Stay Informed Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library . See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: 164878
Title: Death Penalty in Wartime: Arguments for Abolition
Journal: International Review of Penal Law Volume:67 Dated:(1996) Pages:319-325
Author(s): A Marchesi
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 29
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: France
Annotation: Arguments for and against the retention of capital punishment in wartime are considered.
Abstract: By mid-1993, 52 countries had totally abolished capital punishment, while 16 had abolished it for all but exceptional offenses such as war crimes. Nineteen countries retained capital punishment in their legislation but had not executed anyone for the past 10 years or more. One hundred three countries retained and used the death penalty for ordinary crimes. Although retentionist countries continue to be the majority, the world has been moving toward abolition faster in recent years than ever before. Abolitionists consider the death penalty to be a violation of the fundamental right to life in all cases, while retentionists believe that the death penalty is a legitimate exception to the enjoyment of the right to life. Those favoring total abolition insist that capital punishment has never been proved to have a unique deterrent effect in peacetime or in wartime. Others believe that in both wartime and peacetime it does not cease to be an ultimate deterrent. Some argue that capital punishment is also useful or necessary to maintain military discipline in wartime. However, no particular relationship between military effectiveness and the death penalty has ever been proved, and it is unacceptable in principle and dangerous in practice to let the choice of putting someone to death be strongly influenced by elements of a general nature such as military effectiveness. Other arguments relate to retribution, the death penalty as self-defense, the arbitrary use of the death penalty in wartime, and the opinions of the military. International law does not contain a general prohibition of the death penalty, the Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights strongly suggest that abolition is desirable. Footnotes and appended descriptions of the status of capital punishment in 16 countries
Main Term(s): Corrections policies
Index Term(s): Abolishment of capital punishment; Capital punishment; Foreign laws; Human rights violations
To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=164878
*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback .
. A title search of 
