Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1999

Vol. 158 No. 5

Capital Punishment in the US: Motion.

Mr. Ross

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to protest to the US Government in the strongest possible terms at the continued barbarity of capital punishment in the United States; and further demands that the Minister for Foreign Affairs calls in the US Ambassador and demands and immediate response.

With the agreement of the House, Senator Ryan will second the motion.

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is unusual for a senior Minister to attend debates of this kind, which are usually dealt with by junior Ministers. It is appropriate that the Minister is here because for many years his views on the death penalty have been liberal, progressive and humane. I assume he will be supporting the thrust of the motion, even if he disagrees with the way it is worded.

Apart from the fact that it was originally proposed by Senator Ryan before he departed for other places, this motion is being raised now because of the death of Sean Sellers a number of weeks ago. This execution more than any other in the last year aroused the emotions of people in this country and around the world. Following high profile executions in the United States periodically there are protests but then they are forgotten because executions there are not highlighted. It is fitting that we see the tragedy and extent of executions like this to remind us of what is happening on an almost daily basis there. There have been 18 executions already this year; people may not be unaware of this.

Sean Sellers committed a crime when he was 16 years of age many years ago. He killed his parents, for which he was convicted, and he subsequently killed a storekeeper in Oklahama. This is the first time since 1959 that somebody in the US was sentenced to death and executed for an offence committed as a minor.

It is regrettable that the Government is publicly mute about these executions because I believe we all deplore them. Executions in the US are especially inappropriate. This is a country which likes to think of itself as the leader of the civilised world. Daily it condemns atrocities overseas. For example, it lectures the Serbs about slaughter when it commits equally violent and reprehensible crimes against its own citizens on at least a weekly basis.

There is very little distinction between the institutional murder of somebody by the state to the murder of one person, one citizen, by another. There is no difference; the crime is the same. In the case of the state, it is probably worse because the act is premeditated and there is no doubt involved.

America is a country which officially endorses the killing by lethal injection of its citizens. It is not a pleasant thought. It is the country which, on moral grounds, invades and bombs Iraq. It has set itself up as the policeman of the world. We accept it as such because of force majeure, because we must.

There are great qualities about American people, society and politicians. However, their system of executions is one of their ugliest and most unacceptable practices and it is one on which we, as a nation, have conspicuously failed to admonish them. We should point out the hypocrisy of those who lecture people overseas about slaughter when they cannot put their own house in order.

One of the most unpleasant aspects of executions in America is not just the long drawn out, tortuous and morbid procedures – repeated appeals, reprieves, death row and eventual executions – but the fact that they are carried out on the basis of political decisions. How often have we watched on television or heard of it being up to the governor to make a final decision about the execution of a prisoner? A governor's election may depend on whether he executes. A conservative governor – and this is the disgusting part – loses votes if he does not order the lethal injection to be given. That is the reality. Some of them are subject to these political pressures and do not have the moral courage to say they are not worried about votes and they do not believe in the death penalty. The power of life and death is now in the hands of politicians who are subject to powerful and bloodthirsty lobby groups, and some of them are succumbing to them. That is unacceptable.

Where does Ireland come into the equation? Ireland, as many Members of this House will remember, abolished the death penalty in 1985. It happened late in the day but it was a unanimous decision in both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is one of the few things which unites people in the two Chambers because we are a humane country. That measure was brought about at a time of great difficulty and terrorist activity. It was a courageous decision taken by both Houses against the wishes of many members of the Garda at the time. However, it was undoubtedly the right decision. It was initially introduced in 1982 by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition and then reintroduced by Fianna Fáil.

It is right to take the death penalty out of the political arena because people's lives would be subject to the type of political pressures from the lobby groups I mentioned in the United States and the gardaí who are understandably emotional when gardaí have been murdered by terrorists. Once it is no longer an option for politicians and judges, there is no point in people making immediate decisions for an execution because it cannot happen.

Having taken that decision, Ireland is surprisingly quiet about the activities of the United States when it carries out these executions. Why can the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose views on this issue are commendable, not say that we believe what the US is doing is barbarous? It is barbarous to murder people in cold blood and in this particularly clinical way. We should protest and make it plain that we have an international morality, whether it is about our so-called friends or not.

