DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation „Voices of prisoners surviving the death row in India“ Verfasserin Reena Mary George angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) Wien, 2013 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 784122 Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Soziologie Betreuer: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christoph Reinprecht, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Manfred Nowak, LL.M. I dedicate this study to all prisoners on death row in India. Table of Contents List of tables .................................................................................................... 1 List of figures .................................................................................................. 1 List of appendix .............................................................................................. 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 3 Zusammenfassung........................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER ONE: SETTING THE ‘ TEMPO ’ OF THE STUDY ................. 10 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 10 1.2. Background and statement of the problem ............................................ 12 1.3. Methodology .......................................................................................... 18 1.3.1. Sampling and data collection .............................................................. 18 1.3.2. Data analysis ....................................................................................... 20 1.4. Clarification of terms ............................................................................. 22 1.4.1. Death penalty/Capital punishment ...................................................... 22 1.4.2. Human dignity .................................................................................... 22 1.4.3. Death row phenomenon/syndrome ..................................................... 22 1.4.4. Death row ............................................................................................ 23 1.4.5. Death row prisoner .............................................................................. 23 1.5. Specific objectives and the significance of the study ............................ 24 1.6. Scope and limitations of the study ......................................................... 27 1.7. Chapter outline ....................................................................................... 30 1.8. Summary ................................................................................................ 32 CHAPTER TWO: ‘ PITCH ’ OF (SOCIAL) THEORIES, (LEGAL) CONTEXTS AND (RESEARCH) EVIDENCES ........................................ 33 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 33 2.2. Death penalty in the realm of social theories ......................................... 35 i 2.2.1. Prison as an institution: ‘Total’, ‘complete’ and ‘austere’ .................. 38 2.2.1.1. Prisons as ‘total institutions’ ............................................................ 40 2.2.1.2. Prisons as ‘complete’ and ‘austere’ institutions ............................... 44 2.2.1.3. Principles of prison .......................................................................... 45 2.2.1.4. Maximum security prison ................................................................ 48 2.2.2. Prisoners as a social category .............................................................. 49 2.2.2.1. Socially excluded and marginalised ............................................ 49 2.2.2.2. Death sentence prisoners ............................................................. 51 2.2.3. Sociology of punishment .................................................................... 53 2.2.3.1. History of punishment ................................................................. 54 2.2.3.2. Imprisonment as punishment ...................................................... 57 2.2.3.3. Capital punishment or death penalty ........................................... 59 2.2.3.4. Torture as punishment ................................................................. 59 2.2.3.5. Solitary confinement as punishment ........................................... 61 2.2.4. “ Experie-ception ”: Synthesis of phenomenology and symbolic interactionism ................................................................................................ 64 2.2.4.1. Phenomenology ........................................................................... 65 2.2.4.2. Symbolic interactionism ............................................................. 68 2.2.4.3. Experie-ception” : Synthesis of phenomenology and symbolic interactionism ................................................................................................ 72 2.3. Death penalty in the realm of law .......................................................... 78 2.3.1. An overview of death penalty in international law ............................. 78 2.3.2. An overview of the legal framework in India ..................................... 85 2.3.3. The court system ................................................................................. 89 2.3.3.1. The Supreme Court of India ........................................................ 90 2.3.3.2. High Court................................................................................... 91 2.3.3.3. Subordinate Judiciary/the Judicial Services of the State ............ 