I wish to share my time with Senator Ross.
Capital Punishment: Statements.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is remarkable to discover such an extraordinary consensus here and in western Europe where we take such a fundamentally opposite view of the death penalty to that of a country we choose to believe is the leader of the democratic world. Having suffered 30 years of outrageous violence, the murder of a Member of this House and bombings on the streets, we have never come near restoring the death penalty. That is because we have a sense of civilisation and of what is appropriate. In the same way we do not believe in chopping people's hands off because of theft or in castrating rapists. The death penalty is an inappropriate response.
It is a matter of enormous concern to those of us who believe in democracy that the country which, regrettably or otherwise, tends to set trends in politics, economics, fashion, the media, etc. , seems to be intent not only on maintaining the death penalty but on extending it and increasing the frequency of these revolting spectacles.
The US has moved from the initial decision to restore the death penalty to a situation where it has become a matter of fact in some states. It is now being refined to the extent that victim's families are being invited to watch the spectacle. The US is only a small step from public executions when people, including journalists and families, with no judicial, legal or medical purpose — I wonder whether it is possible to have a medical purpose in the deliberate killing of another human being — are invited to watch an execution. A further step would be televised executions. It is time the rest of the civilised world said to the US that, irrespective of its internal political problems or difficulties, it has no right to do something which is an affront to civilisation.
The reason I identify the US as particularly culpable is it claims a pre-eminent position in the world in terms of what it calls freedom and democracy. I am not identifying the US because it is an easy target. A country is entitled to be judged by the standards it claims others should live by. It must meet the standards it sets in making an enormous fuss about abuses of human rights in other countries and wonderful rhetorical flourishes regarding freedom and civilisation. This is particularly the case in the context of the US. I do not care how difficult the crime problem is; other countries have crime problems. I do not care about the political pressures. These issues cannot be justified by political expediency. Every Member of the House is aware of issues being pressed which are wrong and which no Member would permit to be done politically, even at the cost of political position. People have values below which they will not sink, one of which relates to the death penalty. These values are universal in Irish politics.
No political party supports the death penalty or the concept of a free vote on the death penalty, a most welcome display of political maturity which I hope we will sustain. We must focus on the one member state of western civilised democracies which persists in this revolting spectacle of executing human beings. Killing somebody else is not an appropriate response irrespective of how revolting the offence.
I am glad the Government has made representations on the issue, but it is time we supported international organisations in telling the US that it cannot remain in the company of civilised states if it persists in its policy of judicial execution.
I am grateful to Senator Ryan for sharing his time. He and I have a long record of fighting on this issue in the House. Many years ago we proposed a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment which was eventually adopted by the then Government.
The Government has made representations, but they have been docile in nature. Yesterday I asked the Leader to request the US Ambassador to come to the House to explain how this "most civilised nation in the world" can justify, in the eyes of the world, the judicial murder of its own citizens. On the whole I am an unapologetic supporter of the American way of life, the American system and the American way of free and private enterprise. The reason I do not apologise for this motion which singles out the US is we, as a nation, are so closely identified with America.
We oppose capital punishment, physical brutality and torture in other countries, but we do not often take our courage in our hands and summon countries, which we count as friends, allies and colleagues in morality, before us to ask why they are doing this and to express our condemnation of it. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say regarding the representations made. Pleas for mercy are totally inadequate. I congratulate the Government if the representations constituted outright public condemnations because this is what is required.
We are entitled to judge the US on this issue as our record on it is impeccable and almost unanimous for many years. This is why I regret the Leader's failure to reply to my request to bring the US Ambassador to the House to explain the issue. The Kennedys are a great liberal family of the US and I do not believe it favours this type of execution.
I wonder how this type of execution can happen under a Democratic Administration, which is traditionally far more liberal than Republican Administrations. I know the Governor of Texas is Republican and that it is a conservative state. However, at the end of the day, responsibility rests with the Federal Government. It is up to us to clearly show our disapproval.
