Spartanburg, South Carolina
Spartanburg is the most populous city in and the seat of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, United States, the 12th-largest city by population in the state. The city of Spartanburg has a municipal population of 37,013, Spartanburg County has an urban population of 180,786 as of the 2010 census; the Spartanburg Metropolitan Statistical Area, including Spartanburg and Union counties, had a population of 317,057 as of the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Spartanburg is the second-largest city in the greater Greenville–Spartanburg–Anderson Combined Statistical Area, which has a population of 1,385,045 as of 2014, it is part of a 10-county region of northwestern South Carolina known as "The Upstate," and is located 98 miles northwest of Columbia, 80 miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina, about 190 miles northeast of Atlanta, Georgia. Spartanburg is a major city in South Carolina, it is the site of headquarters for Denny's. Spartanburg is home of the BMW Spartanburg factory.
Spartanburg was formed in 1785 and was named after a local militia called the Spartan Regiment in the American Revolutionary War. The Spartan Regiment, commanded by Andrew Pickens, participated in the nearby Battle of Cowpens. In 1831, Spartanburg was incorporated becoming known as the "Hub City": railroad lines radiated from the city forming the shape of a wheel hub, it became a center of textile manufacturing in the late 19th century, with around 40 textile mills being established through the early 1900s. During World War I Camp Wadsworth was used to train 100,000 soldiers for the war. Camp Croft trained soldiers during World War II; the facility was adapted as Croft State Park. By the 1950s, the production in these mills began to decline. Most textile manufacturing jobs were moved offshore by the companies. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 19.2 square miles, of which 19.1 square miles is land and 0.1 square miles, or 0.47%, is water. The city of Spartanburg has a humid subtropical climate with long and humid summers, cool to semi mild winters.
The average annual temperature is 61.6 °F. In the summer season from June through September, average highs are in the 80's to low 90's F, while in the winter months average highs are in the mid 50's F. Annual rainfall is spread evenly throughout the whole year. Spartanburg sees little snowfall, with the annual average being only 1.4 inches. Average precipitation is 51.3 inches and the average growing season is 231 days. Lawson's Fork Creek, a tributary of the Pacolet River, was once known for its plentiful wildlife and crystal clear waters. Parks and woodlands line much of its banks, rocky shoals and natural waterfalls can be found throughout its course, it stretches from the northern end of the county to the eastern end, where it empties into the Pacolet. The Cottonwood Trail is a walking trail located in the Edwin M. Griffin Nature Preserve that runs along part of Lawson's Fork Creek; the trail includes picnic areas, a raised path over an extensive wetlands area and access to sporadic sandbars.
Located just east of downtown, it is used by cyclists and walkers. Since the Lawson's Fork floodplain is not suitable for development, wildlife populate the area. Larger animals that can be found here include white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, pileated woodpeckers, mallard ducks, Canada geese and snapping turtles. Hatcher Garden and Woodland Preserve, is a preserve located in the midst of an urban environment. Retired social activist Harold Hatcher and his wife Josephine transformed an eroding gully into a thick woods and flower garden which now provides a haven for birds and other wildlife. Early European settlers to this area included French fur trappers, English woodsmen, Scots-Irish farmers. Few remnants survive from these early pioneering days, but traces can be found in the more rural areas of the county. Walnut Grove Plantation, an 18th-century farmhouse, has been preserved by The Spartanburg County Historical Association; the site of a locally famous skirmish during the American Revolutionary War, it was the home of the Moore family.
The plantation lies south of Spartanburg near the town of Roebuck, is open to the public for tours and during annual festivals. The Seay House, another 18th-century home, is a more typical representative of a pioneer home, its single stone fireplace and simple construction were common traits of farmsteads from this period. The Price House, the third 18th-century home maintained by the Historical Association, is unique, its sturdy Flemish-bond brick construction and three stories are less common in this area. By examining the original inventory lists of the house, the Historical Association has been able to retrieve period pieces that approximate the original contents of the house. First established in the 1780s as a courthouse village, Spartanburg may have been named for the Spartan regiment of the South Carolina militia; the city was incorporated in 1831, at the time of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Cowpens, a pivotal fight of the American Revolution that took place only a few miles away.
