[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 12


NIGERIA:

Q&A - "Inmates Who Are on Death Row Are Without Legal Representation"


Olawale Fapohunda is a leading human rights lawyer in Nigeria and managing
partner of the Legal Resource Consortium, a non-governmental organisation
(NGO) based in the economic capital of Lagos that provides free legal aid
to prison inmates.

He was secretary of the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the
Administration of Justice which early this year recommended the release of
many death row prisoners. He is also a member of the International
Advisory Board of Penal Reform International. In an interview with IPS
writer Toye Olori, he calls for a formal moratorium on executions and a
speedy end to capital punishment in Nigeria.

Rwanda and Gabon recently abolished capital punishment. What lessons can
they offer Nigeria?

Yes, these 2 countries have abolished the death penalty, and also Senegal,
three years ago. Nigeria will also have to act decisively on this issue of
capital punishment. It has been a subject of public discussion here since
2004. But now it is perhaps time for the government to take a lead and
show the way forward.

But is Nigeria really ripe for abolition, considering its very high crime
rate?

The debate on the death penalty in Nigeria is always an emotional one.
Sometimes it is rarely backed up by facts or proper reasoning. You
mentioned the high crime rate, yet that assertion does not match the
statistics. For example, our population is about 140 million. But the
total population of our prisons is 40,000, out of which 25,000 are
actually remand inmates. So either this crime rate is exaggerated or the
police are not catching the criminals. Whatever it is, the statistics do
illustrate a fundamental flaw in our criminal justice system.

We do actually have an unofficial moratorium on executions. The simple
reason for this is that the state governors who are required to sign death
warrants have shown a reluctance to do so. This is largely because of the
unreliability of the whole process from arrest to conviction.

Standing in the way of abolition, besides the perceptions on crime, is
religion. Many Nigerians have a hard-line attitude towards capital
punishment and this is influenced by their religious beliefs.

In my view Nigeria should abolish the death penalty, but I doubt if there
is the political will to do so.

Why are the courts still continuing to sentence people to death when there
is what you call an "unofficial moratorium"?

The death penalty is still retained in the laws of Nigeria. The
constitutionality of the death penalty has been affirmed by our Supreme
Court. Therefore courts are still able to hand down death sentences. This
will continue to be the case until there is law reform on this issue and
the death penalty is removed from our legal code.

What are rights activists doing to pressure the government to abolish
capital punishment?

The Nigerian NGOs have been consistent in lobbying on this issue. Our
efforts are ongoing. But it would be a mistake to assume that there is
consensus among all Nigerian NGOs on the death penalty. This is not so.

There is, however, a coalition of NGOs for the abolition of the death
penalty. This is seeking to build a consensus among governmental and
non-governmental institutions on this issue. There is also an effort to
get parliament to discuss the death penalty.

As NGOs, we need to do more in the area of public education. We also need
to back our advocacy with concrete facts and figures.

What has become of the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on
the Reform of the Administration of Justice on which you served as
secretary?

We presented 3 reports to the presidency, including a final one which
studied the prisons nationwide. A committee was then constituted to review
these reports and submit a white paper to the presidency.

The ministers of justice and of the interior have recently begun moves to
adopt the key recommendations from the reports, particularly those which
related to the prisons and conditions of prison inmates.

Your commission was particularly concerned about inmates on death row. You
recommended certain categories of these should be released. Has this
happened?

Yes, we were concerned about the deplorable conditions on death row. We
found that the average period spent on death row is between 10 to 15
years. We also noted that many death row inmates have been diagnosed as
having various physical and mental ailments.

We were persuaded by the report of the National Study Group on the Death
Penalty, set up by the federal government in 2004. This statement
encapsulated the findings of that report: "A system that would take a life
must first give justice."

In addition to identifying certain categories of inmates on death row for
immediate release, we also recommended an official moratorium on
executions until the Nigerian criminal justice system can ensure
fundamental fairness and due process in capital cases.

The call for an official moratorium on all executions is borne out by the
conviction that the federal government can no longer ignore the systemic
problems that have long existed in our criminal justice system. These have
been exacerbated by the limited funding of criminal justice agencies,
inadequate training of personnel and an inadequate legal aid scheme.

We also found that one of the most intractable problems in the
administration of the death penalty in Nigeria is the severe lack of
competent and adequately-compensated legal counsel for defendants and
death row inmates seeking appeals.

The limited funding of the legal aid scheme has seriously undermined the
support system for lawyers taking on these complex and demanding cases.

