✕ Sensationalism [4/10]: The headline uses emotionally charged language such as 'alarming spike' and highlights extreme methods like 'beheadings and public hangings' to grab attention, which may exaggerate the central focus of the report.

"Global use of death penalty including beheadings and public hangings doubles in a year with US, Saudi Arabia and China contributing to 'alarming spike' in executions, Amnesty reveals"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [6/10]: The headline emphasizes the US, Saudi Arabia, and China, but the article shows Iran is responsible for the vast majority of executions, creating a misleading impression of relative contributions.

"Global use of death penalty including beheadings and public hangings doubles in a year with US, Saudi Arabia and China contributing to 'alarming spike' in executions, Amnesty reveals"

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: The lead accurately summarizes the key finding from Amnesty International — a doubling of executions — and identifies the main countries involved, aligning with the article's content.

"Global executions more than doubled in 2025, reaching their highest recorded level in over 40 years as countries including the US, Saudi Arabia and China fuelled what Amnesty International described as an 'alarming spike' in the use of the death penalty."

✕ Loaded Language [7/10]: The article uses emotionally charged terms like 'alarming spike' and 'shameless minority', which reflect Amnesty’s advocacy stance but are presented without critical distance, introducing bias.

"'This alarming spike in the use of the death penalty is due to a small, isolated group of states willing to carry out executions at all costs...'"

✕ Appeal to Emotion [8/10]: The article includes strong moral language from Amnesty such as 'abhorrent practice' and 'weaponising the death penalty', which are not balanced with counterarguments or neutral descriptors.

"'It's time for executing countries to step into line with the rest of the world and leave this abhorrent practice in the past.'"

✓ Balanced Reporting [9/10]: The article includes factual reporting on execution numbers and methods without editorial comment in most sections, maintaining a mostly neutral tone outside quoted material.

"According to Amnesty's latest annual review of capital punishment, at least 2,707 people were executed across 17 countries during the year"

✕ Vague Attribution [8/10]: The article relies solely on Amnesty International for data and interpretation, with no independent verification or contrasting expert commentary, creating a single-source narrative.

"According to Amnesty's latest annual review of capital punishment, at least 2,707 people were executed across 17 countries during the year"

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: Amnesty International’s Secretary General is quoted directly, providing a clear and attributable advocacy perspective, which is appropriate for a report-based story.

"'This alarming spike in the use of the death penalty is due to a small, isolated group of states willing to carry out executions at all costs...'"

✕ Omission [9/10]: The article fails to mention the ongoing war between the US-Israel and Iran in early 2026, which may have influenced execution trends in Iran and regional allies, especially given the political repression context cited by Amnesty.

✕ Loaded Language [7/10]: The article does not contextualize the sharp rise in US executions (47 in 2025) within broader legal or political developments, such as post-war justice policies or changes in state-level death penalty application after the conflict with Iran.

"executions in the US climbed from 25 to 47"

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The report notes progress in abolition efforts, including legislative changes in Vietnam and Gambia, which adds important context to the global trend despite the spike, showing complexity.

"During 2025, Vietnam removed the death penalty for eight offences... while Gambia abolished it for murder, treason and other crimes against the state."