death penalty news July 8, 2004
JAMAICA: Jamaica Death Penalty Abolished in Court Ruling Britain?s Privy Council has ruled that Jamaica?s mandatory death penalty for murder convictions was unconstitutional. But the Privy Council, which serves as the highest appeal court for many former British colonies, found today that automatic death sentences for convicted murderers did not violate the constitutions of Barbados and Trinidad. The Council reversed its 2003 ruling that Trinidad?s mandatory death penalty for murder convictions was unconstitutional. But the Privy Council said it would substitute a sentence of life imprisonment for anyone under the death sentence in Trinidad, arguing it would be unfair to deprive them of the benefit of last year?s ruling. The Privy Council was considering appeals against death sentences by four convicted murderers: Lambert Watson in Jamaica, Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph in Barbados, and Charles Matthew in Trinidad. The Privy Council sat as a panel of nine judges, including eight English law lords and one Caribbean judge, Edward Zacca. They ruled that Jamaica?s automatic death sentence for convicted murderers was inconsistent with section 17(1) of that country?s constitution, which provides that ?no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment?. The judges found that ?basic humanity requires that the appellant should be given an opportunity to show why the sentence of death should not be passed on him?. The ruling left it open to judges in Jamaica to impose the death sentence or a lesser penalty, depending on the relevant circumstances. The judges ordered that Watson?s death sentence be set aside and that his case be sent back to the Supreme Court of Jamaica to decide what sentence should be pronounced. Watson was convicted five years ago of the 1997 murder of his daughter Georgina Watson and her mother Eugenie Samuels. The Privy Council ruled by a majority of 5-4 that the mandatory death sentence for convicted murderers did not breach the constitutions of Barbados or Trinidad. It found that the constitutions protected individuals from ?inhuman or degrading punishment? or ?cruel and unusual treatment or punishment?. But it also found that both documents had provisions protecting laws already existing at the time the constitutions were written ? such as those instituting the automatic death penalty for murderers ? from being invalidated by the constitutions. (source: Scotsman) ============== PHILIPPINES: Supreme Court orders C.A. to review death penalty cases The Court of Appeals (C.A.) was given another responsibility as the Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment should be reviewed first by the appellate court before they render any judgment. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Vitug, the Court said it would be wise and compelling to have such cases reviewed first by the C.A. before it is elevated to them ?to ensure utmost circumspection? in the imposition of the penalty. ?Where life and liberty is at stake, all possible avenues to determine innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the C.A. on, particularly the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment,? it said in its 27-page decision. If the C.A. affirms the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances warrant it, but ?refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for final decision.? The ruling was made in connection with the case of Efren Mateo, who was charged with 10 counts of rape of his stepdaughter. Mateo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. Vitug said the deliberations of this case had been marked with an absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of Mateo. The dilemma was that the Court had to first determine the factual matters of the case when it should be the lower court, particularly the C.A., that should be reviewing factual issues as mandated by the Constitution. It ordered that Mateo?s case and all the pertinent records involving this case be forwarded to the C.A. for appropriate action. Before Mateo?s case, the High Court assumed the direct appellate review of all criminal cases in which death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, was the penalty imposed as provided by Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code or the Death Penalty Law. The Court also disclosed that since the reimposition of the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed capital punishment to 1,493 and out of these number, 907 had been reviewed by the justices. ?In the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers, find their way for automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230 cases comprising 25.36 percent of the total number,? it said. (source: ABS CBN News) ======================= TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Death Penalty a Must 86 killers get reprieve Eight months after the Privy Council found that this country's death penalty was not a mandatory sentence, the Council reversed itself yesterday, saying that it was up to Parliament to make such a change. The judgment, on the appeal of convicted murder Charles Matthew, means that anyone found guilty of murder after yesterday will automatically be sentenced to hang. However, the 86 prisoners currently awaiting execution have been granted a reprieve. Since they had been given the hope of being re-sentenced following the first judgment-on the appeal of convicted murderer Balkisoon Roodal-it would be a "cruel punishment" to now affirm the death sentences, so their sentences were all commuted to life imprisonment, the Council ruled. The judgment was greeted with pleasure by Attorney General John Jeremie who said in a statement to the media that "the (Privy Council found that it) has no licence to read its own moral values into the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution". "I consider the law in relation to the application of the death penalty to be finally and conclusively determined by (yesterday's) decision," he