abolished worldwide? the u.s. allows for more methods for execution as you and resolution against the practice is rejected. why is capital punishment favored in many areas? this is "inside story." welcome to the program. the death penalty is one of the world. it has been abolished in much of

the world but it is still carried out in 54 countries, including china and the united states. for decades, the u.s. has used lethal injections to execute those convicted of certain crimes, but the justice department has allowed more methods, including firing squad and electrocution. the u.s. constitution strictly bands what it describes as cruel and unusual punishment. right groups accuse the trump administration of rushing to execute five inmates before the president's term ends in january. last week, the u.s. was one of 39 countries that rejected a u.n. resolution for a moratorium on capital punishment. with 120 votes in favor, the general assembly is expected to adopt the measured a month. the u.n. secretary general said death penalty has no place in that when he first century. amnesty international says more than 26,600 people are known to be on death row around the world. it recorded at least 657

executions in 20 countries last year. iran, saudi arabia, iraq and egypt counted for more than 86% of capital punishments last year. the u.s. is ranked number six of the total numbers of executions for 22. rights groups say china is the world's biggest execution with thousands believed to be killed every year. beijing does not release death penalty figures. let's welcome our panel of guests joining us on skype. in melbourne, a senior manager at asia initiatives for human rights watch. a professor of put science at tehran university and the author of "surviving execution -- a miscarriage of justice and the fight to end the death penalty." welcome to you all. i would like to begin in tehran. you support the death penalty.

why do you think it makes such a deterrent? guest: the first issue is we have to look at every country separately. i don't think we can have a general rule for the entire globe regarding capital punishment. the latest data on iran, the world values survey, which was conducted in 2020, so it is very recent, asked air radians what they thought of capital punishment. it was on a scale of one to 10 with one being never suitable and 10 being always suitable. over 80% of iranians chose a number of five or over. so a majority of iranians, including myself, support the capital punishment system and i think it does act as a deterrent for potential violent crime perpetrators. i don't think just because you have certain laws that other countries, they have to be

enforced in countries such as iran. anchor: just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. it's the death penalty and mistakes can be made and people can be executed and their -- in error and that is final. how can you justify something that is not 100% effective? guest: true, there can be errors of course, and i'm not supporting any errors or innocent people getting killed, but at the same time, i think violent perpetrators of crime such as serial killers, i think they have let go of their right to life by killing other innocent people and i think the families of these victims deserve justice, so we have to look at this from the angle of those who are victims as well as their families. anchor: our guest into ron says it's an effective deterrent but it is also something that should be up to the individual country. guest: i strongly disagree with

that assertion. it has been repeated comments by the u.n. that the death penalty serves no deterrent purpose, there has been no evidence to that effect by any credible, independent, reputable source. it's a barbaric form of punishment and it serves absolutely no purpose in any society. we are talking about fundamental human rights here and regardless of what someone has done or is perceived to have been done, they should never be sentenced to death. i oppose that view in its entirety. anchor: but it is an effective deterrent according to many regimes that say it keeps their society in check as the ultimate punishment. is there no sympathy with that argument? guest: it is an emotional topic. i understand people want a really simple, finite solution to an issue like a graphic

crime, people think take away their life. but it is not as simple as that. we know in many countries that support the death penalty, there is massive issues within -- with terms of fair trial, due process, rule of law, independent judiciaries. so it is a much more nuanced and complex issue than this and because the final result is ultimately the death of an individual, it should never be supported. it is on the whole rejected by countries, numbers of the u.n., 120 members of the u.n. voted against the death penalty last week. this form of punishment is on the way out. anchor: in northern ireland, a lot of the justification for the u.k. to ban the death penalty is mistakes have been made in the past and it is to final. is that something you think

should be universal? guest: there certainly have been miscarriages of justice and i have always dealt with the rights and wrongs of the death penalty all the way back to my school debating days. but only became passionately -- as someone facing execution, i got to know a man sentenced to death in oklahoma more than 20 years ago. today, he is on death row awaiting execution. he had three different execution dates. two of those were delayed because of legal reasons. the third was called off at the last moment because they discovered they had the wrong lethal injection drug to kill him with. that's the only thing that saved his life since there have been no more executions in oklahoma because of that. i don't think it is a deterrent.

