Never forget, the grass is always greener...
Canada has no death penalty. It is very easy to say that your citizens should be killed by the state if you have no culpability.

Actually, I live in Paris right now and when I've heard French people talking about the United States, they often bring up the death penalty. I have a conversation partner who is a computer programmer. He wants to improve his english so he can move to Australia. "Why not Silicon Valley?" I asked him. Because in the United States you can be accused of a crime and put to death even though you might be innocent, he explained.

Not only does the death penalty make us look barbaric to Europeans, but if it hinders smart, motivated, educated people from contributing to our economy, it has economic implications as well.

Which is to say that I don't think I believe these statistics and certainly no French person would admit support for the death penalty in polite company.

"Which is to say that I don't think I believe these statistics and certainly no French person would admit support for the death penalty in polite company"

Your comment reminds me of Pauline Kael's in regards to Nixon's winning the election. She said she didn't understand HOW he could have won the election since she did not know a single person who (admitted) to voting for him. This says more about the narrowness of our circle of acquaintances (we tend to surround ourselves with like minded folks) and/or what people are willing to admit vs. the reality of how people in the aggregate actually feel about an issue. Your statement "I don't think I believe" thus allows for anecdotal data to trump polling data, which I find an interesting example of cognitive dissonance. For what it's worth, I know about 2 dozen canadians, and all are pro death penalty. I don't extrapolate this data to the conclusion that all canadians support the death penalty.

Ok. Apparently this is becoming a parameter for mesauring "civilization"? Right?

I live in Germany and the death penalty is rejected by the vast majority; emotional outbursts notwithstanding.

There is an anecdote the former mayor of Stuttgart, Manfred Rommel, told. In Stuttgart a significant number of RAF terrorists were incarcerated in a high-security prison. One paper, Bild, had written that these people were getting "cake" every afternoon. That wasn't correct, but Bild is never discouraged by facts. The next day the mayor went to work and had to pass a number of upset citizens. One of them shouted "Why don't you kill them all," meaning the RAF terrorists. The mayor asked back whether the man would be willing to do it? He never got an answer, the crowd dispersed and nobody accosted him again about that matter.

Most Germans are quite emotional when it comes to particularily upsetting crimes. Among them are child abuse, but also torture. There was more than one German who proposed the death penalty for the US soldiers who tortured in Iraq. But when one asks them the same question Rommel asked, they shut up.

your post is interesting because it essentially equates death penalty advocates with the state of being "emotional". And i certaintly don't think being pro-death penalty means one necessasrily would be willing to commit the act oneself. many who are pro-choice would not be willing to perform an abortion, even those who are medical doctors and have the expertise.

I looked at the link for Canada. Plumer overstates even the support acknowledged by that website; 61% in favour almost 20 years ago, and a nearly divided electorate in more recent circumstances, with no results from polls taken during the Bush tenure, which has tended to discredit many U.S. policies. That's hardly what I'd call "loving" capital punishment.

In my experience of Canada and France, what I think may be said is that the general population does not really object to the death penalty for the *guilty* as long as they don't have to get involved. So, in the abstract.

The key word is *guilty*. First, the risk of killing the innocent must be set at zero. In practice, even someone in favour of death penalty may recognize that no justice system is perfect, and that it may be better to imprison the guilty and the innocent rather than kill them both. Second, I think Canadian and European distate for the U.S. death penalty has more to do with the refusal to recognize that guilt can be mitigated (in the case of minors, the mentally deficient, etc.) than with the death penalty as such. Coverage of such cases probably explains more of the intensity of the dislike of the U.S. death penalty than the death penalty as such. The impression conveyed is that the U.S. insists on the death penalty in a way that does not admit to any doubts. The statistics (the raw totals for death row) reinforce this impression of a country that really does *love* killing.

fwiw, i (continually) disavow the notion that the risk of killing the innocent (which btw is not the same as the "not guilty" but i digress) must be zero for the death penalty to be just, moral, legal, whatnot.

i'm a pragmatist. but i agree that anybody who DOES support the death penalty DOES have to accept the fact that there is at least the possibility (if not the actual reality) that a person will be executed in a case where he "didn't do it". it is simply possible.