It is particularly noteworthy and of concern that the Legal Aid Council
presently does not provide legal assistance and advice for people facing
capital punishment. The direct consequence of this is that inmates who are
on death row in Nigeria's prisons -- almost all exclusively poor -- are
without legal representation.

The federal government has yet to implement our recommendations, including
our call for an official moratorium on executions and the release of
certain categories of inmates on death row.

(source: IPS)






JAMAICA:

Death is not a penalty


THE EDITOR, Sir:

OCTOBER 10 was recognised as 'World Day Against the Death Penalty'.
Several human rights groups, church groups and other organisations across
the world, continue to make their voices heard as it relates to their
disagreement with the death penalty.

The Gleaner editorial 'Human rights and the death penalty', had no
reservation in its support of the reintroduction/resumption of hanging in
Jamaica. This view is not limited to The Gleaner editorial. It is indeed
true that 'public opinion over the years has demonstrated overwhelming
support for the reintroduction of capital punishment'.

Spiralling murder rate

Many individuals and organisations call for hanging in Jamaica against the
background of the spiralling murder rate. They continue to 'bawl out' for
the death penalty with full knowledge that there is no real evidence in
support of the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent to
murderers.

My argument is that death is not a penalty. Death is the easy way out.
Besides, why should we kill a man for killing a man? Is there really any
difference between illegally taking a life and 'legally' taking a life? Is
the life of the killer any less valuable than the life of any other?

Put them to work

I believe that the convicted murderer should be deprived of fulfilling his
own dreams. He should not sit in prison and 'eat taxpayers money' but
should be made to work. The state should engage him in meaningful work.
There is so much that he can be made to do. Instead of paying others to
beautify our parks and roundabouts, let the murderers do it.

Let them work with the National Solid Waste Manage-ment Authority,
National Housing Trust, etc. Don't kill him. That is the easy way out. Let
him pay, bearing in mind that there is no such thing as paying with your
life.

I am, etc.,

DAREN S. LARMOND

Associate Pastor.

(source: Letter to the Editor, Jamaica Gleaner)






CHINA:

Legal body confirms new guidelines


The country's top procuratorate yesterday confirmed it had issued a
guideline to streamline and standardize how prosecutors handle appeals of
death sentences - a move to further ensure justice in such cases.

The guideline requires prosecutors across the country to keep detailed
records of the entire process of the appeals of those sentenced to death,
including the case acceptance and handling, as well as court hearing and
verdicts, the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) said.

Prosecutors are required to examine evidence and confessions to make sure
they are not collected through illegal means such as forced confessions or
threats.

"Any evidence or confession from an illegal means shall be invalid in
court," the guideline says.

In addition, it stipulates that the appeal of a death sentence should be
handled by at least 2 prosecutors at the same time, and a higher-level
procuratorate should offer guidance if the case involves serious
corruption or causes strong public sentiment.

The paper also makes it clear that prosecutors should take a close look at
whether the verdict of the 1st trial was based on sufficient evidence;
whether the application of the law was proper; whether the crime was so
serious that it deserved an immediate execution; and whether there were
any illegal practices in the investigation, prosecution and 1st trial.

It is the 1st document of its kind ever issued by the top procuratorate,
Fan Chongyi, director of the procedure law research center of China
University of Political Science and Law, told China Daily. Fan is also a
member of the advisory committee to the SPP.

He said the guideline details the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Law
and standardizes the procedure of how prosecutors handle appeals of death
sentences.

"It (the guideline) tackles some existing problems in the handling of such
cases, such as evidence examination, and it is very practical in use," he
said.

According to Chinese law, convicted felons have the right to appeal to a
higher-level court if their first trial concludes with a death sentence.
If the 2nd trial maintains the verdict, the sentence will be submitted to
the Supreme People's Court for final review.

Fan said the latest move of the SPP was part of a campaign in the judicial
system to improve justice in cases involving death sentences.

Last September, a regulation from the Supreme People's Court urged all
courts to hear the appeals of death sentences in an open courtroom to
improve transparency.

And in January, the top court also assumed all powers to review and
approve death sentences. Before that, high people's courts at the
provincial level were authorized to review certain death sentences.

(source: China Daily )





TAIWAN:

Abolish the death penalty


In full agreement with all my European colleagues in Taipei, I am sending
this public letter on the death penalty.

Wednesday was World Day Against the Death Penalty.

The EU considers abolition of the death penalty a contribution to the
enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human
rights. On this occasion, we therefore call on Taiwan to join the growing
list of those that have formally abolished the death penalty and to
commute the sentences of those who are on death row.

