I personally don't believe in the death penalty but according to the poll on this site's home page some of you do. Can someone please explain to me your reasons for believing in killing somebody? Thank you

Our oral argument was much better. We kept listing off facts, and we had thee documentation to totally back them up. I loved it when we made the statement that the US grouped themselves with a bunch of non-democracies and undeveloped nations by allowing the death penalty, one of the justices asked for some examples, and we pull out a very nicely typed up list of countries for his personal reference.

That was a really fun moot court...

Ooh...that was easy to find...

NO. 03-633
_________________________________
In The Supreme Court of the United States
________________________________________________________



THE STATE OF OREGON,
Petitioner,
v.

RANDY GUZEK,
Respondent.


________________________________
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
______________________________________



BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND
MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
______________________________________




Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae The European Union
and Members of the
International Community.



CAPITAL CASE

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW


Does the defendant who has been convicted of capital murder have the right, under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, to present evidence or argument that he should not be sentenced to death because of "residual doubt" about his guilt?


-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented For Review..............................................i

Table Of Authorities ............................................................ iii

Interest Of Amici Curiae ........................................................1

Constitutional Provisions and Treaties Involved……………

Statement Of The Case...........................................................6

Summary Of Argument..........................................................6

Argument:

There is an International Consensus,
among EU member states and other
Western nations Against the Execution
of persons committed of crimes,
no matter how severe the crime………………………….....6

A. International norms and standards
overwhelmingly reject the propriety of
the Death Penalty................. 21

Conclusion ........................................................................... 26



APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Statement of Interest,

The Council of Europe ..................................1a

Appendix B – Statement of Interest, The

Government of Mexico .................................2a

Appendix C – Human Rights Committee, General

Comment No. 24 (52) ...................................3a



Table of Authorities
Cases

Ellidge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998)

Knight v. Florida and Moore v. Nebraska, 528 U.S. 990 (1999)

Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995)

Minister of Justice v. Burns and Rafay, 2001 S.C.C. 7 (S.C. of Canada, 22 March 2001)

Mohamed and another v. President of Republic of South Africa and others, CCT 17/01 (Const. Ct. S. Africa, 28 May 2001), on the Internet at http://www.concourt.gov.za/ cases/2001/mohamedsum.shtml (visited on May 20, 2001)

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)

Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser.A) (1989) (2 cites)

Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988)



Interest of Amicus Curiae

Like the United States, the European Union (“EU”) is founded on principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. These principles are common to its twenty-five member states: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The EU and its member states are opposed to the death penalty in all cases and accordingly aim at its universal abolition. The abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. This view has been expressed to the government of the United States through various general demarches and through specific demarches in cases involving, the pending execution of persons convicted of a capital offense. The EU and its member states pursue this policy consistently in different international fora such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe, as well as through bilateral contacts with many countries that retain the death penalty. See, European Union, Guidelines to EU Policy Towards Third Countries on the Death Penalty (3 June 1998), www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/ Guidelines.htm. The EU provides a special and unique perspective to this Court that is not available through the views of the parties or other amici.
Constitutional Provisions and Treaties Involved

U. S. Constitution, Amendment 8:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

U. S. Constitution, Amendment 14, § 1:

. . . [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .




Statement of the Case

• The European Union is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and accordingly aims at its universal abolition, seeking a global moratorium on the death penalty as a first step.
• We strongly believe that the execution of persons convicted of a capital offense is contrary to widely accepted human rights norms and standards set forth by the United Nations.
• The European Union urges the appropriate authorities in the USA to grant Mr. Guzek relief from their death penalty.



The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, the EFTA country Norway, a member of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine align themselves with this declaration.