continued. But Douglas Mendes SC, who was part of the team that represented Matthew, said the ruling was "a bit perplexing" and that it was "not something that anybody should be happy about". "This decision retards the development of constitutional rights in this country. The result is that we are stuck with archaic laws," he told the media yesterday during an interview at his Duke Street, Port of Spain, office. There was also strong dissent from within the ranks of the Council itself as four of the unprecedented nine judges who heard the appeal voiced their disagreement in a minority judgment. "We consider the decision of the majority to be unsound in law and productive of grave injustice to a small but important class of people in Trinidad and Tobago. It is in our opinion clear that the interpretation... which commends itself to the majority does not ensure the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, degrades the dignity of the human person and does not respect the rule of law," the minority judgment stated. "Times have changed. Human rights values set higher standards today. The common endeavour, to rid the world of man's inhumanity is no longer acceptable. To condemn every person convicted of murder to death regardless of the circumstances is a form of inhumane punishment," it continued. Matthew, 61, of Arima, was sentenced to death in 1999 for killing his former lover, Louise Gittens, out of jealousy. His appeal was heard together with three other appeals from Jamaica and Barbados. All the appeals had challenged the mandatory nature of the penalty in each country, and a tri-nation team had been assembled to argue the appeals in March this year. One Caribbean judge, Justice Edward Zacca of Jamaica, presided over the appeals alongside the other eight English Law Lords. The Council also ruled that the mandatory death sentence in Barbados was to remain, but said the penalty was unconstitutional in Jamaica. In Roodal's appeal, the Council had first established that the death penalty was inconsistent with the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to life and protection from inhumane punishment. The Council then decided that the language of a "savings" clause, which had stated that the penalty was not to be held to be unconstitutional, was not strong enough to protect the penalty from being altered. The mandatory sentence was then quashed, and the Council had ordered that the penalty was to be imposed on the discretion of trial judges after hearing mitigating circumstances from a convicted murderer. In Matthew's appeal, the Council found that the clause did, in fact, protect the penalty from being affected. "As the Constitution itself makes express provision for the exercise of the power of commutation by the President and preserves the mandatory death penalty, their Lordships do not think that there is some other principle by which these laws can be invalidated. "It follows that the decision as to whether to abolish the mandatory death penalty must be, as the constitution intended it to be, a matter for the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago," the majority decision stated. Mendes said that if the State was concerned about the freedom of its citizens and the preservation of their rights "then next week we should expect a Bill to rectify these laws (which are inconsistent with the Constitution)," he said. (source: Trinidad & Tobago Express) ------------------------------------ Former AG, IRO mum on death penalty FORMER UNC attorney general Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) declined comment on yesterday?s Privy Council ruling to keep the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago. Persad-Bissessar said she had not seen the Privy Council?s judgment and needed to study it thoroughly before she could comment. IRO president, Rev Cyril Paul, also said he could not talk about the ruling until he conferred with other IRO heads before he could do so. However, former IRO president, Independent Senator Bro Noble Khan, said he believed the death penalty could serve as a strong deterrent to crime. He expressed concern, however, about how effective the death penalty might be in light of current problems in TT?s judicial process. Attempts to reach Persad-Bissessar?s immediate pre- decessor, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, for comment were unsuccessful. (source: Newsday) ==================== ZIMBABWE: Why death penalty should be abolished? IN the average public mind, the death penalty is viewed as the most appropriate penalty for a person convicted of murder. Many people think that justice is only done when the offender is killed. A closer look at the death penalty however dismisses this assumption. But does the average person understand that the death penalty carried out in the name of a nation?s entire population involves everyone? The death penalty is not only a constitutional matter but also a moral and social one. Citizens should therefore be aware of what the penalty is, how it is used, how it affects them and how it violates fundamental human rights. An execution, like physical forms of torture, involves a deliberate assault on a prisoner. Thus it is a violation of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the past decades many thousands of prisoners have been executed in scores of countries around the world. Men, women and even children have been hanged, electrocuted, gassed, poisoned, beheaded or shoot to death in fulfilment of judicial orders. Many of the executed were convicted of brutal crimes. Others died for non-violent offences including "economic corruption" and adultery. Many met their deaths for purely political reasons or after blatantly unfair trials. Nobody knows the exact number of innocent victims of execution. Cruel, arbitrary and irrevocable, the death penalty is imposed disproportionately on the poor and powerless. It is high time the death penalty is abolished worldwide. Everywhere experience shows that executions brutalise those involved in the process. Nowhere has it been shown that the death penalty has any power to reduce crime or political violence. In many different countries it is used disproportionately against the poor or against racial or ethnic minorities. It is often used as a tool of political repression. The death penalty is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. Indeed, it makes the state the killer. