There have also been a number of posts about the finer points of deterrence, and various sociological/criminological considerations when measuring deterrence (or lack of deterrence). But when you look at countries in Asia, the arguments hardly even seem to apply.

In Viet Nam, trials are routinely one day long, with the accused unable to properly defend themselves. In China, the government interferes in court processes, police and courts break their own rules on the administration of justice, torture is widespread (and tortured evidence used in courts).Incidentally, the Chinese government argues that it is deterring crime when it pressures regional courts into convicting large numbers of people, who are then shot at particular times of the year in a demonstration of the Party's grip on power.

In Singapore, the people who run the drug trade never face court or a mandatory death penalty for smuggling. For them it’s a business, and the number of ‘mules’ caught and executed a business calculation. The people at the bottom of the chain end up at the bottom of a rope. In Iran, well, you've read the article.

As for whether it is colonialism to engage our neighbours in debate about their use of the death penalty, there are a couple of points to be made. One is that opposition to the death penalty is not simply a "western concern" (whatever that might mean). If it were, the USA would be an abolitionist country.

It is true that Europe is a strong advocate for abolition, but so is South America, which has a strong tradition of opposition to the death penalty, and in some countries, strong associations between executions and the repression of military governments. There is also a pronounced trend towards abolition in Africa.

The trend towards abolition is a global trend - in all regions except Asia. In 1980, 23 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In 2005, that figure has grown to 85. It is telling that when the death penalty is abolished, it is extremely rare for it to be reintroduced.

reply to anomie:

anomie writes: "Depends how you define innocent, DS." reply - I define it as not being the murderer or an accomplice to the murder(s), as the law does.

anomie: "how about Ricky Ray Rector, so profoundly brain-damaged he was incapable of understanding he was about to be killed, and put some of his last meal away "for later"." reply - The story has never been credible. The law doesn't allow people to be executed who don't understand the nature of their punishment.

anomie all prospects for negative consequences deter somebody. Even the most well known anti death penalty academic, Hugo Bedau, now admits he accepts deterrence of the death penalty, but not that it deters more than a life sentence, even though the evidence says that it does.

please go to: http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent.htm

and this, from - John McAdams, Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence: "If we execute murderers 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. This, to me, is not a tough call."

anomie, I published an article about the "sleeping defense counsel" in the Austin American Statesman. I suspect it is unlike anything you had read before. See if you can find it. If you can't, let me know.

and reply to Deuc regarding the New York Times article of September 22, 2000 here is my response:

http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_and_deterrence.htm

The death penalty is not a human rights violation

reply to xena:

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What those opponents of capital punishmen are really saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not.

How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.

DS. On Ricky Ray Rector: why did the prison chaplain resign, claiming what was done to Rector was a horrible crime in itself – that "we're not supposed to execute children"? Familiar with Bedau's book, which (his contributions included) is considerably more nuanced than you let on. And (and I know from your link that I'm talking to someone who's made this subject his life's work, and has heard all the arguments), the reason execution is a human rights violation incomparable with incarceration for life is that you can't be released from the grave. I speak as someone whose horror of incarceration is such that given the choice, and I were guilty, I'd prefer execution. But if I were innocent, I'd prefer to fight to the bitter end. Any comments on Ryan Matthews, by the way? Arguably mentally deficient, and eventually exonerated by DNA evidence. Sentenced to death originally, though. Or are all the cases of exoneration (some of them posthumous) "not credible"? Can't get the Austin American Statesman here. Enlighten me. Always willing to look at a good argument.

No response for the my criticism Dudley? Just a canned response for my concluding quote, which happends to be off base and repeats material I've already debunked?

Your counter argument effectively asks us to exclude the fact that homicide rates are lower in non-DP states *because* homicide rates have always been lower in non-DP states. Now it is entirely possible that there are other reasons why non-DP states have such a serious difference, but the strong correlation makes it probable that either a connection exists or at least a common cause does, such as a culture of non-violence.

The Times article also shows that neighbouring states have markedly different rates:

"The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to FBI statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country."

Unless it can be shown that there is a significant long term deterrent effect that outweighs the social cost of capital punishment, then I don't care how much stuff you post. But improper use of statistics bothers me, so I'm happy to refute it, and I think I've done enough to show that your numbers aren't reliable.

Tim, your follow-up posts sound as though you are a little exasperated with your audience. Or at least very defensive. Relax and listen a little, you have tapped a fairly representative cross-section of opinions on the matter, and the fact that they don't all agree with you should not be much of a surprise.

You make the point very well - "[i]f Australia is engaged in "human rights dialogue" ... what are these dialogues actually achieving...?" I put it to you that in such negotiations - particularly at the moment with China - playing the human rights card is actually an expense. Any concessions made on the other side of the table we must expect to pay for, in some form. If trade deals are in the air, you can expect those payments to be in cash. The most likely reason for the lack of progress in these situations is that we can't afford the asking price.

You then observe "As for whether it is colonialism to engage our neighbours in debate about their use of the death penalty, there are a couple of points to be made." (You go on to make only one "point", that this is a universal issue ['opposition to the death penalty is not simply a "western concern"'], as if that should be argument enough.)

However, as you have seen from the responses here, being pro- or anti- the death penalty tends to be a personal issue, much like being pro-life or pro-choice. National policy founded on such visceral responses can only ever pretend to represent public opinion, which waxes and wanes over time. Immediately after some atrocity or other, support to institutionalize the killing of the malefactors will increase, only to subside later as the emotions wear off. So whoever represents us in these debates does so with a very unsound mandate. If we then indulge ourselves in censure of the values of our opposite number at the table, we are likely to sound more than a little patronizing.