The city's streets and architectural record reflect the changes of the 20th centuries. Morgan Square, the city's primary downtown hub, is the original courthouse village, it was founded adjacent to a small spring on the western slope of a ridge, which forms the border of the Tyger and Pacolet River watersheds. The square's name derives from Daniel Morgan, the general who commanded the American forces at Cowpens. A statue of Morgan was placed in the square in 1881; the oldest
Capital punishment in the United States
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the United States used by 30 states, the federal government, the military. Its existence can be traced to the beginning of the American colonies; the United States is the only developed Western nation. It is one of 54 countries worldwide applying it, was the first to develop lethal injection as a method of execution, which has since been adopted by five other countries; the Philippines has since abolished executions, Guatemala has done so for civil offenses, leaving the United States one of 4 countries to use this method, along with China and Vietnam. There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment. Subsequently, a majority of states passed new death penalty statutes, the court affirmed the legality of capital punishment in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia. Since more than 7,800 defendants have been sentenced to death.
A total of 161 who were sentenced to death in the modern era were exonerated before their execution. As of April 1, 2018, 2,743 are still on death row; the first recorded death sentence in the British North American colonies was carried out in 1608 on Captain George Kendall, executed by firing squad at the Jamestown colony for spying for the Spanish government. The Bill of Rights adopted in 1789 included the Eighth Amendment which prohibited cruel and unusual punishment; the Fifth Amendment was drafted with language implying a possible use of the death penalty, requiring a grand jury indictment for "capital crime" and a due process of law for deprivation of "life" by the government. The Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868 requires a due process of law for deprivation of life by any states; the Espy file, compiled by M. Watt Espy and John Ortiz Smykla, lists 15,269 people executed in the United States and its predecessor colonies between 1608 and 1991. From 1930 to 2002, there were 4,661 executions in the U.
S. about two-thirds of them in the first 20 years. Additionally, the United States Army executed 135 soldiers between 1916 and 1955. Three states abolished the death penalty for murder during the 19th century: Michigan in 1846, Wisconsin in 1853 and Maine in 1887. Rhode Island is a state with a long abolitionist background, having repealed the death penalty in 1852, though it was theoretically available for murder committed by a prisoner between 1872 and 1984. Other states which abolished the death penalty for murder before Gregg v. Georgia include: Minnesota in 1911, Vermont in 1964, Iowa and West Virginia in 1965 and North Dakota in 1973. Hawaii abolished the death penalty in 1948 and Alaska both before their statehood. Puerto Rico repealed it in 1929 and the District of Columbia in 1981. Arizona and Oregon abolished the death penalty by popular vote in 1916 and 1964 but both reinstated it, again by popular vote, some years later. Puerto Rico and Michigan are the only two U. S. jurisdictions to have explicitly prohibited capital punishment in their constitutions: in 1952 and 1964, respectively.
Capital punishment continued to be used by a majority of states and the federal government for various crimes murder and rape, from the creation of the United States up to the beginning of the 1960s. Until "save for a few mavericks, no one gave any credence to the possibility of ending the death penalty by judicial interpretation of constitutional law", according to abolitionist Hugo Bedau; the possibility of challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty became progressively more realistic after the Supreme Court of the United States decided on Trop v. Dulles in 1958; the Supreme court declared explicitly, for the first time, that the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual clause must draw its meaning from the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", rather than from its original meaning. In the 1932 case Powell v. Alabama, the court made the first step of what would be called "death is different" jurisprudence, when it held that any indigent defendant was entitled to a court-appointed attorney in capital cases – a right, only extended to non-capital defendants in 1963, with Gideon v. Wainwright.
