Countries “still using” the death penalty are not one clean group. Some actively execute, some sentence people to death but rarely carry it out, and some keep the law while running a long-standing moratorium. This article separates the statute book from courtroom practice and the data reality behind global lists.
Countries that still use the death penalty are those that retain capital punishment in law and continue to apply it through death sentences and/or executions. The latest consolidated status snapshot (cut off at 31 December 2024) lists 54 “retentionist” states, while a smaller subset were known to have carried out executions in 2024, and secrecy means global totals are minimum counts (Amnesty International, 2025).
How to use this article: If you just want the shortlist, go to the retentionist list. If you’re trying to decode a headline, start with the fast check, then use the definitions table to see what “retentionist” vs “abolitionist in practice” really means. For quick answers, jump to FAQ.
Fast check: law, moratorium, and practice
A simple checklist that prevents 90% of confusion
If a headline says “Country X uses the death penalty,” don’t stop at the word “uses.” Run this quick check, in order, and you’ll know whether you’re looking at a legal status, an execution trend, or a transparency problem.
- Is it legal for ordinary crimes? If yes, the country is “retentionist” in most global lists.
- Is there a moratorium? A moratorium pauses executions but does not necessarily stop death sentences.
- Are executions confirmed recently? Some countries execute regularly; others rarely; some keep numbers secret.
- What crimes qualify? The wider the “capital crimes” list, the higher the risk of abuse and expansion.
- Can the public verify the numbers? Secrecy turns “counts” into minimum estimates.
Quick rule: “Legal” does not always mean “executing,” and “not executing” does not always mean “abolished.”
What “still use” means in death penalty debates
One phrase, three realities
In everyday language, “still use” often implies executions. In policy tracking, it can also mean keeping the legal machinery active: prosecutors seek death sentences, courts impose them, and people remain on death row—even if executions are paused or rare.
That is why the most widely cited global trackers separate countries into categories that reflect both law and practice. A key one is “abolitionist in practice”: the death penalty remains in law, but executions have not happened for many years and the country is believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying them out (Amnesty International, 2025).
Status labels you’ll see (and what they actually mean)
| Label | What the law says | What tends to happen in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Abolitionist for all crimes | Death penalty removed from law. | No death sentences or executions under current law. |
| Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only | Removed for ordinary crimes, retained for limited exceptional categories (often military). | Executions are generally absent, but legal power may remain in narrowly defined circumstances. |
| Abolitionist in practice | Death penalty still exists in law. | No executions for many years plus a policy/practice of not carrying them out. |
| Retentionist | Death penalty retained for ordinary crimes. | Can include active executing states, states with long pauses, and states with limited transparency. |
A small but important detail: some global lists include territories alongside states, and naming can reflect political and legal realities rather than a single universally accepted label. In Amnesty’s retentionist list, for example, you will see entries such as “Taiwan” and “Palestine (State of)” because the goal is to capture where the death penalty is retained and applied within a jurisdiction (Amnesty International, 2025).
For international standards, a widely cited baseline is that if the death penalty is used at all, it should be restricted to “the most serious crimes,” interpreted narrowly as crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing (UN Human Rights Committee, 2018).
Retentionist countries: where the death penalty remains in law
This is the cleanest “still legal” answer: the jurisdictions that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes. The list below is the “retentionist” category in the latest consolidated status snapshot, with a fixed cut-off date of 31 December 2024 (Amnesty International, 2025).
Retentionist states and territories (status as of end-2024)
Retentionist status describes the law. It does not tell you how often executions occur, and it does not solve the transparency problem where figures are hidden.
- Afghanistan
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belarus
- Belize
- Botswana
- China
- Comoros
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Cuba
- Dominica
- Egypt
- Ethiopia
- Gambia
- Guyana
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kuwait
- Lebanon
- Lesotho
- Libya
- Malaysia
- Myanmar
- Nigeria
- North Korea
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Palestine (State of)
- Qatar
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Saudi Arabia
- Singapore
- Somalia
- South Sudan
- Sudan
- Syria
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Uganda
- United Arab Emirates
- United States of America
- Viet Nam
- Yemen
The global direction is still clear even when you avoid false precision: in the same snapshot, 145 countries are classified as abolitionist in law or practice, while 54 remain retentionist (Amnesty International, 2025).
Abolitionist in practice: laws keep it, executions stop
Some governments retain the death penalty in their criminal code but do not carry out executions for many years. In Amnesty’s classification, “abolitionist in practice” includes jurisdictions that have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, plus those that have made an international commitment not to use the death penalty (Amnesty International, 2025).
Why this category is the real “gray zone”
This is where two truths can coexist: the state is not executing, and yet people can still be sentenced to death. Moratoria can also be fragile. A political shock, a security crisis, or a leadership change can restart executions without the country ever changing the law.
Countries listed as “abolitionist in practice” (status as of end-2024)
Algeria, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ghana, Grenada, Kenya, Laos, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco/Western Sahara, Niger, Russia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Tunisia (Amnesty International, 2025).
