreme punishment, especially of the poor, for stealing and other property offenses. The
“[p]ressure to restrict the death penalty to only the gravest crimes began to mount in Britain,”
which instigated the Punishment of Death act (Hood 332). Only five crimes remained punishable
by death after the Punishment of Death act was brought about. These crimes were murder,
treason, espionage, arson in royal dockyards, and piracy with violence. Among these, the death
sentence for murder and treason was mandatory. At the turn of the twentieth century, England
continued its slow-progressing abolition of the death penalty, and the idea of abolition continued
3

4. Cahill
to spread throughout the world. “International norms addressing the limitation and the abolition
of the death penalty are essentially a post-Second World War phenomenon,” (Schabas 1). It is
during this time, specifically in 1948, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
established, advocating the abolition of the death penalty. “Human rights law does not prohibit
the use of the death penalty as a punishment for crimes but does encourage its abolition and seek
to limit its use” (Right to Life). And although it does not outright prohibit the death penalty, it
does provide limitations to its use, such as its ability only to be used against serious crimes, its
inability to be used against juveniles, and its inability to be used against pregnant women.
Because this was universal and international, it grabbed the attention of many countries, and set
in motion the continually growing abolition movement of capital punishment.
England hit a pivotal point concerning the abolition movement in 1965 with the Murder
Act 1965, which suspended the death penalty for a period of five years, replacing it instead with
a mandatory life sentence. This temporary abolition settled well with Parliament, and in 1969,
the death penalty was permanently abolished in favor of a life sentence. Although this was a
major stepping stone in England’s (as well as the United Kingdom’s) abolition movement of
capital punishment, the death penalty still remained for other crimes, such as causing a fire or
explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine, or warehouse, espionage, piracy with violence,
treason, and a category of purely military offences. Despite the fact that the death penalty
remained for these crimes, no executions were carried out for these following the eradication of
the death penalty for murder. It can be assumed that it is due to this fact that the United Kingdom
quickly abolished the death penalty for the last few remaining crimes. Between 1970 and 1998,
the death penalty was eliminated for all persisting offences. In the same year, the Human Rights
act of 1998 fully and permanently abolished the death penalty in the United Kingdom. The
4

5. Cahill
United Kingdom then became one of the many nations to abolish the death penalty, with more
nations to follow.
Although the United States originally was borne from England, its history revolving
around capital punishment is much different. Since its beginning, the United States had practiced
the death penalty against a variety of crimes, extending from drug trafficking to murder. Of
course, it was around this time that “the Bloody Code” was in effect overseas, which most likely
had a strong influence on how crimes were punished in the United States. However, in modern
times it is used mainly for aggravated murder, felony murder, and contract killing only. But
unlike England and the United Kingdom, the United States is made up of just that, states. Each
state has a separate, state-level government, which makes legislation in each of the fifty states
vary greatly. This involves the death penalty as well as other minor and major topics in
legislature. Today, thirty-three of the total fifty states actively use the death penalty to punish
crimes. Michigan was the earliest state to abolish the death penalty, having done so in 1846,
nearly a decade after it became an official state when it was accepted into the Union. Although
the legislature claimed that the death penalty was illegal, it was still retained on the books for
treason until 1963. In addition to that, even after Michigan abolished the death penalty, Anthony
Chebatoris was executed in 1938 following a robbery and murder. However, this was a federal
execution and was outside of the state’s jurisdiction. But even so, it is in typical United States
fashion to outlaw something as “illegal,” only to have exceptions to the rule. This is due mainly
to the fact that laws and illegal actions are not universal throughout the entire country, because
“unlike individual states, the federal government has not completely reviewed the death penalty”
(Grayer 560).
In the 1960’s, opposition to the death penalty finally rose to a strong height in the United
5