In Furman v. Georgia, the U. S. Supreme Court considered a group of consolidated cases; the lead case involved an individual convicted under Georgia's death penalty statute, which featured a "unitary trial" procedure in which the jury was asked to return a verdict of guilt or innocence and determine whether the defendant would be punished by death or life imprisonment. The last pre-Furman execution was that of Luis Monge on June 2, 1967. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the impositions of the death penalty in each of the consolidated cases as unconstitutional in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; the Supreme Court has never ruled the death penalty to be per se unconstitutional. The five justices in the majority did not produce a common opinion or rationale for their decision and agreed only on a short statement announcing the result; the narrowest opinions, those of Byron White and Potter Stewart, expressed generalized concerns about the inconsistent application of the death penalty across a variety of cases, but did not exclude the possibility of a constitutional death penalty law.
Stewart and William O. Douglas worried explicitly about racial discrimination in en
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is a killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness. Most societies consider murder to be an serious crime, thus believe that the person charged should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder faces a long-term prison sentence a life sentence; the modern English word "murder" descends from the Proto-Indo-European "mrtró" which meant "to die". The Middle English mordre is a noun from Old French murdre. Middle English mordre is a verb from the Middle English noun.
The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The elements of common law murder are: Unlawful killing through criminal act or omission of a human by another human with malice aforethought; the Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defence, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war. Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest – the total and irreversible cessation of blood circulation and respiration. With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.Сriminal act or omission – Killing can be committed by an act or an omission.of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins.
At common law, a fetus was not a human being. Life began when the fetus passed through the vagina and took its first breath.by another human – In early common law, suicide was considered murder. The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder. With malice aforethought – Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill; the courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All, required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice"; the four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are: Under state of mind, intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.
In other words, "intent follows the bullet". Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and vehicles when intentionally used to harm one or more victims. Under state of mind, an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from the defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. In Australian jurisdictions, the unreasonable risk must amount to a foreseen probability of death, as opposed to possibility. Under state of mind, the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, rape, robbery or kidnapping; the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies. As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions and is codified in some form of legislation.
When the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter is clear, it is not unknown for a jury to find a murder defendant guilty of the lesser offence. The jury might sympathise with the defendant, the jury may wish to protect the defendant from a sentence of life imprisonment or execution. Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees; the distinction between first- and second-degree murder exists, for example, in Canadian murder law and U. S. murder law. The most common division is between first- and second-degree murder. Second-degree murder is common law murder, first-degree is an aggravated form; the aggravating factors of first-degree murder depend on the jurisdiction, but may include a specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation. In some, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are treated as first-degree murder. A few states in the U. S. further distinguish third-degree murder, but they differ in which kinds of murders they classify as second-degree versus third-degree.
For example, Minnesota defines third-degree murder as depraved-heart murder, whereas Flori
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by putting the victim in fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft by its inherently violent nature. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment; the word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub -- "theft". Among the types of robbery are armed robbery, which involves the use of a weapon, aggravated robbery, when someone brings with them a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. Highway robbery or mugging takes place outside or in a public place such as a sidewalk, street, or parking lot. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim by force.
Extortion is the threat to do something illegal, or the offer to not do something illegal, in the event that goods are not given using words instead of actions. Criminal slang for robbery includes "blagging" or "stick-up", "steaming". In Canada, the Criminal Code makes robbery an indictable offence, subject to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. If the accused uses a restricted or prohibited firearm to commit robbery, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the first offence, seven years for subsequent offences. Robbery is a statutory offence in the Republic of Ireland, it is created by section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2001, which provides: A person is guilty of robbery if he or she steals, before or at the time of doing so, in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being and there subjected to force. Robbery is a statutory offence in Wales, it is created by section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 which reads: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, before or at the time of doing so, in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being and there subjected to force.