That is why this motion is so strongly worded. It would cause a stir if, the next time someone was executed or due for execution in America, our humane Minister for Foreign Affairs sent for the new American ambassador and told him this behaviour was unacceptable to the Government and that we wanted to make a formal protest. Our activity in terms of protesting about these executions has been limited to small organisations or maverick politicians. It would make a greater impact if the Minister acted on his own accord and on behalf of the nation and said this was unacceptable.

Mr. Ryan

I thank Senator Ross for allowing sentiment to overcome my new allegiances so that I can second the motion which I have supported for some time.

I get a weekly newspaper from the United States called The National Catholic Reporter which carries in its inside pages on a bottom corner what it calls the “death watch”. Every week it reports the name of the latest person to be executed and asks for prayers for the victim of this person, the family of the victim, the person and the society which has allowed itself to become so brutalised that this is taken for granted.

One of the most enlightened governors in the United States, Governor Mario Cuomo, lost his governorship because he had principles on the death penalty which he could not and would not abandon. One of the least noble gestures of the current President of United States took place during his primary campaign. He travelled across the entire United States to sign the death warrant of a young man in his home state. The young man was of subnormal intelligence but he had become something of a hate figure. The then erstwhile candidate for the presidency of the United States apparently wanted to prove his macho credentials.

Anybody who reads American magazines or watches American television news – and we all can do that now courtesy of Rupert Murdoch – will realise this is hardly an issue in the mainstream media in the United States. It is not debated. It is an issue for an enormous number of good people in religious and other lobbies in the United States but it is barely an issue in the mainstream media. That is the reason it is so important that the view of the rest of the world on this issue is put clearly to the United States Government. It does not know how the rest of the world views it because the rest of the world does not tell it. That is the reason the motion is worded as it is. I have always believed the words "barbarous" and "barbarity" should be inserted in this way. The rest of the world sees this as barbarous; the Minister knows it is barbarous. The new barbarity is to invite the family of the victim to watch the person being executed die.

Those of us who come from a different tradition in terms of this heinous matter cannot simply tut-tut. If the US Government was less acceptable, powerful or demanding of its right to lead all of us in a certain direction, we would say all this. If another government claimed to be demo cratic but executed people on the scale the United States does, our Government would be outraged, and rightly so. The real inhibition is not any reservation about the wrongness of what they are doing; it is not a reservation about the nature of what they are doing. The reservation is because we are afraid and there are few things about which we should be less willing to be afraid.

However horrible our experience in the past 30 years has been, there is no doubt in my mind that if capital punishment had existed in this State or in Northern Ireland, our problems would have been 100 times worse. We would have had a country littered with the blood of martyrs. Neither I nor anybody in this House would have called them martyrs but they would have become martyrs. We were saved from much worse by our civilised decision not to have the death penalty.

We can say to the US authorities that we have had horrific murders and brutality in our State but we did not feel the need to execute anybody and neither should they. We should tell a friendly government firmly and explicitly that it is seen to be behaving in a barbarous fashion which offends every norm of civilised behaviour. There can be no pussy-footing about this. That is why the Government amendment is disappointing. This needs to be said as often as we can, as publicly as we can and as vigorously as we can so that American public, liberal, and conservative opinion realises that if they retain the death penalty that is their own business, but the world has taken a view they do not know about. This Government, as well as all others in the civilised world, should tell them they are destroying the American image. If they knew this – I do not think they do as it is not stated vigorously enough – the capacity of that Government to criticise other countries for human rights abuses would be immediately undermined. One cannot speak about torture or illegal detention because they are not as offensive or barbarous as the decision to kill another human being in cold blood. That is as cold blooded and clinical as a decision of the provisional IRA to plant a bomb under a person's car because it does not like his or her uniform or politics. There are political differences, but the decision and action are just as cold blooded, clinical, ruthless and necessarily protected by an absence of proper human feelings.

