Previous scholarship discussed the pivotal role of democracy in promoting human rights policies. However, prior work did not examine the distinct process of how democratic regimes adopt contentious policies with low public support. In focusing on the distinct policy-making process of contentious policy, this study examines how democracy can lead to a policy change with one contentious policy in particular: the abolition of the death penalty. The research compares dissimilar dynamics within gradual and immediate abolition processes with data from 164 countries between 1950 and 2010. The results of a competing risks event history model suggest that a country’s overall level of democracy, a specific democratic component such as the institutional separation of powers, democratic transition, and the presence of democratic legacy increase the likelihood of gradual abolition. However, democracy does not lead to immediate death abolition, except in cases where there is a sudden transition to democracy. The results have important implications for understanding the role of democracy in promoting contentious and unpopular policies.
Amnesty International (2010) The death penalty website. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org (accessed 1 September 2010).
3.
BobbioN (1989) Democracy and Dictatorship (trans. KennealyP). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BoliJThomasGM (1997) World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review62: 171–190.
5.
BoulangerCSaratA (2005) The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment: Comparative Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJMJonesBS (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrownBWBenedictRBucklerK (2010) Support for the death penalty in developing democracies: A binational comparative case study. International Criminal Justice Review20: 398–416.
8.
Council of Europe (1983) Protocol No. 6 to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty as amended by Protocol no. 11. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/114.htm (accessed 29 October 2011).
9.
DahlR (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
DavenportC (1995) Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science38: 683–713.
11.
DavenportC (1999) Human rights and the democratic proposition. Journal of Conflict Resolution43: 92–116.
12.
DavenportC (2000) Paths to State Repression: Human Rights Violations and Contentious Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
De MesquitaBBDownsGWSmithA. (2005) Thinking inside the box: A closer look at democracy and human rights. International Studies Quarterly49: 439–457.
14.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.
15.
DobbinFSimmonsBGarrettG (2007) The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning?Annual Review of Sociology33: 449–472.
16.
DunérBGeurtsenH (2002) The death penalty and war. The International Journal of Human Rights6(4): 1–28.
17.
EcksteinHGurrTR (1975) Patterns of Authority: A Structural Basis for Political Inquiry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
EllsworthPCRossL (1983) Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency29: 116–169.
19.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Book
FutamuraM (2014) The politics of the death penalty and contexts of transition: Democratization, peacebuilding and transitional justice. In: FutamuraMBernazN (eds) The Politics of Death Penalty in Countries in Transition. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–28.
22.
FutamuraMBernazN (eds) (2014) The Politics of Death Penalty in Countries in Transition. New York: Routledge.
23.
GarlandD (2010) Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
24.
GrasmickHGCochranJKBursikRJJr. (1993) Religion, punitive justice, and support for the death penalty. Justice Quarterly10: 289–314.
25.
GreenbergDFWestV (2008) Sitting the death penalty internationally. Law & Social Inquiry33: 295–343.
26.
HammelA (2010) Ending the Death Penalty: The European Experience in Global Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
HarffB (2003) No lessons learned from the holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955. American Political Science Review97: 57–73.
28.
HendersonCW (1991) Conditions affecting the use of political repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution35: 120–142.
29.
HendersonCW (1993) Population pressures and political repression. Social Science Quarterly74: 322–333.
30.
HibbsDA (1973) Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
31.
HoffmanDRoweJQC (2003) Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998. New York: Pearson Education.
32.
HoodRHoyleC (2008) The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
HuntingtonSP (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
34.
JacobsDCarmichaelJT (2002) The political sociology of the death penalty: A pooled time-series analysis. American Sociological Review67: 109–131.
35.
JiangSLambertEGWangJ (2007) Capital punishment views in China and the United States: A preliminary study among college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology51: 84–97.
36.
JohnsonDTZimringFE (2009) The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
KeilTJVitoGFAndreescuV (1999) Perceptions of neighborhood safety and support for the reintroduction of capital punishment in Romania: Results from a Bucuresti survey. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology43: 514–534.
38.
KelleyJBraithwaiteJ (1990) Public opinion and the death penalty in Australia. Justice Quarterly7: 529–563.