i have thought it obscene and unusual which the united states has very little in common with iran, north korea, and china should be on the same side when it comes to the death penalty. anchor: it is an interesting one because the u.s. has just announced new measures, including quite extraordinary, a firing squad. which sounds like a throwback to revolutions in the post-russian world. why is the u.s. doing this? as one of the bigger countries, is it a bad example? guest: absolutely, the u.s. is setting a bad example by considering this new form of brutal punishment. we look to the u.s. as one of the leaders when it comes to human rights and, at the moment, it is really difficult to view them in that light. i don't believe any form of execution is bearable, whether

it's execution, public hanging, a gunshot to the back of the head, a lethal injection, in the end, they are all barbaric. it is deeply, deeply concerning that the u.s. is considering such a barbaric punishment. anchor: in tehran, we have heard the arguments there from our guests in melbourne and in ireland, are you still sure this is useful and a deterrent for a country like iran? guest: i don't think anyone supports punishing someone who is innocent and there should be checks and balances in place to be sure innocent people are not prosecuted. the same rationality can be used for any type of punishment. even in imprisonment, mistakes can be made. nevertheless, the main issue at hand is when we are talking

about global norms and global values, we have to discuss how are these values decided in the first place? eastern countries, muslim countries, where they a participant to these discussions where the definition to what is human rights and what is barbaric were decided. i think there are a lot of power relations at play. why western countries are getting to impose their own values on countries such as iran. i think every country should get the option to have their own system based on their own culture and what their own people want. anchor: that is a bit disingenuous, isn't it, because there was a vote in the u.n. and iran voted to keep the death penalty. you do have a say whether the death penalty come as a country, should be in your country or not.

you have a say. guest: and iran voted against. what i mean is not a vote of the international system how many people in each country support a system. if the majority of iranians don't support the death penalty, that would be a different story, but every poll in iran shows a very large majority of iranians to support the death penalty and i don't see how foreign countries get to impose their will on the will of the iranian people, so i don't see how that can work. anchor: it's hardly an imposition if you have a vote in it. guest: iran voted against it, so if there is a vote in the united nations, let's assume 100 countries in the world vote against having the option of having the hit job. does that mean iran should abolish that because other countries voted against the system?

each country separately within their own system, the will of the people should be implemented. even in the united states, the latest poll shows almost two thirds of americans support the death penalty. if americans want the death penalty, i think the government should implement it. it is a democracy. anchor: what do you make of that? guest: i'm shaking my head during the course of that because i don't think the poll is right. the gallup poll, which is considered the gold standard for how americans use the death penalty, over the last 25 years, the figures in favor of the death penalty have fallen for more than 80% to just over 50%. it is still a majority held view that the death penalty is worthwhile keeping on the statute book that you are asking questions like could you replace it with life in prison without parole, that brings it even further that the majority are against it. we can argue whether the

popularity of something is a reason for legislating something like that. i hope moral standards carry some weight here. when i was writing my book in 2016, it seemed as if the united states was moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. if hillary clinton had been elected president, the balance of the supreme court would probably have altered -- have tilted in the liberals favor. we have seen under donald trump how it has moved into the conservative favor. i'm pretty sure if hillary clinton, it would be off the books if not abolished already and i believe that is something that will be abolished in the next few years because individual states are moving in that direction. very few actually carry out the death penalty not because they know it is controversial, but it is ineffective. it has not proved to be a determined and most -- a deterrent and most law enforcement knows that.

most crimes are carried out in moments of passion and not necessarily planned, so the deterrent factor does not come into it. most people, when they analyze the reasons for the death penalty, it comes down to feeling it's vanessa city for revenge or retribution on behalf of victims. but victims are not help when people are executed wrongly and 170 people have been exonerated, having been sentenced to death in the united states. their cases were that they were completely innocent. if the law had not inner fiend at the last moment, they would be dead and there would not be an opportunity to argue that case. theyould say in some legal quarters that it shows the system works because those people were eventually exonerated. but how many of the more than 1500 people who have been executed since 1976 were innocent? most people think a healthy percentage, more than 10 percent of those were likely innocent people. anchor: let's bring in stephanie

mcclellan. we have a situation right now are some of the bigger countries and regional powers, iran, the u.s., china, have the death penalty which allows smaller countries to say those bigger countries have the death penalty, so don't take a look at us, take a look at them. is there any pressure you can put on the regional powers to get rid of the death penalty or are you simply shouting into the void? guest: 120 countries voted against the death penalty last monday and we are fairly confident the u.n. will adopt that vote at the general assembly plenary in december. 39 countries did vote against it. they wanted to keep the death penalty. but we know a lot of those countries are some of the most serious human rights violators in the world -- china, iran, vietnam, north korea -- these

are countries with egregious human rights records. and, of course, any country that votes in favor of it is sending a terrible signal -- that votes against the resolution is sending a terrible signal to other countries that it is ok. as an organization, we are calling on the strong countries that voted in favor of the moratorium, in favor of halting executions, to apply pressure, whether through trade or negotiations at the u.n., but to raise their voice and call it what it is, which is a barbaric and inherently cruel practice. anchor: isn't this the real cost %-pr your human rights record. this is one more example, a very powerful example, you can be criticized for an yet you say it