6. Cahill
States. “Before then, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were interpreted as
permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty
was a ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment” (Introduction to the Death Penalty). This build-up of opposition reached its zenith
in the 1970s with the cases Furman v. Georgia, Jackson v. Georgia, and Branch v. Texas,
collectively known together as Furman v. Georgia. These cases raised the question of whether or
not the death penalty is unconstitutional, specifically under the eighth amendment. The Supreme
Court ruled against the death penalty, and suspended it for a period of five years. Much like the
United Kingdom (apart from Northern Ireland) did in 1965 with the Murder Act. However,
unlike the United Kingdom, this suspension of the death penalty did not lead to its abolition.
Because of the patchwork setting of the United States (with each state having an individual
governing system), this suspension allowed states to rewrite their respective death penalty
statutes, either abolishing it, or editing it so that it does not fall under “cruel and unusual
punishments” according to the eighth amendment. So instead of unifying the states to one
decision, this suspension inadvertently allowed states to make separate decisions, effectively
rendering ubiquitous abolition in the United States virtually impossible. Now, some states do not
utilize the death penalty, some require two trials in order to determine if the defendant should be
punished by death, some have a death penalty for certain crimes when other states do not, and
some still use guns as a means of execution. The amount of variation between states is so
incredible, it would be particularly impractical to imagine a unified legislation on the death
penalty in the United States. This is typically called “state policy diffusion” and is described as
“variability among the states,” something that is very specific to the United States (Mooney &
Lee 767). Unfortunately, this variability allows for a non-unified legislature, especially
6

7. Cahill
concerning the death penalty.
In 1976, the same year that the United States reinstated the death penalty, the United
Nations General Assembly enforced the multilateral treaty entitled: the International Covenant
on Civil and political Rights, or the ICCPR for short. It centers on many human rights, including
the freedom or religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and most important, the
right to life. Under the section that focuses on the right to life, the treaty highly stresses the
importance of abolishing the death penalty. While the treaty does not make it a requirement for
those countries that participate, it does put pressure on those that do to cease their practice of
capital punishment as well as limits its application in the most serious crimes and prohibits its
use on children (juveniles) and pregnant women. The two main articles associated with capital
punishment are Article 6 and Article 7, both of which the United States has raised concerns
about. Article 6 emphasizes every human being’s “inherit right to life” in addition to the fact that
only serious crimes may be punished by death (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights). Article 7 has only one clause, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free
consent to medical or scientific experimentation” (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights). Out of the fifty-three articles in the ICCPR, these two are the only ones that the United
States had problems with and eventually rejected. The United States has even executed juveniles
since it has been in effect. Although the United States demands that countries around the world
comply with United Nations resolutions and international laws, they have disobeyed ICCPR
directly and have been lumped together with countries that are notorious for their human rights
violations. Essentially, the United States will not comply with any set of standards that stresses
the abolition of the death penalty, despite “increasing… international pressure in favor of
7

8. Cahill
abolition” and is viewed by many countries as barbaric and disregarding of human rights
(Schabas 799). Despite this worldwide view, and the barbaric opinion of the nation, the United
States remains on the fence about abolishing the death penalty and keeping it.
In both the United Kingdom and the United States, there are conflicting views on capital
punishment. In the United Kingdom, although the death penalty has been abolished for years,
there is still a strong support among the citizens for a reintroduction of capital punishment.
“[T]he latest poll, conducted by Harris Interactive, shows 54 per cent of people back the death
penalty while 30 per cent are against it” (Widdecombe). Of those who are in favor for the
reintroduction of the death penalty, the wide majority of them want it for murder (94%),
followed by war crimes (68%) and child abuse (62%). In the United States, relatively similar
figures are reflected. Based on a poll taken in 1991, 76% of the population supports the death
penalty, versus the 38% that supported it in the 1960s. In both nations, debates still rage. Many
people want the death penalty reinstated in the United Kingdom. And in the United States, there
are many people who want it abolished. So, despite the fact that the legislature remains
unchanged, people everywhere still fight.
Those in favor of the death penalty give very good points for keeping it or reintroducing
it. The main reason they support the death penalty is because they believe it is an effective
deterrent against crime. For example, the supports of capital punishment suggest that if the
punishment for murder (or any other high profile crime) is death, it is less likely that murder will
occur. Those that are potential murderers will cease their planning or murderous thoughts
because they do not want to be punished in that extreme. However, the statistics on the deterrent
effect are mixed and untrustworthy, so it is nearly impossible to tell what extent the death
penalty actually deters crime. Supporters will argue that this does not even matter in the grand
8

