The Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide recently published its research on “Pathways to Abolition of the Death Penalty,”¹⁰⁷ a comparative study of the factors leading states to repeal capital punishment. Expanding upon the 2013 report of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty (ICDP)¹⁰⁸, the study covers 15 new jurisdictions across a range of geographical regions and periods¹⁰⁹ with an emphasis on the most recent abolition success stories. The goal of this publication is to share strategies and experiences to illuminate the work of groups currently working towards abolition.
Examining the impact of both state and non-state actors on the abolition process, the study concluded that, especially in recent times, lawmakers played a critical role. In two-thirds of the case studies, abolition took the form of a parliamentary vote¹¹⁰. Moreover, almost every abolition process after 2000 was spearheaded by parliamentarians. Human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also participated actively in every abolition process studied after 2000. Two other groups contributed in less measurable but equally significant ways. The first, composed of stakeholders in the criminal justice system (judges, legal professionals, prison administration officials) were key to developing a human rights culture. Judicial decisions, for instance, prepare reform by narrowing allowable death penalty practices in light of constitutional and international norms. The other group, which includes journalists, academics, artists, and some wrongfully convicted individuals, laid the groundwork for abolition by debunking myths (such as deterrence) and relaying accurate information on capital punishment. Reporting on wrongful capital convictions, in particular, offered powerful arguments in death penalty debates.

The use of sources from international law is a strategy which has also often proved to be useful.

Popular support for capital punishment did not generally derail abolition efforts. While reliable public opinion polls were often lacking, in-country experts frequently described their understanding that abolition was achieved despite the public’s preferences. In many states, politicians acted as trailblazers. No unrest, however, followed any abolition announcement in our study, and no political careers were damaged by abolitionist activity. In several countries, public support for capital punishment slowly dwindled after, and possibly as a result of, abolition.

The study also considered the debated issue of whether moratoriums hasten abolition or delay it¹¹¹. Supporters of moratoriums argue that execution-free periods allow states to experiment with the reality of abolition while weakening the perception that capital punishment is a necessary component of criminal justice. Others believe moratoriums delay abolition by anchoring a status quo that appears to meet international human rights standards without engaging with abolition. This study suggests that legislated moratoriums can be effective precursors to abolition, especially in conjunction with empirical analysis on its impact on criminal justice¹¹². Gradual decreases in the use or scope of capital punishment played similar roles¹¹³. Examining recent abolitions that followed long moratoriums¹¹⁴ (cases embodying the idea that moratoriums delay abolition), the report concluded that three current developments favor abolition in long-standing de facto abolitionist states:
• First, international human rights review procedures provide sustained encouragement to take the final step towards abolition.¹¹⁵
• Second, international abolition treaties offer a new pathway to abolition, connecting a stalled national abolition process with the momentum of the global trend towards abolition.¹¹⁶
• Finally, national abolition processes benefit from unprecedented levels of material and technical support by international and local organizations.¹¹⁷

The research therefore suggests that recent successful strategies rely on a combination of restricting / suspending the death penalty, engaging parliamentary allies, making use of advocacy opportunities provided by human rights bodies’ prioritization of abolition, and harnessing the momentum of the global movement towards abolition.