When American Adherence to the Death Penalty Gets in the Way of International Human Rights

Last updated on: October 12, 2017 at 11:12 am by Libby Anne

When American Adherence to the Death Penalty Gets in the Way of International Human Rights 2017-10-12T11:12:22-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

When I saw reports circulating that the U.S. had voted against a U.N. resolution condemning the death penalty for homosexuality, I knew there must be some official justification. And lo and behold, there is. Here is what U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert had to say at a press briefing on October 3rd:

As our representative to the Human Rights Council said last Friday, the United States is disappointed to have voted against that resolution. We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances, and it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether. We had hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully, as the United States does. The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization.

I took the time to read the resolution in full. The rhetoric in its front matter does point to the abolition of the death penalty as the ultimate goal; it was for this reason that Obama administration abstained from (but did not vote against) a similar resolution in 2014. The resolution’s overall focus, however, is on condemning the human rights violations that often accompany its use worldwide, and while the resolution asks countries to “consider” ratifying an optional protocol supporting the abolition of the death penalty, it does not require it.

The human rights violations the resolution condemns include discriminatory implementation of the death penalty; a lack of adequate representation or legal hearing for those accused; the use of the death penalty for children or those with mental disabilities; and the imposition of the death penalty for crimes like blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, or homosexuality.

Here are the action items included in the resolution:

Urges all States to protect the rights of persons facing the death penalty and other affected persons by complying with their international obligations, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination;

Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty to consider doing so;

Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law;

Calls upon States to ensure that all accused persons, in particular poor and economically vulnerable persons, can exercise their rights related to equal access to justice, to ensure adequate, qualified and effective legal representation at every stage of civil and criminal proceedings in capital punishment cases through effective legal aid, and to ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to seek pardon or commutation of their death sentence;

Urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that the death penalty is not applied against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities and persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, as well as pregnant women;

Also urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations;

Calls upon States to comply with their obligations under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and to inform foreign nationals of their right to contact the relevant consular post;

Also calls upon States to undertake further studies to identify the underlying factors that contribute to the substantial racial and ethnic bias in the application of the death penalty, where they exist, with a view to developing effective strategies aimed at eliminating such discriminatory practices;

Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to make available relevant information, disaggregated by gender, age, nationality and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the charges, number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row, the number of executions carried out and the number of death sentences reversed, commuted on appeal or in which amnesty or pardon has been granted, as well as information on any scheduled execution, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States with regard to the use of the death penalty;

The few remaining items are procedural.

This resolution didn’t just condemn the death penalty for homosexuality. It also condemned the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy. How many American evangelicals (not to mention Americans more generally) are horrified by countries whose penal codes condemn to death those who convert to Christianity from Islam? Consider Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who became an evangelical cause célèbre after she was condemned to death in Sudan for converting to Christianity. These are the kinds of abuses the resolution was meant to condemn.

The United States has twisted itself into a pretzel on this issue—and I’m not just talking about this administration. Our nation has become so entangled with the death penalty that its devotion to capital punishment is is becoming a barrier to its ability to most effectively oppose grave human rights abuses abroad. The Trump administration, after all, just voted against a measure intended to condemn things like Pakistan’s blasphemy death sentence for Asia Bibi, another Christian woman whose trial was the cause célèbre of American evangelicals.

The Trump administration didn’t start this, but in voting against this resolution when it could have at the very least abstained from voting on the resolution as the U.S. did under Obama, the Trump administration took this entanglement further than previous administrations.

Politics

LGBTQ

Previous Post

October 4, 2017

Have You Read about the Women Student Protests in India?

Next Post

October 6, 2017 Voice in the Wind: Those Very Evangelical Persecuted Early Christians

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which branch of Christianity traces its leadership back to the Apostle Peter?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eastern Orthodox Lutheran Roman Catholic United Church of Christ