9. Cahill
scheme of things. “Some proponents of capital punishment argue that capital punishment is
beneficial even if it has no deterrent effect” (BBC Ethics). John McAdams of Marquette
University argues, “[i]f we execute murders and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have
killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have
deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would
much rather risk the former” (BBC Ethics). Many supporters of the death penalty use this
argument as one of their central arguments in favor of the death penalty.
One other main argument that the supporters rely on is the elimination of recidivism,
which goes hand in hand with deterrence. Recidivism is defined as a “habitual relapse into
crime” (The Free Dictionary). In other words, recidivism simply is when someone who has
committed a crime, commits it again. Many prisoners who have recently been released have
problems with recidivism and re-offending. It goes without saying that those who are punished
using the death penalty cannot commit further crimes, and therefore have no risk of recidivism.
Although this is one of the important arguments for those who support the death penalty, those
that are against it contend that life imprisonment without possibility of parole essentially has the
same effect. However, advocates of capital punishment say that execution eliminates all
possibility of danger and recidivism, including the rare but possible fact of escape, as well as the
danger some offenders pose to other inmates. This argument is not as heavily relied upon as the
other two, but it remains one of the strong points for both sides.
Another argument that crops up often in the debate of capital punishment is the “eye for
an eye” view of justice. Essentially, people who kill people should be killed. This argument can
be summed up in one word: retribution. Many people, especially friends and family of victims,
feel the need for this kind of justice. It helps them get closure and satisfaction with the offender’s
9

10. Cahill
punishment. The main points behind this argument are that all guilty people and only guilty
people deserve to be punished, and the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity
of their crime. “This argument states that real justice requires people to suffer for their
wrongdoing, and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. Each criminal should get what their
crime deserves and in the case of a murderer what their crime deserves is death” (BBC Ethics).
This is a major debate because each person views the idea of retribution differently. Some think
it is ethical to kill someone who has killed. But others find that killing anyone is morally wrong.
In the case of retribution, morality and ethics are central.
Opposers of the death penalty exist in the United Kingdom as well as the United States
and have as many if not more arguments against the death penalty. They dispute the fact that the
death penalty deters future crime. Although multiple studies have been done on capital
punishment and deterrence, these studies are highly unreliable. Both sides are guilty of picking
and choosing only the scholars, experiments, and results that support their respective side. There
is so much data concerning this vein in existence, and each experiment shows a different result.
The outcome is the fact that these studies cannot be relied upon, especially the ones that show a
deterrent effect between capital punishment and recidivism. Attorney General Janet Reno says,
“I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is
a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point” (Donohue &
Wolfers 1). Many studies that show evidence of deterrence are “skewed,” which suggests that
“the empirical support for the proposition that the death penalty deters is at best weak and
inconclusive” (1). “[T]hey are also rife with coding errors and overstatements of statistical
significance, or are not robust to small changes in sample, functional form, or control variables”
(30). Some opposers of the death penalty use these data problems to combat the argument that
10

11. Cahill
the death penalty absolutely deters future crime. They claim that the idea that capital punishment
deters crime is based more on a well-ingrained belief than actual evidence. Other opposers of the
death penalty use the fact that there is evidence that indicates that the death penalty does not
deter crime at all. However, one must be careful using this evidence, for it can be as skewed as
the evidence used by the supporters. Scholars encourage both sides to agree that “the evidence is
decidedly mixed” and therefore cannot be effectively used by either side (3). This clearly is a
major problem, particularly for the advocates of the death penalty. One of their main arguments
is the fact that the death penalty deters crime.
In the case of recidivism, the opposers have arguments against that as well. They claim
that there is such a small percent of people actually executed, that this argument is negligible; it
does not even matter. “Only one in ten defendants eligible for the death penalty have been
sentenced to death, and only a fraction of those are ever even executed” (Ehrlich 400). This is an
incredibly small amount of people actually executed. This “small percentage of culpable
homicides for which the death penalty has been implemented is too small to deter future crimes”
(400). The facts and statistics involving the recidivism rate of murders and other offenders are
conflicting, and impossible to interpret and determine the correct numbers, much like the
evidence concerning deterrence. In fact, one of the only effective ways to prevent a criminal
from committing more crimes is a punishment that is immediate, whether or not it results in
death. A punishment such as execution that is carried out years and years after conviction is too
long term to be an effective deterrent. “Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a
decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years”
(TIME ON DEATH ROW). The average time spent on death row in the United States is about
thirteen years. Of course, because of the variation among legislature among the states, this varies
11