When a country reaches a stage of losing such sentiments about its behaviour, it is only when friends from outside speak bluntly, vigorously and repeatedly, and in a way which must be heard – not privately where it can be ignored – through the United Nations and all world agencies, that they will begin to realise the rest of the world is horrified and offended and sooner or later they will have to stop and rejoin civilised nations.

Mr. Lanigan

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann takes note of the efforts of the Government, in co-operation with European Union partners, to impress on the US authorities at state and federal level, and on the authorities of other countries where its use is maintained, Ireland's strong opposition to carrying out death sentences; and calls on the Government to continue to work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

I am grateful to Senators Ross and Ryan for their contributions which sit very well with my view. I am sorry, considering one is in Government, one cannot accept the language of the original motion. Perhaps I would have done the same in Opposition, but barbarity does not sit well in the atmosphere of diplomacy. In those circumstances, I thought it better to make a gentle amendment to the original motion.

In common with Senators who put down the original motion, and no doubt with all Members of this House, I regret the executions which continue to take place in the United States. One of the most recent was mentioned by Senator Ross, that of Sean Sellars in Oklahoma, which raised particular concerns as Mr. Sellars was 16 at the time the crime for which he was sentenced was committed. The United States had not executed a prisoner for a crime committed at that age since 1959. The European Union made representations to the American authorities at both federal and state level to prevent the execution being carried out.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to which the United States is a party – expressly states that the death penalty shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

The Government recognises that the United States has made a reservation to Article 6 of the international covenant. Nevertheless, the Government believes Article 6 enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area. I also note that, in the view of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the US reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the covenant and should be withdrawn. It is the deeply held view of this Government and other member states of the European Union that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. For those reasons, we and our partners are working assiduously towards the universal abolition of the death penalty.

The Government, like its predecessor, worked closely with a number of other governments in preparing the resolution on the abolition of the death penalty adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights, for the first time at its 53rd session and again last year at the 54th session of the commission. I point out in the gentlest possible fashion to Senator Ross that to suggest we are sitting back and doing nothing is wrong in the face of the facts. We were the first delegation to co-sponsor the Italian resolution last year, following a request to do so by the Italian delegation in recognition of our strong support for this initiative in previous years.

Ireland will, of course, continue to seek to identify every opportunity to further the international campaign against the death penalty. We see the next session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which will be held in Geneva from 22 March to 30 April, as affording such an opportunity. It is with some pride that I tell the House Ireland has been elected to chair the session, one of the most important events in the human rights calendar. Our permanent representative in Geneva, Ambassador Ann Anderson, will conduct the proceedings and her election is a recognition of the consistent and progressive policies on human rights adopted by successive Irish Governments and a measure of her standing at the United Nations in Geneva.

We, in the chair, will call on the European Union for the first time, through its current Presidency, Germany, to introduce the resolution on the abolition of the death penalty. In the past, with Italy, we had been to the fore in canvassing support. At the next session, we will work towards increasing the number of votes in favour of the resolution and limiting the votes against. We will also lobby intensively to increase the number of co-sponsors from 65 to 80. This involves a carefully targeted campaign over a sustained period, both in capitals around the world and in Geneva. I am confident we will make significant progress. It is, as Senators Ryan and Ross have suggested, something dear to me. I would like to see the abolition of the death penalty worldwide as expressed in the sentiments of the original motion.

This is the first occasion in this House that I have been able to speak on the common position and actions of the European Union on the question of the death penalty. It proved possible to reach this common position only in June last year when the United Kingdom joined the consensus view of its EU partners. This was a particular source of satisfaction for me as I had been pressing within the EU for priority to be given to the adoption of a common policy on this fundamental issue of human rights. My motive was simple – the continued use of the death penalty diminishes us all. There is a moral obligation on the European Union, as an institution and an ideal, to use its collective influence to work for its abolition. I, therefore, use this occasion to outline briefly how the common EU policy is being implemented.

It is our strong belief that EU intervention carries greater force than individual bilateral approaches by national governments. The EU, speaking with one voice, is more effective than the situation prior to last June when interventions did not have the weight of 15 states in unison. This does not, however, preclude Ireland or other individual member states from choosing to complement the EU approach by national actions.