Aggravated theft Robbery is the only offence of aggravated theft. Aggravated robbery There are no offences of aggravated robbery; this requires evidence to show a theft as set out in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. In R v Robinson the defendant threatened the victim with a knife in order to recover money which he was owed, his conviction for robbery was quashed on the basis that Robinson had an honest, although unreasonable, belief in his legal right to the money. See R v Skivington 1 QB 166, 2 WLR 655, 131 JP 265, 111 SJ 72, 1 All ER 483, 51 Cr App R 167, CA. In R v Hale the application of force and the stealing took place in different locations, it was not possible to establish the timing, it was argued that the theft should be regarded as complete by this time, R v Gomez, should apply. The threat or use of force must take place before or at the time of the theft. Force used after the theft is complete will not turn the theft into a robbery; the words "or after" that appeared in section 23 of the Larceny Act 1916 were deliberately omitted from section 8.
The book "Archbold" said that the facts in R v Harman, which did not amount to robbery in 1620, would not amount to robbery now. It was held in R v Dawson and James that "force" is an ordinary English word and its meaning should be left to the jury; this approach was confirmed in Corcoran v Anderton, both handbag-snatching cases. Stealing may involve a young child, not aware that taking other persons' property is not in order; the victim must be placed in apprehension or fear that force would be used before or at the time of the taking of the property. A threat is not immediate. Robbery occurs if an aggressor forcibly snatched a mobile phone or if they used a knife to make an implied threat of violence to the holder and took the phone; the person being threatened does not need to be the owner of the property. It is not necessary that the victim was frightened, but the defendant must have put or sought to put the victim or some other person in fear of immediate force; the force or threat may be directed against a third party, for example a customer in a jeweller's shop.
Theft accompanied by a threat to damage property will not constitute robbery, but it may disclose an offence of blackmail. Dishonestly dealing with property stolen during a robbery will constitute an offence of handling. Robbery is an indictable-only offence. Under current sentencing guidelines, the punishment for robbery is affected by a variety of aggravating and mitigating factors. Important is how much harm was caused to t
An arrest is the act of apprehending a person and taking them into custody because they have been suspected of committing or planning a crime. After the person is taken into custody, they can be charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system. Police and various other officers have powers of arrest. In some places, a citizen's arrest is permitted. Similar powers exist in France, Germany and Switzerland if a person is caught in an act of crime and not willing or able to produce valid ID; as a safeguard against the abuse of power, many countries require that an arrest must be made for a justified reason, such as the requirement of probable cause in the United States. Furthermore, the time that a person can be detained in custody is short before the detained person must be either charged or released; the word "arrest" is Anglo-Norman in origin, derived from the French word arrêt meaning'to stop or stay' and signifies a restraint of a person. Lexicologically, the meaning of the word arrest is given in various dictionaries depending upon the circumstances in which the word is used.
There are numerous slang terms for being arrested throughout the world. In British slang terminology, the term "nicked" is synonymous with being arrested, "nick" can refer to a police station, the term "pinched" is common. In the United States and France the term "collared" is sometimes used; the terms "lifted" or "picked up" are heard on occasion. According to Indian law, no formality is needed during the procedure of arrest; the arrest can be made by a police officer or a Magistrate. The police officer needs to inform the person being arrested the full particulars of the person's offence and that they are entitled to be released on bail if the offence fits the criteria for being bailable. There is no general rule of eligibility or requirement that a police officer must handcuff a person, being arrested; when there is a question regarding handcuffing a person at that time case laws has stated that the choice to handcuff a person is dependent on the surrounding circumstances, that officers should always take the proper precautions to ensure the safety of themselves, the public.
When there exists probable cause to believe that a person has committed a minor crime, such as petty theft, driving on a suspended license, or disturbing the peace, law enforcement agents issue the individual a citation but do not otherwise detain them. The person must appear in court on the date provided on the citation. Prior to the court date, the prosecution will decide whether to file formal criminal charges against the individual; when the accused appears in court, they will be advised. If charges are filed, they will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty at the initial court hearing, referred to as the arraignment; when a person is arrested for a serious crime, the defendant will have their picture taken and be held in pre-trial prison. Under certain circumstances, the defendant may be entitled to release on bail. If the accused cannot post a monetary bail, they will appear at their arraignment where the judge will determine if the bail set by the schedule should be lowered. In certain states, the prosecution has 48 hours to decide whether or not to file formal charges against the accused.
