All five contemporary practitioners of the death penalty in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam—have performed executions on a regular basis over the past few decades. Amnesty International currently classifies each of these nations as death penalty ‘retentionists’. However, notwithstanding a common willingness to execute, the number of death sentences passed by courts that are reduced to a term of imprisonment, or where the prisoner is released from custody altogether, through grants of clemency by the executive branch of government varies remarkably among these neighbouring political allies. This book uncovers the patterns which explain why some countries in the region award commutations and pardons far more often than do others in death penalty cases. Over the period under analysis, from 1991 to 2016, the regional outliers were Thailand (with more than 95 per cent of condemned prisoners receiving clemency after exhausting judicial appeals) and Singapore (with less than 1 per cent of condemned prisoners receiving clemency). Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam fall at various points in between these two extremes. This is the first academic study anywhere in the world to compare executive clemency across national borders using empirical methodology, the latter being a systematic collection of clemency data in multiple jurisdictions using archival and ‘elite’ interview sources. Last Chance for Life: Clemency in Southeast Asian Death Penalty Cases will prove an authoritative resource for legal practitioners, criminal justice policymakers, scholars, and activists throughout the ASEAN region and around the world.
Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework for a comparative study of clemency in death penalty cases. It begins by clarifying the terminology used throughout the book, including the local terms used in Southeast Asian legal systems for executive ‘clemency’. Then, drawing in particular from the work of Douglas Hay et al (1975), Leslie Sebba (1977a; 1977b); Kathleen Dean Moore (1989), Daniel Kobil (1991; 2003; 2007), Elizabeth Rapaport (1998–2000; 2001), and Austin Sarat (2005; 2008), Chapter 2 suggests four models of clemency in death penalty cases, based upon the previous academic literature: (1) ‘mercy from the sovereign’ granted solely for the ruler’s benefit; (2) retributivist clemency; (3) redemptive clemency; and (4) clemency for political benefit or utilitarian reasons. Finally, Chapter 2 also summarizes the results of the few multi-jurisdictional studies on capital clemency conducted in the past (e.g. Turrell 2000; Pascoe 2017b; Sebba 1977b; Baumgartner and Morris 2001; The Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2004; Dascalu 2012; Novak 2015; Strange 1996; Tait 2000–1), together with factors that the theoretical literature suggests may contribute to clemency frequency or scarcity. In summary, the theoretical and empirical literature points to the following potential determinants of death penalty clemency: political regime, separation of powers, clemency decision-making structure, structural opportunities for leniency at earlier phases, procedural idiosyncrasies in the criminal justice system, time spent on death row, and predominant religion.
Because of the threat that Covid-19 poses to incarcerated populations, executives around the world have used their clemency powers to commute sentences and grant freedom to prisoners in high-risk categories. Coronavirus pardons may be justified on several theories of punishment and have been exercised alongside bureaucratic forms of legal mercy such as parole and compassionate release. Although executive clemency is residual in most legal systems, the novel coronavirus has reactivated the pardon power in many jurisdictions, overcoming significant legal and procedural barriers, albeit with exclusions for particular crimes and categories of offender. This article relays recent global trends in executive clemency granted as a result of Covid-19, drawing out relevant lessons for the academic literature on the topic, as well as for policymakers dealing with future pandemics and other emergencies.
The South Pacific forms a cohesive region with broadly similar cultural attributes, legal systems and colonial histories. A comparative analysis starts from the assumption that these countries should also have similar criminal justice policies. However, until 2022, both Papua New Guinea and Tonga were retentionist death penalty outliers in the South Pacific, a region home to seven other fully abolitionist members of the United Nations. In this article, we use the comparative method to explain why Papua New Guinea and Tonga have pursued a different death penalty trajectory than their regional neighbours. Eschewing the traditional social science explanations for death penalty retention, we suggest two novel explanations for ongoing retention in Papua New Guinea and Tonga: the law and order crisis in the former and the traditionally powerful monarchy in the latter.
Physics instructors recognize the value of kinesthetic experience in learning fundamental physics concepts. We describe a kinesthetic experiment appropriate for both college and high school physics students. The experiment helps students achieve an intuitive understanding of Newton’s second law in a way they find quite enjoyable. It was devised by one of us over 20 years ago and has been performed by thousands of students at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) and by students at some Los Angeles area high schools. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) call for high school students to be able to analyze and interpret data and to understand Newton’s second law, which are central to this experiment. The experiment gives students a feel for Newton’s second law by requiring them to adjust their own motion so that they move at constant acceleration in order to maintain a constant force on a cart carrying a second student.
Most physics instructors believe that adequate sleep is important in order for students to perform well on problem solving, and many instructors advise students to get plenty of sleep the night before an exam. After years of giving such advice to students at Loyola Marymount University (LMU), one of us decided to find out how many hours students actually do sleep the night before an exam, and how that would relate to their performance. The effect of inadequate sleep on exam performance was explored in a second-semester introductory physics course. At the end of the final exam, students reported the number of hours they slept the night before. Sleep deprivation corresponded to lower final exam scores. The main purpose of this study is to provide evidence that instructors can provide to their students to convince them that their time is better spent sleeping rather than studying all night before an exam.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.