Comparative Capital Punishment
Show Less

Comparative Capital Punishment

Edited by Carol S. Steiker and Jordan M. Steiker

Comparative Capital Punishment offers a set of in-depth, critical and comparative contributions addressing death practices around the world. Despite the dramatic decline of the death penalty in the last half of the twentieth century, capital punishment remains in force in a substantial number of countries around the globe. This research handbook explores both the forces behind the stunning recent rejection of the death penalty, as well as the changing shape of capital practices where it is retained. The expert contributors address the social, political, economic, and cultural influences on both retention and abolition of the death penalty and consider the distinctive possibilities and pathways to worldwide abolition.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 18: After abolition: the empirical, jurisprudential and strategic legacy of transnational death penalty litigation

Andrew Novak


The abolition of the death penalty is partly the result of sustained constitutional litigation in many retentionist jurisdictions. After abolition, the legacy of this litigation will be threefold: the empirical, the jurisprudential and the strategic. Empirically, the death penalty is among the most widely researched aspects of the criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court has long scrutinized quantitative and qualitative death penalty research, and increasingly other jurisdictions such as Malaysia and Japan are following suit. Jurisprudentially, the growing constitutional recognition of a human dignity principle has also led to erosion of capital punishment. Because so much death penalty jurisprudence is premised on the protection of human dignity rather than the right to life, this body of law will have relevance to other forms of punishment including life imprisonment long after the death penalty is abolished. Finally, death penalty litigation was a success of strategic human rights litigation. Courts have long ‘shared’ constitutional jurisprudence, citing and cross-referencing one another’s cases. By bringing cases in a range of countries with similar constitutions, human rights lawyers were able to generate a growing consensus of courts against the death penalty, which became self-reinforcing as more and more courts scrutinized the capital punishment process.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.