THE CULTURAL LIVES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

Vol. 15 No.12 (December 2005), pp.1063-1066

THE CULTURAL LIVES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES, by Austin Sarat and Christian Boulanger (eds.). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2005. 360pp. Cloth. $65.00. ISBN: 0804752346. Paper. $24.95. ISBN: 0804752338

Reviewed by Darren A. Wheeler, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Florida. Email: dwheeler [at] unf.edu

The United States recently witnessed its 1000th execution since the reestablishment of the death penalty in 1977, and the topic of capital punishment has once again been thrust into the national and international spotlight. What is it about the United States that makes it a virtual outcast among western democracies in the area of capital punishment? What accounts for the starkly different perspectives on capital punishment taken by retentionist countries like the United States and abolitionist ones found on the European continent and elsewhere? Austin Sarat’s and Christian Boulanger’s latest contribution to the death penalty literature, THE CULTURAL LIVES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES, argues that such differences are not just a result of differing governmental approaches to a policy issue, but they often reflect underlying cultural, historical, and social dynamics that, in many cases, are not easily changed. In other words, social, historical, and cultural influences shape the policies that decide if (or when) the state may kill. This volume takes the reader on a journey around the world in an attempt to discover and describe just how the cultural, moral, and social values of a population affect views of capital punishment and how these factors determine what constitutes acceptable (and unacceptable) instances of state killing. Sarat and Boulanger seek to increase knowledge about the “cultural lives” of the death penalty by advancing the argument that we need to “see how capital punishment ‘lives’ or ‘dies’ in the rest of the world, how images of state killing are produced and consumed elsewhere, how they are reflected, back and forth, in the emerging international judicial and political discourse on the penalty of death and its abolition” (p.1). As a result, this book fills a need for comparative analyses of the death penalty.

The book is organized into three sections and several important themes run throughout. The first section targets capital punishment in Europe and the Americas. The second examines state killing in Central and South Asia and the Middle East. The final section considers capital punishment in East and Southeast Asia. More specifically, individual chapters focus on Germany, Poland, the United States, Mexico, Israel, Palestine, Krygyzstan, India, Japan, Singapore, China, and South Korea.

Although no one theoretical framework ties the chapters together, a strong abolitionist theme permeates the entire book. A variety of sub-themes can be found as well. In the first section, readers are introduced to the argument [*1064] that abolishing the death penalty (or at least developing more “humane” methods of execution) is part of a “civilizing” process. The idea is that countries that have banned the death penalty have become more “civilized” and moved beyond the need to execute people for criminal behavior. Apart from these “civilizing” aspects, abolition of the death penalty is also an important factor in defining identity for some countries and their populations, as we see in the case of Europe. The second section reminds us that state killing can encompass more than just the death penalty. Indeed, “extra-judicial” execution (i.e., killing outside the confines of the legal system) is the primary means of state killing in many countries. The final section on East/Southeast Asia addresses the important question of whether there is any link between a country’s use of the death penalty and its level of democratization. Although it is often argued that democratic countries are less likely to employ the death penalty, this book provides several examples of Southeast Asian countries that defy this relationship.

There are a number of variations to the argument that abolition of the death penalty is a sign of a “civilizing” population. Short of abolition, it is still possible for countries to show signs that they are becoming more “civilized” by employing the death penalty in a more open, fair, and humane manner. In Chapter Two, Jurgen Martschukat reviews nineteenth century execution patterns in Germany to assess how moving the location of executions (from public to private) changes the impact and meaning conveyed to society. By “hiding” executions from the public or by introducing more “humane” methods, the executions themselves become more “civilized.” This particular theme also resurfaces in David Johnson’s chapter on Japan, where the death penalty remains safely removed from the public view.