For example, in California, if no formal charges are filed within the 48-hour period, the accused must be released from the arresting host's custody. If formal charges are filed, the accused will be asked to appear at their arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty, the judge will set a bail amount for the accused. In 2010, the FBI estimated. Of those persons arrested, 74.5% were male and 69.4 percent of all persons arrested were white, 28.0 percent were black, the remaining 2.6 percent were of other ethnicities. Arrests under English law fall into two general categories—with and without a warrant—and into more specific subcategories. Regardless of what power a person is arrested under, they must be informed that they are under arrest and of the grounds for their arrest at the time or as soon after the arrest as is practicable, otherwise the arrest is unlawful. A justice of the peace can issue warrants to arrest witnesses. There are four subcategories of arrest without warrant: under the provisions of section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which only applies to constables, under the provisions of section 24A of PACE, applies to those who are not constables, the power to arrest for a breach of the peace at common law, which applies to everyone, the powers to arrest otherwise than for an offence, which apply to constables only.
United States law recognizes the common law arrest under various jurisdictions. The police may arrest a person according to a warrant issued by a Magistrate under sections 31, 72, 73 or 74 of the Magistrates Ordinance. For example, an arrest warrant may be issued if an accused person does not appear in Court when he is due to answer a charge. However, an arrest warrant is not always necessary. Under section 50 of the Police
In criminal law, kidnapping is the unlawful carrying away and confinement of a person against their will. Thus, it is a composite crime, it can be defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are separate crimes that when committed upon the same person merge as the single crime of kidnapping. The asportation/abduction element is but not conducted by means of force or fear; that is, the perpetrator may use a weapon to force the victim into a vehicle, but it is still kidnapping if the victim is enticed to enter the vehicle willingly, e.g. in the belief it is a taxicab. Kidnapping may be done to demand for ransom in exchange for releasing the victim, or for other illegal purposes. Kidnapping can be accompanied by bodily injury. Kidnapping of a child is known as child abduction, these are sometimes separate legal categories. Kidnapping of children is by one parent against the wishes of a parent or guardian. Kidnapping of adults is for ransom or to force someone to withdraw money from an ATM, but may be for the purpose of sexual assault.
In the past, presently in some parts of the world, kidnapping is a common means used to obtain slaves and money through ransom. In less recent times, kidnapping in the form of shanghaiing men was used to supply merchant ships in the 19th century with sailors, whom the law considered unfree labour. Criminal gangs are estimated to make up to $500 million a year in ransom payments from kidnapping. Kidnapping has been identified as one source by which terrorist organizations have been known to obtain funding; the Perri and MacKenzie article identified "tiger" kidnapping as a specific method used by either the Real Irish Republican Army or Continuity Irish Republican Army, in which a kidnapped family member is used to force someone to steal from their employer. Bride kidnapping is a term applied loosely, to include any bride "abducted" against the will of her parents if she is willing to marry the "abductor", it still is traditional amongst certain nomadic peoples of Central Asia. It has seen a resurgence in Kyrgyzstan since the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent erosion of women's rights.
Express kidnapping is a method of abduction used in some countries from Latin America, where a small ransom, that a company or family can pay, is demanded. Tiger kidnapping is taking a hostage to make a loved one or associate of the victim do something: e.g. a child is taken hostage to force the shopkeeper to open the safe. The term originates from the long preceding observation, like a tiger does on the prowl. Kidnapping that does not result in a homicide is a hybrid offence that comes with a maximum possible penalty of life imprisonment. A murder that results from kidnapping is classified as 1st-degree, with a sentence of life imprisonment that results from conviction. Article 282 prohibits hostaging. Part 1 of Article 282 allows sentencing kidnappers to maximum imprisonment of 8 years or a fine of the fifth category. Part 2 allows maximum imprisonment of 9 years or a fine of the fifth category if there are serious injuries. Part 3 allows maximum imprisonment of 12 years or a fine of the fifth category if the victim has been killed.