To date, 90 countries have abolished the death penalty and a further 40
are de facto abolitionists, having not carried out executions in the last
10 years. More than 50 countries have abolished the death penalty since
1990.

Taiwan, a democracy that has paid close attention to the issues of human
rights, should join this group. Taiwan's democracy has been a positive
example to others in the region. Abolition of the death penalty would
again show its leading place within the region as a defender of human
rights.

Taiwan has, in recent years, already taken a number of positive steps.

The death penalty is no longer mandatory for any crimes and no execution
has taken place since 2005.

We applaud and welcome this progress and urge Taiwan's legislators to take
the logical further steps toward full abolition.

To help reach this goal, a report titled Death Penalty in Taiwan: Towards
Abolition was published last year by the International Federation for
Human Rights, in cooperation with the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death
Penalty, with funds from the EU.

Many people point to the lack of public support for abolition as the main
obstacle to going further. But in nearly all countries (including many in
Europe) abolition did not take place with majority public support.
Politicians led and public opinion followed.

In the EU it would now be unthinkable for a country to return to using the
death penalty and the vast majority of EU citizens would not support such
a move.

Those who oppose abolition usually point to a combination of three
arguments: retribution, deterrent and cost.

A recent article in The Economist on capital punishment in the US
highlighted that the costs of the repeated appeals associated with death
row cases make death sentences more expensive than the alternatives.

We know of no comparable data for Taiwan, but we have witnessed the
continued, protracted proceedings surrounding such cases here.

The deterrent argument is also not clear-cut. The experience of 130
countries shows that dangerous offenders can be kept safely away from the
public without resorting to execution.

Moreover, to point to the deterrent effects of the death penalty, which is
focused on a very small number of offenders, is to forget the complex web
of factors that influence criminality.

The greatest deterrent to crime is the likelihood that offenders will be
apprehended, convicted and punished.

The final argument is that the death penalty is a form of retribution. But
the imposition of the death penalty is the ultimate denial of a person's
human rights by the authorities. Central to fundamental human rights is
that they are inalienable.

Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which
is why they protect all of us. An execution cannot be used to condemn
killing; it is killing.

And the death penalty is non-reversible. Courts are not infallible and
mistakes do occur. The death penalty removes not only the victim's right
to seek redress for wrongful conviction, but also the judicial system's
capacity to correct its errors.

In short, none of the practical arguments that are used to justify the
death penalty are strong and the moral arguments against it are
fundamental.

We again acknowledge the progress that Taiwan has made, but reiterate our
call for it to take the further steps required to formally abolish the
death penalty.

Jean-Claude Poimboeuf

Director,

French Institute in Taipei

(source: Letter to the Editor, Taipei Times)




AUSTRALIA:

No Bali executions will be a real 'let-down'


AUSTRALIANS will feel let down if the Bali bombers are not executed, Prime
Minister John Howard says.

Indonesia's Constitutional Court will hand down its decision on a
challenge to the nation's death penalty laws on October 30.

The challenge was launched earlier this year by members of the Bali Nine
heroin-smuggling ring on death row.

Their lawyers have argued the death penalty in Indonesia's narcotics law
is unconstitutional because the nation's constitution affords life as a
basic human right.

If the court rules the death penalty is unconstitutional, it could
potentially stall the impending executions of 2002 Bali bombers Imam
Samudra, Ali Ghufron (alias Mukhlas) and the so-called smiling assassin
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim.

"I think there would be a sense of let-down if that was the sentence
delivered, but not carried out," Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio
today.

"I cannot bring myself to argue for the suspension of the death penalty
when you're dealing with people who have murdered 88 Australians."

Today is the 5th anniversary of the night club bombings which killed 202
people including 88 Australians.

Mr Howard said a move away from capital punishment had "been festering
inside" the Indonesian system "for some time".

(source: News.com)

****************

Rudd fails the test on human rights


Labor's leader will not stick to principles in his bid for election, write
Ben Saul and Anish Bhasin.

THE memory of the victims of the Bali bombings does not demand Australian
complicity in the execution of fellow human beings. Nothing is gained by
responding to the cult of death, which animated the Bali terrorists with a
culture of death of our own.

It also does a disservice to those who died at Bali to support killing in
their name.

This week Kevin Rudd has dispelled the romantic view of the Labor Party as
the party committed to human rights in Australia. The Labor leader
overruled the nuanced approach of his foreign affairs spokesman with the
crude assertion that "terrorists should rot in jail for the term of their
natural lives and then one day be removed in a pine box".

