The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 committing serious crimes; that it is something people deserve; that the criminal justice system is fair and reliable and that it is cheaper or more humane to execute people.56 Moral or religious arguments for and against capital punishment also contribute to forming public opinion.57 Many beliefs about the death penalty are ungrounded assertions that are difficult to prove and disregard the well-documented facts about the ineffective practical application of capital punishment.58 In reality, there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (any more than other punishments); criminal justice systems are never free from all bias or possible mistakes; and the death penalty is not less expensive than life imprisonment.59 During the reporting period, various statements in the OSCE Permanent Council highlighted the issue of effectiveness and the death penalty in the United States and Belarus. Norway delivered a statement on behalf of Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Switzerland emphasising their opposition to the death penalty in all cases and without exception, noting the irreversibility of the death penalty along with the inherent risk of mistakes in all criminal justice systems and the proven failure of the death penalty to deter crime.60 The EU, on behalf of its 28 member States, has made similar statements at the OSCE Permanent Council.61 In the report of the UN Secretary-General to the UN General Assembly in July 2018, he said that there is no evidence that capital punishment is any more of an effective deterrent than other punishments. He also stated that: “Curbing crime requires a strong focus on strengthening the justice system, so that it complies with international human 56  “5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty”, Amnesty International Australia, 8 June 2019, < https://www.amnesty.org.au/5-reasons-some-people-think-the-world-needs-the-death-penalty/>; and: Rudolph J. Gerber and John M. Johnson, The Top 10 Death Penalty Myths, (Westport, Connecticut, Praeger, 2007), pp. 165-171. And: PRI, The Death Penalty: Myths & Reality, (London: PRI, 2015), <https://cdn.penalreform.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/10/PRI-DP-Myths-Realities-web.pdf> 57  See Chapter 4 - Values in Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Argument, Trends and Perspectives, op. cit., note 9, pp. 184-234. 58  Carolyn Hoyle & Roger Hood, “Deterrence and public opinion” in Moving away from the Death Penalty: Arguments, Trends and Perspectives. op. cit., note 9. For a general discussion of deterrence, see Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th ed. (New York, Oxford University Press, 2015), chapter 9 or Daniel S. Nagin and John V. Pepper, eds., Deterrence and the Death Penalty, (Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences, 2012). 59  See for example detailed chapters regarding wrongful convictions, myths of deterrence, and discrimination in Moving away from the Death Penalty, arguments, trends and perspectives, op. cit., note 9; and: Hood, op. cit., note 39, p. 221; and: UN General Assembly, 73/175. Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, op. cit., note 55. 60  “Statement on the Death Penalty in the United States of America and Belarus”, OSCE Permanent Council, 14 June 2018, <https://www.osce.org/permanent-council/385170?download=true>. 61  “EU statement on the Death Penalty”, OSCE Permanent Council, 14 June 2018, <https://www.osce.org/permanent-council/385182?download=true>. 19