91 2.3.4. Safeguards for detainees ..................................................................... 93 ii 2.3.4.1. Safeguards during arrest and detention in law and in practice ... 93 2.3.4.2. Safeguards during interrogation .................................................. 97 2.3.4.3. Safeguards against torture ........................................................... 97 2.3.5. Relevant laws and procedures for the death penalty ......................... 100 2.3.5.1. Guidelines for awarding death sentence ................................... 102 2.3.5.2. Three possible stages of judicial process in death penalty cases 104 2.3.5.3. When sentenced to death .......................................................... 105 2.3.5.4. Fundamental rights of condemned prisoners ............................ 107 2.3.6. Recent highlights of death penalty in India ...................................... 110 2.4. Dignity ................................................................................................. 112 2.5. Evidence – Review of literature ........................................................... 124 2.5.1. Modus-operandi of death penalty worldwide ................................... 125 2.5.2. The Marginalised and vulnerable on death row ................................ 139 2.5.3. Multi-faceted arguments and actors of death penalty ....................... 148 2.5.4. Moral, ethical and political aspect of death penalty ......................... 164 2.6. Summary and research gaps................................................................. 167 CHAPTER THREE: THE ‘ RHYTHM ’ OF METHODS USED ................. 169 3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 169 3.2. Research phases ................................................................................... 171 3.3. Research design ................................................................................... 175 3.3.1. The qualitative research paradigm .................................................... 175 3.3.2. Participants and ‘reaching’ the participants ...................................... 176 3.3.3. Instruments used in the study ............................................................ 181 3.4. Data collection procedure .................................................................... 183 3.4.1. Field-work location ........................................................................... 183 3.4.2. Translators......................................................................................... 186 3.4.3. The interview setting......................................................................... 186 iii 3.5. Data analysis ........................................................................................ 188 3.6. Methodological interpretation and framework .................................... 190 3.7. Ethical consideration ............................................................................ 193 3.8. Limitations of the study ....................................................................... 193 3.8.1. Methodological limitations ............................................................... 193 3.8.1.1. Sample size ............................................................................... 193 3.8.1.2. Lack of available and/or reliable data ....................................... 194 3.8.1.3. Lack of prior research studies on the topic ............................... 194 3.8.1.4. Measure used to collect the data ............................................... 194 3.8.1.5. Self-reported data ...................................................................... 195 3.8.1.6. Use of theories .......................................................................... 196 3.8.2. Limitations of the researcher............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The-Recitals-May-2021-Vajiram.Pdf
    INDEX Message From The Desk Of Director 1 1. Feature Article 2-9 a. India-UK Virtual Summit b. Human Rights 2. Mains Q&A 10-23 3. Prelims Q&A 24-56 4. Bridging Gaps 57-103 1. Puducherry Becomes ‘Har Ghar Jal’ UT 2. Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 (LDAR) 3. IPPPR Report 4. Right To Be Forgotten 5. One Stop Centre 6. Digital Transformation Of Tribal Schools 7. Hunger Watch Report 8. Model Insurance Village 9. Remittance Report 10. Kharif Strategy for Oilseeds 11. Regulations Review Authority 12. Social Stock Exchanges 13. Digitally Inclusive Bharat 14. Tentative list of World Heritage Sites VAJIRAM AND RAVI The Recitals (May 2021) 15. China Threatens Bangladesh 16. Israel-Palestine Violence 17. Nepal Heads for Mid-term Polls 18. Saudi-Iran Talks 19. The EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement 20. China Suspends Economic Accord with Australia 21. Bangladesh-Sri Lanka Currency Swap 22. U.K. Plans for Digital Border 23. China’s Population Growth Slows 24. Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan Border Tension 25. Covaxin Approval Issue 26. Visit of External Affairs Minister to the United Kingdom 27. EAM Visit to US 28. India-EU Leaders’ Meeting 29. 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM3) 30. New IT Rules Come into Force 31. Govt vs WhatsApp on Privacy Policy 32. Emergency Financial Powers to Armed Forces 33. Facebook’s Oversight Board 34. Goa Maritime Symposium (GMS) – 2021 35. Monoclonal Antibody 36. P-8I Aircraft 37. NASA’s Parker Solar Probe 38. New Approach To Drug Delivery 39. Congo Declared End of Latest Ebola Outbreak 40.
