March 4
INDIA:
Hit, only if you must. But never hit soft
The Jammu & Kashmir Government cannot even pay the salaries of its employees
without Central aid. Yet, the Centre does not push these advantages. It
continues to appease divisive elements
The beauty of democracy is that even the devil can cite the scriptures and get
away with it. Furthermore, all kindness flows for the devil who appears in
society in the form of criminals, murderers and, yes, terrorists. And then
there are those, whose full-time job is to support such people who have
committed crimes against society and the nation.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau, a total of 1,455 convicts were
given the death penalty between 2001 and 2011 - that is, an average of 132.27
convicts who were sentenced to death every year in those 10 years. During this
period, Uttar Pradesh, handed down 370 death sentences followed by Bihar (132),
Maharashtra (125), Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (95 each), Madhya Pradesh (87),
Jharkhand (81), West Bengal (79), Delhi (71), Gujarat (57), Rajasthan (38),
Kerala (34), Odisha (33) and Haryana (31). But not even a handful of these
convicts were actually hanged. In fact, the hangman's noose has only been put
around 8 criminals since 1992. Also, between 2001 and 2011, the death sentences
of 4,321 convicts were commuted to life imprisonment. The highest number of
commutations was in Delhi (2,462) followed by Uttar Pradesh (458) and then
Bihar (343).
The manner in which death sentences are carried out (if at all) or overturned
leads to a mockery of the law. It also sends the message to criminals and
terrorists that India is a soft state, where you can commit any crime and then
live off the tax payers' money. Our leaders make bold speeches calling for
stern action to be taken against terrorists. However, all actions are
ultimately seen through the prism of vote-bank politics. Consequently, it takes
years to punish those who commit anti-national activities. India has been
following a policy of laissez faire and hoping that all problems, be it jihadi
terror or crimes against women, will solve themselves. India's leaders may
claim that this country is a superpower in the making, but the fact is that it
is still one that can be pushed around.
Theodore Roosevelt had rightly said: "Don't hit at all, if it is honourably
possible, to avoid hitting, but never hit soft." The basic problem here is that
India is willing to strike but it is afraid to wound. A terrorist is hanged 13
years after he planned an attack on Parliament and in response, Kashmir Valley,
which has been ethnically cleansed of minorities, goes on a strike to express
its sympathy for the convict. So-called human rights activists, most ensconced
in the safe environments of Government commissions and committees in the
national capital, scream their lungs out against the death penalty. But they
forget that human rights is not the reserved property of terrorists. What about
the many innocent victims of that same terrorist? Did they not have any human
rights? What kind of a perverted sense of justice is this?
A father kills his son in a fit of rage, a rapist rapes a helpless girl and
then kills her, a husband kills his wife, cuts her into pieces and then roasts
the remains in a tandoor. Does anybody really believe that the death penalty in
their cases is not more than justified? I wonder if so-called human rights
activists lose a loved one at the hands of the terrorist, would they still
maintain the same stand on such issues? The country is engaged in a
life-and-death battle with the terrorists, and we still have such human rights
activists becoming unpaid advisers to the Government. Such people seem to work
on the basis of the assumption that victims have no rights while all the rights
are preserved for criminals alone.
The Government has given numerous concessions to those who had migrated from
Kashmir to Pakistan between 1988 and 1989 to train as terrorists and then
spread anarchy in their home State. The Government has allowed some of these
trained terrorists to return to their homes in Kashmir on the ground that they
have had a 'change of heart'. Yet, no gadget has been invented in the world so
far, that can assess such a 'change of heart'. Consequently, today, not only
has violence become a way of life in Kashmir but it has also turned the Valley
into a theocratic region with bans on music, cinemas, videos and beauty
parlours. Both the State and the Union Government are mute spectators.
India, being a secular state, does not subscribe to any particular religion or
mode of living. Everybody is guaranteed the same Fundamental Rights under the
Constitution. Only Kashmir valley has been allowed to turn into a theocratic
state where the writ of the Government hardly runs. What can be more disastrous
than the fact that terrorists have abducted many sarpanches in Kashmir and
killed some of them?
