Oct. 3
BAHAMAS:
Justices Criticise Lawyers For Constant Requests For Delays In Appeal Cases
A Lawyer's request for additional time to prepare her client's appeal against
conviction and the death sentence for a paid execution, drew the ire of Court
of Appeal judges yesterday.
While granting a 7th - and final - adjournment in the case of Anthony Clarke Sr
the judges voiced their general displeasure with the constant requests by
lawyers for delays at the expense of the appellants. "The public is complaining
about the delays. This court is here every day, ready and willing to hear the
appeals," Justice Anita Allen said.
Romona Farquharson-Seymour, who now represents Clarke, a death row inmate, had
told the appellate court that she had only received the trial transcripts 2
weeks prior to the proceedings.
She asked for an additional 2 weeks to complete her canvassing of the documents
given that she was also in a trial and was preparing for another substantive,
but unrelated murder appeal hearing before the court on October 15.
"You took them on and you need to do whatever you need to do. That is the life
of counsel, of an advocate" Justice Allen said, adding that someone with her
experience in criminal cases should not need more time.
"On your scale of priorities, this case should rank higher," added Justice
Abdulai Conteh, who noted that "if I were in your shoes, this would be my
priority regardless of the outcome."
Mrs Farquharson-Seymour accepted the court's criticisms and "humbly would ask
for an adjournment."
Justice Allen noted that there had been 6 adjournments already "and this would
be the seventh." When Mrs Farquharson-Seymour sought to put up a defence,
Justice Allen interjected: "I'm not saying they've been related to you, but
this matter has been before this court since last year."
"It will be the last adjournment," the lawyer said, apologising again. Her
request was granted and the matter was put off to November 12.
Clarke intends to contest his conviction and ultimate punishment concerning the
September 16, 2011, murder of Aleus Tilus. During Clarke's trial, the
prosecution produced a confession statement in which Clarke purportedly owned
up to the murder.
He allegedly told police that he was paid "a lot of money" by a man, who was
not named, to kill Tilus because of an ongoing dispute before the Labour Board,
concerning Tilus's employer.
The convict's attorney, Shaka Serville, submitted that the statement was
obtained through force and brutality against his client.
The jury returned an unanimous guilty verdict and the prosecutor, Ambrose
Armbrister, indicated the Crown's intention to seek the death penalty.
On October 10, 2013, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs, having taken into account
submissions from the prosecution and defence attorneys and the probation and
psychiatric reports, agreed to the Crown's request to sentence Clarke to death
for Tilus's murder.
Clarke had applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension late last year,
having missed his 21-day deadline to appeal his murder conviction and death
sentence.
Mrs Farquharson-Seymour is his 3rd lawyer since his sentencing.
(source: Tribune242)
IRAN:
Iran Drops Death Sentence Against Pastors, Christians
Iran has apparently dropped death-sentence carrying charges against 2
evangelical pastors and another believer, though the 3 men remain detained for
their Christian activities, BosNewsLife learned Thursday, October 2.
Pastor Matthias Haghnejad, Pastor Behnam Irani and Deacon Silas Rabbani from
the Church of Iran house church movement were instead tried for other alleged
offences at the 1st Branch of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Karaj city last
week, trial observers said.
Additionally Christians Moluk Ruhani, Zainab Akbari and Hamidreza Borhani, who
were among 6 believers detained in Isfahan early September, have been released,
said advocacy group Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).
However Mohammed Taslimi and Parsa Dadkhah remain incarcerated while the
whereabouts of Moluk Ruhani???s sister, Sepideh Morshedi, remained unknown
Thursday, October 2, Christians said.
Pastor Haghnejad, Pastor Irani and Deacon Rabbani, who are being held
separately in Ghezal Hesar Prison, had recently been charged with
'Mofsed-e-filarz', or 'spreading corruption on earth', which carries a death
sentence.