Common guidelines for EU initiatives on the issue of the death penalty were agreed and adopted by EU Foreign Ministers in June 1988. Where the death penalty still exists, the EU will continue to press for its use to be progressively restricted and for moratoria to be introduced. The guidelines cover the circumstances in which démarches and representations will be made in both multilateral fora and towards third countries. They also cover the minimum standards which should be met in instances where the death penalty is carried out.

Following the adoption of the guidelines, the Union's efforts in the past eight months have continued to focus on promoting universal abolition of the death penalty. We have continued to press for abolition and have issued démarches on the use of the death penalty in a number of countries including, inter alia, the Sudan, Benin, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, the Palestinian Authority, the Philippines, Sierra Leone and the United States. The EU has welcomed and supported countries abolishing the death penalty or introducing moratoria, for example, in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kirgizstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

The exact nature of such approaches depends on a number of considerations. These include whether the country in question has a properly functioning and open judicial system; whether it has signed up to international commitments not to carry out the death penalty; whether the judicial system and its use of the death penalty are subject to independent international scrutiny and whether there are indications that the death penalty is widely used in contravention of minimum standards. Particular consideration will be given to making representations on the use of the death penalty at times when a country's policy may be said to be in a state of flux, for example, where an official or de facto moratorium on the death penalty is to be ended, or where the death penalty is to be re-introduced through legislation.

In addition to interventions on the issue of the death penalty in principle, it has been agreed that where individual cases violate basic minimum standards, the European Union will consider making a specific intervention. Instances would include the execution of a person for non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience; persons who were less than 18 years of age when the crime was committed; pregnant women or new mothers and those who are insane. This policy of promoting abolition and, where states insist on maintaining the death penalty, seeking the upholding of basic minimum standards, will continue to receive priority attention. It will be developed as the results dictate.

I have spoken in detail of the development and operation of the common EU policy because of its significance for the cause of the abolition of the death penalty. This does not imply that our scope for bilateral action has been curtailed. We are channelling our efforts towards building the common policy into an instrument of real strength which will make a difference in the global campaign. We all have an interest in ensuring this is effective.

We are continuing to examine at home and in our embassies abroad each case that comes to our attention. If there are real and urgent reasons for Ireland to take bilateral action, I assure the House this will be carried out without delay. It is not a question of making invidious comparisons between one case and another. Our position is clear – no more executions should be carried out anywhere.

Human rights are not a static phenomenon. New rights are constantly evolving, often from existing ones. An example from history is the abolition of slavery. This developed gradually from the recognition of other rights such as the right to liberty and equality before the law. This is now a fundamental and internationally accepted right. It is my view that the campaign to abolish capital punishment is experiencing a similar development. The preamble to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights correctly places the abolition of the death penalty in the context of "the progressive development of human rights". This has always been one of the main pillars of our policy. This pillar is firmly based on the right to life. We share the view, noted in a report to the Economic and Social Council by the UN Secretary General in 1995 on the death penalty, that capital punishment could not be reconciled with the fundamental right to life and that it was the duty of government to ascertain the full protection of life by not taking it, even in the name of the law.

Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. As we move towards the next century there are indications that human rights are progressively moving to a central position in the formulation of EU policy. The coming into effect of the Amsterdam Treaty will further strengthen the Union's commitment to safeguard and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. In pursuit of its policy of promoting human rights in all parts of the world, the Union regularly raises human rights questions in its dialogue with third countries, as an important and legitimate part of that dialogue.

I am under no illusion that we will accomplish universal abolition of the death penalty in the immediate future. However, the lead which has been taken by the European Union gives some grounds for optimism that real progress towards this goal will be made.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We have a motion and an amendment before us. The basic facts are that everybody here disagrees with the principle of capital punishment and, therefore, I urge the Minister and the Government side of the House to accept the motion as presented.