Yet, this is not entirely surprising, given that those who sympathise with
separatists are given state security which they do not deserve by any stretch
of imagination. Further, the terrorists and their sympathisers are reportedly
often called upon by their Pakistani patrons to receive instructions on how to
better promote their devious agenda. However, this has not changed the
Government's strategy of doling out one concession after another, be they in
the name of development or supposedly for the sake of creating jobs. Now,
contrast this to what the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir recently said in
the State Assembly. Mr Omar Abdullah stated: "Kashmir is an issue between 2
neighbours. It is an international issue...It is a political issue and cannot
be addressed through development, employment or good governance."
Clearly, for the State regime, only Kashmir valley (minus the minorities)
matters. Terrorists and their supporters have hijacked governance in that
State, as can be seen from the response to Afzal Guru's hanging. Also, let us
not forget that, as subversive elements went on a rampage following Afzal
Guru's hanging, police and paramilitary were prohibited from opening fire to
rein in the mobs, rendering the former as easy targets.
Having been the head of the paramilitary force in Kashmir, I know how easy it
is to mobilise mobs in a place like Srinagar, where nearly a 1,000-odd mosques,
have been connected through loud-speakers. During my posting in the valley,
only one Governor had the courage to disconnect all loud-speakers to bring
peace to the city. But, since then, the situation has gone back to being
business as usual. The separatists now even release calenders that announce the
days on which there would be protests and shops have to be shut. Unfortunately,
mainstream politicians in the valley are playing into the hands of the
terrorists, as Mr Abdullah's statement that Kashmir has 'acceded', not merged,
with India, makes clear.
The State cannot even pay the salaries of its employees, without Central aid.
Yet, the Centre does not push such advantages. It want s to appease. The
Government should bear in mind that history does not for long entrust freedom
to the weak and the timid.
(source: The Daily Pioneer)
JAPAN:
Death penalty an option for Japanese jury
Japan's courtrooms remain a stern place for defendants.
Richard Hinds will be cross-examined by prosecutors, and 3 professional judges
as well as 6 'citizen judges', whose decisions carry almost the same weight as
those of the professional judges.
Mr Hinds may also be questioned by lawyers for the Furlongs and could even be
grilled by Nicola's parents.
"The victims' rights movement in Japan has made amazing progress in the last 10
years," says Mark Levin, Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii.
Citizen judges are particularly harsh on crimes with a sexual element.
3 to 5 years used to be an average sentence in sexual assault cases before they
were introduced.
Now the average sentence is 5 to 7 years.
The conviction rate in Japanese criminal cases is 99.87pc.
If found guilty, Mr Hinds could theoretically be sentenced to death.
However, the death sentence is unlikely because of his youth and also because
capital punishment is usually reserved for multiple murders.
(source: The Independent)
ANTIGUA:
DPP says death penalty near impossible
Securing a death penalty on a murder conviction in the Organisation of Eastern
Caribbean States (OECS) is "virtually impossible" as the legal standard to be
met is extremely high.
That's according to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in St Vincent & the
Grenadines Colin Williams, who said, even if the lower court (High Court)
orders the death penalty for murder, the appellate courts - Eastern Caribbean
Supreme Court (ECSC) and Privy Council - would overturn the ruling.
DPP Williams said, "The threshold is so high, it is virtually impossible for
anyone really to suffer the death penalty because there is this procedure you
have to go through. (The court) must be satisfied there is no way this person
can be rehabilitated and the death penalty is the only appropriate penalty."
Williams' remarks come amidst growing enthusiasm among residents for the death
penalty to be mandatory in cases of murder and on the heels of a government
statement indicating that the authorities would utlitise all necessary legal
processes to give effect to the death penalty.
The death penalty is on the local law books, but a ruling in the ECSC has set a
precedent making it unconstitutional for such a penalty to be mandatory,
Williams explained.
The renewed call for hanging followed Tuesday's murder of a saleswoman, Susan
Powell, who was shot in the head while at work at First Gadget Electronics in
Heritage Quay.
Details surrounding the killing have been sketchy and police have only said the
incident occurred around 1:15 pm, while a cruise ship was docked at the Quay.
Williams further said the Privy Council, Antigua & Barbuda's final court of
appeal, has outlined when the death penalty would be applicable.
