[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 24




PHILIPPINES:

Don't restore capital punishment


No to the death penalty! We join Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de
Lima in opposing legislators who are calling to reinstate capital
punishment in our criminal justice system.

The pro-death-penalty lawmakers are mostly using the utilitarian argument
of deterrence. They say that the grim prospect of being strapped to the
electric chair or getting a lethal injection will make murderers and
homicidal killers think twice about killing somebody. The statistical
support they give their argument does not wash when they say there were
less murders and homicides when the death penalty was in our statute
books.

No such fool-proof correlation between the absence or decline of murder
and homicides and the death penalty exists. In fact, the PNP has been
reporting improvements in the crime situation these past 2 years during
which Republic Act 9346An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death
Penalty in the Philippineshas been in effect. Compare this with 1999, when
we had more executions than any other year and the number of crimes
increased by 15.3 percent.

It was during the term of President Ramos when Republic Act No. 7659
brought back capital punishment. The 1987 Constitution has a provision in
the Bill of Rights abolishing the death penalty but at the same time
giving Congress the power to reimpose it "for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes." President Estrada, responding to the Catholic Church-led
campaign against capital punishment, called a moratorium on executions.

Knee-jerk reaction

Once more, the surge of calls for the return of Mr. Death to our Penal
Code seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the Laguna heist and massacres
earlier this month. They have responded to calls by the anti-crime NGO,
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, which has been an effective help
to the police. The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches has also
been robustly reiterating their stand that "perpetrators of capital crimes
deserve the capital punishment" for these churchmen "uphold the principle
of life for life."

The Roman Catholic bishops, on the other hand, have consistently fought
against the death penalty as zealously as they oppose abortion, looking at
both as acts against God's will and state executions of criminals as
violations of Christ's rejection of the Old Law of Judaism that demanded
"a tooth for a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye and a life for a
life." What Catholic bishops say must be done with perpetrators of heinous
crimes is to give them effective venues and mechanisms for personal reform
and redemption. Life imprisonment is what murderers should be sentenced
to.

The reality, say the pro-Death Penalty people, is that the state does not
have and cannot now afford to build these reform and redemption
facilities, and meanwhile these criminals pose a great danger to societyif
they escape (which is not a rare event in Philippine prisons).

The anti-Capital Punishment crowd replies with these facts. In the
Philippines' flawed criminal justice system, many death row convicts are
actually not the persons who committed the heinous crimes for which they
have been convicted. They are fall guys for the rich and powerful
perpetrators, some of whom are partners of armed and uniformed government
officers. Some are small-time criminals who have sold their bodies to the
true killers for the sake of leaving some small wealth to their
familiesjust as poor Filipinos are selling their kidneys to rich
foreigners.

International and economic dimensions

The proponents and supporters of the revival of the death penalty seem to
miss the international repercussions of the victory of their advocacy.

As CHR Chair de Lima said the other day, the re-imposition of the death
penalty is a breach of international obligations. The Philippines has
signed international human rights treaties that proscribe the death
penalty. Treaties bind the Philippine government, its lawmaking bodies and
citizens.

In addition to the CHR chairs well-advised adherence to the principle
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution giving the state the duty to "value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human
rights," she wishes to make sure that our country does not run afoul of
international law.

Then there is an economic dimension.

The Holy See's and the European Union's praise of the Philippines and the
Arroyo administration for abolishing the death penalty drove
Western-Europe-based (and Japanese) foreign direct investors to sink good
money in this country. Being known to be Pro-Life is an economic asset.
European businessmen, investment packagers and government officials have
said so to President Arroyo and the media.

A new law reinstituting the death penalty will surely make the European
foreign direct investors already here uncomfortable. And those almost
ready to come and bring their investment euros and dollars here would most
likely be turned off and cancel their traveland investmentplans.

It does not surprise us that Sen. Panfilo Lacson is among those strongly
pushing for the pro-Death advocacy. But we are disappointed in Sen. Juan
Miguel Zubiri for being also as bloody mindedand convinced that capital
punishment will put a stop to brutal and violent killings as the ones in
Laguna because the "specter of certain death will deter even hardened
criminals."

That is not what another senator who has more experience than Zubiri in
dealing with criminals. Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who was once a
trial court judge, knows that criminals are not deterred by the fear of
being executed. She says she never saw fear or noticed a deterrent effect
on criminals who were meted the death penalty. She believes life
imprisonment is a greater deterrent while death is something to be
welcomed as the end of suffering.

Our lawmakers should heed the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the
Philippines.

(source: Editorial, Manila Times)

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

Knee-jerk and deadly


As a result of the grisly bank massacre in Cabuyao, Laguna last week,
there have arisen from Congress calls for restoration of the death
penalty. The calls would have been understandable if they had come from
non-congressional quarters, such as anti-crime citizens' groups. But they
come from the very same legislature that abolished it. Which seems to
reveal that our lawmakers have the intellectual depth of a pond, which
ripples at the slightest feel of a pebble or an insect. How sad that our
lawmaking and policy planning have ended up in the hands of men and women
so prone to hysteria, myopia and amnesia.