The Minister says he cannot accept the motion as it stands because the word "barbarity" does not sit well with the language of diplomacy. He would prefer the more gentle amendment. I know that men of a gentle nature would possibly prefer a gentle amendment, but this is a political forum. What is happening is the result of legislation passed by politicians in the United States.

Capital punishment remains on the Statute Book in 38 American states; it also remains on the Statue Book of the US Federal Government and in American military law. While this continues, the President of the United States visits China and makes statements on the need for proper human rights to be implemented there. We have also seen him in various Arab states and other countries that are not famous for their human rights record.

It is, frankly, an exercise in hypocrisy for the President of the United States, or indeed any American politician, to take that line while in their own supposedly civilised country, which is supposed to be the essence of democracy, they enact laws allowing the death penalty.

The United States holds itself up as the champion of human rights, but it actually dictates to the world and has moved into various countries as the protector of human rights. In China and across the world it purports to be such a champion, yet in 38 American states this appalling scenario continues. That is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will reconsider his position and accept both the tone and tenor of the motion as it stands.

I appreciate what the Minister has done, both at the UN and within the European Union, to increase the votes in favour of abolishing capital punishment around the world, and his campaigning on that front. However, he would have stronger moral authority when he attends the forthcoming meeting in Geneva if he said that Seanad Éireann has vociferously and forcefully requested that this barbaric act be stopped immediately in the United States.

We have already discussed this matter at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and individually with various American politicians. It is extraordinary that these politicians justify the death penalty with great energy and bravado. As far as they as concerned it is absolutely necessary as a deterrent to crime. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the death penalty is effective as a deterrent.

A poll carried out in the United States in 1993 showed that over 44 per cent of the population were against capital punishment while 41 per cent were in favour. Those against the death penalty, however, were in favour of life imprisonment without parole which they considered to be equal to, if not greater than, the death penalty as a deterrent. Any arguments pursued with US politicians or the US Government should proceed along the lines of introducing detention for life without parole rather than the death penalty. If sufficient pressure was exerted on the United States from other parts of the world they would be forced to respond to this basic principle.

The European Union recently criticised the United States over the execution in Oklahoma of Sean Sellers, who killed his mother and two other people when he was 16 years old. He was finally executed when he was 29. Despite the fact that the United States has signed Article VI of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it chose to exclude itself from its operation and has voiced reservations about it. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy because Article VI seeks to protect people under 18 years of age from being executed. Yet, as recently as last November in Oklahoma, a 29 year old, who committed crimes at the age of 16, was executed. It was right that the EU, which does not normally criticise the United States, did on this occasion make an exception. Perhaps the EU should be vociferous more often; more statements should be made on such activities.

Senator Ryan referred to 1992 when, the now President of the United States, as Governor of Arkansas, returned from canvassing in New Hampshire to Arkansas to sign the death warrant and attend the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a black inmate and a seriously retarded person who did not know what was going on. However, President Clinton signed the death warrant for that misfortunate retarded person. Mentally ill people have also been put on death row and executed in America. Emile Duhamel, who was seriously mentally ill, was executed in July 1998 in Texas. Sean Sellers was also executed recently, for committing a crime at the age of 16 years.

These three vulnerable groups – retarded and mentally ill people and those under 18 years – are being put on death row while the United States flaunts itself as a champion of democracy and human rights throughout the world. It is time to end the hypocrisy; the democracy rests lightly on those in the White House and the governors of states across the United States of America. Thirty eight states still have the death penalty on their Statute Book. The Minister, primarily as a politician but also as a diplomat, would be in a much stronger moral position to speak on behalf of Ireland if he accepted the motion as it stands.

We are being subsumed too much into the EU. It is wonderful if we take concrete action in response to a particular crisis as part of the EU; however we should not lose our national identity. We as a country and a separate entity have a responsibility to clearly, cogently and coherently express our view and I am relying on the Minister to do that in the future.

Mr. Lanigan

The Minister and both sides of the House agree that the death penalty and death by virtue of the laws of government are barbaric. When we speak about the death penalty in the United States, we must realise that at least 95 per cent of those killed are, by definition, black or, if they are not black, they are not white.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

They are also socially underprivileged.