Rudd would not intervene in support of a terrorist's life, although his
government would still look after Australian citizens facing the death
penalty overseas. It is not clear whether that policy would also protect
an Australian terrorist on death row, where Rudd may be torn between his
desire to see terrorists executed and the need to take care of our own (as
in the case of David Hicks).

Australians should be abundantly clear about what a Rudd government would
now stand for. It would be OK to execute Asians, Africans, Americans or
Europeans  but not Australians. It would be all right to execute
terrorists, but not war criminals, genocidaires, murderers, rapists or
drug traffickers.

While there is bipartisan opposition to the death penalty within
Australia, the Rudd policy is premised on the arbitrary and xenophobic
idea that Australian lives are worth more than the lives of foreigners. As
a policy it is breathtakingly vengeful, crude, counterproductive and
hypocritical.

It also entirely contradicts Rudd's previous position on the death
penalty. In December 2005, he said in a doorstop interview that "Australia
must work through the United Nations to abolish the death penalty
universally" and that "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or
Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent". In January this
year, Rudd properly opposed the execution of Saddam Hussein.

The about-face in policy shows that Rudd is a fair-weather friend of human
rights  which is no friend at all. Human dignity is not something that can
be surrendered for bad behaviour, traded away in a vengeful political
climate obsessed by polling numbers, or eclipsed by a public sentiment of
toxic retribution.

Human rights law is based on the fundamental idea that every human life is
equally precious and entitled at all times to dignified treatment.
Politicians are not entitled to pick and choose who they will bestow with
rights and dignity, and from whom rights and dignity will be withdrawn.

A selective commitment to human rights, to the dignity of some but not
others, is fatally at odds with the very idea of human rights, which
values all human life equally. The bedrock of equal dignity explains why
we do not shoot the disabled, or murder Jews, or beat up monks or imprison
those with different political views. It also provides a sufficient moral
reason not to execute terrorists, even though they appear to have taken
themselves outside the bounds of all civilised behaviour.

Along with 60 other countries, Australia has signed an international
treaty that requires it to abolish the death penalty in Australia, in a
step towards protecting the human right to life. While there is no strict
legal obligation to oppose the death penalty overseas, it is within the
spirit of that treaty to do what we can to eliminate the death penalty
everywhere.

In the Asian region, the death penalty is actively retained by at least 14
countries, including Australia's good friends Indonesia, Japan, India,
Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and China. There is much scope for
Australian governments to play a quiet and constructive diplomatic role in
encouraging more countries in our region to abolish the death penalty,
without preaching.

Using our diplomats in this way may not increase our exports and create
investment or gain access to new markets. But being Australian is about
more than a commitment to economic growth and must surely include a
non-negotiable belief in protecting the value of human life, and
preventing governments from capriciously taking it away.

The failures of the death penalty are well known. As Rudd said in his 2005
interview, there is no "credible evidence" that it deters crime. It all
too often kills the innocent. It frequently discriminates against minority
races, juveniles, and those with a low IQ who may give false confessions.

It also deprives criminals of any chance of rehabilitation. Experience
overseas shows that some rehabilitated terrorists have been extremely
useful in re-educating other disaffected, vulnerable or radical young
people to shun terrorist recruiters and turn away from any involvement in
terrorist organisations.

Australians should be wary of a Labor leader willing to backslide on human
rights. Already Labor has conspicuously failed to oppose drastic
anti-terrorism laws, and continues to support the policy of mandatory
immigration detention introduced by a previous Labor government and which
has caused untold human suffering. It might be hoped that Rudd would offer
a leadership of principle, not a leadership of death.

(source: The Age--Ben Saul is director of the Sydney Centre for
International Law at Sydney University. Anish Bhasin is an intern at the
centre and worked on death penalty cases in Texas)






KENYA:

Death Row Inmates Suffer Over Lawyers' Strike


Murder suspects continue to languish in prison over the ongoing boycott of
pauper briefs by lawyers.

In Nakuru, 7 murder appeal cases, failed to take off on Thursday after
lawyers refused to appear in court.

High Court Judge, Ms Martha Koome, had to give the appellants new dates.

The lawyers have been boycotting briefs to protest at a decision by the
Chief Justice to have all judicial review matters heard in Nairobi.

Pauper briefs are cases where advocates are paid by the State to defend
those charged with murder, but who are too poor to hire their own counsel.

Early this month, appellate judges were also forced to adjourn some of the
hearings following the boycott.

Their cases will now be heard next year as the Court of Appeal only sits
in Nakuru twice a year.

(source: East African Standard)