________________________________________
*Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continues to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process



Argument

There is an International Consensus, among EU member states and other Western nations Against the Execution of persons committed of crimes, no matter how severe the crime

None of the twenty-five member states of the European Union permit capital punishment, and the EU has consistently asserted that the execution of persons convicted of a capital offense… [is] contrary to internationally recognized human rights norms and neglect[s] the dignity and worth of the human person.”
The twenty-five nations of the European Union, in adopting the final act of the Treaty of Amsterdam on October 2, 1997, included a declaration stating that the death penalty is no longer applied in any EU member state. Any expansion of the EU will require that the admitted countries also abolish the death penalty. Indeed, the EU itself has presented demarches opposing the execution of several individuals. The EU is also part of the forty-three member states of the Council of Europe, which have stated that “the death penalty can no longer be regarded as an acceptable form of punishment from a human rights perspective.” See, Koenig, supra, n. 4, at 523. Membership in the Council of Europe is conditioned upon abolition of or a moratorium on the death penalty and on ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning abolition of the death penalty. More importantly for purposes of the case at hand, however, is the fact that an overwhelming majority of nations limit the imposition of the death penalty in cases where the defendant has presented any form of “residual” and\or “lingering” doubt of a conviction that the execution of any persons is an “inhuman, medieval form of punishment [that is] unworthy of modern societies.”
Patterns in national law and practice on the execution of persons convicted of a capital offense further illustrate its world-wide elimination.
The tiny number of nations reporting the execution of persons must be put into a context of the overall trend toward general abolition of the death penalty throughout the world. That trend among the nations of the world accelerated over the last decade. In every corner of the globe countries have limited or abolished the imposition of the death penalty. The Secretary General of the United Nations reported in March of this year that of the 194 countries in the world, 123 have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. (United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Report of the Secretary-General, Capital Punishment and Implementation of the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of Those Facing the Death Penalty, UN Doc. E/CN.15/2001/10 (2001), at 7, Table 1.) The only jurisdictions in the Western Hemisphere permitting the execution of persons are those handful of U.S. states that, like Oregon, continue to pursue death sentences irrespective of a defendant’s right to life.. Id., at ¶ 142. Practice with regard to extradition from other countries to face the death penalty in the United States will unquestionably be affected by the Court’s decision in this case. Many countries, both within the EU and outside of it, are more frequently demanding assurances that individuals extradited from their countries to the United States be protected from the possible imposition of the death penalty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contains an explicit provision stating that “[n]o one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty . . .”.
Recently, in Minister of Justice v. Burns and Rafay, 2001 SCC 7 (S.C. of Canada, 22 March 2001), the Canadian Supreme Court held that the Canadian Minister of Justice’s decision to decline to request assurances from the state of Washington that the death penalty would not be imposed as a condition of extradition violated the defendants’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. RIVKIND & SHATZ, supra, n. 11, at 762, ¶ 132.
The decision of the Canadian Supreme Court follows strong precedent in Europe beginning more than a decade ago with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser.A) (1989) (holding that the extradition of a German defendant from England to face the death row phenomenon in Virginia would constitute a violation of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, thus producing assurances from the government of Virginia that the death penalty would not be sought or imposed in order to effect the requested extradition). This precedent is followed in more recent decisions involving extradition-based requests for assurances against the death penalty in the US by national courts in France, the Netherlands and Italy. See, William Schabas, International Law and Abolition of the Death Penalty: Recent Developments, 4 ILSA J. INT’L & COMP. L. 535, 565 (1998).
At the most recent session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, (1996-2006) the Commission adopted a resolution on the death penalty requesting that “States that have received a request for extradition on a capital charge . . . reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that capital punishment will not be carried out.” UN Commission on Human Rights, The Question of the Death Penalty, E/CN.4/RES/2001/68 (2001).

Because someone was new and had no idea where to put it...

Since it was posted in omg, 2001, there were probably fewer categories to place it under...

I could see if it was regarding the death penalty for minors...

Hmm...I should track down my group's amicus curiae brief. We represented the European Union as an interest group on behalf of the respondent for the Supreme Court case of The State of Oregon v Randy Guzek. We had to write this really long brief (oxymoron I know). I will try to track it down and post it...it is kind of long, but pretty easy to skim. I had to read several of them in prep for our actual court day. There were four of us working on it and I think we hit a lot of good points. We got an A anyway...

just curious, why is this under exploitation of children?