This is the most macabre, public and nasty type of punishment which can possibly be inflicted on anybody. As Senator Ryan said, it is only necessary to watch the scenes before the execution and the victim's families attending the execution to realise that it has become a quasi-public spectacle which is revolting and encourages blood lust. We have a right to say that this must stop. Our voice can be heard on this issue and can carry across the world.
I echo Senator Ryan's sentiments about condemning the activities of other countries. In the past we have made huge political capital of our moral outrage at the activities of Saddam Hussein. The Americans make similar capital out of the slaughters in Bosnia and other places. The US army and Government are to a large extent the policemen of the world. This does not only imply military might, but the supporting of moral stances. This is what military might affects to do.
If the policemen of the world, those who decide what is right and wrong and who set the moral code of the world, are allowed to murder their own citizens in an institutionalised way, we, as a small country with much influence in America, must condemn it. Will the Leader tell me if we can elicit a formal response from the US Ambassador? Why is there no representative of the US embassy in the Visitors' Gallery? Was it notified of the debate? What message will go out from this House when the debate is over? It is important that the US Government and Administration knows that nobody in this House, which is representative of friendly nations, supported this barbarous activity.
On behalf of my party, I would like to add our voice to the condemnation of the death penalty, which is a barbarous and so-called judicial method of a state taking the life of a prisoner for committing a heinous crime. Nobody denies a state must take stern action against crime and criminals. However, all civilised countries accept the United Nations universal declaration on human rights. Central to that is the inalienable right to life of persons, good or bad. The declaration specifically states that there is no reason to take a human life, even by a state or judiciary.
It is timely, in view of what took place in Huntsville, Texas this week, that this House should speak on this issue which has been debated in both Houses many times over the years. It is a tribute to our civilisation that these Houses abolished the death penalty in 1990, although perhaps we were slow in so doing. I pay tribute to the then Minister for Justice, Ray Burke, who steered the legislation through both Houses despite opposition to the proposal. There continues to be opposition to the abolition of the death penalty in all parties and among the public.
The situation in the United States is a cause for great concern. A culture has developed there since 1976 when the Supreme Court cleared the way for states to determine their own policy on capital punishment and the death penalty. Some 400 people have been executed in the United States since 1976 — barely 20 years ago. Of these 246 have been executed by lethal injection, 131 have been executed by the electric chair, nine have been gassed in gas chambers, nine have been hanged by the hangman's rope and at least three have been shot by firing squad.
I refer to an event which took place in Washington last summer at a new museum, called a "newseum". It displayed the artefacts or memorabilia of the news media over the past 100 years or so. The main exhibit was a photograph taken in the late 1920s by a press cameraman who went into an execution chamber where a women was being electrocuted in an electric chair. With a camera concealed on his leg, he took a photograph of the woman as she died. It was a photograph of a person going up in a puff of smoke — a woman literally burning to death. That exhibit drew some of the largest crowds and was the one with which people were most fascinated.
One of the largest police and crime exhibitions in the world is located in Miami and it has an electric chair. Young people and children clamour to be photographed sitting on that chair. Over a year ago a man executed by the electric chair in Florida literally burned to death. A justice official of the state of Florida jokingly remarked afterwards that criminals should know that Florida has an electric chair which does not work and it is an incentive to people not to do anything which would result in their being sent to that chair.
In a country so developed in terms of its social attitudes, or so we believe, there is support for the death penalty in the United States. There are 447 people on death row in Texas. Recently, a senior justice official of the state of Texas said they were executing people at a rate of three per week on average. He said they were gradually shifting to the right side of the curve, in other words, they were executing more people on death row than the number coming on to it from the courts. He was congratulating himself on the fact that they were speeding up the rate of executions in this famous prison in Huntsville where this orgy of executions takes place each week.
The woman executed in the United State's a few days ago only became famous because she was the first woman to be executed——
Karla Faye Tucker.