The 2 pastors had also been charged with Moharebeh, or 'warring against Allah',
which experts say can also carry the death penalty. Behnam Irani, who is
serving already a long prison term, had received 15 other charges, CSW told
BosNewsLife.
CHARGES DROPPED
Iranian Christians said that the Moharebeh and Mofsed-e-filarz charges "appear
to have been dropped" and that all 3 were tried for "action against national
security" and "creating a network to overthrow the System".
It was unclear whether international pressure prompted authorities to drop more
serious charges. The men now await a verdict from Judge Asel Al-Hosseyn, who
tried their cases, Christians said.
CSW's Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas told BosNewsLife he has mixed feelings
about the outcome. "While we applaud the dropping of the capital charges
levelled against Pastors Haghnejad and Irani, and Deacon Rabbani, it is
completely unacceptable that they have faced trial once again on unwarranted
charges and that their unjust prison terms may be extended even further."
Additionally, "It is difficult to conceive of how imprisoned men from a
severely repressed community could pose a danger to such a powerful system,"
Thomas said.
The dropping of the capital charges against the three Christians comes a week
after a 37 year-old Muslim man, Mohsen Amir-Aslani, was reportedly executed for
'Mofsed-e-filarz' and 'heresy' after describing the biblical story of Jonah as
an allegory.
JUDGE APPEAL
Head of the Judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, disregarded a Supreme Court decision to
release him after the trial judge appealed for the death penalty to be carried
out.
"While a high-ranking judge has claimed Mr Amir-Aslani was executed for rape,
the authorities have yet to produce substantive evidence to support this
allegation," CSW commented in a statement.
"We also express our deepest condolences to the family of Mr Amir-Aslani, whose
execution is emblematic of the arbitrary nature of the Iranian judicial system
and the flagrant disregard of the nation's highest judicial authority for the
rule of law and justice," added Thomas. The official said the plight of
detainees makes it difficult to normalize relations with Iran. "Some in the
West are calling for renewed relations with Iran in the face of the threat
posed in Iraq and Syria by [Islamic State] ISIL [militants]. However, it is
worth noting that Mr Amir-Aslani was 1 of 6 people executed on the same day
that the [the] British Prime Minister met with [Iranian] President Rouhani at
the United Nations,"Thomas said.
"It is highly debatable whether a country that severely represses its own
religious and ethnic minorities and conducts an average of 2 executions a day
can contribute meaningfully towards resolving a conflict that is itself fuelled
by religious sectarianism and an intolerance of indigenous minority
communities."
(source: BosNewsLife.com)
EGYPT:
Egypt Judge in Mass Death Sentence Cases Removed
The Egyptian judge who oversaw mass death sentence cases against Islamist
supporters of the country's ousted president, drawing strong international
criticism, has been removed from his criminal court, officials and the judge
himself told The Associated Press on Thursday.
The removal of Judge Said Youssef, taken by a top appeals court, signals a
possible shift in Egypt after an extensive crackdown on backers of toppled
President Mohammed Morsi and an attempt by judges to begin to repair the damage
done by judge's heavy handed rulings.
Youssef, who led the 2 high-profile death penalty cases in southern city of
Minya, told the AP he was notified Sunday that he was removed from the
"criminal judiciary" to the "civilian judiciary." His final day in criminal
court was Tuesday.
"I was notified while I was looking into cases," Youssef said. He added that
his court, known as the "terrorism court" and assigned to look into cases
linked to violence and acts of terror, had been "dismantled." He declined to
discuss why he was removed.
Other officials, including a top judicial official, corroborated Youssef's
account.
Youssef's court, which started hearing cases in March, is the only "terrorism"
court that will be dismantled, court officials said, speaking on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists.
The move looks like a demotion for Youssef. According to Egypt's el-Shorouk
daily newspaper, removal from the court is an exceptional measure which only
takes place in 2 cases: either the judge has been associated to an act that is
damaging to his reputation or that he was investigated by a special committee
which ruled that he was no longer capable of overseeing criminal court cases.
