Two developments on opposite sides of the world, in Thailand and the United States, underscore a troubling reality: some governments continue to embrace the death penalty regardless of the global movement to abolish state-sanctioned killings.

On June 11, 2026, a court in Bangkok, Thailand, sentenced Bilal Mohammed and Yusufu Mieraili, two Uyghur men, to death for their alleged roles in the 2015 bombing of Bangkok's Erawan Shrine, which killed 20 people and injured many more. The men have spent nearly 11 years in detention since their arrest.

Months before that, in April 2026, the United States Department of Justice under Donald Trump announced plans to expand the methods for federal executions to include firing squads, gas asphyxiation, and electrocution. United States officials argued that these measures would deter crime, among other things. The move marked a sharp departure from the previous administration under former President Joe Biden, which had imposed a moratorium on most federal executions. Federal executions also sharply increased during Trump’s first term as President.

As a human rights defender and as a dual citizen of the United States and Thailand, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, regardless of the crime.

The death penalty is an irreversible punishment administered by fallible institutions. No legal system is perfect. Around the world, innocent people have been sentenced to death, and some have been executed before evidence emerged proving their innocence.

In the United States, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, more than 180 people who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated since 1973, many victims of racism and other forms of discrimination. The Innocence Project has helped expose wrongful convictions in the United States caused by false confessions, official misconduct, and inadequate legal representation. These cases demonstrate that even sophisticated legal systems can make mistakes. The existence of wrongful convictions should give governments pause before imposing capital punishment.

Those who advocate for the death penalty often argue that it deters crime. Yet decades of research have failed to demonstrate that the death penalty is more effective at preventing serious crimes than long-term imprisonment or rehabilitation. A 2019 survey of leading criminologists in the United States found that 88 percent did not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

Thailand has long maintained the death penalty as a central feature of its criminal justice system. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, Thai courts imposed 729 death sentences between 2020 and 2024—an average of approximately 146 each year. Although executions have become increasingly rare, courts in Thailand continue to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate, leaving hundreds of people under the threat of state execution.

Bilal Mohammed and Yusufu Mieraili have reported fair trial violations, torture, and ill-treatment throughout their imprisonment. In 2025, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that their detention was arbitrary and called on Thailand to release them "immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law."

The Working Group also raised concerns about allegations of confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment, saying in their opinion, "The use of evidence or confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment is prohibited under international law and renders the trial and resulting conviction fundamentally unfair."

Both men say they are innocent and will appeal their convictions and death sentences.

Bilal Mohammed and Yusufu Mieraili’s case spotlights a central problem with the death penalty: when credible concerns exist regarding arbitrary detention, torture, and ill-treatment, or violations of fair trial rights, the risk of an irreversible miscarriage of justice becomes all too real.

As a human rights practitioner, the law is clear. Under international human rights law, the right to life is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which forms the foundation of the modern human rights system. Furthermore, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the leading international treaty dedicated to abolishing the death penalty. It states that "Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction."

An approach grounded in human rights is possible: governments should deliver justice and protect society without taking human life through capital punishment.

Thailand should not be imposing new death sentences. The United States should not be searching for new ways to execute prisoners. Both countries should join the global movement toward abolition.