The guidelines are found in the case of Trimmingham v The Queen in which the
Council pointed out such penalty should be imposed only in cases which, on the
facts of the offence, are the most extreme and exceptional; "the worst of the
worst" or "the rarest of the rare"; that there must be no reasonable prospect
of reform of the offender and that the object of punishment could not be
achieved by any means other than the ultimate sentence of death.
Following the Council decision, back in 2011, in Antigua, a High Court judge
denied the prosecution's application to have 2-time killer, Ashworth Bunche
sentenced to death.
Bunche, was found guilty of murdering his friend - by shooting him about the
body multiple times in 2007, and was sentenced to life in prison.
Prior to killing his friend, Bunche had served a 10-year sentence for killing
another man. He had pleaded guilty to the alternate count of manslaughter.
Although Justice Mortimer Cumberbatch described the crime as heinous and said
Bunche should have learned a lesson having previously served 10 years in jail,
he said the case did not satisfy the threshold to warrant the death penalty.
(source: Antigua Observer)
*********************************
Death penalty
The most recent killing in the commercial belt of the city is cause for concern
by every well-thinking national of this country. There is good reason to call
for the implementation of the death penalty, which has been on our statute
books since 1875.
Section 86 of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution Order of 1981 provides the
procedure to be used when one is under the sentence of death. This means that
Parliament does have the power and authority to maintain the death penalty on
our statute books and implement it in a humane manner for persons who commit
the offence of murder.
The Privy Council did not and cannot prevent the State from executing persons
convicted of murder in Antigua and Barbuda in any of its judgments to be
followed by courts under its jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, since our
Constitution provides for the execution of criminals. This is administered by
statute since 1875.
Because such provision forms a rigid part of our Constitution, the Parliament
cannot repeal Section 86 of our Constitution, which allows for the sentence of
death. The Privy Council is part of the judicial arm of Government. It does not
legislate; it interprets our Constitution and laws. This means that the Privy
Council has no constitutional authority to cause the death penalty not to be
applied in Antigua & Barbuda as provided by law. What the Privy Council can do
and has done is to set guidelines as to how penalty can be carried out by the
executive arm after the judiciary would have pronounced sentence on a prisoner
who was convicted of murder.
Not every killing of a person is murder. Murder is an offence which
necessitates the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused person
killed another with malice aforethought, either express or implied. In short,
the accused must be a person of sound mind who unlawfully kills another without
reasonable excuse.
For instance, if a person of sound mind points a loaded gun in the direction of
another person and causes that gun to discharge, killing that person, except he
can prove beyond reasonable doubt to a judge and jury a contrary intention, he
may be convicted of murder and such conviction carries the penalty of death in
Antigua and Barbuda.
Can more than one person commit a single murder? The answer is yes. If 2 or
more people set out to cause the murder of another, it does not matter who
fired the fatal shot or who inflicted the fatal stab, once it can be proven
that all the people charged with the offence had the same intention, that is,
to kill another with malice aforethought either express or implied, then all
are culpable for the crime of murder, and could be sentenced to death.
Can a person in Barbuda or say Jumby Bay be part of a murder committed in
Antigua, at a time when he may not be in Antigua when the murder was committed?
The answer is yes. The doctrine of common design, a principle of law, makes
this possible. As I have mentioned earlier, it does not matter who fired the
shot or inflicted the fatal wound, once the prosecution can prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the person in Barbuda or the person at Jumby Bay was part
of the scheme to murder all who are involved are culpable.
In any murder charge, it is important, although not always the case, to show
motive for the action of an Accused. Motive speaks to the mens rea. Now what is
mens rea? Mens rea in law speaks to the state of the mind of the accused
required by the definition of the offence charged. It is my firm belief that it
is dangerous for the prosecution at a criminal trial to depend merely on the
"actus reus". That is, what is seen to have been done by an accused in a
criminal offence to determine his guilt.
To determine the guilt or innocence of an accused charged with murder, it is
necessary for the prosecution to examine all the facts relating to the case and
to determine whether those facts go to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Upon careful examination of these facts before a criminal court, the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact
commit the offence.