——in Texas since the Civil War. When a Belgian woman was executed in England in the 19th century The Times commented: thank God she was not British. We can congratulate countries like the United Kingdom which used the death penalty in this country and elsewhere on thousands of occasions. It probably gave the world its most famous executioner, Mr. Pierpoint, who wrote his memoirs about the futility of the death penalty, although it was his job to administer it.
In 38 of the 50 states of the United States of America, the death penalty is used. In 13 of these states people under 18 years of age may be executed and in nine, children under 16 years of age may become victims of the death penalty. Extensive research has been done on the death penalty as a deterrent to crime because that and society's need to take retribution on somebody who has done an evil deed have always been the justification for it. It is a very emotive argument but research has clearly shown that in the states in the United States which have the death penalty and the 12 states which do not, there is no difference in the capital crime rate between states. That proves beyond doubt that there is no relationship between capital punishment as a deterrent to serious crime and deterring crime. If this were the case, states with the death penalty should have lower levels of serious crime or serious capital crime. This, however, is not the case.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly. Yesterday, a vote was called on an amendment to the Order of Business which proposed that this matter be discussed yesterday rather than today. I felt so strongly about it that I could not vote against the amendment even though I did not mind the delay of 24 hours.
It is a great displeasure to come to the House to talk about this truly awful subject. About 100 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. A significant number have abolished it except for serious crime and many others do not apply it, although capital punishment has not been abolished. The majority of countries do not exercise the death penalty and many only retain the punishment in their legal codes for serious crimes such as murder of defence forces personnel or political crimes that involve mass murder.
The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognises one human right in all circumstances and above all others, the right to life and the fact that nobody has the right to take a human life.
In modern society the death penalty has not been a deterrent from crime. Ireland abolished the death penalty in 1990 and all Members of the House were appalled by what happened in the United States yesterday.
We pride ourselves on our humane approach to all aspects of society and life. We are friendly with neighbouring countries and with every country with which we conduct business. We also have a close association with the United States and we will continue to use our best efforts to convince its legislators and those of the various states that the death penalty is not an acceptable deterrent.
The media and its use of the airwaves to cover this sorry affair left much to be desired and I agree with the comments of previous speakers in this regard. It was execution by television. It was an appalling spectacle which I would prefer not to have seen. It was not suitable viewing.
Under no circumstances does this House condone what happened in the United States yesterday. As a friendly nation, Ireland will do everything it can to try to convince America and other countries which utilise the death penalty to abolish it. We can only use our best endeavours to bring this issue to a favourable conclusion.
Senator Lanigan is a senior Member of the House and has travelled extensively in many nations. I wish to share my time with him.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is easy to stand in this Chamber and condemn what took place in the United States. However, this punishment started 15 years ago when a young drug addicted prostitute killed two people. We cannot condone that crime but for the intervening 15 years the girl who committed the crime was incarcerated. She went through what I consider a life sentence. In Ireland a life sentence would not last 15 years. After the trauma of that incarceration she was legally murdered and we cannot ignore the fact that the law provides that a criminal can be legally murdered.
One of my reservations about the American judicial system is that it is not a system of justice for all the people. Ninety-nine per cent of the people on death row in the United States never completed the basic first grade education cycle. However, the people who have been on death row for up to 15 years give the impression that they are highly educated and highly motivated. That is because prison offered them their first opportunity for a scheduled life. It was also their introduction to an education.
Members of the public are usually amazed to discover that people who were drug addicted and crazy as children and who were convicted of heinous crimes can emerge 15 years later as rational, logical people who can talk through their problems. I do not understand why they are amazed. The convicts are put in a place where they have access to education and they are fed. The vast majority of them come from emotionally, physically and materially deprived backgrounds.