Normally, a judge who has spent 15 years in criminal judiciary remains in his
post until retirement, the paper said.
Said was condemned when he sentenced to death more than 1,200 people in 2 mass
trials. The number of death sentences, initially the most in recent memory
anywhere in the world, was later reduced to more than 200. Most of the
defendants were charged with murder, attempted murder, joining an outlawed
group aiming at toppling the regime and stealing government weapons in
connection with the attack last August in the town of Matay and el-Adawa, south
of Cairo. Police officers were killed in the attacks.
The cases are rooted in the violent attacks on police stations and killing of
police officers in August 2013 in revenge for security forces raiding 2
Islamists' sit-ins in Cairo that left hundreds dead and sparked days of unrest.
Protesters were demanding the reinstatement of Morsi, who hails from the Muslim
Brotherhood group.
The military led the ouster of Morsi in July after mass demonstrations against
him and his supporters staged near-daily demonstrations demanding his
reinstatement. Some 22,000 people have been arrested since Morsi's ouster,
including most of the Brotherhood's top leaders as well as large numbers of
others swept up by police during pro-Morsi protests.
Gamal Abdel-Maguid, a lawyer who represented a number of defendants, nicknamed
the judge "Said the butcher."
"The case caused an international earthquake and it was expected that judges
would get rid of him after all damage he caused," Abdel-Maguid said.
In the 2 court cases, Youssef issued his stunning verdicts in their second
hearings and in the absence of lawyers who responded by boycotting the next
sessions. Youssef's verdicts were justified as "deterrent" to prevent similar
riots which left churches and police stations torched and threatened lives of
many.
Many of those who received death sentence were tried in absentia, meaning
they'll be given automatic retrials once captured. Abdel-Maguid said a large
number of defendants recently surrendered to have a retrial. Others have 2
chances to appeal the verdict.
Youssef's sentences in the two cases shocked the world. U.N. Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon warned that the verdicts were likely to "undermine prospects for
long-term stability." Amnesty International said it feared Egypt's courts were
"becoming just another part of the authorities' repressive machinery, issuing
sentences of death and life imprisonment on an industrial scale." Youssef
himself said that he received death threats and authorities assigned security
guards to escort him.
The U.S. State Department also said at the time his ruling "defies logic" that
so many people could get a fair trial in just 2 hearings. That renewed calls
for the U.S. to suspend some of the $1.5 billion in military and economic aid
it gives Egypt each year.
Some hope Youssef's court being dismantled means defendants in Egypt may begin
to again face "normal" judges, as opposed to special courts that mete out
swift, harsh rulings.
"At the end of the day, the judges themselves believed this was not a
reasonable verdict and then they decided to move this judge to a soft-core
field." prominent rights lawyer Negad el-Borai said.
(source: Associated Press)
SOMALIA:
Al-Shabaab Executes 4 Men Accused of Spying, Stones Woman to Death
Al-Shabaab militants in Barawe on Monday (September 29th) publicly executed 4
Somali men accused of spying for the Somali government, Somalia's RBC Radio
reported.
The 4 men - Hassan Haji Awow, 27, Mahdi Hassan Isse, 26, Iidle Mohamed Hassan,
18, and Ahmed Mohamed Adan, 42 - were executed by firing squad at an open field
in Barawe Monday evening.
"These men have admitted that they were spies working for the intelligence unit
of the apostate government," an unnamed al-Shabaab judge said through a
loudspeaker.
The men were arrested 1 month ago, but were not given the chance to speak or
defend themselves against their alleged crimes, sources told RBC Radio.
The execution comes days after the militants stoned to death a Somali woman in
Barawe for secretly marrying 4 men, AFP reported.
Witnesses said the woman, 33-year-old Safiyo Ahmed Jumale, was buried up to her
neck on Friday and pelted with rocks and stones by hooded men in front of a
large crowd.