Europeans have been quite vocal about their opposition to the death penalty and its use by other states in the international political system. In fact, as outlined by Evi Girling in Chapter Five, an abolitionist stance has become associated with a larger European identity and a fundamental part of European political organizations and international agreements. Louise Tyler’s examination of the death penalty and cultural identity in film (Chapter Six) is but one manifestation of this European identity. The chapters on Poland, Mexico, and Kyrgyzstan all illustrate the power of the international abolitionist movement and its influence on membership in the European/world community “in good standing.” Although the United States is often heavily criticized by Europeans, Judith Randle’s chapter on “The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment in the United States” reminds us that America is not monolithic on the death penalty, but that there are regional and sub-cultural differences. Her observations regarding the cultural experiences in the North and South provide an interesting example of how cultural differences between regions of a country can influence capital punishment policy.

The reminder that not all state killings occur via the official legal system is among this volume’s most significant contributions. These “extra-judicial” executions shape the cultural environment and the public’s perception [*1065] of capital punishment. To consider the death penalty as an isolated legal sanction is to miss the larger picture. The chapter on India illustrates this point nicely. Although India has the death penalty, Julia Eckert reports that the legal system is slow and ossified, and as a consequence, there has been a widespread loss of public confidence in it. At the same time, there has been a rise in organized crime-linked and police-initiated “encounter killings” (essentially ambushes/shoot-outs with suspected criminals). The result is an interesting paradox. India’s judicial system allows for the death penalty but the process is alarmingly slow and inefficient. These “encounter killings” are of dubious legality but are quick and efficient. Both are part of the public cultural experience of capital punishment in India.

The chapters on Israel and Kyrgyzstan discuss the role that history plays in shaping the contemporary public attitudes towards the death penalty and state killing. As in Poland the Soviet legacy in Kyrgyzstan looms large. One might think that indiscriminate use of the death penalty under Soviet rule would color public opinion against it. However, the comparatively “lawless” period that followed Soviet withdrawal from Kyrgyzstan has created an environment where extra-judicial killings (e.g., death occurring in prison) are more common than formal state executions. The government publicly rejects the death penalty in an attempt to secure international favor, while it engages in other forms of state killings. In Israel we see a carefully cultivated state position on the death penalty designed to reduce the ability of opposition groups to produce martyrs in their battle against the Israeli state. It is this ongoing battle for the perceived survival of the Israeli state that continues to shape public opinion of capital punishment in Israel.

Is there a relationship between democratization and the abolition of capital punishment? The evidence is, at best, mixed, and the countries examined in section three provide stark examples to the contrary. Countries such as China, Japan, and Singapore have added an interesting twist to the “civilizing” argument discussed above. Instead of viewing abolition of the death penalty as a “civilizing” indicator, these states have incorporated a retentionist viewpoint into their political, economic, and social fabrics. Indeed, the chapter on Singapore provides a wonderful example of how “the entire system of criminal justice . . . is oriented toward the preservation of order and the enforcement of a culture of developmentalism seeking to sustain the process of development and nation building” (p.304). In these cultures, the well-being of society is emphasized so that capital punishment is viewed as a positive tool of state development, rather than as a negative reflection of state policy.

The themes in this book are primarily topical rather than theoretical or methodological. The variation in the approaches taken in each chapter reflects the editors’ belief in a healthy “methodological eclecticism.” This collection includes various historical approaches as well as “images of state killing, punishment, and civilization in official discourse . . . cinema . . . and the popular mind” (p.31). [*1066]

Readers will certainly get more out of this volume if they have at least a somewhat rudimentary background in world politics, culture and politics, or the death penalty and comparative legal systems. It would make an appropriate supplemental text in any class where these subjects are covered. The book could serve as a point of departure for a global cultural analysis of capital punishment, or it might be used to examine a particular region such as Asia or Europe. Moreover, its utility is not confined to political science and law, because the cultural emphasis is quite relevant to philosophy, anthropology, and sociology.

As technological advances bring the world closer together, the policies of one state invariably affects other states. The War on Terror provides a good example. Although the overwhelming majority of countries wish to assist in the War on Terror, many are also reluctant to extradite terror suspects to the United States without specific assurances regarding the use of capital punishment. It is important to remember that policy differences are not simply products of governments but reflect the social and cultural beliefs that are major components of regional and national identities. Exploring the cultural dynamics of capital punishment, in addition to politics and law, will provide a fuller, richer discussion of the future of capital punishment as a state tool around the world.

*************************************************