It would be interesting to see the statistics on the number of white people who have been judicially murdered in the United States. I believe that 99 per cent of the people who have been killed by the death penalty in the US are from non-white ethnic backgrounds. A judicial system that keeps people on death row — even the words "death row" are callous and haunting — not knowing if an appeal will be heard or granted is cruel in the extreme. There is no justification for it.
Our comments in this debate will not be taken into account by George W. Bush, Jnr., who sees himself as the saviour of the right wing in the United States. However, what are the crime statistics for the states which sanction judicial murder? Have they increased or reduced? I believe that every time a judicial murder takes place in the United States the crime statistics increase. People involved in crime will simply decide they have nothing else to live for. They are not unlike the Japanese suicide bombers during the Second World War or the Hizbollah who decide there is nothing for them in Iran so they may as well go to God. The attitude is: "There is nothing left for me in this world and if I die, so what".
The judicial system in the United States is wrong but the economic system drags people into situations where they no longer care. Suddenly they are in an establishment where they are educated and fed. They receive things they never had. Then 15 years later they are injected with drugs and they die. That is horrendous. There is no excuse for this. We in Ireland must condemn it.
In condemning what happened in the United States in the last number of years, we must also condemn other countries which still use the death penalty but that is not publicised. The statistics in China, Saudi Arabia and certain Muslim countries are equally horrific. We must campaign for the abolition of all types of capital punishment.
It has been said that capital punishment was only abolished in Ireland in 1990 that there had not been a judicial murder for many years before that. There was judicial murder on the statute books in Europe. Some of the sophisticated western countries only abolished the death penalty in the 1990s. If American society, which has a reasonable human rights record, criticises human rights violations in places such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, it must acknowledge that human rights violations in the United States are worse today than they were 50 years ago. More and more states in the United States are reintroducing the death penalty.
In joining with the huge number of people worldwide who are criticising the United States for their attitude to life, we, in Ireland should start a campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in every country, and we should start in the United Nations. There should be United Nations resolutions on human rights abuses presented to the United States and other countries suggesting that the greatest human rights abuse is that a government or judicial system should have the last say whether someone lives or dies.
They say it is much more humane to kill a person by injection. The drug culture in the United States is out of control and people are sent to jail for injecting drugs into themselves. Yet here is a situation where drug addicts are sent to jail, or they die from addiction, and at the same time we have a drug administered to a person to kill them judicially. If a drug addict is sent to jail, why should the person who injects and kills someone else not be sent to jail?
I am glad the Seanad provided the opportunity for us to discuss this matter. I would like to make a practical suggestion at the outset. Since there is nobody in attendance from the American Embassy, and since Senator Ross suggested that the American Ambassador should be invited to be made aware of the feelings of the House, and since this is unlikely to happen, the Minister might care to send a copy of the proceedings to the American Embassy so that officials there might analyse the feelings of Members. This might have some small impact.
I agree with Senator Lanigan that we ought to fight against this issue on a global basis. We are already doing that, not entirely at official level, but through Amnesty International, with whose work I know the Senator is familiar.
Senator Connor raised the important point of whether the death penalty works as a deterrent. There has been much statistical analysis of this and it is perfectly clear from a scientific basis this is not the case. It simply does not act as a deterrent in the vast majority of cases. He mentioned the fact Mr. Albert Pierrepoint, the hangman for many years, wrote his memoirs. Michael O'Toole, a distinguished columnist in the Evening Herald, had a fine article on Wednesday, 4 February, where he quoted what Albert Pierrepoint had to say. Perhaps it would be useful to put it on the record of the House to flesh out what Senator Connor said.
Michael O'Toole says:
The man who hanged Ruth Ellis came to regret her death and the deaths of the 400 or so others whose necks he had broken.
One must question the sanity and decency of a state that will pay an individual for breaking the necks and thereby causing the deaths of 400 of its citizens. He says:
I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing. It is said to be a deterrent. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.
It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. It did not deter them.
All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.
That was the man who hanged 400 people on behalf of the state.
