ABSTRACT
Over the past twenty years, the global capital punishment landscape has altered considerably; the abolition movement has garnered unprecedented momentum, with the number of countries which implement the death penalty at an all-time low, there is much to celebrate. The abolition movement itself has also evolved in this time, in its holistic quarters, to facilitate developments in the expanding human rights sphere, and in its litigation quarters, to facilitate post-colonial judicial change. Although, when it comes to measuring success, much of the abolition debate remains static, measuring the movement’s success narrowly, and ignoring the wider ramifications of many abolition strategies. Evolution of the abolition debate is welcome, but corresponding recalibration of the measures of success is also required. Disturbing patterns have emerged following litigation-based abolition strategies, largely led by foreign lawyers. Patterns such as the introduction of whole of life sentences, neglect of beneficiaries, entrenching conservative constitutional interpretations, and stifling of sustainable local capacity building, all serve as worrying examples of a damaging pattern, ignored by the propagators. The fallout from such litigation strategies is further bolstered by advocacy groups who choose to ignore such ramifications in order to present the facts about abolition in a consistently positive light. This short-sighted approach to advocacy reinforces bad practice in order to demonstrate the success of the abolition movement, rather than detract from the progress made in such cases with a pragmatic analysis which would ultimately serve to further a holistic human rights based approach to abolition.
