However, this recommendation was never made official, perhaps due to cultural relativism. The fact that some US states use the death penalty does not automatically mean that they are against human rights, but rather that the social history around the death penalty is unchangeable.

The Amicus interviewee explained to me the exact work of public pressure groups. Margot Ravenscroft, the Director of Amicus, does a number of jobs that contribute to the defence of the right to life including finding cases to work on, procuring pro bono legal teams at large law firms and securing funding. Thus, the amount of effort the pressure groups put into the issue they are fighting for is evident. This was one of the points raised in the discussion groups; that public pressure groups solely work towards defending the right to life whereas governments have numerous matters to work on meaning they cannot concentrate on their legislation for one specific issue. Furthermore, Amicus’ work can constitute as pro bono work for law firms. This means that they can combine the passion and time of the Amicus employees with the knowledge and expertise of established lawyers. The employees in the government responsible for the legislation on the right to life may have the same level of knowledge and expertise as the lawyers, but lack drive and incentive for the issue in case. Additionally, the government wants to make the most out of its money and so will employ the same minister to handle a range of issues, meaning less time is spent on the very specific issue of the right to life. Thus, it is possible to argue that public pressure groups are in fact more effective in defending the right to life.

Democracy is important to consider because it has differing roles in public pressure groups compared to the law and can either inhibit or promote effectiveness. In the discussion group, I found that many people were interested in the level of democracy in both options. It was generally agreed that pressure groups are less democratic than the law. On the surface, they seem extremely raw and succinct, focusing on one issue and articulating the will of the people. However, they can also be linked to very corrupt ideas. For example, the leader of the pressure group is not elected and is often the creator of the group, meaning they have unlimited power. This lack of internal democracy coupled with the very nature of public pressure groups (labelled pressure for a reason) results in members of the public being forced into a particular school of thought. This is highly undemocratic and undervalues the power of one’s intuition. Thus, many people will argue that the law is much more effective due to its democratic nature.