dw.com
Global Executions Surge in 2024, Driven by Iran and Saudi Arabia
A global surge in executions in 2024 was driven by Iran (at least 972), Saudi Arabia (at least 345), and Iraq (63), with Amnesty International citing political repression and drug-related crimes as major factors, despite a global trend towards abolition.
- What are the main contributing factors to the significant rise in global executions during 2024?
- In 2024, executions globally surged, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq accounting for 90% of recorded instances. Iran led with at least 972 executions, a rise from 853 in 2023, while Saudi Arabia saw a doubling to at least 345, its highest since Amnesty International began tracking.
- How did the increase in executions in Saudi Arabia contrast with the government's modernization efforts and what were the stated motivations?
- This increase is primarily driven by Iran and Saudi Arabia's use of capital punishment to suppress political dissent. In Saudi Arabia, the surge coincided with a modernizing program and despite pledges to reduce executions. In Iran, executions followed protests after Mahsa Amini's death.
- What are the long-term implications of the increasing use of capital punishment for drug-related crimes globally, and what international efforts are being made to address this?
- The rising global executions, concentrated in a few countries, highlight the continued use of capital punishment for political repression and drug-related offenses. While some countries show signs of abolishing the death penalty, others demonstrate a concerning trend of increased use and expansion of methods.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increase in executions in a negative light, focusing on human rights concerns and political repression. While this is a justifiable perspective, alternative viewpoints, such as those arguing for the death penalty as a deterrent or a necessary punishment, are absent. The headline, if there was one (not provided in the source text), could greatly influence reader understanding. The emphasis on the increase in executions and human rights violations might unintentionally overshadow the fact that some countries have decreased executions or abolished the death penalty altogether. The impact is a framing of the issue that lacks a neutral perspective and risks reinforcing pre-existing biases.
Language Bias
The report uses strong emotionally-charged language such as "vrtoglavo" (dizzying) when describing the increase in executions in Saudi Arabia and terms like "okrutne, nehumane i ponižavajuće kazne" (cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments), which are inherently biased against the death penalty. Neutral alternatives could include phrases like "substantial increase" and "capital punishment." The overall tone is strongly critical of the death penalty, potentially influencing reader perception.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq's execution numbers, potentially downplaying the significance of other countries where executions may occur, even if data is unavailable. The lack of detailed information on China's executions, despite Amnesty International's claim of thousands, constitutes a significant omission. While acknowledging data limitations, the report should strive for a more comprehensive, global overview, acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding execution numbers in various countries. The impact of this omission is the creation of a potentially skewed perception of global execution trends, emphasizing specific regions over the broader picture.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a dichotomy between countries abolishing the death penalty and those retaining it. While this is a valid distinction, it overlooks the nuances within countries that retain the death penalty. For example, some countries might use the death penalty sparingly, with strict legal procedures, while others utilize it frequently and arbitrarily. This simplification overlooks the spectrum of practices within countries retaining capital punishment. The impact is a loss of detail in understanding the complexities of capital punishment implementation across the globe.
Gender Bias
The report features quotes from female experts at Amnesty International, which indicates a balance in gender representation regarding expertise. However, there is no information provided on the gender of those executed, making it impossible to analyze potential gender bias in the application of the death penalty. Further analysis is needed to determine if there are any gender disparities among those sentenced or executed.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant increase in executions globally, particularly in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. This surge is directly related to the suppression of political dissent and the use of the death penalty as a tool to silence opposition. The actions of these states undermine the rule of law, justice, and human rights, thereby negatively impacting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The increase in death penalty use for drug-related crimes also points towards a failure to address the root causes of drug crime and a lack of fair and equitable justice systems.