I wrote a paper about the Death Penalty...it was based on a bunch of different readings we did, but I will post it below for you all to peruse at your leisure... (Please note that the whole analysis of literature has never been my strong suit...)

What is justice? The person who can give a full and correct answer to this question will be the one to revolutionize our legal system. It is because people have such varied views on this sensitive issue that so much conflict occurs in our legal system. An example of morality’s interference with justice is the death penalty. This form of punishment is very controversial because it involves the death of a criminal. Is it right to kill someone for killing another? Justice is very difficult to define in society today where people have very different beliefs and ideals.
H. L. Mencken once said that, “The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” This argument is very similar to those made in the case of capital punishment. It is claimed by many that those who commit such heinous crimes deserve the death penalty. Yet, Mencken says that first, we are willing to kill those who commit certain crimes, but then the power may corrupt us. The death penalty will end up becoming more and more accepted in our society and it will be difficult to know where to draw the line. By stopping this practice now, we are preventing more problems further down the road. It is like the old saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
In George Orwell’s “A Hanging”, Orwell seems to understand the reasoning for the death of the prisoner but he still has doubts over the morality of the hanging. While he always follows policy, he really begins to notice just how final the prisoner’s death is going to be. In reality, Orwell eventually decided that he no longer wanted to abet the capital punishment process (1215). Similarly, about half of the American population is in favor of the death penalty (Death Penalty Information). However, how many of these people would actually be willing to participate in the execution of a death row inmate? It is a totally different issue altogether to support the death penalty and to be involved in putting a criminal to death. Most children want to be doctors or firefighters when they grow up; there are few, if any, who aspire to give lethal injections or flip the electrocution switch. This illustrates just how much a person’s morals influence their idea of justice. Many people have a vague concept of justice, but when it comes to actually executing it, few would be able to proceed without feeling unethical.
A famous quote from Gandhi states, “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.” Gandhi is probably one of the most famous people in opposition of the death penalty. His main argument was that with everyone’s desire for justice, they forget that they are wishing upon others what has been done to their loved ones. When the death penalty is used, the results will echo and affect the entire society, not just the few who seem immediately involved.
In Elizabeth Bishop’s “The Hanging of the Mouse”, animals replace humans in the different roles involved in an execution. Most of the animals have a troublesome time watching the hanging. In the story, a cat arrives with her young son. Although the cat is stereotypically a sworn enemy of the mouse and has no reason to feel any remorse at its death, even she has a difficult time watching it put to death. On some level, she even regretted bringing her child. She thought it was good for him to see the finality of death and that actions have consequences. However, she thought it was a horrible thing for him to see nonetheless, that “the sight of the hanging had perhaps been too much for him” (1243). Even those who wholeheartedly support capital punishment would have a difficult time witnessing as it is carried out.
Even the Bible, the basis for many people’s morality, addresses the issue of justice. John 8: 1-11 tells the story of “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” In this story, Jesus intervenes in the stoning of a woman who was caught committing adultery. The woman was surrounded by people who were more than ready to cast stones at this woman. Jesus told those who were gathered to help with the punishment that “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (1237). Jesus told the people that it was not up to them to judge others, when they were also guilty. Similarly, in society today, people are so quick to judge others that it is easy for them to overlook their own flaws. It is simple to desire justice for another, yet when it comes time to have our downfalls pointed out and have justice executed against us, we have a problem with it.
When our Forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights, one of the most valuable additions was a right to a trial by a jury of peers. Unfortunately, this means of judging a case allows an average person to be involved in making a decision that will affect the life of an alleged criminal. However, it is very difficult for a person to completely remove their emotions and beliefs from their decisions. Counsels try their best to select the most impartial jurors through the process of voir dire. Through this process, potential jurors are questioned to find bias that may influence how they will vote in the case. However, most everyone has some sort of bias in controversial issues, whether it is gun control, capital punishment, drug related violence or drunk driving. Asking a person to ignore their gut reaction and to look solely upon the “facts of the case” is like asking him or her to ignore everything he or she stands for.
Ultimately, justice is a very difficult concept to define when morality is considered. People all have different principles and ideals in life, and so it is very difficult to come up with an appropriate form of punishment for people who break the law. Capital punishment is a topic that has a lot of moral basis to it; when dealing with death, emotions always tend to run quite high. Even when society tries to remove bias in a courtroom by using a jury of peers instead of a single judge, they still cannot escape a people’s fundamental tendency to follow their hearts over their minds. Unfortunately, there is no real way around these shortcomings in our legal system because there is no way to deny a person his or her morals. Justice is always going to be a touchy subject in our society because we have already done all we can do to outline it.