    [Show full text]
  • Women in Detention and Access to Justice'
    10 PARLIAMENT OF INDIA LOK SABHA COMMITTEE ON EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN (2016-2017) (SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA) TENTH REPORT ‘WOMEN IN DETENTION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE' LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI August, 2017/Bhadrapada,1939 (Saka) TENTH REPORT COMMITTEE ON EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN (2016-2017) (SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA) ‘WOMEN IN DETENTION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE' Presented to Hon’ble Speaker on 30.08.2017 Presented to Lok Sabha on 22.12.2017 Laid in Rajya Sabha on 22.12.2017 LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI August, 2017/Bhadrapada, 1939 (Saka) E.W.C. No. 101 PRICE: Rs._____ © 2017 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT Published under ……………………………………… CONTENTS Page Nos. Composition of the Committee on Empowerment of Women (2014-2015)...................................................................................................... (iii) Composition of the Committee on Empowerment of Women (2015-2016)...................................................................................................... (iv) Composition of the Committee on Empowerment of Women (2016-2017)...................................................................................................... (v) Introduction....................................................................................................... (vi) REPORT PART I NARRATION ANALYSIS I. Introductory………………………………………………………………..... 1 II. Policing Related Issues…..…………..................................................... 4 III. Overcrowding of Jails..................................…………………………….. 4 IV. The Issue of Undertrails................................………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Rajya Sabha
    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.51 TO BE ANSWERED ON THE 16TH NOVEMBER, 2016/KARTIKA 25, 1938 (SAKA) PLAN TO DECONGEST PRISONS 51. SHRI ABDUL WAHAB: Will the Minister of HOME AFFAIRS be pleased to state: (a) whether Government has formulated any plan to decongest prisons and bring prison reforms in the country; (b) the average occupancy rate in all jails in the country as per latest information available with Government; (c) whether Supreme Court has given any directions in this regard; and (d) if so, the details thereof? ANSWER MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI HANSRAJ GANGARAM AHIR) (a): ‘Prisons’ is a State subject under Entry 4 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. However, considering the importance of prison administration, the Government of India has been providing the requisite support and assistance to State Governments to modernize the prisons across the country and has been facilitating the task of rehabilitation and reformation of prisoners. For reducing the number of under-trials, some of the measures taken are : (a) Establishment of Fast …..2/ -2- R.S.US.Q.NO.51 FOR 16.11.2016 Track Courts (FTCs), (b) Creation of additional capacity of prisons through the Scheme of Modernisation of Prisons, (c) Launch of National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, (d) Insertion of a new section viz. 436A in the Criminal Procedure Code etc. (b) : As per data collected from States/UTs by the National Crime Records Bureau, a total of 4,19,623 inmates were lodged in 1,401 different categories of jails out of sanctioned capacity of 3,66,781 inmates showing occupancy rate of 114.4% at the end of the year 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnes Vulnerant, Postuma Necat; All the Hours Wound, the Last One Kills: the Lengthy Stay on Death Row in America
    Missouri Law Review Volume 80 Issue 3 Summer 2015 Article 13 Summer 2015 Omnes Vulnerant, Postuma Necat; All the Hours Wound, the Last One Kills: The Lengthy Stay on Death Row in America Mary Elizabeth Tongue Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Elizabeth Tongue, Omnes Vulnerant, Postuma Necat; All the Hours Wound, the Last One Kills: The Lengthy Stay on Death Row in America, 80 MO. L. REV. (2015) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol80/iss3/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tongue: Omnes Vulnerant, Postuma Necat; LAW SUMMARY Omnes Vulnerant, Postuma Necat; All the Hours Wound, the Last One Kills: The Lengthy Stay on Death Row in America MEGAN ELIZABETH TONGUE* I. INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Justice Statistics has compiled statistical analyses show- ing that the average amount of time an inmate spends on death row has stead- ily increased over the past thirty years.1 In fact, the shortest average amount of time an inmate spent on death row during that time period was seventy-one months in 1985, or roughly six years, with the longest amount of time being 198 months, or sixteen and one half years, in 2012.2 This means that
    [Show full text]
  • African Human Rights Case Law Analyser
    United Nations A/HRC/36/27 General Assembly Distr.: General 4 July 2017 Original: English Human Rights Council Thirty-sixth session 11-29 September 2017 Agenda items 2 and 3 Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development High-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Summary The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/5. It provides a summary of the high-level discussion on the question of the death penalty held on 1 March 2017 at the thirty-fourth session of the Council. The objective of the panel discussion was to continue the exchange of views on the question of the death penalty and to address violations related to the use of the death penalty, in particular with respect to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. GE.17-11122(E) A/HRC/36/27 I. Introduction 1. Pursuant to its resolution 30/5, the Human Rights Council held its biennial high- level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty on 1 March 2017, at its thirty- fourth session. The panel was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council, opened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Minister of State for European Affairs of France, and moderated by Professor of Social History at the University of the West Indies Verene A.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Sentences and Executions 2019