"The woman married 4 husbands and confessed to the crime," al-Shabaab judge
Sheik Mohamud Abu Abdullah told the gathering. "I questioned her several times
while she was in prison and she told me she was mentally fit. All the 4
husbands were questioned and they have confirmed that they had married her."
"The woman was brought with her eyes covered and she was buried up to her neck
before she was stoned to death by hooded men," said Ali Yare, a resident who
witnessed the execution.
(source: All Africa News)
NIGERIA:
Judgment, Sentencing and Appeals in Criminal Matters in Nigeria
It is a well know procedure that every judgment of a court must of legal
necessity be in writing except as otherwise provided by law for Magistrates
courts in the Southern part of Nigeria. It must be stated that court judgment
in criminal and civil matters is not the same as God's divine judgment
entrenched in the holy bible. Judgment in legal sense is the final decision of
the court upon a criminal charge, rights and obligation of the parties. A
judgment can be in favour of the accused person or the complainant. It is in
favour of the accused person if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt thereby providing the opportunity for the defense counsel to
plead a no case submission. It is in favour of the complainant if the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused actually committed the
offence through verifiable evidence and exhibits pointing to show directly that
an offence has been committed.
Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) provides that: "The judge or
Magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every such judgment shall
contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the Judge or
Magistrate and the time of pronouncing it; provided that in the case of a
Magistrate, in lieu of writing such Judgment , it shall be sufficient
compliance under this section if the magistrate (a) records briefly in the book
his decision thereon and where necessary his reasons for such decision and
delivers an oral Judgment; or (b) records such information in a prescribed
form." Once a judgment is delivered, the deed is done (functus officio).
In Nwakalamba vs. Commissioner of Police (1958), a judgment delivered by the
then Federal Supreme Court upheld the principle of functus officio. In that
particular case, an oral judgment delivered by a lower court was later reduced
to writing. The Federal Supreme Court refused to take congnizance of the
written judgment because at the time it was reduced to writing the court that
delivered it had become functus officio, having delivered an oral judgment
earlier.
From the above provision, it is clear that judgment must contain the points for
determination and reason for the decision. The points for determination include
the guilt or innocence of the accused person, fact and proof of the elements of
offence, ingredients of offence as well as sections where the offence
contravened are contained and specified as decided in Yesufu vs. Inspector
General of Police (1960). And where the court is in doubt as to whether the
point for determination should be decided in favour of the prosecution or the
defense, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the defense as decided in
Onafowokan vs. The State (1987) by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Testimony of witnesses and co-accused persons are heavily relied upon by the
courts during criminal trials. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to
gather enough evidence and do thorough investigation, organize his prosecution
witnesses and tidy up the charges against the accused person before
commencement of trial. In delivering judgment, the court must give cogent and
compelling reasons as to why the evidence of one party is to be preferred to
that of another. In Willie John vs. The State (1967), the accused persons were
charged and convicted on two counts of burglary and housebreaking. In his
judgment, the trial judge stated that the evidence against the accused persons
was overwhelming and found the accused persons guilty. The accused persons
appealed against the conviction on the ground inter alia that the judgment of
the court did not contain the points for determination and reasons for the
decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the counsel's contention that the
Judgment delivered by the court did not comply with the requirements of the law
because neither the evidence of the prosecution nor that of the defense was
reviewed. No reasons were given for the court's decision, therefore the appeal
succeeded.
As a general rule, no person can be pronounced guilty for an offence with which
he was not expressly charged. However, where an accused person is charged with
a grave offence and there is not enough evidence to convict him but there is
sufficient overwhelming evidence to convict him for a lesser offence, even
though the accused was not specifically charged with the lesser offence, he may
be convicted of the lesser offence as provided in section 36 (6) (a) of the
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)and as decided
by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Nwachukwu vs. The State (1986). Furthermore,
an accused person who is charged with an offence may be convicted for
conspiracy to commit that offence although he was not found guilty of the
substantive offence as decided in Balogun vs. Attorney-General of Ogun State.
