Introduction
Paul Hamann's 1987 BBC documentary, "Fourteen Days in May", provides a stark and unsettling account of the final days of Edward Earl Johnson, a man condemned to death in Mississippi. The film is not a detached legal analysis but an intimate portrait of a human being facing state-sanctioned death, raising profound questions about justice, fallibility, and humanity. This essay will offer a reflection on the documentary, arguing that its power lies in its ability to translate abstract legal debates about capital punishment into a tangible human tragedy. This will be explored by connecting the themes of the film to established human rights principles, particularly the right to life and the prohibition of inhuman treatment. Furthermore, the discussion will be broadened to consider the landmark Ugandan case of Susan Kigula and 417 Others v Attorney General, which, like the documentary, challenges the procedural and moral foundations of the death penalty, albeit from a different legal angle. It is my opinion that both the documentary and the Kigula case provide compelling evidence that capital punishment is incompatible with modern human rights standards, due to the inherent risk of executing the innocent and the cruel nature of the process itself.
The Humanising Lens of "Fourteen Days in May"
The central impact of "Fourteen Days in May" is its unflinching focus on the humanity of Edward Earl Johnson. The audience is not presented with a "monster" but with a young man who, despite his circumstances, displays dignity and fear. The documentary forces the viewer to confront the reality that the person being executed is not an abstract concept but a living, breathing individual. This humanisation is a powerful counter-narrative to the political rhetoric that often surrounds capital punishment, which tends to dehumanise offenders to make their execution more palatable to the public (Sarat, 2001).
One of the most significant themes raised by the film is the question of innocence. Johnson consistently protested his innocence in the murder of a town marshal, and the evidence against him was questionable, resting primarily on a confession he claimed was coerced. A key witness later recanted her testimony, but this was not enough to halt the execution. The documentary highlights the terrifying fallibility of the justice system. In jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty, like the United Kingdom, miscarriages of justice, while devastating, can be rectified. The cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six serve as potent reminders that legal systems can and do make grave errors. However, where the death penalty is used, the consequences of such errors are absolute and irreversible. The film leaves the viewer with the deep and troubling uncertainty of whether the state of Mississippi executed an innocent man, illustrating the most compelling pragmatic argument against capital punishment: the unacceptable risk of a fatal mistake.
Furthermore, the documentary exposes the cold, procedural nature of the execution process itself. The testing of the gas chamber, the final conversations, and the quiet countdown create an atmosphere of psychological torment. This engages directly with the concept of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", a cornerstone of international human rights law. The film demonstrates that the cruelty is not just in the final moments of death but in the dehumanising, drawn-out process that precedes it.
The Death Penalty in the Framework of Human Rights Law
The issues raised in "Fourteen Days in May" resonate strongly with principles of international and regional human rights law. The most fundamental right at stake is the right to life, articulated in instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While Article 6 of the ICCPR permits the death penalty for the "most serious crimes", it also points towards abolition, stating that "Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party" (ICCPR, 1966, Art 6(6)). The global trend is clearly towards abolition, with a majority of countries having abolished it in law or practice (Amnesty International, 2023). In Europe, the position is unequivocal. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), through Protocols 6 and 13, has effectively abolished the death penalty for all its member states, including the United Kingdom.
Beyond the right to life, the documentary’s depiction of Johnson's psychological suffering on death row invokes the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) famously explored this in Soering v United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 14. In that case, the Court ruled that extraditing the applicant to the United States, where he would face the "death row phenomenon" – the years of waiting in anticipation of execution – would constitute a breach of Article 3. The Court recognised that the prolonged mental anguish, compounded by the conditions of confinement, could amount to inhuman treatment. "Fourteen Days in May" serves as a real-world illustration of the very phenomenon the ECtHR sought to prevent in the Soering case, showing the intense and prolonged psychological distress inflicted upon an individual awaiting a state-imposed death.
The Systemic Challenge: Susan Kigula v Uganda
While "Fourteen Days in May" focuses on the individual tragedy of one man, the case of Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Ors [2009] UGSC 6 presents a systemic challenge to the death penalty in Uganda. Susan Kigula, sentenced to death for murder, became the lead petitioner in a case that fundamentally altered the application of capital punishment in the country. The petitioners did not argue that the death penalty itself was unconstitutional, but rather that its mandatory imposition was.
The Supreme Court of Uganda agreed, ruling that the mandatory death sentence for crimes like murder and treason was unconstitutional. The court held that it violated the right to a fair hearing by preventing the trial judge from considering mitigating factors specific to the defendant and the crime. This restored judicial discretion and affirmed the principle that punishment must fit not only the crime but also the individual offender. This is a critical point; it insists that the justice system sees the person, their history, and their circumstances, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all sentence. This resonates with the way Hamann’s documentary forces the audience to see Edward Earl Johnson as an individual, rather than just as a name on a court file.
Secondly, the Ugandan Supreme Court addressed the "death row phenomenon" directly. It ruled that an execution not carried out within three years of the sentence being confirmed would be automatically commuted to life imprisonment. The court found that to keep a prisoner on death row for an extended period was a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling provides a direct legal remedy for the type of prolonged suffering depicted in "Fourteen Days in May", acknowledging that the process of waiting to be killed is a punishment in itself. Susan Kigula’s case, therefore, represents a significant judicial effort to humanise the process of capital sentencing and limit its cruellest aspects, even within a system that retains it as a possible punishment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my opinion is that "Fourteen Days in May" remains a profoundly important documentary. Its value lies not in a complex legal argument but in its raw, human portrayal of the consequences of the death penalty. It powerfully illustrates the core arguments against capital punishment: the irreversible risk of executing an innocent person and the inherent cruelty of the death row experience. When viewed alongside foundational human rights principles, such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture, the film serves as a compelling moral and ethical indictment of the practice.
The case of Susan Kigula demonstrates how these same concerns can be translated into legal action and reform. By challenging the mandatory nature of the death sentence and the cruelty of prolonged stays on death row, the Ugandan Supreme Court affirmed the importance of individualised justice and human dignity. Together, the story of Edward Earl Johnson and the legal victory of Susan Kigula highlight a shared truth: that the death penalty is fraught with moral, practical, and legal problems. They show that whether a system risks killing the innocent, as in Johnson's case, or denies a defendant a truly individualised sentence, as was the situation before Kigula, capital punishment struggles to coexist with the modern legal commitment to fairness, fallibility, and fundamental human rights.
References
Amnesty International. (2023) Death Sentences and Executions 2022. London: Amnesty International Ltd.
Attorney General v Susan Kigula & 417 Ors (Constitutional Appeal No. 03 of 2006) [2009] UGSC 6 (21 January 2009).
Council of Europe. (1950) European Convention on Human Rights.
Sarat, A. (2001) When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Soering v The United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
United Nations General Assembly. (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty Series, 999, p. 171.
United Nations General Assembly. (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 217 A (III).
