death penalty news October 8, 2004
INDIA: Death penalty to man convicted of minor's rape and murder in Ahmedabad : A court in Godhra town today awarded death penalty to a man convicted of rape and murder of a six-year old girl. Fast track court Judge A B Bhatt ordered that the convict Ratansinh alias Anupsinh Chauhan be hanged till death after he was found guilty of raping the six-year old girl and then murdering her on August 16 last year. The incident occurred in Bhamiyya village of Godhra taluka when Chauhan had lured the girl into his house and raped her. He then took her to nearby fields and smashed her head with a stone killing her on the spot. Court observed that this was a rarest of rare case and the accused deserved nothing less than death. This is the second case where a rape and murder convict has been awarded capital punishment in Gujarat. On August 18 this year, a court in Ahmedabad had ordered death penalty to one Kishen Marwadi for murder and rape of a minor girl. (source: 123bharath.com) ================= PAPUA NEW GUINEA: The death penalty: A Christian perspective - I TWO concepts that should have captured our attention for different reasons in recent weeks are sovereignty and legitimacy. The former has been a resonating catchword in relation to the implementation of the Enhanced Cooperation Programme (ECP). This programme is the culmination of a bilateral agreement between Papua New Guinea and Australia that has seen the start of the deployment of Australian police personnel in the country. In relation to governance and the status of political systems, legitimacy means that a regime?s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its subjects. Very often, acceptance is drawn from the general worthiness of the system. A layman?s interpretation, therefore, is such that the worthiness of what the regime represents is dependent on how it is perceived and accepted by the people. State sovereignty: In its literal sense, sovereignty means the supreme and independent power or authority in a state. The concern expressed by certain parliamentarians and members of the public has been one where the ECP is suspected to have provisions that can erode PNG?s sovereignty. Furthermore, this programme allegedly undermines the country?s constitution. Individuals can state where they stand in this particular issue. A point that has been asked repeatedly, perhaps out of bewilderment, by members of the public is this: The law and order situation in PNG was an issue as early as the 1980s. Why is it a concern now, some 30 years after independence, which has culminated in the ECP concept? Perhaps this is a rhetorical question since we know that Australia for one is reacting to the changing security situation particularly in Asia and beyond. However, the threat to the sovereignty of the country need not be posed by sources from aboard. In my view, the most credible threats to our sovereignty are right here in PNG. This is to do with our inability to protect the state and its institutions. The unnecessary pressure caused by people to squeeze whatever they can from the state through land compensation demands is a case in point. The unruly behaviour of our parliamentarians in the legislature in place of proper practices of governance these last few months is another example. In many communities, family relations and other traditional ties have slowly withered away as the pressures of change cause serious social dislocations. The severity of these activities threatens the efficacy of the state. If the people and their leaders are unable to shore up sovereignty by addressing these issues, then who can we turn to? A few years ago people were also expressing their opposition to provisions under various structural adjustment programmes. Indeed, the relevance of these provisions to PNG rightfully needed to be viewed with concern. But did we ever ask ourselves why we ended up at the doorsteps of institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund? Among other reasons, it was because of our poor fiscal management. The point driven here is that if we as a country had got our act together and served the country with utmost loyalty and respect, then we would have minimised the chances of fronting these donor institutions during our hour of need. Therefore, if we want others to respect the sovereignty of PNG, we have to lead by our deeds in serving and protecting our own country. Sovereignty is our national pride that should never be compromise. However, it is absurd to beg initiatives such as the ECP and protect the ?rot? that we have accumulated over time particularly when we do not seem to have any solutions in sight. Also, if we do not like the ECP, what solutions can we come up with to solve our own problems? Do we have the political will to do anything for our betterment? Come to think of it, it is not sovereignty that springs to mind when people are robbed, beaten up, raped, or held up. Rather, we are confronted with the realisation that the state is unable to protect us. Therefore, let us not over dramatise the sovereignty issue at the expense of what needs to be done to improve the performance of the state. The ECP definitely is not the panacea to the country?s problems. Nonetheless, I?d like to think that it is a good start on which PNG can be placed in some kind of a footing to eventually do something positive for itself. State legitimacy: For democratic countries, it matters that people should be concerned about the legitimacy of the state. The existence and survival of a state ultimately depends on its perception, acceptance, and even tolerance. People can prescribe through a Constitution and related laws what a state should be like. But unless the people respect and honour these precepts, there is nothing else that could authenticate or validate the existence of the state as initially idealised. The issue of legitimacy came to light in a subtle way recently when former Prime Minister Sir Julius Chan attacked the PNG Ombudsman Commission for allegedly mishandling a case relating to the purchase of the Cairns Conservatory Building in 1994. The building was bought by PNG?s Public Officers Superannuation Fund (POSF) for an amount of Aus$18.72 million. The purchase price was supposedly overvalued by Aus$13 million, where the real value was placed anywhere between Aus$5.75 million and Aus$8 million. Accordingly, both the Auditor General and the Ombudsman Commission undertook separate investigations. The ensuing findings identified Sir Julius as one among a number of individuals responsible for this poor investment. That was what irked the national leader. An extremely important issue is that individuals who criticise public institutions should make every attempt to distinguish between the seats in public offices and the occupants who take turns in filling these seats or positions. The seats belong to the people - not the occupants. From what was reported in the paper, I believe Sir Julius was attacking the occupants of seats in the Ombudsman Commission. That is unfortunate since his attack against the Ombudsman Commission was done without drawing a line between the people?s seats and the occupants who facilitated the investigation into this investment deal. Likewise, occupants of these public offices should never use them for private or political expediency. I am sure Sir Julius? tirade might have had its merits. In saying that, there were other avenues that the former PM could have used to register his grievances - as he had done previously. After all, what is more fitting than for people to see a revered leader use relevant laws and institutions to display hope and respect in the ability of the state to cater for citizens? problems? The integrity of constitutional offices in the eyes of the public has to be protected at all times. Publicly criticising the Ombudsman Commission-or any public institution for that matter-in front of a disillusioned populace has to be one of the lowest acts that can destroy the image of the state and/or usurp the confidence of the people vis-?-vis their system. How then do we expect the people to respect public institutions when leaders appear to show contempt for them? No wonder, we are still undergoing a state building process after 30 years of independence instead of consolidating anything that would have resembled a foundation. (source: The National)