It must be stated that before a court can convict an accused person for an
offence for which he was not expressly charged under Section 179 of the
Criminal Procedure Act, the following conditions must be satisfied; (a) the
graver offence must contain words to include both offences; (b) the evidence
led and facts found must support the conviction for the lesser offence and (c)
it is not necessary to charge the accused with the lesser offence as decided by
the Supreme Court in Nwachukwu vs. State.
An accused person may plead for reduction of sentence under the principle of
allocutus. It is a plea of mitigation of sentence or punishment by an accused
person after he or she has been convicted of an offence in a court of competent
jurisdiction. However, the omission of the Court Registrar or the Judge to ask
the accused to make an allocutus shall have no effect on the validity of the
proceedings. Allocutus under section 247 of the CPA does not operate to absolve
the accused of all punishment; the sentence may be reduced but not cancelled in
its entirety.
Where the law provides for a minimum or mandatory penalty like death penalty,
allocutus has no effect. Thus, in Inspector General of Police vs. Tegbe (1957)
where an accused person was deprived of an opportunity for allocutus because
the judgment given by the trial magistrate was read by another magistrate under
section 251 CPA where the sentence was manifestly light for the offence, it was
held that although the practice adopted was undesirable, the sentence would not
be reduced. In a trial at the Magistrate court in the Northern part of Nigeria,
the Magistrate may at this stage of sentence refer the convicted person to a
magistrate court of a higher grade or to the High Court for sentence. This
occurs if the court is of the opinion that the accused person ought to receive
a different or more severe punishment than that which the magistrate is
empowered to impose as stated under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CPC).
Clearly put, a sentence is the pronouncement by the court upon the accused
person after his conviction in a criminal prosecution by imposing punishment
stipulated by law. The sentence of the court must be the sentence prescribed
for the offence by law which created it. When the court makes a pronouncement
of sentence, it may direct that it should run concurrently or consecutively.
Where the court is silent, the sentence shall be deemed to run consecutively.
It must be stated that death penalty is mandatory sentence for capital offences
and the judge has no discretion in the matter after an accused has been found
guilty of a capital offence. The court must make the pronouncement this manner:
"The sentence of this court upon you is that you be hanged by the neck until
you are dead and may the Lord have mercy on your soul" as stipulated under
Section 367 (2) of the CPA and Section 273 of CPC.
The President of Nigeria and State Governors can exercise prerogative of mercy
on an accused sentenced to death. The judge as soon as practicable must
transmit the judgment to the Attorney General or Minister of Justice or State
Commissioner of Justice to advise the President or Governor on the exercise of
prerogative of mercy. The judgment is attached with a certified copy of the
record of proceedings and a copy of the certificate of death as stipulated
under Section 370 (1) of the CPA. Death sentence cannot be passed on an
offender whose age at the time of committing the offence has not reached the
age of 17 years.
As a general rule, only a person that is aggrieved by the decision of a court
may appeal against such decision. In criminal cases only the prosecutor or the
accused person has the right of appeal under Section 243 (9) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and as decided in
Nafiu Rabiu vs. The State. Flowing from the above, Persons outside these 2
categories of persons has no locus standi to bring an appeal under any
circumstances. However, any person who will be affected by the decision of the
court can be made a party to an appeal as decided in the case of Pan African
Bank Ltd. Vs The State and also in Akiinbiyi vs. Adelabu.
Appeal shall emanate from Magistrate Court to High Court, from High Court to
Court of Appeal and from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court of Nigeria, as the
case may be. The decision of the Supreme Court is final in all cases including
criminal matters. The notice of appeal stating the grounds of appeal is usually
prepared by the counsel to the party that is approaching the appellate court
for a redress. Each Court has its rules and procedure to be followed when
approaching a superior court for appeal. The service of a legal practitioner is
required for this process.
