Gender Equality and State Executions Within and Across 100 Countries From 1997 to 2010

• Date: 01 June 2018
• Author: Margaret Schmuhl,Hung-En Sung,Chongmin Na
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567717727817
• Published date: 01 June 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
International Criminal Justice Review
2018, Vol. 28(2) 97-117
Gender Equality and State
ª 2017 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Executions Within and
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1057567717727817
journals.sagepub.com/home/icj
Across 100 Countries
From 1997 to 2010
Margaret Schmuhl1, Hung-En Sung1,
and Chongmin Na1
Abstract
The achievement of gender equality requires strong support from the state and changes, in turn, the
behavior of the state in both domestic and international arenas. Research suggests that an increased
representation of women in government provides more ethical governance as well as greater state
pacifism in international conflicts. While research has shown that women are more likely than
men to oppose death penalty, no study has examined the influence of women’s representation in
government on executions carried out by the state. Using a modified negative binomial random-
effects model, this study examines gender equality as a predictor of executions and fills the growing
need for longitudinal analysis of executions by using data from 100 countries over 14 years. The
results indicate that increases in women’s representation in parliament are negatively associated
with executions over time and are conditioned by the level of democracy between countries.
Keywords
gender equality, executions, death penalty, cross-national
The achievement of gender equality1 requires strong support from the state (Neilson & Stanfors,
2014; Piscopo, 2015) and changes, in turn, the behavior of the state in both domestic and interna-
tional arenas. Higher status of women has been associated with greater governmental commitments
in transnational peacemaking and environmental protection (Caprioli & Boyer, 2001; Norgaard &
York, 2005). Yet, the repercussions of this paradoxical dynamics underlying gender and politics may
be more extensive and varied than what has been documented in the research literature. In this study,
we set out to examine the impact, if any, of women in government on the actual suppression of crime
through the use of capital punishment by the state.
1 John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Margaret Schmuhl, State University of New York - Oswego, 7060 State Route 104 Oswego, NY 13126, USA.
Email: margaret.schmuhl@oswego.edu

---

98
International Criminal Justice Review 28(2)
In recent years, researchers and policy makers alike have sought to better understand the impact
gender equality has on the state and its behavior. Some research suggests that an increased repre-
sentation of women in government, as a proxy of gender equality, provides more ethical governance
within a country (Dollar, Fisman, & Gatti, 2001; Swamy, Knack, Lee, & Azfar, 2001) and greater
state pacifism toward international conflicts (Caprioli, 2000; Melander, 2005a). Little research
focuses on how gender equality influences domestic state power (notable exception; Melander,
2005b). While women have consistently and significantly been more likely to oppose death penalty
in the United States and other countries (Boots & Cochran, 2011; Cochran & Sanders, 2009; Jiang,
Lambert, Wang, Saito, & Pilot, 2010; Lambert et al., 2016; Stack, 2000), no studies have examined
the influence women might have on the state’s behavior of carrying out executions. Research on the
death penalty, in general, ignores the variation of executions among countries over time and
primarily focuses on the legal status of capital punishment at a certain point in time (e.g., Greenberg
& West, 2008; Kent, 2010; Miethe, Lu, & Diebert, 2005). This is concerning due to the fact that
countries vary greatly in their practice of executions despite its legal status. Some countries have
eliminated both the use of the death penalty and its place in law. Other countries retain death penalty
statutes but rarely or never carry out executions due to state-imposed moratoriums. Others execute
for only exceptional circumstances such as times of war (Amnesty International, 2014).
This study highlights the significance of measuring a country’s actual application of the death
penalty and to investigate factors associated with its changes. Specifically, this research adopts a
gender equality approach to consider how women in government predict the use of executions by a
state within and between countries; a relationship that has not been studied in prior cross-national death
penalty literature. Additionally, we test this gender equality argument using a modified negative
binomial random-effects model while controlling for social, political, and economic factors that have
dominated prior abolition research. This study fills the growing need for longitudinal examination of
this phenomenon by utilizing execution data from 100 countries over 14 years and moves away from
the traditional focus on abolition in law to the actual trend of carrying out executions.
Executions Over Time
The ability to impose death sentences and carry out executions epitomizes the power of the state
over its citizens (Garland, 1990). The death penalty is often used against persons deemed to be a
threat to society (Rusche & Kirchheimer, 1939). Following World War II, abolition of the death
penalty proliferated in countries around the world. By 2013, 98 countries had abolished the death
penalty by law compared to 8 abolitionist countries in 1945 (Amnesty International, 2014). Like the
legal status of capital punishment, executions vary in practice and incidence throughout time and
place. The variation in carrying out executions, however, is more nuanced, as countries at any point
may halt, resume, reduce, or accelerate the number of executions. Abolitionist countries do not retain
death penalty statutes in their law. These countries generally do not reinstate the death penalty, but
there are exceptions. Both Nepal and the Philippines have abolished, reinstated, and again abolished
the death penalty, while Gambia and Papua New Guinea have reinstated their death penalty statutes
following a period of abolition (Mathias, 2013). De facto abolitionists, as defined by Amnesty
International, are countries that retain the death penalty in their law but have not carried out an
execution for at least 10 years. Thirty-five countries held this status in 2013 (Amnesty International,
2014). While not carrying the official label of de facto abolitionist, some countries, officially or
unofficially, place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty for less than 10 years. These are
termed near-de facto abolitionists. As of 2013, seven countries, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Fiji,
Israel, Kazakhstan, and Peru, abandoned the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, such as
murder and drug offense, but retained its use for exceptional circumstances like war and terrorism.
These varying statuses of abolition and retention allow for irregular variations in executions.

