Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A comparison between the Dutch debate (in 1870) and the German debate (in 1949) on the abolition of capital punishment shows that the main arguments for and against capital punishment have changed little over the centuries. Despite the differences in social and political circumstances in Genmany and the Netherlands, the arguments that were advanced show a striking resemblance. In both countries the defenders of the death penalty recognized the weakness of the deterrence argument, and for this reason they opted for retribution as the principal argument for punishment.

Social science had little or no bearing on the forming of the opinion of the participants in the debate. Statistics were not regarded as a very reliable source of arguments for or against the death penalty. It was stressed that the issue had to be decided on principles ofjustice rather than statistical findings.

In both debates public opinion had little influence. It was recognized that opinions based on little or no knowledge on all the aspects of capital punishment form a dubious foundation for policy-making. At this moment, the death penalty is not a public debate, either in Holland or in Germany.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ancel, M. (1962). The death penalty in European countries. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

Ancel, M. (1966). The problem of the death penalty. In T. Selin (Ed.), Capital punishment (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Bedau, H. A. (1978). Objections to the death penalty from a moral point of view. Revue Internationale de Droit Pinal, 58, 557-567.

Belinfante, A. D. (1978). In plaats van Bujltjesdag. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Bowers, W. J. (1988). The effect of executions is brutalization, not deterrence. In K. C. Haas & J. P. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 49-91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Camus, A. (1957). Reflexions sur la guillotine. In A. Camus & A. Koestler , Reflexions sur lapeine capitale (pp. 128-238). Paris, France: Calmann-Levi.

Cohen, H. (1987). Some selections on the immorality of capital punishment. Revue Internationale de Droit Penal, 58, 595-603.

Fattah, E. A. (1987). To abolish or not abolish the death penalty, a report on a painful question and a neverending debate.... Revue Internationale de Droit Penal, 58, 799-821.

Franke, H. (1985). De dood in het even van alledag. The Hague, The Netherlands: Nijg en van Ditmar.

10.

Hood, R. (1996). The death penalty: A world-wide perspective. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

11.

Morenschlager, M. (1987). The abolition of capital punishment in the Federal Republic of Germany. Revue Internationale de Droit Pinal, 58, 509-521.

12.

Pelser, C. M. (2001). Criminal legislation in the nineteenth century: The historic roots of criminal law and non-intervention in the Netherlands. In P. Alldridge & C. H. Brants (Eds.), Personal autonomy, the private sphere and the criminal law (pp. 181-204). Oxford, England: Hart.

13.

Reiman, J. (1988). The justice of the death penalty in an unjust world. In K. C. Haas & J. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment (pp. 29-49). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

14.

Smidt, H. J. (1891). Geschiedenisvanhetwetboekvanstrafrecht, eerste deel. Haarlem, The Netherlands: Tjeenk Willink.

15.

Spierenburg, P. (1991). The broken spell: A cultural and anthropological history ofpreindustrial Europe. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

16.

van Bemmelen, J. M. (1948). Het probleem van de doodstraf Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Van Veen.

17.

van der Does de Willebois, J. (1948). Onwaardigen onduldbaar, NJB. Zwolle, The Netherlands: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

The Debate on Capital Punishment in the Netherlands and Germany

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References