39.
KrainM (1997) State-sponsored mass murder: The onset and severity of genocides and politicides. Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 331–360.
40.
KutateladezBCrossmanAM (2009) An exploratory analysis of gender differences in punitiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review19: 322–343.
41.
LambertEGPasupuletiSJiangS. (2008) Views on the death penalty among college students in India. Punishment & Society10: 207–218.
42.
McCannMW (2006) Law and social movements: Contemporary perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science2: 17–38.
43.
McGannASandholtzW (2012) Patterns of death penalty abolition, 1960–2005: Domestic and international factors. International Studies Quarterly56: 275–289.
44.
MaozZHendersonEA (2013) The world religion dataset, 1945–2010: Logic, estimates, and trends. International Interactions39: 265–291.
45.
MarshallMGJaggersKGurrTR (2011) Polity IV Project. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
46.
MathiasMD (2013) The sacralization of the individual: Human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. American Journal of Sociology118: 1246–1283.
47.
MeyerDSBoutcherSA (2007) Signal and spillover: Brown v. board of education and other social movements. Perspectives on Politics5(1): 81–93.
48.
MeyerJWRamirezFO (2000) The world institutionalization of education. In: SchriewerJ (ed.) Discourse Formation in Comparative Education. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 111–132.
49.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83: 440–463.
50.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasG. (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology103: 144–181.
51.
MitchellNJMcCormickJM (1988) Economic and political explanations of human rights violations. World Politics40: 476–498.
52.
MooneyCZLeeM-H (1995) Legislating morality in the American States: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science39: 559–627.
53.
MooneyCZLeeM-H (2000) The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: U.S. Death Penalty Reform, 1956–82. Journal of Politics62: 223–239.
54.
NeapolitanJL (2001) An examination of cross-national variation in punitiveness. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology45: 691–710.
55.
NeumayerE (2008) Death penalty: The political foundations of the global trend toward abolition. Human Rights Review9: 241–268.
56.
O’DonnellG (2004) Why the rule of law maTters. Journal of Democracy15: 32–46.
57.
PintilieM (2006) Competing Risks: A Practical Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
58.
PoeSCTateNC (1994) Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review88: 853–872.
59.
PoeSCTateNCKeithLC (1999) Repression of the human right to personal integrity revisited: A global cross-national study covering the years 1976–1993. International Studies Quarterly43: 291–313.
60.
PowellEJStatonJK (2009) Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly53: 149–174.
61.
RadeletML (1981) Racial characteristics and the imposition of the death penalty. American Sociological Review46: 918–927.
62.
RadeletMLBorgMJ (2000) The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology26: 43–61.
63.
RosenbergGN (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Changes?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64.
RosenbergGN (1992) Hollow hopes and other aspirations: A reply to Feeley and McCann. Law and Society Inquiry17(4): 761–778.
65.
RuddellRUrbanaMG (2004) Minority threat and punishment: A cross-national analysis. Justice Quarterly21: 903–931.
66.
RussellB (1993 [1938]) Power: A New Social Analysis. London: Routledge.
67.
SaratAMartschukatJ (eds) (2014) Is The Death Penalty Dying? European and American Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
68.
SaratAScheingoldSA (eds) (2006) Cause Lawyers and Social Movements. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
69.
SchoferELonghoferW (2011) The structural sources of association. American Journal of Sociology117: 539–585.
70.
SossJLangbeinLMetelkoAR (2003) Why do white Americans support the death penalty?Journal of Politics65: 379–421.
71.
StrangDMeyerJW (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society22: 487–511.
72.
StrangDSouleSA (1998) Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology24: 265–290.
73.
SuhCS (2014) Differential participation in professional activism: The case of the guantánamo habeas lawyers. Mobilization19: 287–307.
74.
SuttonJR (2000) Imprisonment and social classification in five common-law democracies, 1955–1985. American Journal of Sociology106: 350–386.
75.
TolbertPSZuckerLG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly28: 22–39.
76.
United Nations (UN) (1989) Second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/2ndOPCCPR.aspx (accessed 6 November 2015).