12. Cahill
across the country. Clearly, this is not an immediate punishment. And evidence shows that the
only way to decrease recidivism among criminals and offenders is the promise of immediate
punishment. Just like a child learns not to touch a stove based on the immediate burning
sensation, offenders will only be deterred not to recommit crimes by a near instantaneous
response/punishment. “An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the
interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the
association of the two ideas of crime and punishment; so that they may be considered, one as the
cause, and the other as the unavoidable and necessary effect” (MSNBC). Going along this vein,
the opposers of the death penalty argue that the threat of capital punishment actually does not
have any effect on recidivism rates among criminals. This is because the time between the crime
committed and the punishment is so long, it is not even considered a problem.
The advocates for eliminating the death penalty also counter the retribution argument put
forth by supporters. In the supporters’ opinion, justice is “an eye for an eye.” In other words, the
punishment should suit the crime, and offenders should get what they deserve. In a way, the
United Kingdom and the United States practice this with all forms of judicial punishment. Some
crimes deserve worse punishments than others, because of the nature of the crime. Drug
possession, for example, is more lightly punished than aggravated assault or rape. Punishments
are not created equal, and should fit the crime. “Many people find that this argument fits with
their inherent sense of justice” (BBC Ethics). However, there are many things wrong with this
argument, especially in concern with capital punishment. Even though various crimes are
punished depending on their degrees, unlike the death penalty and murder, those crimes are not
punished in ways that mimic the offense. Rapists are not punished by sexual assault and those
guilty of aggravated assault are not assaulted and beaten themselves. That is why the death
12

13. Cahill
penalty is unique. It uses the reasoning “an eye for an eye” as justice, and yet other crimes are
not punished in the same vein. The opposers of the death penalty also argue that retribution is
vengeance, not justice. The United States Catholic Conference states that “we cannot teach that
killing is wrong by killing” (BBC Ethics). Killing is punished because it is morally wrong to do
so. Even so, it is not considered unethical to execute someone because they “deserve it.” The
executioner is committing the same crime that they are punishing. It is illogical and does not
make sense, and yet more than 70% of the population believes it is ethically okay to perform
executions. Even if the offender “deserves it,” as many people, both supporters and opposers
alike will likely agree, life imprisonment can be just as much of a punishment if not more. Many
people imply that life imprisonment causes more suffering than a quick and painless death.
However, this cannot be measured empirically and is certain to depend on the specific view of
each individual person. Either way, there are strong arguments against the retribution factor of
capital punishment.
Another argument that the opposers put forth is the risk of executing the innocent. Since
the breakthrough discovery of DNA a few decades ago, many people have been cleared of
charges. Two examples of this are Kirk Bloodsworth and Walter McMilliam. Both men were
innocent and convicted based on no evidence or falsified evidence. The United States is
supposed to practice justice based on the term: innocent until proven guilty. If that is the case, no
one who can possibly be innocent should be on death row. Since 1973, a total of 142 prisoners
on death row have either been acquitted or received a pardon on the basis of possible innocence
in the United States. Opposers argue that this proves how close the United States government has
come to executing innocents. They also argue that it is likely many people who were innocent
have been executed. For example, take the cases of both Cameron Willingham (2004) and Troy
13