Mr. Lanigan

They have not passed junior school and do not have a stable family background; they are from the levels of American society which are neglected.

One hundred senators attended the recent impeachment trial in the Senate, three of whom were women, two of whom were black and 87 of whom were lawyers. If 87 lawyers, two blacks and three women can adequately represent the cross-section of society, I am a Dutchman.

The death penalty may now be extended to women in various states; there was a stay on the execution of women for some time. However, when one sees handicapped and young people, etc, who have been executed, it has to be said that America is a society which kills its minorities. It kills its blacks through judicial execution. In general, it does not kill white people through judicial execution, although a small proportion of executed prisoners are not black.

People who get involved in crime tend to come from dysfunctional family backgrounds and do not go through the education system. Strangely, many of the prisoners who have spent many years on death row awaiting execution become articulate after a number of years. This is because, for the first time in their lives, they have reasonable accommodation and food. The main reason is that they receive an education, something they did not receive before being sent to prison. Members of the public wonder how such an articulate and well educated person could commit crimes when they were 16 or 17 years of age. They are different people now because they have been educated. It simply shows that if they had gone through a normal education system outside prison, they could have become equally articulate.

The United States is hypocritical. Freedom is its essence, but its efforts to abide by human rights principles are abominable. It preaches to other countries about human rights abuses. Recently, legislation was passed by the Oireachtas to establish an international court of justice. The United States refused to sign up to the convention to establish that court. It could not sign, it claimed, because some of its citizens might be brought before the court. In other words, it is all right to bring Rwandans and Kosovans before that court but, because some of its citizens might be brought before it, the United States could not sign Article 6 of the international convention on civil and political rights.

I do not know what moral authority we have to speak on this issue. We have the right to suggest to the United States that murder is murder and is more abominable if it is carried out in cold blood by the state. Recently I watched a television programme about the problem of guns in the United States. According to that programme, children under 12 years of age in Houston, Texas, know more about guns than about baseball. That is terrible. They can speak about the calibre of various handguns and explain the damage they can do.

There is also a huge arms lobby in the United States. The number of people who own guns is abominable. There is no control and anybody who suggests otherwise lives in cloud cuckooland. One can buy a gun in any shop or purchase whatever firearm one wishes on the side of the street. Where there is no control on the supply and use of arms there will be violent crime. American society believes it is appropriate to have a gun in one's home. Why would anybody want to have a gun in his or her home?

Some people maintain that the people of Texas are descended from the cowboy generation which always carried arms. Their attitude is: "Therefore, my child will have a gun, go hunting and learn how to use the gun in a responsible manner". Unfortunately, the child goes out and shoots his or her next door neighbour or a child or a person walking down the street.

The Government has taken the right attitude in the past. The Minister contacted the State Department to protest at the barbarity of capital punishment. Southern governors are gung ho in their desire to kill these people. They do not care, and they know they would lose votes if they opposed the death penalty. The gun lobby is too strong. It also supplies armaments of every description to the world's despots. It should not surprise anyone that violence is endemic in the United States.

The Minister should continue to put as much pressure as possible, on a bilateral basis through his Department, and on a multilateral basis through the EU, to ensure the people of the United States realise their governors and President are wrong in their continuing support for the abomination of capital punishment.

Dr. Henry

I understand the Minister's diplomatic concern about the strength of our language. Our words are strong because our feelings on this subject are strong. I know the Minister also feels strongly about the subject.

As a doctor, one of the most appalling aspects of the matter is the involvement of the medical profession in the execution of prisoners. The constant search for the cleanest, quickest and nicest way is terrible – which is nicer, which will the general public find most acceptable, lethal injection, gassing or the electric chair?

The documentation on the deaths is extraordinary. It is so horrific that I will not go through it. I am used to dealing with death, and even I find it terrible. Two years ago Amnesty International reported that it took 36 minutes to find a suitable vein for a lethal injection in a young man called Tommy Smith, during which time he was fully aware of what was going on. A medical orderly tried for 16 minutes to insert the needle into a vein and could not find one; a doctor was called who eventually found a suitable vein in his foot and Tommy Smith was executed. When one sees scenes like that and recalls the years of sedation of prisoners on death row, one realises why our emotions are so strong.