One draws a distinction between execution and judicial murder. Senator Lanigan described everything as judicial murder. I do not think this the case. There is execution in those circumstances where someone is demonstrably guilty and I deplore it, but any analysis of the figures in the United States indicates clearly both execution and judicial murder take place. There is not the slightest doubt a significant portion of those put to death are innocent and in some cases are even believed to be innocent by the prosecuting attorneys. If you examine an analysis of the background of those put to death, in the overwhelming majority of cases they are black, educationally deprived and mentally retarded. In other words, they are classic victims. It was unusual in this case that it was an attractive white woman. Again this raises interesting questions.
We are asked to believe in this country, and in the United States, one element of the penal system is rehabilitation. It is obvious the authorities in the United States do not believe in rehabilitation at all. There is no such thing as rehabilitation. There is a Clemency Board in the State of Texas. Numerous appeals have been made to that Clemency Board and not one appeal has succeeded. What does that tell us?
Karla Faye Tucker certainly committed a grotesque and horrible act. It was made more horrible by the fact she knew the people involved and she claimed in an interview that she derived sexual pleasure to the point of orgasm by burying a hatchet in the body of the young woman involved, someone who had been sleeping with her former boyfriend. That does not make her a particularly pleasant person, but over 15 years she changed radically: she underwent an apparent religious conversion. Interestingly Mr. Victor Rodriguez, the head of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, said he did not believe she had undergone a religious conversion. One wonders what his qualifications were for determining the reality of a religious conversion.
From all the accounts I read her appalling background, she seems to have gone to her death with dignity and giving the impression that she had a religious conversion. If she had not done so and that was a totally cynical exercise, why did she not take the opportunity to spit in the face of her executioners? It seems plausible that she went to her death as someone who had experienced a religious conversion.
I wish one could say the same for the Bush family and the American Presidency. It was suggested that it would be good to call in the American Ambassador, Mrs. Jean Kennedy Smith; it certainly would as part of an educational process. We know from the Cuban tapes that her late brother, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, calmly sat down with the CIA to plot the murder of President Fidel Castro. Murder is a significant arm of foreign policy, not only for the US but for some European countries also. One must raise the question of the double standards involved.
A number of people said how morally revolting it was to be expected to witness these scenes. The most arrogant act of which the human animal is capable is depriving another human being of the capacity to live. None of us from the Pope to the Ayatollah to the rag and bone man in Marrowbone Lane, knows what, if anything, follows physical conscious life. We must therefore bear in mind the possibility that one is absolutely and for all time depriving another sentient being of all capacity to experience anything, and that this is done by the State in a callous, clinical, prepared manner. What I found most revolting were the shots of the well prepared death room, with discreet little curtains and the comfortable gurney onto which the person would be strapped before being injected with a lethal substance on our behalf. Even the name "gurney" is revolting.
At least on this occasion it worked. Members will recall the appalling event some years ago when, as usual, an educationally deprived, mentally sub-normal, young, healthy, black man was strapped into an electric chair in an American state, the electric current was switched on, but it did not work. His brain was partially fried and there were pictures showing smoke coming out of his ears. Is this an edifying spectacle? Was this what led people to chorus "Fry him" outside the jail? That was exactly what was done.
In considering the violence of American society we must remember the glorification of the gun and the political lobby which supports it. In the run up to President Clinton's election the death penalty became a popular issue and he signed an execution warrant because it helped him politically. This is what we have become involved in as a race and it is appropriate that we should protest in the strongest possible fashion to the US authorities on this issue as a matter of international human rights.
My colleague Senator Quinn said he could not support this debate because America was not the only country with capital punishment. It is not, but it is astonishing that a country which we believe to be one of the great democracies has the fourth highest total of public executions after countries such as China and Iran. That is not a comfortable position for any democracy.
A dreadful act took place yesterday morning and I support Senator Lanigan's call for a worldwide campaign to abolish the death penalty. Everyone abhorred yesterday's act. I do not agree with the death penalty, especially in this case where the lady had served 15 years and experienced a total change of character. We can talk about this subject till the cows come home but that will not change what is happening in the United States.