14. Cahill
Davis (2011). In each, there was considerable doubt about their guilt and very unconvincing
evidence. And yet, despite the assurance that one is “innocent until proven guilty,” they were
both sentenced to death. Likewise, one statistic states that out of 325 defendants whose guilt was
in doubt, 119 were executed. This number is outrageously high, and goes against the exact type
of justice that the United States advocates.
The opponents of the death penalty also claim that capital punishment is barbaric in
nature. The United States is one of the only industrialized democratic countries today that still
executes offenders. “In fact, however, enthusiasm for the death penalty appears to cut across
cultural lines, as its most aggressive defenders on the international plane are the United States,
China, Singapore, and the Sudan” (Schabas 812). The opposers of the death penalty argue that it
violates human rights, and governments should not use homicide as an instrument of social
policy. Something similar is stated in the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, both of which are recognized internationally. But the opponents do not stop there. They
also contend that not only is the death penalty against human rights, but the wait on death row is
as well. The amount of time spent on death row in the United States can last for decades. It is
cruel, inhuman and degrading. So much so, that a psychological disorder has been developed to
describe this experience, the Death Row Phenomenon or Death Row Syndrome. The years spent
waiting in prison, not knowing when they will be killed causes many prisoners to go mad. One
man argued that “the conditions he would face during the lengthy period between sentencing and
execution would be as psychologically damaging as torture.The court agreed” (TIME ON
DEATH ROW). Although him and many others have been convicted of serious crimes,
opponents argue that this punishment is extremely inhumane. The death penalty also puts a price
on human life, another degrading punishment. The cruel and barbaric nature of the death penalty
14

15. Cahill
is a central reason to why so many countries have abolished it.
One argument that surprised me was that the death penalty was disproportionally used.
Opponents of capital punishment use this as another one of their reasons for abolition. There are
more men, racial minorities, and poor people on death row than are proportionally in the society.
“Men on death row make up 98.1%, while women make up 1.9%” (TIME ON DEATH ROW).
Although it is a statistical fact that murderers are more likely to be men, it is still incredible to me
that nearly 100% of people on death row are men. Likewise, nearly half are African Americans,
41%, and yet they are a minority in the United States. In the population, only 12% are African
American. This proportion clearly indicates a problem with the death penalty. In addition to the
fact that there are so many African Americans on death row, many of them are put on death row
in conjunction with killing or raping Caucasians. It is more likely for a black man to be
sentenced to death for killing a white man than it is for a white man to be convicted for killing a
black man. I hate to see that racism still exists in the United States, but this degree of prejudice is
astonishing. Capital punishment cannot begin to be called ethical by anyone if it is
disproportionately used against one group of people.
Both advocates and opposers of the death penalty put forth strong arguments. However,
despite the population majority in favor of the death penalty, there are many more arguments
against the death penalty than for it. First of all, there is no good evidence supporting the
deterrence theory associated with the death penalty. Not only are surveys and experiments unable
to correlate capital punishment with deterrence, there is strong evidence that suggests that the
amount of time on death row lessens the intensity of the death penalty. This goes hand in hand
with the argument that the time on death row is more of a punishment than the actual execution.
So much so, that human activists and ordinary people alike find it to be inhumane, cruel, and
15

16. Cahill
barbaric. Another reason why the death penalty should be abolished and stay abolished is that it
is unethical. It is impossible to measure morality and ethics, but when facing the facts, it is hard
to dispute that killing people is immoral. If a nation practices executing a murderer because
murder is wrong, the executioner, and therefore the country as well, is guilty of the same crime.
One cannot simply pick and choose who is guilty and who is not. Unfortunately, that is what the
United States does, a lot of the time. Based on the statistics that show the proportion of races,
genders, and social statuses on death row, one can conclude that it is disproportionate compared
to the groups represented in society. The United States claims that everyone is equal, and yet it
imprisons and kills more African Americans, men, and lower-income people than are represented
statistically in the nation. So not only does the death penalty have no effect on deterrence of
crime, it is also immoral and unethical. 87% of expert criminologists do not believe that murder
rates or any other crime rates would spike if the death penalty were abolished, and I agree. They
did not spike in the United Kingdom, and even between states there is not a significant difference
between those who practice capital punishment and those who do not. Specifically there is, on
average, a murder rate of five percent in death penalty states, and a rate of four in non death
penalty states. The idea that capital punishment deters crime rests upon the assumption that
offenders respond to incentives, which is not true for all offenders. Clearly, the evidence points
to the conclusion that the death penalty is no more effective in means of deterrence or recidivism
than life-imprisonment. Not only is it ineffective, but it is also immoral. Who are we to
determine who lives and who dies? The United States tries to justify murder, but murder is not
justice, it is revenge. I personally think the death penalty is wrong. But more than that, there is no
hard, well-researched evidence that suggests that capital punishment actually makes a difference
among offenders. That is why I think that the United States should follow the United Kingdom’s
16

