Amnesty International's interest in the Kenny Richey case has been twofold - in the incarceration of an apparently innocent man but also in a striking example of the problems inherent in the death penalty.
As we finally see a positive outcome to the former, we should take a moment to consider the problem of the latter: that some governments still consider killing their citizens to be part of their legitimate duties.
Amnesty is opposed to the death penalty in principle, as a violation both of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel and inhumane treatment.
Yet there are also strong practical reasons why it is time to consign the death penalty to the same scrapheap as the stocks, branding and convict ships to Botany Bay.
Taking a life, the ultimate sanction, has no place in any fallible justice system, which is any system run by human beings. In Kenny Richey's case, prosecution lawyers tried successfully to argue for execution without all the evidence being heard in court.
It is so much worse in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where a confession extracted under torture can be sufficient "evidence" on which to convict.
Here in the UK, it is now accepted that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were victims of a biased judicial system. They would likely have been executed had the option still been available.
Even if we could be certain of guilt in every case, researchers looking for evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent have been unable to find any. In fact, the great majority of murders are crimes of passion committed in the heat of the moment and murder rates are higher in US states which have the death penalty than in those which don't.
The death penalty is not even cost effective, as any credible appeals system means that a death penalty sentence costs more than life imprisonment.
A criminal justice system should dispense dispassionate justice rather than revenge or retribution. Proponents of the death penalty for murder cases often use the "eye for an eye" argument, but seldom suggest that torturers should be tortured or that rapists should be raped.
Attempts to find a "humane" method of execution are tying the US legal system in knots as shooting, hanging, the electric chair and lethal injection are each shown to bring their own version of mental and physical torment.
But let us end on a hopeful note. Countries which still execute are in a small and shrinking minority (only 25 countries did so in 2006, about one in eight). If Rwanda, with its recent traumatic past, can give up the habit then anyone can.
John Watson is Amnesty International's Scottish Programme Director
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article