I found the media attention given to the case revolting. The day before Karla Faye Tucker was executed, cameras went into the execution room, showing the bed, etc. , while a mundane voice outlined what would happen. I worry about a society which enjoys such a programme. I found it disgusting and would be concerned about people who would sit up to wait for the murder or execution of an individual. The death penalty is an inhumane act and I would worry about the humanity of those who enjoyed watching it.
We can criticise the United States and other countries which inflict the death penalty as much as we like, as many did on yesterday's Order of Business. However, everyone seems to have forgotten that over Christmas and the New Year random executions took place in our country - I tried to intervene to mention this yesterday. We can talk all we like about other countries and we should remember that the lady who was executed committed horrific crimes, albeit 15 years ago. The innocent people who were murdered in Northern Ireland were walking to and from work or down the street. No one condemned those murders yesterday and it does not say much for our society or ourselves as individuals that we do not abhor what happens here yet we criticise what happens in other countries.
In response to Senator Leonard, we have condemned all killings in Northern Ireland on numerous occasions. The present so-called random sectarian murders have been widely condemned by all parties. The difference between that and the subject of this debate is that in State judicial killings a state takes it upon itself to decide that execution will be a form of punishment for its citizens. This is different from so-called paramilitary organisations which take it upon themselves to kill people, which must also be roundly condemned.
I support what has been said on all sides and condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of the death penalty as an inhumane and uncivilised form of punishment. I also condemn its continuing use in the USA. I support the calls of Senator Norris, Senator Lanigan and others that Ireland should lead a campaign for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. Amnesty International is doing so at present but it would be worthwhile if a small, neutral country like Ireland could take the initiative. Perhaps the Minister would take this on board because credit would redound to the Government and himself.
The penalty exists worldwide but there is a vast difference between countries like Iran and China on one hand and the United States on the other. The US projects itself as the moral leader of the free world. We look up to that country as one of our oldest and strongest democracies. There are 40 million descendants of Irish people living in the United States today. We have close relations with the USA and a country which regards itself as the leading world democracy should be to the forefront of establishing standards. It should do so in a civilised fashion. This is why the United States should be condemned in the strongest terms possible and singled out. Some may say that is unreasonable because there are other horrific regimes. However, the regimes in Iran, China and Iraq, where executions take place on a large scale, are not democratic.
There was a reference to the American Ambassador, Mrs. Jean Kennedy-Smith, and I also wish that she could have attended the debate. It would have been worthwhile and informative and Senator Norris's suggestion should be taken up. I ask the Minister to ensure that a copy of today's proceedings is sent to the ambassador. We would welcome a response from her and perhaps she could peruse it and refer it to her Government.
The arguments used in favour of the death penalty do not carry weight. The main argument is that the death penalty is a deterrent; if somebody is killed, others will be deterred from committing murder. A commission was established in Britain in 1948, following the war, when it began to seriously consider the death penalty. It was established on a scientific basis and it found no evidence to support the thesis that the death penalty was a deterrent. There have been surveys and commissions since then and no evidence in support of it has been brought forward. The earlier commissions which considered events in the 18th and 19th centuries discovered that many people who were subsequently hanged had witnessed executions. An enormous amount of crime, such as pilfering and pickpocketing, happened during the public spectacle of a judicial execution in those times.
The argument that it is a deterrent is not valid. It is a supreme irony that the life of a citizen should be taken to show other citizens that taking the lives of individuals is wrong. How can one stand over the suggestion that a nation will take the life in a judicial execution of somebody who committed murder to show others that murder is wrong? There is an inherent contradiction in the deterrent argument. It does not stand up to examination.
