[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 1



GLOBAL:

"Rational Debate on Capital Punishment Lacking"----Interview with Peter
Hodgkinson


Peter Hodgkinson founded the world's first Centre for Capital Punishment
Studies at the Westminster University Law School, London in 1992. The
centre's aim is to inform the death penalty debate from an evidence-led
perspective.

It also stages a number of practical projects addressing such issues as
the alternatives to the death penalty and services for the families of
murder victims as well as the condemned. This is the approach which needs
to be developed further, he says in an interview with Julio Godoy,
European correspondent of IPS.

Death penalty supporters and abolitionists still rely on much "mythology"
and irrational argument. "Too much discussion takes place at the emotional
and high moral ground level and not enough cerebrally," he says.

IPS: Over the past decade there has been an enormous increase in the
number of countries abolishing the death penalty. You must see this as a
tremendous achievement for the abolitionist movement?

PETER HODGKINSON: Removal of the death penalty must be welcomed. But one
needs to examine in some detail the nature of the cause and effect
relationship implicit in your question. I can recall a number of countries
where replacement of the death penalty seemed unrelated to any specific
'abolitionist' campaign. It is important that the abolition industry
rigorously scrutinises its strategies to determine the effect of its
actions.

The Council of Europe is a case in point. The requirement for membership
is suspension of executions, together with an undertaking to ratify the
Sixth Protocol of the European Court of Human Rights within three years of
accession. Countries were quite prepared to agree to this in order to join
the club. As a death penalty 'expert' to the Council of Europe, my
continuing regret is that the essential infrastructure changes for
abolition and its aftermath were all too rarely resourced or put into
practice. There continues to be an absence of rational, evidence-based
debate about the alternative penal policy to capital punishment.

IPS: So despite the growing number of abolitionist countries, you are
disappointed from this perspective?

PH: I believe that a holistic approach needs to be taken to the
replacement of the death penalty. The issues I have just referred to
should be addressed in this way. Adherence to capital punishment is
symptomatic of states with questionable standards in the administration of
justice. Removing the death penalty without addressing these fundamental
flaws is an opportunity lost.

For example, I find it incomprehensible that abolition strategies give
little or no thought to the replacement penalty after abolition. While
progress to abolition is very welcomed, we need to keep in mind that more
than 80 % of the world's population live in countries where there is still
provision for the death penalty.

Paradoxically, abolition of the death penalty itself rarely brings about
the improvements that one would expect from such a radical step. Our
centre has always promoted a holistic approach in preparing for abolition
and its aftermath. This approach requires that attention and resources are
given to improving legal services, prison and police practices, crime
victims' services, humane and proportionate alternatives to the death
sentence and a political philosophy that avoids reinforcing the death
penalty mythology.

IPS: But even with all this, isn't it going to be hard to convince the
world's population to support abolition?

PH: It is important to acknowledge that the citizens of any country
contemplating the replacement of capital punishment have every right to be
nervous about the repercussions of such a policy. This is not because
there is any evidence of the benefits of capital punishment but because
they have been persuaded by politicians that the death penalty is the
solution to serious violent crime. Our centre's response is to initiate
what we call a 'public and elites information and reassurance' project.
This strives to demonstrate to the public that removing the death penalty
will not lead to civil society chaos.

IPS: You say penal policy is often left out of the debate on the death
penalty. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because it is so
complicated?

PH: It is not inherently complicated. It is the duty and responsibility of
governments to ensure that penal policy is informed by the data, not by
populism. There is a wealth of evidence and experience about life and
long-term imprisonment, for example. But one could be forgiven for
thinking that policies are adopted at random and in the face of the
evidence. Minimum prison sentence lengths as alternatives are plucked out
of the sky. Most disturbing is the reliance on whole-of-life imprisonment.

There is some confusion in the term 'life imprisonment'. This can be made
clearer if you consider it as time spent in prison and time under
supervision, subject to recall to prison, for the rest of one's life.
Neither the United Nations nor the Council of Europe guidelines on the
management of life and long-term prisoners, concede the need for
whole-of-life imprisonment, though they, and I, accept that there may be a
few prisoners who may never be deemed safe to release back into the
community. The Council of Europe guidelines should be compulsory reading
for those shaping penal policy.

IPS: When should consideration be given to release a 'lifer' into the
community?

PH: Subject to the circumstances in each individual case, judges should
set the time to be served to meet the needs of deterrence and retribution.
This is known as the tariff. Preparation for release back into the
community should begin on day one of the sentence and actual release
should be possible once the tariff has expired. Release, subject to
rigorous support and supervision, should be based on assessment of risk of
future offending and evidence of capacity to live a purposeful life in
civil society. It should be subject to the possibility of being returned
to prison should you violate your parole conditions.

The tariff serves as an encouragement and inducement to behave, to improve
and address any problems identified as triggers to the offence. It also
provides protection for the prison staff who manage the subtle balance
between rewards and punishment. Whole-of-life imprisonment provides
neither hope nor purpose to prisoners. It also puts prison officers at
potentially greater risk.

IPS: Resistance to abolishing the death penalty often comes from people
concerned about the victims. Should the abolitionist movement be
campaigning for more to be done for the victims?

