Next year the world will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on

Human Rights. The intense discussions preceding the adoption of the 1948 declaration exposed the divide between nations that favoured the death penalty and those that opposed it.

The debate on the death penalty has raged since ancient Greece. Believing in the proportionality between crime and punishment, Plato favoured the death penalty for individuals who committed crimes against their parents and in all cases of intentional murder. Then there were others who believed the death penalty was neither useful nor necessary: The certainty, rather than the cruelty, of the punishment was what counted most. Today, those who hold fast to the death penalty - the retentionists — regard it from a moral standpoint as a ‘just’ punishment. They also see it as a useful deterrent to protect the ‘common good’ — society”s overall security. Those against — the abolitionists - argue that the death penalty does not help deter crime, contending that there is no objective evidence to support the claim that the death penalty reduces crime. Moreover, they say, it violates the mother of all human rights: the right to life.

The rapidly changing international context demands that we take a fresh look at the death-penalty debate. Three factors are particularly relevant: the effect of the death penalty on the war on terror; the new role of trans-national justice; and the strength of trans-national civil society. Recent experience indicates that the death penalty is certainly not a valid remedy against terrorism. The threat of capital punishment is clearly not sufficient to deter extremists who are ready to blow themselves up.

Second, the UN criminal tribunals on former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court, have excluded the death penalty from their statutes. This creates an odd asymmetry: It means that individuals guilty of the highest form of crime — crime against humanity — is not punishable with the death penalty, whereas those who have committed crimes that are horrendous but more circumscribed can be sentenced to death.

Third, the voice against the death penalty raised by citizens around the world has greatly aided the cause of abolition. This voice cannot be ignored. According to Amnesty International, two-thirds of all nations have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Italy, along with the European Union, was proud to lead the effort that led to last week’s successful resolution. It’s important to note that this moratorium does not interfere with domestic legislation. It only asks retentionist states to suspend its application. The moratorium also allows for a ‘pause for reflection.’ The affirmation of this resolution by the UN opens a window of opportunity for a broader and civilised debate about the death penalty. It’s a debate that should move from a simple and common objective: making our world a more human place. — The Christian Science Monitor