The other function of punishment is rehabilitation. This is also inherently contradictory because somebody who is dead cannot be rehabilitated. There is no justification for murder in terms of the normal justification for or purpose of sanctions imposed by a democratic state. There is one explanation for the death penalty and that is simply and solely retribution. It is tit for tat, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is Old Testament morality and some Christian countries, although fewer than previously, in the West retain it. Other religions have the same type of morality and other countries have espoused it. However, we have moved from Old Testament morality and towards the morality of the New Testament, which is more civilised and humane. It does not demand an eye for an eye. It demands punishment but with hope of rehabilitation, of people turning over a new leaf and becoming good citizens. The death penalty is totally at odds with that morality.
This is why so much emphasis has been placed on the United States. It projects itself as the leader of the modern world. It presents itself in a moral fashion that what it is doing is for the good of the free world, humanity and democracy. However, it is totally out of kilter with most other countries which project themselves as leaders. How can the position where the majority of states which have the death penalty are in the southern part of the country and the largest proportion of people on death row are black be justified? The largest proportion of people killed in the United States is of ethnic minorities. This has always been the case and statistics on people on death row at present show this is still the position. People spend 15 years on death row. They are already tormented for what we acknowledge are hideous crimes and then they are then killed. This is an anomaly, to say the least. The normal length of time on death row is between ten and 20 years before people are executed.
The death penalty was abolished in Ireland in 1963. I pay tribute to former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles J. Haughey, who abolished it for approximately 200 offences, including the theft of a turnip, the crime for which Stoney Burke was hanged in 1847, and stealing sheep. The last capital offences were abolished in 1990 by another former Fianna Fáil Minister, Mr. Ray Burke. Unfortunately, there is a cloud over both men at present, but we should pay tribute to them for their contributions to those desirable developments.
I agree with the condemnation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of this week's execution and her request to the nations of the world, specifically the United States, to adhere to the 1971 UN General Assembly decision which called on all countries which retained the death penalty to progressively restrict its use with a view to eventual abolition.
I thank Senators who contributed to this honest, open and realistic debate. Senators Norris, Costello and others suggested that a copy of the proceedings should be forwarded to the American Ambassador. I will pass on that message to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and ensure that is done. It is appropriate in light of the contributions.
Various issues need to be addressed. The debate reflected the common ground which exists in Ireland. There is also common ground across party lines given the actions of successive Governments on this issue. I acknowledge the remarks of Senator Costello regarding the actions of former Taoiseach and former Minister, Ray Burke, on the death penalty. Senator Lanigan and others said the important thing is what is done from now on. Meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights will start in Geneva on 16 March and will continue into April. As Senators may be aware, Ireland is a member of the commission which runs from 1997-9. The Government will take the lead in advocating the universal abolition of the death penalty.
The death penalty has not been carried out here since 1954. We formally abolished the death penalty for all offences, civil or military, in 1990 with the Criminal Justice Act of that year. There were two motives behind that Act. The first was to respect the dignity and sanctity of human life and the second was to promote human rights and civilised values. I wish to record my appreciation of the then Minister for Justice, Ray Burke.
At the UN General Assembly meeting in 1994 the Italians tried to place on the agenda a draft resolution to call for a moratorium on executions. We supported the Italian position strongly. The Egyptians defended the death penalty as essential for safeguarding human rights. The retentionist camp was led by Singapore, which argued strongly from the basis of respect for state sovereignty, supported by Algeria and Bangladesh. We must be realistic about the strength of Ireland's voice on the international stage and what we can achieve. It is a battle because other countries hold strong positions. That meeting at the General Assembly was chaotic and did not lead to a decisive inclusion. Ireland supported the Italians strongly on that occasion and we will continue to pursue such a position at the UN.
I also wish to draw the Senators' attention to the proceedings of the 53rd session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 16 March 1997. Many Members will be aware of the work of our Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Anne Anderson, who is typical of our many excellent ambassadors abroad, and her contribution to the commission represents the deep and strong feelings the nation holds on human rights. The ambassador outlined three important areas with regard to executions: first, many people who are executed are from vulnerable sections of society, second, mistakes can also be made and, third, there are alternatives to the death penalty.