Part 4 allows sentencing people. Part 1, 2 and 3 will apply to them. Kidnapping is an offence under the common law of Wales. Lord Brandon said in 1984 R v D: First, the nature of the offence is an attack on, infringement of, the personal liberty of an individual. Secondly, the offence contains four ingredients as follows: the taking or carrying away of one person by another. In all cases of kidnapping of children, where it is alleged that a child has been kidnapped, it is the absence of the consent of that child, material; this is the case regardless of the age of the child. A small child will not have the understanding or intelligence to consent; this means. It is a question of fact for the jury whether an older child has sufficient understanding and intelligence to consent. Lord Brandon said: "I should not expect a jury to find at all that a child under fourteen had sufficient understanding and intelligence to give its consent." If the child did consent to being taken or carried away, the fact that the person having custody or care and control of that child did not consent to that child being taken or carried away is immaterial.
If, on the other hand, the child did not consent, the consent of the person having custody or care and control of the child may support a defence of lawful excuse. It is known as Gillick competence. Regarding Restriction on prosecution, no prosecution may be instituted, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for an offence of kidnapping if it was committed against a child under the age of sixteen and by a person connected with the child, within the meaning of section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984. Kidnapping is an indictable-only offence. Kidnapping is punishable with fine at the discretion of the court. There is no limit on the fine or the term of imprisonment that may be imposed provided the sentence is not inordinate. A parent should only be prosecuted for kidnapping their own child "in exceptional cases
Capital punishment known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, they include offences such as murder, mass murder, treason, offenses against the State, such as attempting to overthrow government, drug trafficking, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but may include a wide range of offences depending on a country. Etymologically, the term capital in this context alluded to execution by beheading. Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have abolished it de jure for all crimes, eight have abolished it for ordinary crimes, 28 are abolitionist in practice. Capital punishment is a matter of active controversy in several countries and states, positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region.
In the European Union, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment. The Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, has sought to abolish the use of the death penalty by its members through Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this only affects those member states which have signed and ratified it, they do not include Armenia and Azerbaijan; the United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition. Although most nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, such as China, the United States, Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, among all Islamic countries, as is maintained in Japan, South Korea and Sri Lanka. China is believed to execute more people than all other countries combined.
Execution of criminals and dissidents has been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations on Earth. Until the nineteenth century, without developed prison systems, there was no workable alternative to insure deterrence and incapacitation of criminals. In pre-modern times the executions themselves involved torture with cruel and painful methods, such as the breaking wheel, sawing, hanging and quartering, brazen bull, burning at the stake, slow slicing, boiling alive, schwedentrunk, blood eagle, scaphism; the use of formal execution extends to the beginning of recorded history. Most historical records and various primitive tribal practices indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. Communal punishment for wrongdoing included compensation by the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, shunning and execution. Compensation and shunning were enough as a form of justice; the response to crimes committed by neighbouring tribes, clans or communities included a formal apology, blood feuds, tribal warfare.
A blood feud or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common before the emergence of an arbitration system based on state or organized religion, it may result from land disputes or a code of honour. "Acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished." However, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish between a war of vendetta and one of conquest. In most countries that practise capital punishment, it is now reserved for murder, war crimes, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and bestiality carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as Hudud and Qisas crimes, such as apostasy, moharebeh, Fasad, Mofsed-e-filarz and witchcraft. In many countries that use the death penalty, drug trafficking is a capital offence.
In China, human trafficking and serious cases of corruption and financial crimes are punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offences such as cowardice, desertion and mutiny. Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds included peace settlements done in a religious context and compensation system. Compensation was based on the principle of substitution which might include material compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human blood, or transfers of property or blood money or in some case an offer of a person for execution; the person offered for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime because the social system was based on tribes and clans, not individuals. Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as the Norsemen things. Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts.
One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel. In certain parts of the world, n