Where executions are concentrated, and why totals are hard
Executions are not evenly spread across retentionist jurisdictions. For 2024, Amnesty International recorded 1,518 executions worldwide, and it emphasizes that this is a minimum count because some states do not publish complete data (Amnesty International, 2025).
Secrecy is not a side note—it changes the global total
China is widely understood to execute more people than any other country, but official execution figures are treated as state secrets. Amnesty’s annual totals explicitly exclude the thousands believed to have been executed in China, and also notes severe information limits for North Korea and Viet Nam, which are believed to have used executions extensively (Amnesty International, 2025).
Known executing countries in 2024
In 2024, executions were recorded in 15 countries. That “15” is one reason the world can look more abolitionist every year even when execution counts spike inside a small cluster of states (Amnesty International, 2025).
- Afghanistan
- China
- Egypt
- Iran
- Iraq
- Kuwait
- North Korea
- Oman
- Saudi Arabia
- Singapore
- Somalia
- Syria
- United States of America
- Viet Nam
- Yemen
The UN moratorium vote shows direction, not enforcement
The UN General Assembly’s moratorium resolution does not automatically change domestic criminal codes, but it is a useful global direction signal. Resolution 79/179 was adopted on 17 December 2024 with 130 votes in favour, 32 against, and 22 abstentions (UN General Assembly, 2024).
Why countries keep the death penalty on the books
Retention rarely comes from one argument. In many places it blends security policy, legal tradition, political messaging, and public anger after high-profile crimes. The death penalty becomes a symbol of state strength, not just a sentencing tool.
The “capital crimes” list is the pressure point
One of the clearest risk signals is expansion: when capital punishment applies beyond intentional killing to categories such as drug offences or broad “national security” crimes. International human-rights guidance repeatedly reads “most serious crimes” narrowly as intentional killing, which puts many such expansions in direct tension with that standard (UN Human Rights Committee, 2018).
Transparency and due process determine the real danger
Even where the law looks similar on paper, practice can be radically different. Access to counsel, meaningful appeals, clemency procedures, and independent reporting often matter as much as the criminal code—because they determine whether errors can be detected and corrected.
What to watch for next: reforms, courts, and reversals
If you want to follow change without chasing daily headlines, watch these three arenas: legislation (what crimes qualify), courts (constitutional limits and appeals), and commitments (treaty steps and moratorium policies). Most long-term shifts happen there first.
Abolition often happens in steps—and can stall
Many countries move from executions to a long moratorium, then to abolition for ordinary crimes, and only later to full abolition. The step-by-step path is real, but reversals are also real, especially when exceptions are written into emergency or military provisions.
The safest way to read “latest” lists
Major global status lists are published on an annual cycle with a fixed cut-off date. If you need the newest possible update for one country, treat the consolidated list as your baseline, then confirm any post-cut-off changes through official legislation, court rulings, or the next annual monitoring update (Amnesty International, 2025).
FAQ
How many countries still have the death penalty?
In the latest consolidated snapshot with a fixed cut-off date (31 December 2024), 54 countries and territories are classified as retentionist, while 145 are abolitionist in law or practice (Amnesty International, 2025).
Does “retentionist” mean a country is actively executing people?
No. Retentionist is a legal category. Some retentionist states execute regularly, some rarely, and some keep data secret. That’s why “known executions” and “retentionist status” are related but not the same.
What’s the difference between a moratorium and abolition?
A moratorium pauses executions (formally or informally). Abolition changes the law so the death penalty can’t be imposed for the relevant crimes. A moratorium can last decades, but it can also be reversed without legal reform.
Why do different sources show different country lists?
Most differences come from timing (different cut-off dates) and definitions (how “in practice” abolition is counted). Some also come from how territories and jurisdiction labels are handled.
What does “most serious crimes” mean in international standards?
In key UN human-rights guidance, the term is read restrictively and linked to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death are not meant to qualify under that interpretation (UN Human Rights Committee, 2018).
Can I treat the retentionist list as a live legal database?
Use it as a reliable baseline snapshot, not a live feed. Laws and policies can change after the cut-off date, and some jurisdictions update official information faster than consolidated annual lists.
What Did We Learn Today?
- “Still use” can mean executions, death sentences, or simply keeping the death penalty legal.
- Retentionist status is a legal category, not a guarantee of frequent executions.
- Moratoria reduce executions but do not equal abolition unless the law changes.
- Secrecy turns global totals into minimum counts and makes comparisons harder.
Sources & Data Notes
For this topic, the only honest way to do it is to separate what’s written in law from what actually happens. So the country status categories and the retentionist list here follow a single consolidated snapshot with a hard cut-off date (31 December 2024), drawn from Amnesty International’s published lists and annual monitoring. Execution totals are best treated as minimums, because some governments don’t publish full data or treat it as secret. When I used a specific year or a vote total, I marked it with a simple (Source, Year). And if you’re checking one country “right now,” use this article as the baseline, then confirm any post-cut-off changes in official legislation, court rulings, or the next annual update.