Senator Lanigan is correct to mention how articulate some of the prisoners on death row have become when they have had the opportunity of a better education in better conditions. There is, however, a large number of prisoners kept in a zombie-like state while they wait for years on death row.

We have our own problems with sedation. There are no records in our prisons for the intake of mood altering drugs such as Valium or Librium or how much each patient is taking. The Department has confessed that the prisoners are keeping their own records. There has not been a pharmacist within the prison service for 18 months. The post is being advertised at a salary of £28,000 per year, and the last time it was advertised, not one person applied. A friend of mine who tried to get a locum pharmacist had to promise a young man a holiday in Rio de Janeiro if he would work two weeks, so what hope is there of the prison service attracting an experienced pharmacist?

It would be better if we could say the circumstances in our prisons are acceptable. The 1997 report of the medical director for prisons has not even been released yet. Perhaps the Minister would lean on the Minister for Health and Children so that we can debate the 1997 report of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals. I have asked for that several times and am absolutely sure that it is not the Leader who is blocking it. He is most obliging, and it is not his fault we have not had a debate on this matter. I am glad to think it is something to do with the Department of Health and Children.

When one thinks of health and American prisons, it is extraordinary that in 1989 the United States Supreme Court declared it was not unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person; that is something, but since then 30 mentally handicapped people have been executed in the United States. How many more of those who were executed had mental illness, and how important was that in the commission of their crimes? We know from our own prisons the very high level of psychiatric illness in prisoners; at least 30 per cent of our male prisoners have some form of psychiatric illness, and 90 per cent of our female prisoners have been described as having psychiatric illness. What is the situation on death row? It would be nice to know if the proportion is the same.

Our situation is bad, but at least we have not resorted to the measures taken in America. However, I worry when I see us emulating the American example by building more prison places as a solution to everything. I know there was unanimity in the House about the abolition of the death penalty, as Senator Ross said, but I hate to see our slippage towards a higher prison population than we ever had before. We need to take a serious look at that. The biggest disgrace here is that the most serious hospital waiting list in the country is for the Central Mental Hospital. However, that features nowhere as those on that waiting list are incommunicado; they are in prisons.

I strongly support the motion and hope that we take care not to slide towards a criminal justice situation such as that in America. An increase in the prison population there is apparently a vote getting exercise and, as Senator Ross said, even President Clinton cannot oppose the death penalty because doing so would lose votes.

Mr. Lydon

I will not speak for long as I made a very extensive speech on this matter when we debated the abolition of the death penalty. I cannot support the motion as it stands as I do not believe it is in the remit of the United States ambassador, even if he were called in, to deliver on what is being asked. I strongly support the motion as amended, and I commend the Government on its efforts at European Union and other levels to abolish the death penalty.

The Minister said that he would, for the first time, call on the EU through Germany, which holds the Presidency, to introduce the resolution on the abolition of the death penalty. That is as much as we can expect in the circumstances and is the best way to go about this. If we get a large body like the European Union working effectively on this proposal, that might put pressure on the United States.

I have heard a lot of anti-American sentiment here this evening and I do not want to add to it. We have a habit of attacking America but calling for Uncle Sam when the chips are down. I have always felt that about the United States; there are some bad things about America but some good things come out of it too. I do not know why we should be surprised. As Senator Henry said, people who are mentally ill, handicapped or under age have suffered the death penalty in the United States. It is a gun culture; it grew up that way. People there have always carried guns and shoot not just wildlife but each other. There is a huge murder rate. There is also a huge abortion rate – there have been approximately 20 million since Roe v. Wade. It is a culture attuned to death as well as life; it is a raw culture.

Most Americans see nothing wrong in putting someone to death for a crime. This is sad because, once one abandons the basic concept that human life is sacred, matters slip from then on. At no level do human beings have the right to take the life of another human being – I even have doubts about the concept of a just war. In our country we are opposed to the death penalty but one can nonetheless see a slippage in the philosophy that human life is sacred towards one which thinks it may be expendable in certain cases, and once we reach that philosophy we cannot worry too much about people being executed.