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him /her of life. At the heart of the case of the abolition, therefore is the question of whether the state has the right to do so. When the nations of the world came together five decades ago and formed the United Nations, few reminders were needed of what could happen when the state believed that there was no limit to what it could do to a human being. The staggering extent of the state brutality and terror during the Second World War and the consequences for people throughout the world were still unfolding in December 1948, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR is a pledge among nations to promote the fundamental rights as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. The rights it proclaims are inherent in every human being. They are not privileges that may be granted or withdrawn by governments for good or bad behaviour respectively. Fundamental human rights limit what the state may or may not do to a man, woman or child. The death penalty is an inseparable component of human rights violation. The UDHR recognises each person?s right to life and categorically states further: "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Admittedly, self-defence may be held to justify in some cases the taking of life by state officials, for example when a country is locked in warfare (international or civil), or when law enforcement officials must act to save their own lives or those of others. Even in those situations, the use of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted legal safeguards to inhibit abuse. The death penalty however is not an act of self-defence against an immediate threat to life. It is a premeditated killing of a prisoner who could be dealt with by equally less harsh means. The cruelty of the death penalty is evident like torture and execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on a person already rendered helpless by government authorities. If hanging a woman by the arms until she experiences excruciating pain is rightly condemned as torture, how does one describe hanging her by the neck until she is dead? If administering 100 volts of electricity to the most sensitive parts of a man?s body invokes disgust, what is the appropriate reaction to the administering of 2 000 volts to his body in order to kill him? It is undisputed that the physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state ? whether the death sentence is carried out six minutes after trial or six weeks after mass trial. The methods of execution, like physical forms of torture, involve a deliberate assault on a prisoner. There are seven principal methods of execution ? hanging, shooting, electrocution, lethal injection, gassing, beheading and stoning. To just highlight one method, execution by stoning is usually carried out after the prisoner has been buried to the neck or otherwise restrained. Death may be caused by damage to the brain, asphyxiation or a combination of injuries. This type of execution is rampant in Islamic states and is the highest manifestation of barbarism. By way of background the death penalty which is upheld by Zimbabwe has a long and sad history. Our most celebrated hero and heroine Sekuru Kaguvi and Ambuya Nehanda, respectively, of the first Chimurenga were the first casualties in 1890 and despite the foregoing, which reminds us of the bitter past, Zimbabwe still upholds capital punishment; Section 12 of the Zimbabwean constitution stipulates that "it shall be lawful for a person to be killed following a death sentence imposed on him/her by Court". Zimbabwe?s retention of the death penalty is a sad reflection which casts a dark shadow on its human rights record. The death penalty should be abolished for a host of reasons. It is undesirable because it robs society ? with proper rehabilitation the convicted person might become a useful resource and a tool in the development of society. It is inhuman and is fraught with retribution which serves no useful purpose. An execution cannot restore life or lessen the loss to the victim?s families. Again the death penalty is morally abominable because it has made men assume the role of the ultimate decider of life and death, which is the preserve of God alone. From the Bible we are reminded that God had harsh words for Cain for killing his brother Abel Genesis 4 vs. 9-15 While acknowledging the general feeling of society is that punishment should be given relative to the crime. capital punishment is wrong because two wrongs don?t make a right. Murdering the murderer is another form of murder. Apart from the foregoing, the death penalty is irrevocable and can be inflicted on an innocent person. Despite the most stringent judicial standards, human error cannot be ruled out, resulting in innocent people being executed. Considerable research in the US has provided no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. These findings are consistent with what is known of the relationship between crime rates and the presence or absence of the death penalty in other countries. In some US states the homicide rate has actually increased after the resumption of execution and despite public execution in countries like China and Islamic states, crime leading to the death penalty has not declined. It is undisputed that the death penalty has been used in some instances to suppress political dissent and to consolidate power, especially after coups and counter-coups. Members of the opposition, political groups have been eliminated as a matter of offenders. John Dzvinamurungu is the vice-chairman of Amnesty International Zimbabwe (source: Financial Gazette, Zimbabwe)
