Oct. 17
PAPUA NEW GUINEA:
Leadership Challenge -- Death penalty is not the solution
In one of my previous columns I discussed the reasons why the criminal
justice system in PNG is inefficient and ineffective. In forthcoming
columns, I will discuss my ideas on appropriate responses and suggestions
to improve the system. During the last few years of my term in office, the
judiciary and the legal profession along with the law and justice sector
conducted public seminars and workshops on various aspects of the justice
system, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) principles and
methods and alternatives to imprisonment plus various proposals to more
efficiently and effectively manage the volume and flow of cases, in
criminal, civil and appeals and other work such as election petitions in
the National and Supreme Courts. In my opinion, there is still not
sufficient public awareness of the complexities of the legal and judicial
processes, which contribute to the poor state of the criminal justice
system. There needs to continue more public discussions on ways on how to
improve the law and justice system.
In relation to the issue of the validity or otherwise of the death
penalty, I commend the British High Commission for its initiative in
bringing in criminologist Professor Peter Hodgkinson and hosting a public
seminar on the subject. What has been lacking is a healthy informed public
seminar and debate on all the related aspects of the issue. There has not
been depth in public discussion. There has not been sufficient scholarship
on all the related issues, such as the legal, constitutional, moral,
spiritual, social, economical, political, and local and international
implications of the implementation of death penalty.
I would like to suggest that the government, through its law and justice
sector programme, or other civil society organisations such as combined
churches council or the ministers fraternal or the Media Council continue
to sponsor further public discussion and debate on the merits and
disadvantages of death penalty. I am available and am willing to work with
others to organise and facilitate such on-going public discussion. I
strongly feel that this subject requires greater public discussion and
debate in a more informed way.
Now I would like to elaborate on some of my of-the-cuff comments at the
recent seminar sponsored by the British High Commission. I do not believe
that death penalty is the answer to the violent crime problem besetting
the country. I agree with Peter Hodgkinson that it is not good penal
policy. The basis on which members of the public are being led to believe
and support the call for the imposition of death penalty is misconceived
and fundamentally flawed.
If the basic expectation is that it will be the cure to our problems of
violent crimes, or that it will deter would-be offenders, it is
unfortunately misleading. It is far too simplistic an assumption. There is
not the empirical statistical data to back up such an assumption. In fact
the overwhelming data is that it does not deter violent crimes,
principally because violent crimes such as murder, robbery and rape are
often committed in the heat of passion or on the spur of the moment.
Would-be offenders do not pause or stop to contemplate or consider what
the consequences of their actions might be. Even when an offence is
planned, such as robbery or rape the would-be offenders do not think about
or discuss what the penalty might be if they should get caught.
After 28 years of involvement in the criminal justice administration, I do
not believe that our criminal justice administration is equipped to
administer the death penalty laws justly. It is too inefficient and
ineffective in its present form and administration.
The adopted structures and practice and procedures were tailored for
jurisdictions with a jury system.
The investigative skills and resources of the police are considerably
inadequate. Because of poor skills training, poor on the job experience
and inadequate resources, I have experienced too many short-cuts, too many
abuses and violations of human rights, by the police to be apprehensive
about the possibilities of grave injustice when a person is wrongly
accused found guilty and executed.
For similar reasons of inadequate skills, experience and resources, public
legal officers for the defence as well as the prosecution continue to work
under extreme pressure and strain, without adequate resources available on
circuit to do justice to serious cases that might carry the death sentence
on penalty.
Again I have the same concerns about the justice being administered by the
criminal courts, both at the national court trial level as well as at the
Supreme Court appeal level, because of the stress and pressure the courts
are operating under. Because of the pressure of circuit courts relative
inexperience of lawyers and the judicial bench, I do not feel confident
that we have the forensic competence maturity and integrity to administer
this irretrievably fatal law safely and justly at this stage of our
jurisprudential development.
I do not believe that as a nation we have exhausted all the possible
social policy options and alternatives to combating law and order issues
before resorting to this most draconian measure. In fact it is too
simplistic a response. It is as if we have run out of significant
substantive new creative ideas and so we are resorting to an old method of
punishment. Many civilised nations of the world are in fact repealing this
law from their penal codes. Incidentally, abolition of the death penalty
is one of the conditions for entry to the European Union. To resort to
imposing the death penalty will take us back into the dark medieval ages.
The US is one of the few developed countries that still retain the death
penalty. While it has all the resources to ensure that the accused are
given a fair trial and all the rights to appeal are afforded, there are
still mistakes being discovered with advance in technology such as DNA
testing. They also have a vigorous and well-advanced jury system.
A final word about the role of leaders in respecting and upholding the
rule of law. When leaders are not providing good role models and are in
fact breaking some of the laws themselves and appear to the public to be
getting away with them with seeming impunity, they contribute to the
breakdown in law and order and the public disrespect for the rule of law.
(source: Sir Arnold Amet, The National)
PHILIPPINES:
Death row convictions face appeals court review
All death penalties and life imprisonment rulings handed down by judges of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) will now go to the Court of Appeals for
review.
Even those already forwarded to the Supreme Court (SC), in compliance with
Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, will be send back to the
appellate court for action.
SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. said they are preparing the cases to
be remanded and, while addressing justices during the inaugural session of
the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu station, expressed confidence the appellate
court will do a good job.
The move is in compliance with the People vs. Mateo case penned by SC
Justice Jose Vitug, who has since retired. It took effect Friday,
coinciding with the opening of the CA station in Cebu.
Davide also believes that transferring the task of automatically reviewing
all death penalty and life sentences from the SC to the CA will add
"another layer" in the judiciarys processes of determining guilt.
Not included
The case against the Chiong seven, however, will not be among those cases
to be remanded.
"That case has already been decided upon but the decision is on appeal.
Nonetheless, jurisdiction goes to the court that had issued the appealed
decision," Davide said in an interview.
He, however, did not elaborate.
Davide is a relative of the Chiongs by affinity and did not take part in
the SCs earlier conviction of all accused.
RTC Judge Martin Ocampo, in his May 1999 decision on the July 1997 case,
found all 7 guilty of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention, with
rape and murder, of Marijoy Chiong.
They were also found guilty of the kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of her older sister Jacqueline.
The seven are Juan Francisco Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan,
Alberto Cao Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy and James Andrew Uy.
Ocampo gave them back-to-back life sentences that all 7, through their
lawyers, separately appealed with the SC.
Affirmed
But in its decision dated Feb. 2, 2004, the SC affirmed the findings of
the RTC.
In a 77-page document, the SC went along with the life imprisonment
penalty for the kidnapping and serious illegal detention of Jacqueline for
all 7 men.
But it increased the penalty to death for the kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape and murder of Marijoy for 6 of the 7 accused.
The youngest one, James Anthony, was a minor at the time of the crime. He
was ordered to serve another life sentence instead.
According to the High Tribunal, the RTC should have considered the
provisions of Republic Act 7659, which prescribes death for certain
heinous crimes, when it imposed a back-to-back life imprisonment penalty
for the 7.
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or
is raped or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty (of death) shall be imposed," the SC quoted the statute.
(source: The Sun Star)