is popular in the country, therefore we should keep it. but it is yet another way of beating up iran in guest: public. guest:it is a very politicized matter. the reason iran is being criticized -- i'm not saying every criticism -- there are genuine criticisms as well, as well as valid press-isms, but they criticisms you here on u.s. media, a lot of it is politicized and one measure of that is a lot of the same issues were going on during the time of the shah and iran was supported and very few, there were very few done see asians -- did none ca of iran. when we are talking about voting in the u.n., it is not there decision to decide. if 100 countries vote for california to become a separate country, does that give them the right to vote on that? i don't think there's a

legitimate basis to impose the values of other countries on countries such as iran. in iran, execution numbers have decreased significantly, coming to almost 250 a year and this is even though iran has almost 2000 homicides a year. in iran, the family of the victim is given the option to forgive the perpetrator of the murder in large numbers, in the majority of cases, that has happened. but there's always the option and the deterrent that if you kill someone, there's a chance you will be executed and i think that is something positive. anchor: our guest seems to be saying that it is a system that works for us, but in the u.s., where the victim's family doesn't get a say on whether the death penalty should take place or not, why is the death penalty

still on the books there? guest: i call my book "surviving execution" because it does survive despite the lows it has taken from campaigners and victims who you think would be in favor of the death penalty. they have seen their loved ones killed, you can understand the emotion involved. i understand they may want to see that kind of -- that kind of retribution. that equally, there are people who don't want to see that. i met a man whose daughter was killed on the oklahoma bombing -- oklahoma bombing in which timothy mcveigh was executed. he did not want to see that. he didn't think it brought any comfort to him and became friendly with the father of the murderer himself, bringing together the common bond that they had both lost loved ones unjustly. the united states is a slightly different case to most countries

because they devolve the powers on the death penalty to individual states and yes, the federal government occasionally does carry out federal executions and donald trump, bill barr, the u.s. attorney general are carrying out executions even though it is a lame-duck administration. even when joe biden becomes president, he will have no power other than when it comes to federal crimes to deal with death penalty issues. it is down to individual states. it's down to states like texas and virginia who are still carrying out these executions, even though there are substantial numbers of people within those states who want to carry on executing. i think it sends a terrible example that the united states is trying to lecture other countries on human rights records when it has such an appalling record when it comes to the death healthy itself and executions were being carried out at such a rate that they

hardly merited coverage in the newspapers. i was a washington correspondent in 2002 and 2003, you would pick up a newspaper and discover the inside pages that there had been in virginia that night, but they were carried out at such a rate that no one seem to care anymore. the numbers have fallen significantly and fewer than 20 people a year are now executed. but a lot of people would say that is still far too many. anchor: one of the bigger problems you have here is one of enforcement. yes, you can vote for the moratorium on capital punishment, but if a country breaks the moratorium, there's not a huge amount you can do. guest: of course, every country is a sovereign entity and every country can do what they lack but -- what they like, but you still operate in a global

system, a global economy where you rely on relationships with other countries and if you continue to behave in a disrespecting manner, there will be repercussions. it is not simple. i get it. but to devalue the u.n. and the system of human rights, which is about dignity and respect is a poor and terrible way to go down. it's just not appropriate. anchor: in tehran, you talk a lot about international agreements and how they are not a one-size-fits-all for every country, but iran, when it comes to nuclear power, when it comes to the nonproliferation treaty which you are a signature to, with the alleged nuclear weapons program or nuclear program genuinely -- generally, you say

they have signed on and they have nuclear weapons and you are happy to trot out international agreement, but when it comes to the death penalty, you are much more hands-off. isn't that a little hypocritical? guest: regarding the npt, it is a voluntary agreement. every country can decide for itlf, -- anchor: it is an agreement that they hide behind. guest: iran did sign up for the npt and based on that, iran is being monitored by the iaea more than any country in the world. it was not something that was imposed on them. when we are talking about the death penalty, we have to take into consideration the cultural and religious distinctiveness of other countries.

just because the west is the more powerful side of the globe right now, they should not be able to impose their own values on other countries and we have to remember a lot of the time, these sort of human rights issues are politicized as well, so they are used as a political tool to pressure other countries because of other reasons not necessarily because of human rights issues. anchor: i want to thank all of our guests and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, al jazeera.com and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for me and the entire team here, goodbye for now.

tçtçfçtçtçtçfçfçfçfçfçfçfçfçfçf

man: the watts towers have been a focal point of creivity for a long time. different man: i knew who i was. i knew that i was an artist. different man: they were working out of a shared need to communicate something based on what they had to work with. woman: because that's what we fought for, the ability to be free to say what we wanted to say. man: you got to a use your art as a tool to bring about social change. woman: we have fine art in watts, and it's been going on 61 years because of the watts towers art center campus.