The alternative to murder is manslaughter. What is manslaughter? Manslaughter
is the unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought, either express
or implied. What this means? It means that the accused is guilty of unlawful
killing of a person, but void of the necessary ingredient to be convicted of
murder.
When a person is convicted of murder by a jury, it means that his country men
would have satisfied that he had committed perhaps the worst offence against
humanity, and that in Antigua and Barbuda such a person should suffer death.
Death is the supreme price one can expect to pay for a capital crime in our
country.
Now we are living in a country where democracy forms part of our culture. In
democracy, everyone is given a free will to exercise his or her god given
rights. In exercising those rights, one must understand that other people in
society have the same rights to be enjoyed. The person who unlawfully kills
another, resulting in his conviction of murder, should pay the penalty for his
crime against society.
It cannot be fair for persons who willfully, and without reasonable excuse,
kill members of our society and allow to stay in prison at the expense of the
very society from where these victims came. It is equally unreasonable when one
is allowed to plead guilty before a criminal court by arrangement, after the
facts clearly demonstrate that the prisoner, beyond reasonable doubt committed
an offence of murder and given a sentence of less than 20 years. These are
painful circumstances for any society to accept.
The Privy Council made certain rulings with regard to the execution of
convicted murderers. These rulings necessitate our national Parliament to look
at existing law when dealing with the sentencing phase of persons convicted of
murder. I am of the strong view that Parliament should have long enacted
legislation giving statutory guidance to judges in exercising judicial
discretion in the sentencing phase of a trial where an accused is convicted of
murder.
I agree with the Privy Council that judges should have discretion in sentencing
persons convicted of murder, but this discretion should be exercised within a
framework of statute, rather than an open door discretionary authority of the
court. Recent sentences imposed by the court for convicted murderers occasioned
a sharp negative reaction from a wide cross section of the Antigua & Barbuda
public, and this is understandable given the heinous nature of the crimes
committed.
I am not a proponent of the death penalty, however I believe that it can be a
necessary tool to fight crime in a society which faces an escalation of crime,
more particularly the crime of murder by people who appear to be less than
human and who carry out their nefarious acts of murder by using firearm to rob
in almost all circumstances. Our people need to see a more positive approach to
fighting crime. This must be a priority for both the citizenry and the
government of the day.
The current attorney general, who appears to have little or no understanding of
both criminal and administrative law, which are part of our jurisprudence,
based on his actions, at times should spend more time with experts in those
areas of the law to craft out the kinds of improvement necessary to make our
laws relevant to the challenges we face with gun crimes and other serious
offences.
The time the government spends in scheming all kinds of plans to destroy
distinguished citizens of our country, they would use that same time to improve
important areas of the country's criminal laws using the best minds around to
do so. Antigua & Barbuda is blessed at the moment with one of our best
Caribbean minds in the criminal law in the person of DPP Armstrong, who from
all account shows that he has the capacity to successfully prosecute criminals
once given the tools necessary to do so. The government should therefore cause
to be formed a taskforce headed by DPP Armstrong, who shall advise the
government as to changes to existing laws and penalties, therewith, which
hopefully will serve as a deterrent to persons who are bent on carrying out
criminal activities in our society.
It is unacceptable to me as a national of this country to see that the leaders
of our country, both in church and state, react only to problems facing our
society when those problems manifest themselves in a way which threaten their
status. Their pronouncements on TV and otherwise sound empty and quite
baseless, and amount to nothing more than a sham employed in a scheme to fool
the people.
Antigua & Barbuda is at a crossroads tied in a web of deceit by those who
administer power and authority. Never before in my 65 years of existence have I
seen this country in the mess it is in at this juncture of our development. Our
people have become so heartless and wicked that we are afraid to deal with each
other on a daily basis for the good of our country.
In our churches on Sundays, and I believe on Saturdays, one can feel the vibes
of the wickedness and evil of our people. Some people in our churches refused
to pass the peace, which is supposed to bind Christians together as a community
of believers. This kind of behaviour demonstrates the serious nature of the
problems this country faces at this juncture of its development as a nation and
as a people.
I love my country and its people, and want the best for all. We should all
continue to pray. The best place to do this is in our churches. No other place
is more powerful to do this than in our several churches. I therefore ask our
people to return to church on Saturdays and Sundays to worship the Christ who
is yesterday, today and forever. Whatever may be our differences with the
church, I believe that it is still the best place to witness for Christ, who
still has the power to make a difference in each and every one of us.