---

Schmuhl et al.
99
Figure 1. Worldwide executions 1990–2012.
Over the past two decades, the number of executions fluctuated within and between countries.
Available data show large fluctuations in executions carried out (Figure 1). Data recorded and
presented by Amnesty International, which are used in this study, come from various sources
including official statistics, nongovernmental, intergovernmental organizations, and media all of
which are confirmed through Amnesty’s research. As such, these data reflect the minimum number
of executions (Amnesty International, 2011, 2014). Indeed, obtaining perfect data on executions is
difficult as some countries, such as China and North Korea, actively work to conceal the number of
executions carried out within their borders, claiming the information to be classified and a state
secret. Through 2008, Amnesty International (2010) provided the minimum number of executions
for China, but, in a challenge to China’s lack of transparency, stopped recording in 2009. Along with
other human rights organizations, Amnesty maintains that China executes more people each year
than all other countries combined (Amnesty International, 2014; Dui Hua Foundation, 2015). In
1990, 2,029 executions in 26 countries were recorded by Amnesty International. Executions peaked
in 1996, with Amnesty reporting 4,272 executions across 39 countries. In 2013, a total of
22 countries, excluding China, carried out 778 executions (Amnesty International, 1991, 1997, 2014).
Executions also vary regionally. The United States is the only consistent executioner in the
Americas since 2005. According to Amnesty International (2014), no executions were recorded
in Europe and Central Asia, while 10 countries in the Asian-Pacific region, 6 countries in the Middle
East and North Africa, and 5 Sub-Saharan African countries carried out executions in 2013. While a
total of 22 countries conducted executions in 2013, 9 are habitual executioners—Bangladesh, China,
Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United States, and Yemen—all of which carried out
executions each year for the past 5 years. Only two countries, Iran and Iraq, reported significant
increases in executions in 2013, and four countries—Indonesia, Kuwait, Nigeria, and Viet Nam—
resumed executions after brief moratoria. Excluding China, 80% of all known executions in 2013
were carried out by Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Amnesty International, 2014).
Gender and State Behavior
Promotion of equality and restrictions of state power are basic traits of global modernism which
can trace its roots back to the Enlightenment...