IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v61y2021i6p1435-1451..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exception, Symbolism and Compromise: The Resilience of Treason as a Capital offence
[‘Fear and Loathing in America: Application of Treason Law in Times of National Crisis and the Case of John Walker’]

Author

Listed:
  • Ron Dudai

Abstract

This article explores the causes, forms and consequences of the resilience of treason as a capital offence. Though generally overlooked by the literature on the death penalty, treason has been the second most common capital offence—after murder—in states’ law books in the post-WWII world and has had tangible effects on abolition trajectories. The article first traces the transformation of treason from the paradigmatic capital offence in the pre-modern era to a peripheral yet persistent component of contemporary death penalty. It then analyses and explains the dynamic of ‘exempting’ treason from abolition for common crimes. The third section examines situations where treason remains a capital offence on the books but is rarely used, functioning as ‘symbolic law’ with important consequences and spillover effects. In the conclusion, I argue that treason laws could become a central obstacle in the path to full global abolition of the death penalty.

Suggested Citation

  • Ron Dudai, 2021. "Exception, Symbolism and Compromise: The Resilience of Treason as a Capital offence [‘Fear and Loathing in America: Application of Treason Law in Times of National Crisis and the Case of John Walke," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 61(6), pages 1435-1451.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:61:y:2021:i:6:p:1435-1451.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azab036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:61:y:2021:i:6:p:1435-1451.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.