It is my prayer that god will bless our nation of Antigua & Barbuda, and that
those who are causing the people of our nation to feel a sense of hopelessness
and despair may stop and think seriously about their actions, which can only
destroy the fabric of our society.
(source: Opinion, NATHANIEL PADDY JAMES ESQ OM ??? NOTARY
PUBLIC----Caribarena.com)
CHINA:
'Execution Parade' of 4 behind Mekong Murders Angers Chinese
An "execution parade" on China's state television of 4 foreign men sentenced to
death for killing 13 sailors on the Mekong River caused anger in China on
Friday, with many people saying it was an unnecessary display of vengeance.
The 2011 murder of the Chinese sailors was one of the deadliest assaults on
Chinese nationals overseas in modern times and prompted the government to send
gunboat patrols to the region downstream from its border.
Chief suspect Naw Kham, extradited to China by Lao officials in May, was found
guilty of the killings of the sailors last year in the " Golden Triangle"
region known for drug smuggling, where the borders of Burma, Laos and Thailand
meet.
Naw Kham, from Burma, and the three others were executed by lethal injection in
the Chinese city of Kunming, but not before being paraded live on state
television, trussed with ropes and shackled in chains, as police led them from
the jail to a bus taking them to the place of execution.
The actual execution was not shown.
"Using 2 hours to broadcast live the process for these criminals facing the
death penalty is a violation of Article 252 of the Criminal Procedure Law of
the People's Republic of China," said prominent human rights lawyer Liu
Xiaoyuan.
"This provision says that criminals facing the death penalty cannot be put on
public display."
The broadcast by China Central Television also violated a law by the Supreme
People's Court that a "person's dignity should never be insulted," Liu said.
Chinese television used to show such scenes regularly but largely stopped
almost 2 decades ago, though they still crop up occasionally on provincial
channels.
The return to this practice sparked outrage from many on social media sites.
"They tied him in ropes and paraded him in front of 1.3 billion Chinese - is
this what the human rights the government always stresses is really all about?"
wrote on user on China's Twitter-like Sina Weibo microblog.
"I know they killed 13 Chinese people and it was a terrible thing, but it's
really not appropriate to live broadcast the execution process like this and it
goes against Supreme Court rules," wrote another.
The hunt for Naw Kham got heavy play in Chinese media, with some newspapers
trumpeting his capture as akin to the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden by US forces.
The widely read tabloid the Global Times said that China had even considered
conducting its 1st drone strikes to kill Naw Kham, but authorities decided they
wanted to take him alive and put him on trial.
1 of the other 3 executed men was Thai, 1 was Lao and the other was stateless,
Chinese media said.
China is believed to execute thousands of people annually - the exact number is
a state secret - and there is widespread support for the death penalty, though
the number of crimes that carry it has been reduced in recent years.
But the parading of the for convicted of the Mekong murders would raise
questions for Chinese people about the use of executions, said Nicholas
Bequelin, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group.
"It's predatory, voyeuristic and exploitative and that defeats the very purpose
of having a legal system," he said.
(source: irrawaddy.com)
*************************************
China and the mirror of history; Re-examining the Cultural Revolution
Aa a teenager during China's Cultural Revolution, Zhang Hongbing provided the
tip that led to his own mother's execution.
Mr Zhang remembers the events well. It was the evening of February 13th 1970.
His mother had expressed private doubts about Mao Zedong's leadership and
voiced support for purged officials. Outraged, Mr Zhang left the house
alongside his father to inform on her. The pair returned to discover his mother
ripping posters of Mao from the wall. Mr Zhang beat her and his father asked
him to tie her up with rope before authorities arrived to arrest her. In a
report Mr Zhang personally recommended that she receive the death penalty. His
mother was later shot at a public trial.
The 15-year-old boy was commended as a model Red Guard. More than four decades
later Mr Zhang says he felt no remorse at the time but now admits to "painful,
suicidal" feelings. He is lobbying the government, through the law courts, to
make his mother's tomb a cultural relic. He implores: "I call on the people to
say: 'Let's not forget'".
