Challenging the death penalty : a U.S. perspective in light of global human rights

The death penalty remains one of the most polarizing topics in the realm of justice and human rights, particularly in the United States, where its application stands in stark contrast to global trends. While over 70% of countries have abolished capital punishment in law or practice, the U.S. persists as a notable exception among Western democracies, highlighting profound tensions between its constitutional framework and international human rights norms. This thesis investigates the complexities of the U.S. death penalty system, focusing on its alignment—or lack thereof—with international standards, constitutional protections, and ethical principles. It examines key questions, such as how international human rights frameworks, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), influence global perspectives on capital punishment. It also explores the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in shaping death penalty law and considers whether the practice remains compatible with contemporary justice systems. The findings reveal a sharp divergence between U.S. practices and international norms. Globally, the death penalty is increasingly viewed as inconsistent with the principles of justice, dignity, and human rights. Instruments like the ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol advocate for abolition, and many regions, such as Europe, have embraced complete prohibition. In contrast, the United States continues to justify capital punishment through constitutional provisions like the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, applying strict procedural safeguards to regulate its use rather than eliminate it. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, have attempted to mitigate arbitrariness and discrimination but have not addressed systemic issues that undermine fairness and equity. Ethical and moral arguments further complicate the legitimacy of the death penalty. Issues such as wrongful convictions, racial and geographic disparities, and the moral contradictions inherent in state-sanctioned killing challenge its validity as a just form of punishment. The irreversibility of execution amplifies these concerns, particularly as advances in DNA technology continue to expose errors in the justice system. Additionally, arguments for deterrence lack empirical support, while retributive justifications often border on vengeance, failing to address the broader inequities within the system. The thesis underscores the urgent need for reform, offering recommendations that include the legislative abolition of the death penalty, the expansion of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) as a humane alternative, and stronger federal oversight to ensure consistency and fairness across states. Addressing systemic biases, enhancing transparency through comprehensive data collection, and aligning with international human rights norms are pivotal steps toward creating a more equitable system. Public education campaigns and reinvestment in victim support services are also essential to fostering broader understanding and trust in the justice system. In conclusion, while the death penalty in the U.S. has undergone procedural refinements, it remains fraught with ethical contradictions and systemic flaws. Moving away from capital punishment would not only resolve these issues but also align the country with global human rights standards, reinforcing the principles of justice, equity, and dignity in a modern society.