Drug trafficking: time to abolish the death penaltyadd_2625 1267..1269

This editorial will contend that the execution of peopleconvicted of drug trafficking and other drug-relatedoffences is a penalty that should be abolished, as it is bothineffective as a policy measure and abhorrent in terms ofhuman rights violation [1]. That conclusion will beoffered after due examination of contrary arguments,and with respectful acknowledgement of the fact thatdifferent cultures have different beliefs as to what con-stitutes justice. The editorial will go on to argue thatthe international addictions science community has aresponsibility to support the abolitionist cause—silencecannot be an appropriate response in the face of suchcontinued and irrational judicial killings.

CONTEXT: THE CONTINUATION OF THEDEATH PENALTY MORE GENERALLY

If the death penalty were to be struck out generally fromevery retentionist country’s statute book, executions fordrug offences would, in passing, of course be abolished.Since the end of the Second World War the strong trendin many parts of the world has been towards such generalabolition. A recent report [2] suggests that as of 2007, atotal of 135 nations have abolished this penalty by law orpractice, with 63 still remaining as retentionist, althoughonly 24 of these actually carried out the death sentenceduring 2007. On 18 December 2007, in a historic vote atthe UN General Assembly [3], 104 countries adopted aresolution favouring a world-wide moratorium on execu-tions (the resolution was opposed by 52 countries includ-ing Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Libya, with the UnitedStates also in this company). The international statisticsare not fully reliable: China appears to top the league with470 executions for all causes reported in 2007, but it ispossible that the true figure could run into thousands.Second place in the international rankings is held by Iran(207 in 2007), followed by Saudi Arabia (143), Pakistan(135) and the United States (42). In 2007 at least 1252people were executed across a total of 24 countries [2].

There are 10 retentionist countries in the Asian–Pacific region, but in Europe only Belarus continues withthis practice. Executions are carried out by various meansand can be public or televised, or on other occasions verysecretive, with families having difficulty in locating andrecovering the body. Officially, executions by stoning havebeen abolished in Iran but probably still occur: the victimwill be buried to the waist and a crowd provided withsmall stones in order to prolong the suffering [4]. In somecountries children as young as 13 may be killed judicially[2].

THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUGTRAFFICKING: RETENTIONISTARGUMENTS

Two main lines of argument are commonly advanced [1].The first claims a symbolic type of justification. Drug traf-ficking is seen as heinous, corrupting of the nations’youth, disruptive of traditional values, often foreign inorigin and immensely profitable for its perpetrators. It is atrade which may feed narcoterrorism and at worstthreaten the overthrow of the state. Drug dealers killtheir victims and willingly shoot down enforcement offic-ers. Secondly, there is the ‘rational’ argument: desperatediseases are seen as requiring desperate remedies. It couldwell be argued that it is not wrong for the state to take alife if this saves lives. The death penalty will stamp outparticipation in this evil trade and uniquely deter othersfrom entering the business, it is claimed.

How does this play out in practice? Here are a fewexamples of the outcomes that have resulted. Singaporehas enacted a mandatory death penalty for anyoneapprehended in possession of more than 15 g of heroin,30 g of cocaine or 500 g of cannabis [5], quantitieswhich in many other jurisdictions would be seen as morecompatible with personal use than intent to supply. Othercountries favouring mandatory judicial killings includeBrunei, India, Laos, Malaysia and North Korea [3]. Mean-while, China marked UN Anti-Drugs day with the massexecution of 55 drug dealers carried out in just 2 weeks ofJune 2006 [6]. In 2008, off the coast of Yemen, the USNavy intercepted a fishing boat which was found to have1.5 tonnes of hashish on board. The Americans handedthe 12 Iranian crew members over to the Yemeni authori-ties, who condemned one of these men to death and gave25-year prison sentences to the other 11 defendants. Theprosecution has appealed against this supposed leniencyand demanded that the death sentence should be handedout to all concerned [7]. It is difficult, if not impossible, togive anything approaching an annual world estimate forthe number of drug traffickers executed, but in somecountries they account for the majority of all executionsand are increasing in number.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT

Those who oppose the use of the death penalty for drugtrafficking will also probably build their case on two linesof argument. First, and while admitting the impossibilityof controlled comparisons, they are likely to contend thatthe death penalty as applied to these offences is not, and

EDITORIAL doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02625.x

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 104, 1267–1269

cannot rationally be expected to be, an effective instru-ment of deterrence. There are numerous examples of thetrade in drugs thriving in the face of the most draconianpenalties, for the simple reason that it is the poor andreplaceable ‘mules’ and runners who are likely to becaught and executed, while the major dealers areimmune to prosecution and bribe or shoot their way out.Not only is there a dearth of tangible evidence as to effi-cacy, but a large body of research on the general issue ofdeterrents suggests strongly that likelihood of detection isa more important deterrent than intensity of punish-ment [8]. Drunk driving provides a telling example: theappearance of this potentially lethal behaviour requiresnot the death penalty, but suspension of licensingcoupled with high-profile policing. In Afghanistan itappears that the opium farmers not only pay 10% of theirprofits to the Taliban but may also pay an informal 10%tax to the police and then operate with relative impunityfrom any interference by enforcement agencies [9].Research on the complex interactive business of drugcontrol has, over recent years, become increasinglysophisticated [10–12]. However, although there are goodresearch-based reasons [11] to doubt the likely efficacy ofthe death penalty as a national contribution to control, itis difficult to identify a research strategy which could putthe question to the test conclusively.

