Authored By: Nina Angela Fernando
Middlesex University Dubai
The death penalty remains one of the most divisive and sensitive issues in legal and human rights discourse.[1] It is a subject that is extremely controversial[2] and provokes intense debate,[3] but its sensitive nature does not undermine its importance in relation to liberty and human rights in the United Kingdom. As stated by member of Parliament, the right to life is the most fundamental human right above all else[4] and capital punishment is a direct violation of this right. In the United Kingdom, the death penalty was formally abolished under the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.[5] Despite this reform, public opinion continues to favour capital punishment, particularly after shocking or heinous crimes.[6] Yet, since abolition, there has not been a formal informed public discussion on the matter. It is therefore essential that the debate on the dealth penalty continues.[7] Through the comparative international analysis of the effect of capital punishment, this essay will firmly argue against capital punishment, highlighting incompatibility with human rights standards and the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
Over the years, the United Kingdom (UK) has reflected a deliberate shift in both moral and public opinion on capital punishment. Through the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act,[8] the death penalty for murder was suspended in 1965, applied the abolition for murder in 1969, and finally completely abolished for any and all offences in 1998. This progression demonstrates the UK’s ethical considerations and human rights over solely retributive measures. Advocates for abolition, such as Astrid Bergegren, argued against the death penalty from utilitarian amd humanist perspectives, such as for the protection of life and human dignity. Alternatively, journalist Peter Hitchens continues to support capital punishment on the grounds of deterrence and maintenance of social order. However, Hitchens’ arguments have been widely criticised to be overly conservative and inconsistent with evolving societal values and ethical considerations. This essay contends that capital punishment continues to be unjustifiable and the UK’s decision to abolish the death penalty represents a legally and morally sound decision. Despite its abolition, the debate remains relevant for understanding the evolution of criminal justice, the protection of human rights, and the ethical considerations that continue to shape the UK criminal justice system.
Firstly, the execution of a prisoner is a violation of human rights. In Osman v United Kingdom (1998),[9] the European Court of Human Rights (ECTHR) held that the state has to comply with Article 2 of the Convention, which states the right to life. Osman established the ‘Osman test’ which stated that a violation occurs when the authorities were aware of or ought to have been aware of a real and immediate risk to an individual’s life and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it. Therefore, the state has a positive obligation to protect an individual’s life. Additionally, Soering v United Kingdom (1989)[10] established the ‘Death Row Phenomenon[11]‘ which refers to the severe psychological distress a death row prisoner faces while awaiting execution.[12] Although the defendant did not particularly state Article 3 of the ECHR,[13] the ECHR considered evolving Western standards and held that a country violates Article 3 if there is a real risk of the individual being subject to that particular inhumane treatment, including the death penalty. Therefore, the UK concluded that they could not extradite Soering until the United States assured that he would not be prosecuted for any charges that lead to the death penalty,[14] thereby safeguarding his right to Article 3. Finally, Caorlyn Hoyle, British legal scholar, stated that the prolonged delay of execution (some even lasting up to three years) causes unacceptable mental suffering for death row prisoners.[15] Ultimately, the death penalty (and even its simple prospect) violates fundamental rights.
On the other hand, the death penalty imposed in strict accordance with the law, is not inherently a violation of human rights. For instance, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[16] states that the death penalty may be permissible for the most serious crimes and under specific circumstances, such as the right to a fair trial and the exclusion of specific groups (such as minors and pregnant women).[17] This emphasises that lawful application of capital punishment, with the application of required safeguards to convicted individuals, does not instantly amount to a violation of Article 2 in the ECHR.[18] Applying this principle, the Committee in Ng v Canada (2017)[19] held that the use of the death penalty is permissible under international law when applied in accordance with due process. Therefore, lawful executions conducted with consideration to procedural fairness and proportionality do not necessarily violate the right to life. Marc Ancel, a member of Parliament, conducted a quantitative study on Member State practices involving the implementation or rejection of capital punishment[20] and as a result, did not seek to extend his findings towards a human rights perspective. The member of Parliament stated that the fundamental purpose of capital punishment is the implementation of criminal law alone.[21] Finally, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hindley (2000)[22] upheld whole life tariffs, reflecting the UK’s stance of lawful punishment before the Abolition of the Death Penalty At 1965. Overall, lawful executions are not automatically contrary to human rights protections.