Why intentionaly kill someone as a punishment for intentionaly killing someone? Aren't we just doing what were trying to prevent?

"Barbarians. That is what we have become. We kill each other and instead of mourning the tragedy, we want the state to satisfy our bloodlust by killing the offender... we must learn to deal with these people in our midst- punish them, but do not become them."
-Anonymous

I believe that the Death Penalty is completely and utterly wrong, in any case. We are human beings, as are the jury and the judge who decide the fate of alleged criminals. Human beings, whether we like it or not can never truly know that they have correctly judged a person or correctly accused a person. And in cases where we are sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty because they confessed, we are not allowed to seek death. There will always be the small chance that a person may be wrongly accused and when this happens and a person is executed what is said to the family and friends of this person? "Oops, sorry about that. Here's some money to replace your sister, your son, your best friend?" I think not. To see a prime example of this sort of horrible miscarriage of justice, simply look up the case of Jesse Tafero. There is no way you can read his story and remain pro death penalty. And he is not the only one. Hundreds of people or more have been executed and later realized to be innocent. These people were murdered for something they didn't do. How is this any different than a one man killing another on the streets or in a home? It isn't. As long as there is ANY slight possibility that a person could be innocent, and there always will be, the death penalty should not be used. Human beings are not all knowing and never will be, no matter how much we wish it were so. As long as there has been one miscarriage of justice, there will be more and the only way to prevent them from being permanent is to completely do away with the death penalty.

Surely for you blood thirsty killers, leaving some one in a small isolated enviroment for 10-30 years where they get no pleasure, no enjoyment is better to satisfy your blood lust. You could event turn it into a Big Brother scenario.

A life sentence doesn't mean "life", but that's why there's "life without the chance of parole". Simple.

I don't believe in the death penalty, mostly because they can commit mistakes, but also because I think it's a worse punishment to have to go to jail(well if that were a life sentence, spelling please?). Well that's my opinion on the subject

I agree with luvabug, they should have to like with it for the rest of their life EXCEPT that the life sentence doesnt last your whole life!! It's true, you can get parole after like 20 years or something which i dont think is fair!!!If the verdict is life sentence than it should be for life i mean, i know that 20 years is a long time but for some people its just not long enough!!!!!
There are some people out there that were crazy enough to kill and after 20 years will still be crazy enough to do it again!!!!!It's not safe for other human beings to be around those kind of people b/c they could be next!Like i'm not saying that we should kill them but for gods sake at least keep the general public safe!!!

The death penalty is entirely hypocritical. Besides, killing the criminal would be letting him get out easy. Sitting in jail for the rest of his life would be a lot worse than dying, at least in my opinion.

quote:

---

Because people should know right from wrong. If someone is going to kill someone, they probably would plan it, and they would do it anyway.

---

You're forgetting all the mentally insane, mentally challenged and killing in defense cases.

quote:

---

why do we kill people, who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

---

What? We don't...

I agree with the death penalty. Because people should know right from wrong. If someone is going to kill someone, they probably would plan it, and they would do it anyway. Do the time if you do the crime and you deserve to die because you took someone elses life too. Some people just don't think before they commit a crime.

an eye for an eye and the whole world will soon go blind!

why do we kill people, who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

I get how most people who receive the death penalty deserve it, but seriously, i mean that is just HORRIBLE the way they kill the people. It's long and painful for them. They might have killed someone or done something VERY wrong, but still killing someone because of that is Very wrong and unfair to the person. They should just get locked away in a small room for the rest of their life, or something like that, but taking away someones life, GEEZ!!!!!