I struggle to really grasp the meaning of this article, the undertones. In Europe there is no death penalty and it does not stand on the EU agenda as an issue or a question. There are to my knowledge no major European political parties that are pushing for the death penalty as part of the party platform because it would be political suicide, which suggests to me that the death penalty in Europe is at present and for the near future (say next 10 years) clearly not an issue. Sweden has recently made life imprisonment as a possible sentance for special kinds of murder cases. In general murder is a 10-20 year sentance and when the person comes out they can even vote. Though I shall never say never, I do doubt that it would be possible to have a Larry King live witch hunt where battle-axe bitches burn with orgasmic lust for execution in every murder case aired. The decadence that is exhibited in the US today on every serious and problamatic aspect of civiization, whether it be human rights, democracy, poverty, the environment, unethical bussiness, crime and punishment, the American prison system itself which thrives and booms as an industry due to an abundant poverty that consumes 30% of the population, well you name it and today the US is ugly indeed. I believe that focusing on the problems that encompass America and Americans would be a step in the right direction, that is to get Americans to comprehend that at this moment in time they are an oppressed people by a heavy handed authoritarian government. The cosmetics of American democracy are gone. The US can no longer point its finger and speak of decadence. Europe is divided on the war in Iraq at the highest level of government, but among the people in each and every country in Europe the answer to the war in Iraq is just like the answer to the question of capital punishment. NO NO NO and this no is a vast majority!

I reacted to this article as it seems to insinuate aspects of Europe that I have never experienced in my 27 years of living here. So this is the official EU position:

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THIRD COUNTRIES >
The death penalty: guidelines

1) OBJECTIVE
To present the objectives and elements of the EU policy on the universal abolition of the death penalty. To promote the fact that where it still exists, the death penalty should be carried out in line with minimum standards.
2) ACT
Guidelines on EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty. General Affairs Council - Luxembourg, 29 June 1998 [Not published in the Official Journal].
3) SUMMARY
Background
In 1998, the Member States of the EU decided to strengthen their activities in opposition to the death penalty and they adopted guidelines to this end. At this time, capital punishment had been abolished in most of the Member States and those that had not yet abolished it were no longer applying it. Since then, all states of the Union have ratified Protocol No 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty. It should also be noted that abolition forms one of the conditions of membership to the European Union.
The EU therefore decided to intensify its initiatives within international bodies. For several years, within the framework of the United Nations , it has in particular called for countries where the death penalty still exists to restrict gradually the number of crimes punishable by death and to establish a moratorium on executions. The objective is to abolish completely the aforementioned punishment. Furthermore, the EU works in collaboration with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in particular through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights ( EIDHR ). This policy was reaffirmed by the Solemn Proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at Nice in December 2000.
Aim
In order to increase respect for human rights and enhance human dignity, the EU aims:
· to strive towards the universal abolition of the death penalty;
· to call for a reduction in the use of capital punishment where it still exists, and insist that it is carried out in line with certain minimum standards and with maximum transparency.

First @whit:

You said: I equated: "death penalty advocates with the state of being "emotional"."

Yes, I do. Seeking revenge is an emotional, not a rational decision.

You further maintain: "And i certaintly don't think being pro-death penalty means one necessasrily would be willing to commit the act oneself. many who are pro-choice would not be willing to perform an abortion, even those who are medical doctors and have the expertise."

Rommel's question wasn't so much about committing sanctioned murder, but about taking responsibility for that act. Someone who orders a hit man is as responsible for the murder as the hit man himself.

@J-Lo:
I agree with your assessment that Europeans have the impression that the US' death penalty is about revenge and ignores mitigating factors.

I also agree with your argument that Europeans consider themselves far too human (read: imperfect, prone to make mistakes) to be able to rule out the killing of an innocent person, or someone who would have deserved a less severe sentence.

@Jeff:
Actually a person does not lose active voting rights while in prison, at least not in Germany. The person loses passive voting rights, though.

--

I do think that there is a general difference between how Americans and Europeans feel about "justice".

Justice, it deems Europeans, is served when a person "betters" himself and becomes a useful member of the society afterwards.