The Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of the most inhumane acts one human can perform on another. The death penalty has never been proven to deter crime more then other punishments and can be inflicted on the innocent. This document details why the death penalty is a failure, and why it should never be used under any circumstances.

Abolition was often adopted due to political change, such as when countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, or it became an entry condition for the European Union. In Western Europe, abolition was initially brought in by a moratorium on the death penalty that later become a de facto ban. Unfortunately it is rare for the death penalty to be abolished due to an active public discussion of its validity.

A Gallup International poll from 2000 found that "Worldwide support was expressed in favour of the death penalty, with just more than half (52%) indicating that they were in favour of this form of punishment." A break down of the numbers of support versus opposition: Worldwide 52%/39%, North America 66%/27%, Asia 63%/21%, Central and Eastern Europe 60%/29%, Africa 54%/43%, Latin America 37%/55%, Western Europe 34%/60%.

This is slightly worrying that people from around the globe are in favour of the death penalty. The Only exceptions are in Western Europe and Latin America. As stated above the death penalty is usually connected with authoritarianism, the only notable exception is the USA. They believe that it will reduce the number of murders and allow justice to be done; a punishment to fit the crime. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The use of the death penalty seems contradictory; killing is wrong unless done by the state. I cannot understand peoples’ logic in thinking this way. An eye for an eye only makes the world blind as Ghandi once said.

Another common reason for the death penalty is the cost; The Miami Herald reported on 13 April 1992 that it cost an average of $3.2 million dollars to execute an inmate. That's five times the cost of keeping a person in prison for life. Because of the possibility of mistakes and the number of innocent people already executed, death penalty cases have more stages of review, more lawyers, more judges, and more court cases that spread over about 10 years. Yet even then there is no certainty that they will not make a mistake. The reviewing courts are not able to consider new evidence that the prisoner is innocent, such as a DNA test. Proof that the prisoner is innocent is of no consequence, what is reviewed is only that the correct process of law has been followed.

Reasons to oppose the death penalty ( from Wikipedia )

• It violates Section 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Abolitionists believe it does not deter criminals from committing crimes. For example, the US, a retentionist nation, has a much higher murder rate than its abolitionist European allies.
• Innocent people could be wrongly executed.

In the United States 123 people have had their death penalty convictions overturned, including 15 acquitals based on DNA evidence.

In the UK sentencing reviews have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953 (when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year), with compensation being paid.

In countries where there is no death penalty, people have been exonerated after years in prison when they might otherwise have been executed (e.g., David Milgaard).

• By responding with violence, certain abolitionists believe that society can become more violent itself as violence may be seen to be State-sanctioned when the death penalty is practiced.
• Giving the state the right to take a person's life is an excessive power that is prone to misuse.
• It eliminates the possibility of rehabilitation of the offender.
• It tends to be used disproportionately against ethnic minority groups: for example, in the United States, African Americans are disproportionally more likely to be executed than Americans of European descent.
• It tends to be used disproportionately against low income groups. Defendants who can afford good legal representation are more likely to be acquitted or receive a lesser sentence.
• The requirement of a "death qualified" jury removes jurors who may be more likely to vote for an acquittal.
• The execution of a convicted criminal has a significant emotional impact on his or her family, who have not committed any crime.

The Patriotic fool

In recent years there has been a rise in patriotism around Europe and elsewhere. Many of these feelings have been spurred on by racists who claim that European culture is being eroded by the vast amount of immigrants that are being let in.

I have heard many times people link their ancestors achievements with themselves. This is a big mistake on two accounts:

1) This leads to strong patriotic trends

2) This leads to racism

Here’s how, A British person ( for example, use any nationality you like ) claims that he is great because his country produced men like Charles Darwin or William Shakespeare. When this happens we base our entire view of him on people he has never met and is probably not even related to. His claims to be self important even though he himself does not boast about his own achievements. So he makes up for his lack of achievements by using patriotism.

However, more seriously the converse is also true. People still view immigrants who come from worn torn countries with suspicion. They know nothing about their culture or customs and believe they could not achieve anything as their country has achieved nothing. Most people under sane conditions would understand that in all societies, there are idiots and geniuses. This has nothing to do with their nationality or creed. However when patriotism takes over these same ideas seem to get lost, ( Take Nazi Germany as an example )

“There are only individual minds and individual achievements - and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.” All of our ideas based on a person should be on what he does or does not do and not on the country he accidentally was born into.