    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL REPORT DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS 2019 Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2020 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2020 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ACT 50/1847/2020 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTING COUNTRIES IN 2019 4 NOTE ON AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S FIGURES ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY 6 THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN 2019 7 GLOBAL TRENDS 7 EXECUTIONS 8 DEATH SENTENCES 10 COMMUTATIONS, PARDONS AND EXONERATIONS 12 THE DEATH PENALTY IN 2019: IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 13 REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 14 AMERICAS 14 ASIA-PACIFIC 21 EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 32
    [Show full text]
  • Prison in India: an Overview
    RESEARCH PAPER Social Science Volume : 4 | Issue : 12 | Dec 2014 | ISSN - 2249-555X Prison in India: an Overview KEYWORDS Commission, Health, Legal Aid, Prisoners, Prison Administration and Treatment. Shaik Ali Lecturer in Sociology Govt. Pre University College, Kavital Dt: Raichur- Karnataka-584120 ABSTRACT The management and administration of prisons falls exclusively in the domain of the State governments, and is governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prison manuals of the respective state governments. The prison population has been steadily increasing during the last decade. A majority of the prison population is male (nearly 96%) and approximately two-thirds are pre-trial detainees (under trials).The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955 declares that there shall be no 'discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The present paper provides a broad overview of the international obligations and guidelines, with respect to the care of prisoners, and summarise the various steps taken towards prison reform in India. It also deals with the general problems of Indian prisons. Introduction: International Obligations and Guidelines Prisons in India, and their administration, are a state sub- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IC- ject covered by item 4 under the State List in the Seventh CPR) remains the core international treaty on the protec- Schedule of the Constitution of India. The management tion of the rights of prisoners. India ratified the Covenant and administration of prisons falls exclusively in the do- in 1979 and is bound to incorporate its provisions into do- main of the State governments, and is governed by the mestic law and state practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Time, Death, and Retribution
    TIME, DEATH, AND RETRIBUTION ∗ Chad Flanders TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 431 I. DISSECTING THE LACKEY MEMO ................................................ 438 A. The Two Lackey Claims .................................................. 439 B. Does it Matter if the Inmate Is Responsible for the Delay? ...... 444 C. A Third Lackey Claim? .................................................. 448 II. TWO VERSIONS OF RETRIBUTION ............................................ 454 A. Community Outrage Retribution ...................................... 456 B. Intrinsic Desert Retribution .............................................. 462 C. Dying in Prison .............................................................. 466 III. IS RETRIBUTION A LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE? .................. 469 A. Purposes of Punishment and the Supreme Court ................. 471 B. Retribution as Establishment ............................................ 474 C. Retribution as Animus .................................................... 479 CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 482 INTRODUCTION Even before Justice John Paul Stevens wrote his so-called Lackey memo1 prisoners on death row were asserting that the lengthy delays—many times ∗ Associate Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. Thanks to Will Baude and Joe Welling for comments on early drafts. Joe was also extremely helpful in correcting and fleshing out many
    [Show full text]
  • But Drowning: the Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for Execution
    \\server05\productn\B\BPI\17-2\BPI202.txt unknown Seq: 1 21-MAY-08 10:06 NOT “WAIVING” BUT DROWNING: THE ANATOMY OF DEATH ROW SYNDROME AND VOLUNTEERING FOR EXECUTION AMY SMITH Nobody heard him, the dead man, But still he lay moaning: I was much further out than you thought And not waving but drowning.1 I. INTRODUCTION Variously described as a “morgue”2 and “tomblike”3 by the men and women who call them home, this nation’s death rows are places rarely seen. Behind those tomblike walls, however, more than 3,000 individuals are currently awaiting their own deaths, their voices rarely heard.4 More than just a stop- over on the way to death, the amount of time individuals spend living within those walls waiting for that death is significant—for executions in 2006, more than twelve years had expired on average between the time an individual was told he or she would die at our hands, and the execution itself.5 Some individu- als have been awaiting that “certain” death for more than twenty years.6 And while our Constitution claims to protect us against “cruel and unusual punish- ment,” a complex combination of circumstances and ignorance have somehow lulled us into believing that those we have condemned to death either deserve this pain in exchange for the harms they have caused or that they don’t suffer much as they await their executions. Yet several facts belie this illusion. Within the international community, other countries have recognized the potential for harm caused by our current system, and as a result have refused to extradite back to the United States indi- 1 Stevie Smith, Not Waving but Drowning, in COLLECTED POEMS 301, 303 (1983).