The legislators calling for restoration say they have been consistently
against abolition. But didn't Sen. Panfilo Lacson vote for the measure in
2006? Even Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri, who was a member of the House of
Representatives then, was and remains a member of the administration
coalition that delivered the torrential votes that enabled the death
penalty laws passage.

The abolition was passed in June 2006 after lawmakers crossed party lines,
not because of political conviction and political will but because of
political accommodationthey wanted to please President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, who was bound for the Vatican then and was eager to
present the abolition law as a gift to Pope Benedict XVI. This only goes
to show that, in this corner of the world, legislation and policy planning
involving issues as far-reaching as justice and law and order are subject
willy-nilly to political passions and horse-trading. This is a sad
reflection of the quality not only of our legislation but also of our
public policy planning, formulation and management as a whole.

Should restoration win, it would be the second time that the nation would
be reversing itself. In 1993, Congress and the administration of President
Fidel Ramos passed a law reinstituting the death penalty, which had been
abolished by the 1986 Constitutional Commission. At least that time, it
took 7 years for government leaders to change their minds. Now, barely 2
years after abolishing capital punishment, they are thinking of
re-introducing it. It looks like the nation's policy planning is becoming
more and more driven by indecision and wooly thinking.

If it is some relief, some elder statesmen, (like Sen. Aquilino Pimentel)
and the newly appointed chair of the Commission on Human Rights, Leila de
Lima, have cautioned legislators against re-imposing the death penalty.
Pimentel has urged his co-senators to check their "knee-jerk reactions,"
and De Lima has opposed the call altogether, arguing that theres no
evidence to show that capital punishment is a deterrent to very grave
crimes.

Pimentel's admonition is very acute. In calling for lethal injection
against persons convicted of heinous crimes, Lacson and Zubiri seem to
have abandoned measured response and calm thinking for fit and frenzy.
They could have made firm calls for full-scale inquiry by the police or
the National Bureau of Investigation into the massacre, or they could have
asked for a review of public safety and civil defense measures against
robberies. Instead, they called for the abolition of the death penalty.
This betrays as much their lack of understanding of the substantive
arguments against capital punishment, as well as their incapacity for
forward-looking and in-depth public policy planning and management.

Capital punishment is inhuman, barbaric and unchristian. More and more
nations, especially those that have achieved a certain measure of progress
and enlightenment, are abandoning it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
states that more and more compelling reasons for its abolition have
arisen, and that the goal of justice should be rehabilitative, not
punitive.

Perhaps the most important, capital punishment as a deterrent to crimes is
a fiction. What deters crime is not the severity but the certainty of
punishment, which comes out of effective law enforcement and firm and
determined administration of justice. Some of our lawmakers seem to have
forgotten this. As a result, there's a distinct possibility that the death
penalty will be restored once more and the nation will slide back to the
barbarity of the Dark Ages.

(source: Editorial, Philippine Daily Inquirer)






CHINA:

China clarifies defense lawyers' role in capital cases


China's Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice have jointly issued
regulations on the protection of defense lawyers' roles in capital cases
to ensure that defendants' legal rights were upheld.

"This is another important regulatory document since the Supreme People's
Court took back the power of death penalty reviews," an official with the
Supreme Court said.

The regulations build upon existing documents on defense lawyers' work in
capital cases. They also standardize the lawyers' duties, the official
said. Some provisions of the regulations include:

-- Legal aid institutions must designate lawyers with criminal defense
experience in capital cases.

-- Lawyers shall not transfer such cases to assistants and must meet the
defendant before trial.

-- Judges must "earnestly listen" to lawyers' suggestions, ensure that
lawyers are able to complete their presentations, and explain why defense
lawyers' motions are honored or denied.

-- Court must inform "interested parties," lawyers and prosecutors of any
date change for court hearings three days ahead of time.

-- Court must notify lawyers if prosecutors submit new evidence or
re-evaluate the case before the second court session.

The regulations also improve the death penalty review procedures. For
example, they stipulate that if a defense lawyer submits any motions or
evidential documents during such a review, the relevant court must
formally receive and record them.

On Jan. 1, 2007, the Supreme Court took back the power of death penalty
review. The right to issue death sentences was given to provincial courts
in 1983 to deal with a sudden surge in crime.

Since the application of the ultimate penalty returned to the hands of the
central authorities, many people are hoping it will be used more
sparingly, implemented more cautiously, and handed down more evenly.

Under the new practice, all death sentences pronounced by local courts
must be reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court. Each death sentence must
be reviewed by 3 judges, who are required to check the facts, laws and
criminal procedures and precedents.

(source: Xinhua)