Senators named people who were executed in the US, sometimes for dubious reasons, and Senator Lanigan said they usually come from one race and one socio-economic group, which does not say much for the justice system. The Government's approach seems to be the most realistic in the circumstances – rather than launching an attack on the US by bringing in the ambassador, we might have more of an effect if we pursue the line of asking the EU as a whole to lobby as a strong group.

Mr. D. Kiely

Like the previous speaker, I could not support the motion but I support the amendment. If the death penalty had been in place in the UK over the last 30 years, what would have happened to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and others who were found innocent after spending years in prison? For that reason, among others, I totally oppose the death penalty and welcome the Government's efforts to bring other countries into line. As Senator Lydon said, the penalty is morally wrong and no one should have the right to take another person's life.

Mr. Ross

I am disappointed that the Government decided to put down an amendment to this motion. It is the old story – ideals in Opposition and no action in Government. For a man of his outlook the Minister's speech is disappointing. Using the plámás which speechwriters deploy so eloquently, he said he deeply regretted executions in America. However, that is not what Ministers are for, that is what we are for – Ministers are there to do something about it. The speech was a masterly piece of obfuscation with no action.

I am tired of listening to Governments of all hues saying they agree with everything one says, especially about foreign affairs, and that they proposed a motion to that effect in the EU – that is where all good ideas die, as the Minister knows full well. He was at it again tonight in saying that under the EU umbrella he was taking a leadership position against the death penalty. Under that umbrella nothing will be done about the death penalty in the US – motions, emotions and actions of this sort will be conveniently buried. The EU is the best graveyard for enlightened ideas; it buries them and allows Ministers to return to their native countries and say they did everything they could in Europe, we are not there yet but we are taking a leadership position against capital punishment throughout the world. The unwritten message is that this is a big issue, it will take a long time to persuade the Americans, so we are not going to do anything about it and, even if we did, they would not take any notice. That is what is in the Minister's speech.

He also said he did not approve of the word "barbarity" in the motion and could not accept it. If I took out that word, would he then call in the US ambassador to protest at these killings? Of course he would not.

May I give the last two minutes of my time to Senator O'Toole?

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ross

We register serious disappointment at the Government's reaction to this motion because under the EU, nothing will be done. Far more would be achieved, with far greater impact, if Ireland as an individual nation, a great friend of the US, called in the ambassador to say this was unacceptable behaviour which we could not tolerate.

Mr. O'Toole

I am sorry for being late but given that the debate concerned barbarity I thought it important to adduce proof, so I was reading a long treatise entitled Capital Punishment is Barbarous, which I will copy for Senators in the next few days. Not only is it barbarous, it is cruel, unusual, inhuman and, in terms of the punishments it has created, unacceptable in today's world. Given that we have a convention against the ill-treatment and execution of prisoners in a time of war, it is extraordinary that execution of prisoners is allowed in peace time. This is barbarous in any terms.

We say that amputation, when used as a punishment, is inhuman and unacceptable; we protest against other forms of punishment, such as stoning and various methods of torture, and refer cases to the Court of Human Rights. On those matters we take a clear position, and our country takes a similarly clear position on capital punishment. When Pol Pot used lethal injections, the gas chamber, the electric chair, and hanging by the neck, we rightly objected and took him on. As a civilised country we take a clear, unanimous, and consensual view, which is shared on the other side of the House, and we should state it loud and clear. I have never before heard Senator Lydon so reticent about expressing his views. On this issue why should we not make our views known to the world and to those with whom we disagree? Given that we live in a global democracy, we are entitled to do so. I firmly commend the motion to the House.

Amendment put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Cox, Margaret.

Cregan, JohnDardis, JohnFitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.

Gibbons, Jim.Tá–continued.

Gibbons, Jim.Keogh, Helen.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.

Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Avril.Gallagher, Pat.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.

Jackman, Mary.Manning, Maurice.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Ross.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Cassidy

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.