In February, in his hometown of Bengbu, in eastern Anhui province, authorities
rejected Mr Zhang???s latest proposal. The move is unsurprising. In 1981 the
Chinese Communist Party officially repudiated the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution,
when Mao mobilised young Red Guards to rebel against their parents, teachers
and intellectuals, leading to the deaths, torture and humiliation of millions.
But public discussion of this chaotic time has been discouraged. The party
worries that exhuming the ghosts of the past could undermine its legitimacy.
There are signs this may be changing. Zhang Ming, a professor at Beijing's
Renmin University, published an op-ed February 20th in the state-run China
Youth Daily arguing that the only way for China to recover its humanity is to
re-examine the Cultural Revolution - a tragedy he compares in its horror and
scope to events in Nazi Germany - openly. But whereas Europe has commemorations
and memorials, China has no such thing. Mr Zhang draws on the symbol of
cannibalism - the ritualistic eating of enemies' hearts and livers was reported
during the period. Unless China confronts its past it will remain a "den of
cannibals", Mr Zhang writes. Within 5 days of publication one version of the
article reposted online received more than 300,000 hits.
That the article was allowed to run at all is significant. In 2006 censors
banned all commemorative features of the 40th anniversary of the start of the
Cultural Revolution. Its publication follows a moderate loosening of political
taboos. In 2012, the outgoing premier, Wen Jiabao, warned that without reform
tragedies like the Cultural Revolution might happen again.
Mr Wen's reference to the Cultural Revolution's "evil legacy" marked a dig at
disgraced former official Bo Xilai, who, while serving as the top Communist
Party official in the southern city of Chongqing, had tapped into Maoist
nostalgia. But by breaking the silence previous leaders had kept, Mr Wen also
prompted discussion among the populace.
In February, this reached boiling point over news that a man in his 80s was to
stand trial in Rui'an, in eastern Zhejiang province, for a murder that
allegedly happened in 1967. The defendant, identified as Qiu Riren, is accused
of strangling and dismembering a doctor suspected as a spy. Charges were filed
in the 1980s but Mr Qiu had been on the run for decades, according to state
media.
Though a verdict has yet to be made public the case has caught public
attention. In social media, debate about how to assess culpability for the
Cultural Revolution has risen to levels seldom if ever seen before.
Reactions are split. Some say Mr Qiu has had his comeuppance; others view him
as a helpless scapegoat. "What is the point of the trial! The ultimate culprit
is still standing on the square being worshipped by tens of thousands of
people," wrote one user on the microblog Sina Weibo, referring to Mao's
portrait which still hangs over Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Most are perplexed
as to why the trial is happening now, 46 years after the event. Was it an
accident that this case made it to the courts, or is it a real turning point?
Historian Frank Dikotter, who is researching a book on the Cultural Revolution,
believes the trial is unlikely to open the floodgates for further accusations
of blame. To do so would spell disaster for the party, he says. Most of its
members aged over 60 lived through the era. Few have clean hands.
Mr Dikotter surmises that the case might be more localised, and perhaps even a
vendetta in which the alleged Cultural Revolution murder serves merely as a
convenient excuse to exact revenge for something else. Local politics are
likely to have shaped the decision, agrees Ding Xueliang, an expert on the era
at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Local officials who were
instigators of Cultural Revolution violence would have little incentive to
allow such a trial; but officials from persecuted families might be more lax,
explains Mr Ding.
Mr Qiu's trial may also simply be an anomaly. The Global Times reported that
the statute of limitations for grievous crimes in China is twenty years; it was
in the 1980s that Mr Qiu was first charged.
One thing is certain. The stakes are high. If it allows the gates to open too
widely on attributing blame for the Cultural Revolution, the party risks
sullying its own reputation, perhaps beyond repair. But keeping them firmly
shut risks nurturing a nostalgia for the disastrous era born out of frustration
with the current leadership and a lack of information about the past.
For Mr Zhang avoiding the latter is paramount. For that he is willing to turn
to the people to disclose the savage truth about his own past. "I volunteer to
present the facts of this case to the public for judgement," he says. "I think
the right moment to discuss the Cultural Revolution is now."
(source: The Economist)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
