sueddeutsche.de
Global Executions Surge to Ten-Year High
Amnesty International reports a ten-year high in global executions in 2024, exceeding 1500 documented cases, mainly from Iran (972), Saudi Arabia (345), and Iraq (63), highlighting increased authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.
- What are the long-term implications of rising global executions on the international human rights landscape and the rule of law?
- The rising number of executions globally, especially in the Middle East, signals a troubling trend towards increased authoritarianism and suppression of dissent. The lack of transparency surrounding executions in China further exacerbates the problem, making it difficult to assess the true scale of the issue. This trend may escalate further unless international pressure increases to challenge the use of capital punishment.
- How do the increased executions in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia relate to domestic political situations and the suppression of dissent?
- Amnesty International's report highlights a dramatic surge in executions, primarily driven by Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This increase is attributed to the use of the death penalty to silence dissent, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The report also criticizes US President Trump's stance on capital punishment, arguing that it does not deter crime.
- What is the global impact of the significant increase in executions in 2024, particularly concerning human rights and international relations?
- The global number of recorded executions reached a ten-year high in 2024, exceeding 1500 in 15 countries according to Amnesty International. Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia accounted for over 90% of these, with at least 972, 63, and 345 executions respectively. This represents a significant increase compared to previous years, particularly in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increase in global executions as a negative development, heavily emphasizing Amnesty International's criticism and highlighting the human rights violations associated with capital punishment. The headline itself sets a negative tone. While including the number of executions in the US, the focus remains on the Middle East and China.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "mundtot zu machen" (to silence) when describing the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and "gewalttätige Vergewaltiger, Mörder und Monster" (violent rapists, murderers and monsters) when quoting Trump. These terms are emotionally charged and not neutral. More neutral alternatives would be to say "to suppress dissent" instead of "to silence", and to use descriptions that focus on the acts committed rather than inflammatory labels.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the increase in executions in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, but provides limited details on the methods of execution used in each country. While mentioning China's secrecy around execution numbers, it lacks in-depth analysis of China's legal system regarding capital punishment and its specific application.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate around the death penalty as a simple choice between deterring crime and not deterring crime, ignoring the complexities of the issue and other potential justifications for capital punishment.
Gender Bias
The article does not exhibit significant gender bias. While it quotes Julia Duchrow, the focus remains on the issue of capital punishment itself rather than on gendered aspects of the death penalty.
Sustainable Development Goals
The significant increase in executions globally, particularly in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, undermines the principles of justice and fair trial. The use of the death penalty to silence dissent further weakens institutions and the rule of law. Statements by political figures supporting the death penalty also contribute to this negative impact.