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Digital Library System
    United Nations A/HRC/31/NGO/184 General Assembly Distr.: General 24 February 2016 English only Human Rights Council Thirty-first session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Written statement* submitted by Human Rights Advocates Inc., a non-governmental organization in special consultative status The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. [14 February 2016] * This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non- governmental organization(s). GE.16-02893(E) *1602893* A/HRC/31/NGO/184 The Death Penalty and the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment The HRA welcomes the 2015 HRC Resolution 30/5, which urges all States to protect the rights of persons facing death penalty. Certain issues, however, raise questions about the ability of retentionsist States to continue imposing capital punishment without violating the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Such practices are increasingly limited as norms emerge within the international community towards complete abolition. Conflict Between Death Sentence Practices and International Laws International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR) Article 6 guarantees the Right to Life. That is, every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, sentences of death may be narrowly imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Under Trial: a Study of Pre-Trial Detention in India 2 Justice Under Trial: a Study of Pre-Trial Detention in India
    JUSTICE UNDER TRIAL: A STUDY OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION IN INDIA 2 JUSTICE UNDER TRIAL: A STUDY OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION IN INDIA Amnesty International India is part of the Amnesty International global human rights movement. Amnesty International India seeks to protect and promote the human rights of everyone in India. Our vision is for every person in India to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international human rights standards and the Constitution of India. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion, and are funded mainly by contributions from individual supporters. First published in 2017 by Amnesty International India #235, 13th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560038, Karnataka, India © Amnesty International India Original language: English Printed by Amnesty International India. Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International India, this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. Report Infographics: How India Lives, a database and search engine for public data www.howindialives.com Sketches: Bonzer Muivah Front & Back Cover Sketches: Arun Ferreira Designer: Mohammed Sajjad JUSTICE UNDER TRIAL: A STUDY OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION IN INDIA 3 I was then produced before a magistrate. As all law students know, this measure has been introduced into legal procedure to give detenues the opportunity to complain about custodial torture- something I could establish quite easily since my face was swollen,ears bleeding and soles so sore that it was impossible to walk.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition, Human Rights, and the Death Penalty
    Roecks: Extradition, Human Rights, and the Death Penalty: When Nations Mu EXTRADITION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY: WHEN NATIONS MUST REFUSE TO EXTRADITE A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL CRIME I. INTRODUCTION On June 17, 1994, O.J. Simpson disappeared for several hours with his passport and with several thousand dollars.' He had been charged with double murder by the State of California, offenses that made him eligible for the death penalty.2 Although there are disputes about the motivations behind his disappearance which will likely be explored at his criminal trial, his brief disappearance raised some interesting questions: If he had fled to a State that had abolished capital punishment, say the Netherlands, would the Nether- lands honor a United States extradition request and return him to face the death penalty? What if he fled to other States, like the United Kingdom, or Canada, that had abolished capital punishment for all non-military related offenses? Would he receive protection from the death penalty in one State but not in another? Does it matter that he is black and was charged with cross-racial killings? What, if any, treaties or international agreements limit the States' discretion to extradite, and what are the limits of the discretion when the death penalty is involved? This comment attempts to answer those questions. Some human rights treaties prohibit extradition when it is foreseeable that the death penalty will be imposed in the State that is requesting extradition.3 Some prohibit States from extraditing persons when it is foreseeable that those persons will face the death penalty in the State requesting extradition, such that the imposition of the sentence amounts to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,4 although there is a lack of uniformity over what treatment meets this definition.5 This comment discusses the substantive and procedural rights that emanate from these human rights treaties afforded to persons in extradition proceedings.
    [Show full text]