please help, human rights class need to Map the actors involved with the Venn diagram – what are their positions? What i

[answerhappygod]

please help, human rights class
need to Map the actors involved with the Venn diagram – what aretheir positions? What is their scope of action? What sector arethey from (Public, private, civil society?) the text is attachedbelow:
As the death penalty violates one of the most basichuman rights recognized in widely accepted law -- the right to life(Moharter, 2016), it violates one of the most basic human rights.The UN General Assembly called on human rights organizations tocondemn the death penalty as a violation of human rights. TheConvention is trending toward supporting abolition worldwide. Byadvancing and protecting human rights protected by the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the Center for ConstitutionalRights strives to advance a better world. After World War II, theUDHR was drafted in the United States and adopted in 1948. Humanrights include the right to life, as stipulated by the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, 1948.
The death penalty, therefore, is our most fundamentalhuman rights violation. As long as governments are allowed to endlives, all other rights in the Declaration are excluded. TheDeclaration is based on this right as its foundation. Capitalpunishment cannot be viewed as compatible with human rightsprinciples. This basic premise must be the starting point of anyhuman rights-based analysis. In addition to the right to life,other basic rights are also frequently violated when it comes totheir application. Currently, there is widespread consensus thatthe death penalty and the "death row phenomenon" both violateinternational human rights law. Furthermore, the death penalty isoften applied discriminatorily, in violation of thenon-discrimination principle.
An Overview of the Human Rights Consequences of theDeath Penalty
An analysis of the human rights implications of thedeath penalty demonstrates how denying such a basic right affectsall other rights, as well as why ending its use permanentlyrequires abolishing it. The government still would not be able tocarry out capital punishment
because such punishment violates fundamental humanrights, even if all the injustices and practical difficultiesrelated to capital punishment could be eradicated-the costs, racialand class prejudices, and any possible "errors". Human rightsapproaches do not consider the accuracy, method, or timeliness ofan execution. It can be stated in a straight-forward andunequivocal manner that the death penalty is wrong when applied tothis standard. In addition to categorizing problems clearly, thehuman rights approach also provides accountability and access tointernational communities. A duty holder (usually a state) whoadopts a human rights approach is obliged to respect, protect, andfulfill human rights. The human rights of those charged withcriminal offenses must be protected; proactive measures must betaken to ensure these rights are preserved; and nationallegislation must be in place to ensure these rights are fullyrealized.
Capital Punishment Costs More thanIncarceration
Taxpayers are sometimes argued to benefit more fromabolishing capital punishment, under the premise that lifeimprisonment is cheaper than execution. When all the relevant costsare considered, however, the opposite is true (Mallicoat, 2008). Ithas never been more economical than life imprisonment to use thedeath penalty now or in the past. A murder trial typically takeslonger when the death penalty is in question than when it is not.Expenses associated with litigation - such as time dedicated tojudges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, andcosts associated with briefs - are mainly borne by taxpayers.Additional costs for separate death row housing and increasedsecurity at court and elsewhere also contribute to these costs. TheNew York State Office of Justice Programs (2005) determined thatthe costs of the capital trial alone would be greater than thecosts of a life sentence in prison if the death penalty werereinstated in New York.
As a result of a review of capital trial costs inMaryland over the years, death penalty cases cost about 42 percentmore than non-death penalty ones (Hintze, 2017). A 1993 studyexamined North Carolina's capital punishment system. The cost oflitigating a murder case from start to finish would be $163,000 ifthe convicted offender was held for 20 years. Considering allfirst-degree murder trials and their appeals, the total cost willbe $216,000, with the majority of cases not resulting in deathsentences and executions (McFarland, 2019). Taxpayers for Justicehas introduced a measure to repeal California's death penalty onthe 2012 ballot. An analysis of the state's capital punishmentcosts has shown that capital punishment is costly. Based on thestudy, 13 prisoners were executed for a cost of $4billion.
Congress' decision in 1996 to restrict federal habeascorpus stemmed from public pressure that accelerated executions,and it stopped funding the "resource centers" that provided federalappellate counsel. As a result of these restrictions, there willlikely be more wrongful murder convictions and more death sentences(Carol Castenada, 2016). Saving both time and money in the long runwould be unimaginable (The Case Against the Death Penalty,2020).
Recent Washington Cases (Cost Associated with CapitalPunishment)
The average cost of an individual case has risen to morethan $4 million before trial. A total of nearly $7.2 million wasspent on 18 aggravated homicides in King County in 2002. In thelate 1990s, death penalty cases were prosecuted for more than $1million annually. Approximately $1.23 million of the $1,934,649.20costs of the Schierman case were devoted to attorney fees.Currently there is an appeal pending in the case that resulted in adeath verdict in 2010, which makes the case even more expensive.The King County Prosecution Department spent more than $800,000 forprosecution costs on two co-defendants' cases in September2013.
For that case, the county was preparing to send out5,000 jury summons in January 2013. However, the trial never tookplace, and the case has been rescheduled many times since then.Cases involving these clients are expected to go to trial in 2015(Sentencing Alternatives, 2019). The court began jury selection inNovember 2014 in the King County Monfort homicide case after thehomicide occurred in 2009. The court detailed its schedule in anorder that it issued on October 10, 2014: "We anticipate startingthe testimony on January 12, 2015, in accordance with the parties"at the first meeting with 1170 jurors. It is anticipated that thetrial will last roughly five to six months once it begins" (Imtiaz,2016). King County has already spent over $4 million on that case,without counting the additional costs incurred by policedepartments, crime laboratories, and other governmentagencies.
Conclusion
Capital punishment should be banned in the first placebecause of the possibility of innocent people being executed due toerror on the part of the criminal justice system. Inherently, thedeath penalty compromises the Constitution's guarantees of fairnessand equality. A death penalty case is often the subject ofhigh-profile prosecution, and a case can be complicated byallegations of police misconduct or improper prosecution.Currently, in the United States, officially executing people is nota constant practice as this practice is halted between 1967 to1977. In most cases, the United States supreme court held thatdeath punishment is against the rules of International law, such asthe International covenant on civil and political rights 1977, andthe Universal Declaration of human rights 1948. The final analysisis that of public attitudes, which reveals that the majority ofAmericans favor another alternative; that is, most would oppose thedeath penalty if convicted murderers were sentenced to life withoutparole and had to pay restitution. The death penalty would only besupported by a minority of Americans if viable alternatives wereavailable.