In the main patriotism is used by a ruling class, be it the army or government to achieve a goal, which under normal conditions a man would not do. I can see no reason how patriotism could be useful for man kind as a whole or to the individual. We become no more then drones doing what the mass does out of fear for being called unpatriotic and supporting government policy no matter what the human rights cost may be.

Wake up people and be unpatriotic, instead stand up for human rights and humanity no matter what your country has to say about it.

Here is a quote from Hermann Goering, a word of warning!

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." quote verified at snopes.com

Non-Violent Revolution, is it possible?


The following text is based mainly on the ideological political thoughts of Marx and Gandhi. What is claimed here is by no way new, however it is felt that these kind of ideas are losing popular ground to a more violent approach and hence need to be said again. This article aims to discuss how a socialist state could be brought about without the need for a violent revolution and what an alternative could be.

There has been the notion of many persons that non-violent actions never work or that they take too long to achieve. However these notions should be rejected on the basis of history. One classic example is in regard to the 1963 overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. An almost anti-climactic military coup followed a half year of intensive public actions led by Buddhist monks, in a campaign that destroyed Diem's base of support. Look at most history books and this is contributed almost entirely to a military coup. The fact is, even in revolutions that are primarily violent, the successful ones usually include non-violent civilian actions not so different from the ones Gandhi used. And nearly every time, you will find these actions curiously downplayed or ignored by most journalists and historians.

Gandhi positively rejected the idea that a class war was incompatible with nonviolence: "The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence. Those who talk about class war as being inevitable, have not understood the implications of nonviolence or have understood them only skin-deep."

Many people today still regard Gandhi’s ideas of nonviolence to mean passivity, he even commented “that one must never be passive in the face of evil; that violence was better than cowardice.” It is very common to see in socialist literature the overplay of the “struggle”. If a person were to read most literature available on the internet or in print they would find words such as “defend”, “fight” and “attack” splattered throughout each article. This kind of language can only draw people who like the idea of a fight. The key question is, what kind of leader would be the result of such a party or group.

The revolutionary leaders of the past have all advocated that a revolution can only be achieved with the tool of violence. These kind of methods have so far only contributed to undemocratic socialist parties. Other factors have played a part too, such as isolation by capitalist powers and the fact that the socialist states were underdeveloped. However the leaders' thoughts should not be dismissed and much evidence could be given to indicate that Lenin, Castro and others were not of a peaceful mind. New strategies must be employed in order to bring in a socialist party based on peace. In a non-violent revolution there would be no enemies. The struggle is against ideas and institutions but not individual persons. As Gandhi said, "Hate the sin and not the sinner".

As Marx and Engels suggested this revolutionary class must be the working class. It is the job of the socialist parties to raise the consciousness of the working people and give them the tools for a non-violent revolution. This was summed up quite nicely by Lenin: "By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie." This article is in no doubt that all socialist parties are of this opinion.

This leaves open the question of how the socialist parties can prepare the working class for a non-violent revolution. Gandhi stressed many times that it requires great training and discipline to be equipped with the tools needed to win via non-violent methods. A key component in learning non-violence is of course to learn from history, past success and mistakes. This however is currently not the case, instead a greater emphasis is put on the violent option. By putting greater emphasis on non-violent actions a greater and more diverse working class would be open to the ideas of socialism. As socialism tries to shake off the image of the Stalinist Soviet image, this way of thinking would only help develop the idea that Stalinism is not Socialism.

Martin Luther king spelled out five principles on non-violent action:

"First, it must be emphasized that non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent."

"A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The non-violent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent ... The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness."

"A third characteristic of this method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing the evil."

"A fourth point that characterizes non-violent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. 'Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood,' Gandhi said to his countrymen. The non-violent resister ... does not seek to dodge jail. If going to jail is necessary, he enters it 'as a bridegroom enters the bride's chamber..."

"A fifth point concerning non-violent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. The non-violent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him. At the centre of nonviolence stands the principle of love."


If socialism wants to be associated more with peace and the people these kind of principles should be followed up more. Too much emphasis on the “struggle” can only serve two purposes:

1) The alienation of the vast majority of peaceful working people
2) Promote violence and a cultural of violence.

According to common socialist theory the revolution should be carried out by the working people, which in industrialised countries is the majority of the people. Therefore by using these principles and by raising the consciousness of the working people a socialist government could be brought about via a ballot box. This is assuming that all people have the right to vote. Therefore this idea of a fight and conflict would seem to make no sense in the West of today as the only way to bring about socialism. In Marx’s time of course not everybody had the right to vote and therefore the situation was different.