dw.com
Global Executions Rise Sharply in 2024
Amnesty International's 2024 report reveals a sharp increase in executions, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq accounting for 90% of the total, driven by political repression and drug-related offenses; however, a growing number of countries are abolishing capital punishment.
- What were the key factors contributing to the significant rise in global executions in 2024?
- In 2024, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq accounted for 90% of recorded executions, a sharp increase compared to previous years. Iran executed at least 972 people, Saudi Arabia at least 345 (double the previous year's figure), and Iraq 63 (almost quadrupling its 2023 total). Amnesty International highlights these increases as a concerning trend.
- How did political dissent and drug-related crimes influence the increase in death sentences in specific countries?
- The rise in executions is linked to the silencing of dissent, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, authorities used the death penalty against Shi'a minority members who participated in past protests. In Iran, executions targeted protesters involved in the 2022 demonstrations sparked by Mahsa Amini's death.
- What are the long-term implications of the continuing use of the death penalty, and what are the most promising developments towards its global abolition?
- While the overall number of countries using capital punishment remains low (15 in 2024), concerning trends persist. The increase in executions in several countries and the use of potentially torturous methods like nitrogen gas highlight the need for continued human rights advocacy. Positive developments include the abolition of the death penalty in Zimbabwe and several African nations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the negative aspects of capital punishment and the rise in executions in certain countries. The headline (if included) would likely reflect this negative framing. The use of phrases like "alarming spike," "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment," and "crushing of political dissent" sets a negative tone and directs the reader's interpretation toward condemnation of the death penalty. The report prioritizes the Amnesty International's perspective, which itself advocates for abolition, leading to a predominantly negative assessment. The inclusion of positive developments, such as Malaysia's reforms and increased abolition efforts in Africa, serves more as a counterpoint than as a balanced representation.
Language Bias
The report employs strong, emotionally charged language such as "alarming spike," "crushing of political dissent," and "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment." These phrases are not objective and may influence the reader to view capital punishment negatively. Alternatives could include "increase," "suppression of dissent," and "punishment considered inhumane by many." The repetition of words like "alarming" and phrases referring to the death penalty as inherently cruel reinforces a pre-conceived notion against it. The description of the US situation as an "outlier" is subjective and implies judgment on the country's stance.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on Amnesty International's findings and largely omits other perspectives on capital punishment, such as those from governments or proponents of the death penalty. While acknowledging China's lack of transparency, the piece doesn't deeply explore potential mitigating factors or alternative data sources. The report also omits detailed analysis of the legal processes leading to executions in various countries, focusing more on the numbers themselves. The significant progress made by Malaysia is highlighted, but the specific reforms are not elaborated on. The analysis of the US situation lacks specific details about the state-level legislation and the reasons for the resumption of executions in those states. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the nuances of death penalty policy in various countries.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between those countries abolishing the death penalty and those retaining it, without thoroughly addressing the complexities of the issue. While acknowledging some nuances, the portrayal suggests a clear-cut division between 'good' (abolishing) and 'bad' (retaining) actors in regards to human rights, overlooking the various internal political, social and legal factors that influence each nation's decision. For example, the report doesn't delve into the reasons why some countries maintain the death penalty despite international pressure.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant increase in executions in several countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. This directly contradicts SDG 16, which aims to significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates. The use of the death penalty, particularly for political dissent and drug-related offenses, undermines justice systems and contradicts the principles of fair trial and due process. The report also notes concerning trends in the US, with some states resuming executions after periods of moratorium. These actions demonstrate a failure to uphold the rule of law and promote peaceful and inclusive societies.