On the Death Penalty

In the early hours of Thursday last Troy Davis was executed by the US State of Georgia by lethal injection. He had spent 16 years on death row, throughout which time he protested his innocence. All but two non-police witnesses have withdrawn their testimonies since his conviction, many of them citing coercion on the part of the police to ensure Davis’ conviction. One of the two remaining witnesses is the alternate chief suspect who is implicated by 9 separate witnesses’ affidavits. The case for Davis’ conviction was also completely devoid of any physical evidence.

Now, I am no legal expert nor do I claim to have any particularly unique knowledge of this or any other legal case. However, one of the most integral principals of any Democracy based on Rule of Law is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The issues with evidence Davis’ conviction raised above would seem enough to cast considerable doubt as to Davis’ guilt, certainly enough to warrant clemency of execution.

Davis is dead now. The US State of Georgia killed him. There is no going back on that decision. No future revelations will make any difference now that the ultimate punishment has been dealt. That a man can be sent to his death by a modern, democratic state on seemingly questionable evidence, all the while adamantly protesting his innocence seems bizarre, if not barbaric.

The Troy Davis case, if nothing else, raises serious questions about the use of the death penalty by any state and has added credence to the many advocates calling for its abolition.

An individual is only justified in the taking of a life in cases of self defence. Otherwise, they are deemed “murderer”, the most heinous form of criminal. Should not a similar moral code apply to a state? The killing of a convict is not in self defence; it is an act of revenge, of punishment, of a twisted justice.
What kind of message does a government that kills its own citizens in pursuit of “justice” send out? Violence begets violence, begets violence. It legitimates violence as a valid form of pursuing justice.

130 people have been released from Death Row in the US following their eventual proving of their innocence. How many were not so lucky? The Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions has found there to be at least 39 cases where executions have taken place in the US with serious doubts about guilt or with compelling evidence of innocence. Surely the Troy Davis case moves this to 40.
It is as important for a legal system to ensure that no innocent people are punished as to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice. The death penalty simply does not conform to this norm of the Rule of Law. It is a cruel, irreversible punishment on behalf of a state. It is also an ineffective form of punishment.

For one it is tremendously expensive. True, the actually cost of execution is not that much as compared to paying for a convicts stay in prison for years and years. However, any state with even a smattering of respect for the Rule of Law and the principle of “innocence until proven guilty” has a lengthy and incredibly expensive appeals process that dwarfs the expense of keeping a convict in prison.

It is also an ineffective form of deterrent. True, it is better in this regard than the alternative offered by states such as Ireland and the United Kingdom where the death penalty has been replaced by ever dwindling prison sentences where a killer being released in under a decade is a fairly common event.

In Canada, however, the death penalty has been replaced by prison sentencing where “life means life”. Capital murder resulting in a mandatory 25 years in prison. Here, murder rates have seen a steady decline since the abolition of the death penalty in 1976. The rate of conviction for murder has also been doubled to 20% as juries are much more comfortable casting judgement when their decision will not result in the killing of the convicted.

The death penalty is a barbaric throwback to a less civilised, more violent world. It is time to move on and the European Union should take the lead in promoting the norm already established internally that the death penalty is just plain wrong.

First published in:
Issue 1 68th International Conference Paper of the European Youth Parliament in Zagreb

Other version published in Trinity News, 4 October 2011

What Are We Talking About?

It has become apparent to the global community that a globe spanning treaty to both combat and adapt to Climate Change is necessary for our collective future. However, a conclusive, effective agreement has proved elusive, to say the least.

Huge time and resources have been spent in negotiations on the subject. Massive summits of global leaders have been called in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun (to name only the most prominent) and yet, climate change continues unabated.

The agreements usually fall on the issue of how to share the burden between the developed and developing world. Developed countries argue that they are already doing their bit to reduce their emissions of fossil fuels and point out that even if they reduced such emissions to virtually zero, if the developing world’s emissions rise as predicted, it will not be enough and global emissions will still rise.

As China and India are poised to overtake the US as the world’s largest polluters and South American and African countries set to quickly catch up, it is apparent that it is in the developing world that efforts must be concentrated to combat climate change.

However, as leaders of developing countries ranging from Brazil to India are quick to point out, to put the burden on their shoulders is hardly unfair. Their economies are still developing and expanding and their populations are increasing; aall causal factors in increasing the emission of greenhouse gases. It’s easy for the developed world with dwindling populations and loads of money to develop in sustainable energy but as long as coal, gas and other fossil fuels remain the cheapest energy sources, economic development will continue to lead to higher emissions. It is not fair of the developed world to expect the rest to curb their own economic growth when they themselves have been heavy polluters for so long and done far more than their fair share of environmental damage already.

The developed world and its major economies need to take this on board and commit to aiding the developing world to develop sustainable into economies. Like democracy and human rights, the development of sustainable energy sources and the reduction of carbon emissions should become essential components of any bilateral and multilateral trade deals between the developed and developing nations.

The developing world should begin to fund development projects that promote the necessary infrastructure for the development of green economies across the developing world. They must provide the necessary assistance so that the developing world’s economies can develop in an environmentally friendly and sustainable fashion.

They must also take not of specific circumstance and realise that a broad sweeping, elegant solution is likely not possible. For example, Brazil is one of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change. However, its energy sources are incredibly environmentally friendly and put most of the rest of the world to shame. It is Brazil’s vast deforestation that must stop for a sustainable global environment to come about.

Hopefully, next time around the developed world take on board the reasonable concerns of the developing regions of our planet and come to appreciate the intricacies that will be involved in any successful agreement. Hopefully, they do this and together we can put in place a framework to combat climate change and adapt successfully for the future.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 2 (p.17)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

Climate At Its Extreme

One of the more pressing concerns raised by climate change is its effect on extreme weather conditions. Extremes in levels of precipitation levels and in terms of high temperatures can have devastating consequences on human life.

According studies launched on behalf of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee in 2005, if unchecked, climate change will result in severe heat waves such as the one that swept Europe in occurring almost every second year. We have seen hurricane intensity increase by 70%, terrible floods sweep European plains and severe droughts are now 75% more likely, due to human influence.

The WHO has verified over 22,000 deaths as a result of the 2003 heat wave. 2005, the year of the EU study, had seen 26 tropical storms in the region, 14 of which went on to become hurricanes and 4 of these reached the United States of America. All of these figures are records for European storms and one of the hurricanes, Wilma, reached the highest intensity level ever recorded. Storms causing €1 billion or more in damages are now to be expected every 2-3 years. We have seen a marked increase in extreme rainfall events and, on the other end of the spectrum, the world area suffering from drought has doubled since the 1970s to include much of southern Europe.

All these indicators show that action needs to be taken.

Such action must be two pronged. The ENVI committee here at Lake Constance must come up with innovative ways for Europe to deal with natural disasters and extreme weather conditions as they happen while also working to reduce the liklihood of their occurrence (or at least prevent an increase in such a probability).

I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 2 (p.4)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011