17. Cahill
example and permanently abolish the death penalty.
Works Cited
17

18. Cahill
"Arguments in favour of capital punishment." BBC. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Jul 2012.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml>.
Associated Press. "China executes man who attacked 29 kids." NBCNEWS. N.p., 29 May 2010.
Web. 17 Jul 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37420131/ns/world_news-asiapacific
"Death Penalty Statistics." Anti Death Penalty. N.p., Jan 2011. Web. 7 Jul 2012.
<http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html>.
Donohue, John, and Justin Wolfers. "The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence."
Economists' Voice. (2006): n. page. Print.
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf>.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C., and Samuel R. Gross. 1994. “Hardening of the Attitudes: Americans’
Views on the Death Penalty.” Journal of Social Issues 50 (2): 19–52.
Grayar, Laurence. "A Paradox: Death Penalty Flourishes in U.S. while Declining Worldwide."
23.3 n. page. Print. <http://internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/A-Paradox-Death-Penalty-Flourishes-in-US-While-Declining-
Worldwide.pdf>.
Goodstein, Laurie. 2001 “Death Penalty Falls from Favor as Some Lose Confidence in Its
Fairness.” New York Times, 17 June, 2001, A1, 14.
Harris, . "Half of us back death penalty." Metro. n.d. n. page. Print.
<http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty>.
Hood, Roger. "Capital Punishment: A Global Perspective." Punishment and Society. 3.3 (2011):
n. page. Print. <http://internationalhumanrightslaw.net/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/Capital-Punishment-A-Global-Perspective.pdf>.
"Introduction to the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Jul
2012. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty>.
Mooney, Christopher, and Mei-Hsien Lee. "TheTemporal Diffusion of Morality Policy: The
Case of Death Penalty Legislation in the American States." Policy Studies Journal. 27.4
(1999): n. page. Print. <http://academic.udayton.edu/grantneeley/Morality
Policy/mooneyandlee-psj.pdf>.
Seal, Lizzie. Criminalisation and the eighteenth-century’s ‘Bloody Code. 1. 74. Center for Crime
and Justice Studies, 2010.
Soss, Joe, Laura Langbein, and Alan R. Metelko. "Why Do White Americans Support the Death
18

19. Cahill
Penalty?." THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS. 65.2 (2003): n. page. Print.
Schabas, William. "The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law." Cambridge
University Press. (2002): n. page. Print.
<http://bilder.buecher.de/zusatz/21/21984/21984067_vorw_1.pdf>.
"The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death." American
Economic Review. 65.3 (1975): n. page. Print.
<http://www2.law.columbia.edu/fagan/courses/law_socialscience/documents/Spring_200
6/Class 16-Capital Punishment/Ehrlich_Deterrence.pdf>.
The Free Dictionary. 2012. Print. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recidivism>.
"The Right to Life." n. page. Print. <http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=427>.
"TIME ON DEATH ROW." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., 2012. Web. 7 Jul 2012.
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row>.
"Who Is On Death Row." Anti Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jul 2012.
<http://www.antideathpenalty.org/whodeathrow.html>.
William A. Schabas, International Law and Abolition of the Death Penalty, 55 Wash. & Lee L.
Rev. 797 (1998), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol55/iss3/10
Wolpin, Kenneth. Capital Punishment and Homicide in England: A Summary of Results. 2. 68.
American Economic Association, 1978.
19