With regard to the issue of the vulnerable in society who suffer from the death penalty Ambassador Anderson said:
. there is strong evidence that the death penalty is applied disproportionately to those who are least able to defend themselves, to the most vulnerable in society — the poor, the mentally disturbed and members of racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Those individuals may be less able to function effectively within the criminal justice system. They may not possess sufficient knowledge or financial resources to defend themselves properly; indeed, the legal or judicial system in place may reflect a negative attitude to them by those who hold power.
On the second issue of mistakes being made the ambassador said:
We know that all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to error. It can take time, sometimes years, before such errors come to light. When injustice is uncovered it is in most cases possible for a state to release the person wrongfully convicted, to make reparation and to seek to restore that person to his or her place in society. Where the death penalty has been applied and an innocent person has been executed we are powerless to remedy the injustice.
On the question of alternatives and other means available, the point is well made by the ambassador:
It is argued in defence of the death penalty that society must take measures against those who threaten its essential fabric. We fully recognise the concerns of those who make this argument. All governments seek to put in place appropriate preventative and punitive measures to protect the security of the State and the lives of citizens. We believe, however, that the challenge must be to shape and implement such measures without resort to the ultimate and irrevocable sanction of the death penalty. We are convinced that with sufficient conviction on the part of states this challenge can be met.
That underlines the nature of a true democratic society. Policy on this matter does not depend on the Government of the day because there is such widespread agreement. The Ambassador concluded:
Perhaps the most persuasive argument that we can offer . in addressing the issue of the death penalty . is the human factor. Can any system of justice, no matter how carefully elaborated, be one hundred per cent proof against human frailty? Amnesty International has quoted Lafayette who said in 1830 "I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me".
I concur with the sentiments expressed by Ambassador Anderson in March 1997.
Questions were asked about the action Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Karla Faye Tucker case. The expressions of regret and sympathy have been well made and, unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock. I add my voice to the expressions of regret. The Minister wrote to Governor Bush yesterday stating:
I am appalled to hear that it is intended to proceed with the execution today of Ms Karla Faye Tucker. In my view, such executions are a setback for the goal we share of universal respect for human rights.
He made an unsuccessful appeal to stay the execution. The Minister also wrote to the US Ambassador, Her Excellency Mrs. Jean Kennedy Smith stating:
. such executions are a setback for the goal we share of universal respect for human rights. We, in Ireland, view this issue very much from a human rights perspective and we lay particular stress on the need to protect that most fundamental of human rights, the right to life. It is our firm belief that the State has a duty to safeguard that right and we are, therefore, totally opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances.
We have a lot of work to do before we can secure the universal abolition of the death penalty. The 54th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva will take place on 16 March. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated the Irish position and we will adopt a strong position in favour of a worldwide abolition of capital punishment. It is our firm conviction that the abolition of the death penalty as an instrument of judicial punishment would contribute to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights throughout the world.
I am pleased to have attended this debate. Sadly, our views were not acted upon in the Karla Faye Tucker case. However, the sentiments expressed across party lines reflect the feelings of the people on this issue. The principles were set out by the Members and I hope I have encapsulated them appropriately. I also hope the public appreciates that the time of the House was well used with this debate. We hope that in some way Irish foreign policy on this issue will have an influence in the future.
I have endeavoured to be realistic, in the same vein as many Senators, in saying that there are many countries and states of the US who have taken decisions on this matter for whatever reasons. We find the death penalty abhorrent and reprehensible and we object strongly to it. There is a lot of work to do and we cannot presume that we can change the world overnight. However, let us try to do it in the various international fora, especially within the UN system. An Irish person is now UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I thank Senators for their contributions and I hope my comments were of some benefit.
I thank the Minister for his words on this matter which is of great concern to many Members. When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.