The second argument likely to be employed by theabolitionists is that judicial killings for this type of crimeare an offence against human rights. The three currentinternational drug conventions, to which the great major-ity of nations are signatories, make no reference to use ofthe death penalty. However, the UN Safeguards [1], a state-ment which seeks to protect the rights of those facing thedeath penalty, ruled that ‘capital punishment may beimposed only for the more serious crimes, it being under-stood that its scope should not go beyond intentional crimewith lethal or other extremely severe consequences’ [7].Authoritative legal interpretation of that statement islikely [13] to support the view that the death penalty fordrug trafficking is a violation of human rights—traffick-ing is no more a proximate and inevitable cause of deaththan is the trade in motorcars or the sale of tobacco. If theevidence for and against the efficacy, logic and ethicality ofexecution for drug trafficking is put to any uncorruptedjury, what would one expect to be their verdict? This edi-torial dares to assert that, beyond reasonable doubt, thatjury would find for specific abolition.

THE NEED FOR ADDICTION SCIENTISTSTO SPEAK OUT

No assumption as to consensus is needed, however, toargue that addiction scientists, from many different back-grounds, have the authority to contribute to this debate.

Some, perhaps the majority, may want to speak out insupport of the abolitionist cause spurred by the belief thatsilence in such circumstances is too near connivance.Conjointly, the world community of addiction scienceand scholarship has a powerful voice and one whichdeserves to be heard on this matter. Addiction is thereforesending a copy of this editorial with a covering letter to anumber of relevant national and international profes-sional organizations, and to the editors of all 67 journalsthat are members of ISAJE (the International Society forAddiction Journal Editors).

Readers of this journal who wish to make personalrepresentations of this type may like to have the followingcontact advice: Secretary General of the UN: UN Head-quarters First Avenue at 46th Street, New York, NY10017; President of the UN International NarcoticsControl Board: secretariat@incb.org; Director General ofWHO: chaibf@who.int. It would be helpful if any mes-sages could be copied to Addiction: National AddictionCentre, 4 Windsor Walk, London, UK; e-mail: louisa@addictionjournal.org.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this editorial do not believe that they aresubject to any conflicts of interest relevant to the presenteditorial. As members of Addiction’s editorial staff, each ofthem provides a general statement on conflict of intereston the journal’s website: http://www.addictionjournal.org/ethicalpolicy.asp

GRIFFITH EDWARDS1, TOM BABOR2,

SHANE DARKE3, WAYNE HALL4, JOHN MARSDEN1,

PETER MILLER5 & ROBERT WEST6

National Addiction Centre, London, UK,1 University ofConnecticut, Farmington, CT, USA,2 University of New

South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia,3 University ofQueensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia,4 Deakin University,

Herston, Geelong, Australia5 and University College London,London, UK6. E-mail: louisa@addictionjournal.org

References

1. Lines R. The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: A Violation ofHuman Rights Law. London: International Harm ReductionAssociation; 2007.

2. Amnesty International UK. Death Sentences and Executions in2007. Amnesty International Report. London: AmnestyInternational UK; 2008.

3. Amnesty International UK. The Death Penalty Worldwide:Developments in 2007. Amnesty International Report.London: Amnesty International UK; 2008.

4. Amnesty International UK. Death Penalty in 2007: MediaBriefing. London: Amnesty International UK; 2008.

5. International Narcotics Control Board. Report of the Interna-tional Narcotics Control Board 2008. ISBN 978 92 1 1482324. Vienna: International Narcotics Control Board; 2008.

1268 Editorial

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 104, 1267–1269

6. Asia-Pacific: Death sentences for drug-related crimes risein region. Available at: http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/adpan_a-p_anti-drug_ASA010032007 (accessed 22 June 2009).

7. Iranian faces death penalty in Yemen for drug trafficking.Available at: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTI0ODU1MzI1MQ== (accessed November2008).

8. Blum A., Cohen J., Nagin D. Deterrence and Jurisprudence:Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates.New York: National Academy of Science; 1978.

9. Abdul-Ahad G. Life in Helmand, where rich rewards arereaped by poppy farmers, police and the Taliban. Availableat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/drugs-trade-government-corruption-afghanistan (accessedDecember 2008).

10. Caulkins J. P., Sevigny E. How many people does the USincarcerate for drug use, and who are they? Contemp DrugProbl 2005; 32: 405–28.

11. Caulkins J. P. The cost-effectiveness of civil remedies: thecase of drug control interventions. In: Mazerolle L. G., RoehlJ., editors. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 9. New York: Crimi-nal Justice Press; 1998, p. 219–37.

12. Kleiman M. A. R. Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results. NewYork: Basic Books; 1992.

13. UN Secretary General. Report: Capital punishment and imple-mentation of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of therights of those facing the death penalty. Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/docs/1995/e1995-78.htm (accessed 22 June 2009).

Editorial 1269

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 104, 1267–1269