Judgment, sentence and appeal in criminal matters are technical legally and at
the same time procedural. Certain rules must be applied as can be seen from the
above court discussions. A party challenging the judgment and sentence passed
by the lower court has the constitutional right to approach a higher or
superior court for appeal. Appeal is only necessary where the appellant and his
counsel are convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice or that the legal
principle of fair hearing was not adhered to during trial. Appeal is also
necessary where judgment is delivered without the Judge reviewing the evidence
of the prosecution and defense and also for failing to give legal reasons for
the court's decision. A valid judgment must of a necessity include the guilt or
innocence of the accused person, fact and proof of the elements of offence,
ingredients of offence as well as sections of relevant enactments and case laws
where the offence contravened is contained and specified as decided in Yesufu
vs. IGP (1960).
(source: opinion; Fred Latimore Oghenesivbe, a member of the Nigerian Institute
of International Affairs (NIIA) is of the Nigerian Law School----The Daily
Independent)
BOTSWANA:
Edwin Samotse faces possible execution in secrecy
On August 13 2014 Mr. Edwin Samotse a Botswana national was unlawfully deported
from South Africa to Botswana where he runs the risk of being sentenced to
death and executed. While South Africa's conduct has been declared unlawful
FIDH - a member of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty - LHR and
DITSHWANELO call upon the authorities of Botswana to guarantee his right to a
fair trial and to refrain from imposing the death penalty against him.
'Despite our enquiry to the authorities of Botswana about whether or not they
gave an assurance to the South African Government that Samotse will not face
the death penalty we still have not received a response. In a context where
secrecy has surrounded the way the death penalty is carried out in Botswana we
are concerned for the safety and well-being of Mr. Samotse' declared Alice
Mogwe DITSHWANELO Director and FIDH Deputy Secretary General.
On August 13 2014 South African Immigration officials deported Mr. Edwin
Samotse to Botswana where he is charged with murder. If convicted by the
Botswana High Court Mr. Samotse could be sentenced to death and executed. His
deportation was carried out while on 2 occasions (Mohammed 2001 and Tsebe 2012)
South Africa's Constitutional Court has confirmed the right of a person charged
with capital offences not to be extradited to a country where he/she could face
the death penalty and subsequent execution without an assurance against such
being imposed or executed. On September 23 2014 the High Court sitting at
Pretoria confirmed those decisions by declaring Samotse's deportation unlawful
and unconstitutional.
For Jacob Van Garderen National Director of LHR which joined the Samotse case
before the High Court 'the decision of the High Court is consistent with the
internationally recognised practice not to extradite someone to a country where
he or she could face the death penalty and be executed. Our courts have already
set similar precedents and we expect this decision will constitute the basis
for a well defined procedure of non-removal that would be strictly observed by
the relevant South African authorities'.
In its decision the High Court noted the undertaking given by the Minister of
International Affairs and Cooperation to continue seeking written assurances
from the authorities of Botswana that the death penalty will not be imposed
against Edwin Samotse and if imposed that it will not be executed. The Court
further called upon South African Minister of Home Affairs to enact 'Standing
Operation Procedures' stating that it is unlawful to deport or surrender a
foreign national facing the risk of being subjected to the death penalty if
deported or surrendered without the requisite assurance being obtained. The
Court has required the Minister to report back on progress made in this regard
as well as the outcome of the Department's investigation into the unlawful
deportation. Our organisations welcome this decision and call upon South
African authorities to ensure that a comprehensive 'Standing Operation
Procedure' is put in place without further delay that it is widely disseminated
to all the relevant services and properly implemented.
As the World Day Against Death Penalty approaches (October 10 2014) our
organisations which oppose the death penalty for all crimes and under all
circumstances reiterate their call upon the authorities of Botswana to envisage
the adoption of a moratorium on the death penalty as a 1st step towards
abolition.
(source: MENAFN Press)
SINGAPORE:
Death penalty as life-saving deterrent: fact or rhetoric?
The following was a letter the Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty - a
coalition made up of Second Chances, the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
and Think Centre - submitted to the Straits Times Forum. The letter was not
chosen for publication.