PH: With few, but notable, exceptions -- I would single out the two U.S.
organisations Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation and Murder
Victims' Families for Human Rights -- the abolition industry has failed to
address the issue of the families of homicide victims and the condemned.
Victims have always been exploited as part of the 'law and order' platform
of populist politicians. Many hollow promises are made on their behalf. An
expressed 'concern' for victims often belies the fact that little or no
services are being provided for them. Even when there is action this can
take the form of exploiting the victim further by 'using' them as part of
the prosecution process. The families of murder victims continue to be
marginalised.

IPS: The UN General Assembly will soon be voting on a resolution calling
for a universal moratorium on state executions. Of course, this will not
be binding on the world community. But do you think a resolution passed
with a significant majority might lead to more countries abolishing the
death penalty and focus minds on the often-ignored issues you have
mentioned?

PH: I would love it to have this effect and it would represent a symbolic
move in the right direction. Those promoting such a resolution are
confident of an increase in co-sponsors and securing a majority, a measure
perhaps of the increasing consensus about the need to suspend executions
and restrict reliance on the death penalty. I am less certain that it will
change the behaviour of countries wedded to capital punishment.

(source: IPS)






VIETNAM:

Wrongfully accused receives reparations


Nguyen Thanh Hai will receive VND171 million (nearly US$11,000) in
compensation for his wrongful prosecution, according to a ruling by the
Supreme Peoples Court.

Hai was arrested in 2002 and accused of raping and murdering an underage
lottery ticket seller and throwing her body in a pond in the city of My
Tho in the southern province of Tien Giang.

2 years later, the Tien Giang People's Court convicted him on both
charges, as well as for robbery, and handed down a death sentence. The
Supreme People's Court upheld the sentence on initial appeal.

>From death row, the illiterate Hai sought the help of a friend in prison
to write a letter claiming his innocence and asking the Supreme People's
Court to spare his life.

On October 1, 2004, the Supreme Peoples Court agreed to an additional
review of the case, ruling that there were some signs of violations of
Hai's rights in the collection of material evidence against him. It
ordered the provincial People's Court to hold a re-trial.

On June 15, 2007, however, Tien Giang police decided to suspend the
investigation and release Hai due to a lack of evidence.

Hai meanwhile appealed to the Supreme People's Court, seeking damages for
wrongful prosecution and imprisonment of more than VND272 million
($17,000).

On Wednesday, Deputy Judge Nguyen Xuan Phat of the Supreme People's Court
held a meeting with local people in My Tho to apologise to Hai. Phat
admitted the mistake of the Supreme People's Court and relevant offices in
serving an injustice upon Hai.

(source: Vietnam News)






RWANDA:

Kagame Encourages Other Countries to Abolish the Death Penalty


The Rwandan President, Paul Kagame, encouraged other countries to follow
the example of his country, as he received Thursday in Rome, Italy, an
award for the abolition of the death penalty.

"We encourage more countries in Africa and in the world to be put an end
to this practice", declared the Rwandan Head of State, in receiving this
award handed out by the Italian organization, Hands off Cain.

Kagame received the "award of abolitionist of the year 2007" from Italian
Prime Minister Romano Prodi.

Rwanda abolished last month the death penalty for all crimes including the
1994 genocide which resulted, according to Kigali, in nearly a million
killed, primarily Tutsis.

"The death penalty is contrary to our vision of stability, peace,
prosperity and democratic governance", estimated the Rwandan president, in
a speech consulted Friday by the Hirondelle agency on the site of the
organization Hands off Cain.

He, however, recognized that it had not been "easy to obtain a national
consensus" on the abolition of this sentence, notably because of the
wounds of the 1994 genocide that still remain.

Mr. Kagame also called on countries harbouring genocide suspects not to
hesitate further in extradite them towards Rwanda now that the death
penalty has been abolished.

"There are countries which had in the past refused to hand over (to
Rwandan courts) Rwandans accused of crimes of genocide for the reason that
they would likely be put to death", he recalled.

"If these countries change their position now and return, for judgment in
Rwanda, the said individuals, we would welcome this decision because it
would undoubtedly develop the administration of justice in our country",
he added.

The suppression of the death penalty raised one of the principal obstacles
to the transfer before Rwandan courts of accused of the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) headquartered in Arusha, in northern
Tanzania.,P> Rwanda is the 1st country of the African Great Lakes Region
to have abolished the death penalty.

(source: Hirondelle News Agency)






TAIWAN:

Confessed killer receives death penalty


The Taiwan High Court yesterday handed down the death penalty to a man who
killed a young woman by stabbing her 176 times with a watermelon knife.

The defendant Wang Hung-wei, 32, had been sentenced to death 5 times by
the Taiwan High Court, but on each occasion the Supreme Court returned the
case to the high court.

The Taiwan High Court yesterday handed down its 6th verdict, again
upholding the death penalty in Wang's case.

Yesterday's ruling stated that Wang committed a brutal murder, slashing
the victim's face beyond recognition. It said that as Wang had showed no
remorse, he should be kept away from society for good.