Secondly, empirical evidence suggests that capital punishment does not effectively deter crime. Astrid Bergegren supported the abolition of the death penalty based on the punishment’s lack of a special deterrent quality.[23] The member of Parliament suggested that long-term imprisonment may be, in fact, more effective than the death penalty. Additionally, reliable research states that 94% of leading criminologists believe that there is little to no empirical evidence that the death penalty deters crime.[24] Comparative research across the globe further emphasises that the death penalty does not effectively deter offenders from committing serious crimes and offers little influence on preventing potential offenders in the wider public.[25] Therefore, the prospect of capital punishment is not statistically proven to prevent potential offenders from committing crimes. Other factors, such as social, economic, and particularly policing conditions, have a significantly higher influence on crime prevention than the punishment of the death penalty. These studies highlight that the reliance on the death penalty significantly fails to consider rehabilitation and reform as an notably more effective measure for reducing future offending while still preserving human dignity. Ultimately, these points establish that the death penalty fails to achieve its primary utilitarian goal of deterring crime and may, in fact, divert attention from more effective crime prevention strategies, such as imprisonment or even education, social support, and policing reforms.
On the other hand, the death penalty permanently removes repeat offenders from society, serving as an ‘absolute deterrent effect’ which ensures that those executed cannot commit further crimes and protects the public from harm.[26] It is difficult to argue that it possesses no deterrent effect, as the death penalty undoubtedly prevents reoffending by eliminating the offender altogether, which translates into broader crime reduction. From a utilitarian perspective, this punishment safeguards the public by permanently eliminating potential crimes posed by convicted criminals. Secondly, researchers have re-examined findings from economists and found a direct statistical correlation between executions and a significant reduction in homicide rates,[27] where a single execution deterred seven to eight murders on average. Therefore, abolishing the death penalty would increase the rate of homicides, whereas retaining the penalty would ultimately save lives.[28] Moreover, the implementation of the death penalty conveys a powerful societal message for the state’s condemnation of heinous crimes, reinforcing society’s moral boundaries and the states intolerance of such crime. The punishment further discourages potential offenders from committing crimes, as they would not want to face the penalty.[29] Despite the risk of applying the death penalty, policymakers suggest that even the marginal possibility that it deters crime is sufficient to justify its retention when compared to the irreversible crimes it seeks to prevent.[30] Although it remains controversial, the death penalty’s ability to permanently remove serious repeat offenders from society serves as an effective and permanent deterrent to crime and fulfilling its purpose of upholding justice.
In conclusion, capital punishment continues to be an extremely controversial topic. With consideration to lawful application, human rights, and public protection, the United Kingdom’s decision to abolish the death penalty reflects a commitment to human dignity, rehabilitation, and evolving societal values. Ultimately, capital punishment is legally and morally indefensible. Deterrence should be focused on education, imprisonment, and policing reforms that protect society while simultaneously upholding fundamental rights.
Bibliography
Table of Statutes
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965
Table of Cases
Charles Chitat Ng v Canada, Communication No 469/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 (5 November 1993)
Ng v Canada (2017) 1 SCR 61 (Supreme Court of Canada)
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hindley (2000) QB 152, [1999] EWCA Civ 3014 (CA).
Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439
Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245
Secondary Sources
Ancel M, The Death Penalty in European Countries: Report, Part 34 (Council of Europe 1962)
Boxman R, ‘The Road to Soering and Beyond: Will the United States Recognize the Death Row Phenomenon’ (1991) 14 Hous J Int’l L 151
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Official Report of Debates (29th Sitting, 15 October 1979)
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Motion for a resolution on the abolition of capital punishment (8th sitting, 18 May 1973) Doc 3297
Council of Europe, Resolution No 4 of the 11th Conference of European Ministers of Justice on the death penalty (21–22 June 1978)
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Official Report of Debates (29th Sitting, 15 October 1979)
Eugene F, ‘Death penalty discourses, the printed media, and the UK public sphere: a critical analysis’ 7(3) Critical Discourse Studies 177
European Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953)
Ehrlich I, ‘The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death’ (1975) 65(3) American Economic Review 397
Grimes J, ‘The Symbolic Capital of Capital Punishment: A Scholarly Reflection’ (2010) 2(1) Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 178
Hood R, Death Penalty: Beyond Abolition (Council of Europe 2004)
Hoyle C, Efforts towards Abolition of the Death Penalty: Challenges and Prospects (Death Penalty Research Unit Research Paper No 1, University of Oxford December 2023)
Malkani B, ‘The Obligation to Refrain from Assisting the Use of the Death Penalty’ (2013) 62 Int’l & Comp LQ 523
National Research Council of the National Academies, Deterrence and Death Penalty (National Academies Press 2012)
Radelet M, Lacock T, ‘Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists’ (2009) 99(2) Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 489
Robertson A H, “The Legal Work of the Council of Europe” (1961) 1 I.C.L.Q. 143
Ron Dudai, Capital Punishment: Public Opinion and Abolition in Great Britain (Master’s thesis, University of Richmond 2011) <https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=masters-theses> accessed 16 August 2025
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1996, entered into force 23 March 1976) UNTS 999
Yorke J, ‘The right to life and abolition of the death penalty in the Council of Europe’ (2009) 34(2) EL Rev 205
Reference(S):
[1] Roger Hood, Death Penalty: Beyond Abolition (Council of Europe 2004) 5.
[2] Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Official Report of Debates (29th Sitting, 15 October 1979) 52.
[3] A H Robertson, “The Legal Work of the Council of Europe” (1961) 1 I.C.L.Q. 143, 159-160.
[4] Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Official Report of Debates (29th Sitting, 15 October 1979) 61.
[5] Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.
[6] Eugene Flanagan, ‘Death penalty discourses, the printed media, and the UK public sphere: a critical analysis’ 7(3) Critical Discourse Studies 177.
[7] Council of Europe, Resolution No 4 of the 11th Conference of European Ministers of Justice on the death penalty (21–22 June 1978).
[8] Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 (n 5).
[9] Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245.
[10] Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
[11] Soering, paras 93–99.
[12] Renee Boxman, ‘The Road to Soering and Beyond: Will the United States Recognize the Death Row Phenomenon’ (1991) 14 Hous J Int’l L 151.
[13] European Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) art 3.
[14] Renee (n 12).
[15] Carolyn Hoyle, Efforts towards Abolition of the Death Penalty: Challenges and Prospects (Death Penalty Research Unit Research Paper No 1, University of Oxford December 2023).
[16] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) UNTS 999.
[17] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) UNTS 999, Art 6.
[18] Charles Chitat Ng v Canada, Communication No 469/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 (5 November 1993).
[19] Ng v Canada (2017) 1 SCR 61 (Supreme Court of Canada).
[20] Jon Yorke, ‘The right to life and abolition of the death penalty in the Council of Europe’ (2009) 34(2) EL Rev 205.
[21] Marc Ancel, The Death Penalty in European Countries: Report, Part 34 (Council of Europe 1962) 3.
[22] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hindley (2000) QB 152, [1999] EWCA Civ 3014 (CA).
[23] Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Motion for a resolution on the abolition of capital punishment (8th Sitting, 18 May 1973) Doc 3297.
[24] Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock, ‘Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists’ (2009) 99(2) Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 489.
[25] Ron Dudai, Capital Punishment: Public Opinion and Abolition in Great Britain (Master’s thesis, University of Richmond 2011) <https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1890&context=masters-theses> accessed 16 August 2025.
[26] Isaac Ehrlich, ‘The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death’ (1975) 65(3) American Economic Review 397.
[27] ibid.
[28] ibid.
[29] Jennifer Grimes, ‘The Symbolic Capital of Capital Punishment: A Scholarly Reflection’ (2010) 2(1) Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 178.
[30] National Research Council of the National Academies, Deterrence and the Death Penalty (National Academies Press 2012).