We refer to the Law Minister's comments as reported in the article 'Death
penalty needed in anti-drug fight: Shanmugam' on 27 September.
In his speech at the United Nations, Mr Shanmugam asserted that the death
penalty is an effective deterrent to drug trafficking in Singapore. He also
said that the debate over capital punishment should shift to facts.
Facts are important in this debate, but there has been a lack of publicly
available criminological studies in Singapore to support Mr Shanmugam's point.
Furthermore, a 2009 study comparing homicide rates in Singapore and Hong Kong
strongly suggested that the death penalty is no more effective than alternative
forms of punishments.
The mere fact that Singapore has both the death penalty and low capital crime
rates does not necessarily mean that there is a direct link between the 2. In
fact, other criminological studies have shown that socioeconomic factors and
the likelihood of getting caught have more influence over crime than the
severity of punishment.
This lack of concrete evidence on the death penalty's deterrent value has also
been pointed out by MPs and NMPs such as Mrs Lina Chiam, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr
Laurence Lien and Ms Faizah Jamal when Parliament debated the amendments to the
mandatory death penalty in 2012.
In the interest of a fact-based debate on the death penalty in Singapore, we
would invite the government to share any studies upon which conclusions on the
effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent have been drawn. We also call
for more rigorous, independent studies to be conducted on this issue.
Singapore should not resort to the death penalty without concrete proof of its
necessity, especially if alternative forms of punishment can have the same
effect. The inevitability of human error within the system also makes the
chances of wrongful executions far too high a cost for us to use capital
punishment as an instrument of justice.
(source: Onlinecitizen.com)
THAILAND:
Thai police charge Myanmar men with murder, rape of Brit tourists
Thai police Friday charged two Myanmar men with murder and rape after the
killing of 2 British tourists on a southern island last month, in a case that
has severely dented the kingdom's image as a holiday haven.
The charges come after police said the undocumented migrant workers had
confessed to murdering David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, whose
battered bodies were found on Koh Tao on September 15.
The men have been charged with the murder of both Britons - a charge which
carries the death penalty - and the rape of Witheridge, with police saying that
their DNA matched samples taken from her body.
"The 2 Myanmar nationals are charged with murder (of both tourists), gang rape
(of Witheridge) and stealing,'' Prachum Ruangthong, police chief of
neighbouring Koh Phangan island, told AFP.
The breakthrough follows intense scrutiny of Thai authorities, which had been
accused - in criticism led by the British media - of bungling the investigation
in the days after the crime.
Earlier Friday police said the men - identified only as Win, 21, and Saw, 23,
from Rakhine state in Myanmar - had admitted to killing the Britons and raping
Witheridge.
"2 Myanmar suspects have confessed to killing the pair," Thai national police
chief Somyot Poompanmoung told AFP. "DNA test results (from the 2 men)
confirmed that the same DNA was found in the body of the (female) victim.:
The accused were among 3 nationals from Myanmar - formerly known as Burma -
held since Thursday on suspicion of involvement in the crime.
The 3rd Myanmar man is believed to be a witness and is currently under police
protection on Koh Tao, provincial police chief Kiattipong Khaosamang told AFP.
Earlier Friday investigators took the arrested men to the island to re-enact
the crime scene, a common practice in Thai murder cases. Hundreds of onlookers
watched as the handcuffed pair - wearing bullet-proof vests and white helmets -
walked along the beach where the Britons were found dead, surrounded by scores
of police officers.
"Both men raped the female victim," Kiattipong said earlier, adding the
tourists were killed with a wooden stick and a garden hoe, which was found
bloodied at the scene.
Thai authorities dismissed concerns that they had arrested scapegoats when
questioned by reporters.
"Please be reassured that police have worked to their best ability so it's not
possible that they have arrested scapegoats," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit
Wongsuwon said Friday.
(source: Agence France-Presse)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