The ruling said that in 2000 Wang wanted to date 20-year-old Chang
Ya-ling, but she was not interested in Wang and had tried to avoid him.

On Sept. 26, 2000, Chang left her home in Tamsui, Taipei County, to go to
work. Wang ran her down with his white Mercedes, knocking her unconscious.
He then bundled her into the trunk of his car and drove off. He attacked
her and inflicting 176 stab wounds with a watermelon knife before
abandoning her body in a vacant parking lot.

Wang was promptly arrested later the same day.

The ruling said Wang showed indifference to the whole matter when being
held at the police station as a suspect.

The district court said that the offender had no previous criminal record,
had confessed to the crime, had apologized to the victim's family in court
and had reached a civil compensation agreement with the family during the
trial.

However, judges discovered Wang urged his wealthy family to repudiate the
agreement.

(source: Taipei Times)






CANADA:

Bring back the death penalty


I knew it would happen.

Death penalty opponents are using the Steven Truscott acquittal to argue
why they believe Canada is better off for having abolished capital
punishment.

Steven Truscott was 14 when he was convicted and sentenced to death for
allegedly murdering 12-year-old Lynne Harper in a small Ontario town in
1959. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and, after
serving 10 years, he has been challenging his conviction.

This determination the original trial was a "miscarriage of justice"
vindicated Truscott. While not finding him innocent, the judges ruled the
Crown's methods were sloppy and testimony was contradictory.

In one Canadian blog, a poster remarked triumphantly, "This is why I
oppose the death penalty."

But, is the Truscott acquittal really about the morality of capital
punishment or does it speak more to the justice system and how it
administers the death penalty? The two issues aren't the same. I think it
is the latter.

For the record, I support capital punishment. Society has the right to
permanently remove criminals for grievous offenses. The public is clearly
on side as polls over recent decades reveal large numbers of Canadians
support capital punishment.

The death penalty is actually one of the most humane ways of dealing with
the worst criminals. Their quick death does not provide true justice for
what many have done.

As a death penalty supporter, am I uncomfortable with the Truscott case?
Yes, I am. To be honest, it shakes my confidence in the state.

But it does not affect my core belief in the rightness of the penalty. It
only convinces me of the stark seriousness of conviction.

For those arguing the Truscott acquittal speaks to why they oppose the
death penalty, I would ask them that if the system could be reformed to
avoid these errors, would they still oppose it?

I think they would still be opposed, as their arguments are really moral
opposition to capital punishment. They use these cases as cover for
underlying beliefs.

There are ways of preventing innocents from being executed. Capital
punishment opponents just don't want to hear about them. Some American
states have introduced moratoriums, which I support, until systems are
reformed.

In 2005, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney introduced a bill restoring
capital punishment.

It required "conclusive scientific evidence," like DNA or fingerprints, to
link someone to a crime. Capital punishment could be imposed only if a
jury finds there is "no doubt" about guilt, a standard much stricter than
"beyond a reasonable doubt."

The bill did not pass, but should serve as a model, even for Canada.

There is the option of never allowing execution for cases based on
circumstantial evidence. You could ensure the death penalty could only be
imposed in cases involving eyewitness testimony.

This way someone like Paul Bernardo, with his videotapes, would be netted
and Truscott would not.

With something this important, we must get it right every time.

(source: Column, Joseph Quesnel, Winnipeg Sun)






DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TH E CONGO:

Death Penalty Given in Journalist Murder Case Alarms UN Mission


The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) today expressed serious concern at the death penalty verdict
given to 4 men convicted of murdering a journalist working for a
UN-sponsored radio station with the largest Francophone audience in
sub-Saharan Africa.

2 men were sentenced as the assassins by a military tribunal and the other
2 were convicted of sponsoring and organizing the killing of Serge
Maheshe, which took place on 13 June in Bukavu in the far east of the DRC,
as Mr. Maheshe and 2 friends were about to enter a UN-marked vehicle. His
friends were not injured in the attack.

In a statement to the press today in Kinshasa, the DRC capital, the
mission (MONUC) said that while it respected judicial independence in the
vast African country, it considered that the tribunal did not base its
verdict on the results of the autopsy or on any ballistic expert
testimony.

"In fact, the tribunal noted that the confessions of the two principal
accused contained contradictions and that certain allegations made by them
cannot be corroborated," the press statement said. "The tribunal itself
underlined that doubts remained."

MONUC stressed the UN principle, enshrined in a 1984 resolution of the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), that a verdict of capital punishment
must be based on "clear and convincing evidence that does not leave room
for any other interpretation of the facts." The judicial proceeding must
also offer all possible guarantees of a fair trial.

Noting that an appeal had been launched by the convicted men, the mission
said all guarantees of a just and equitable trial must be respected and
all the pieces of evidence considered, and it pledged to provide legal
authorities in DR Congo with any technical or logistical help they
required.

Mr. Maheshe had been a senior journalist with Radio Okapi, a partnership
between MONUC and the Hirondelle Foundation, a Swiss non-governmental
organization (NGO), since 2003. Aged 31 at the time of his death, he left
behind a wife and 2 children.

(source: UN News Service)