NCJ Number
103999
Journal
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Newsletter Issue: 12 and 13 Dated: (November 1986) Pages: 32-38
Date Published
1986
Length
7 pages
Annotation
In Uruguay, debate over the death penalty has illustrated the logical incongruity between a deep-seated and reverential respect for the right to life and the authority of the State to disallow that right under certain conditions.
Abstract
It was this logical incongruity that was reflected in the Constitution of 1830 which, despite its recognition of the right to life, did not prohibit the death penalty. It, thus, tacitly authorized the later imposition of the death penalty for atrocious crimes. In the following decade, abolitionist arguments focused on the death penalty as harsh, uncivilized, and without deterrent effect. Abolishment arguments held that the death penalty was useful and necessary and just as justificable as self-defense. The abolitionist view saw success with the enactment in 1907 of a law repealing the death penalty and replacing it with a partially indeterminate 30-to 40-year prison sentence. Further gains by the abolitionist movement were made in 1918 when capital punishment was expressly prohibited by article 163 of the new constitution. This proscription has remained in effect to the present day. Uruguay continues to struggle unremittingly against the death penalty on the international level. 10 notes.