Aug. 22
IRAN----executions
7 hanged, including 2 in public, in Iran
7 more prisoners were hanged this week by the fundamentalist regime in Iran,
including at least 2 cases in public.
5 prisoners were hanged at dawn on Wednesday in the notorious Gohardasht Prison
(Rajaishahr Prison) in Karaj, north-west of Tehran, the state-run newspaper
Javan wrote.
Another 2 men were hanged in public on Tuesday in the city of Zanjan,
north-west Iran.
A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on August 5 said: "Iran has reportedly executed
more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last year, at least 753 people were
executed in the country."
******************
Fallen For Freedom: 20,000 PMOI Martyrs
The mullahs' regime in Iran has to date executed more than 120,000 political
prisoners, the vast majority members and supporters of the People's Mojahedin
Organization of Iran, PMOI (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK).
Through tremendous effort the Iranian Resistance has managed to collate and
publish a partial list of the 120,000 victims of political executions in Iran
under the mullahs' regime.
The 1st volume of the 'book of martyrs' contains the list of names and
particulars of 20,000 members and supporters of the PMOI who have made the
ultimate sacrifice in the struggle for freedom from the clutches of religious
tyranny in Iran.
The leaders of the clerical regime, including Ruhollah Khomeini, Ali Khamenei,
Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan
Rouhani and other senior ministers and officials have played a direct role in
this massacre.
The compilation of the list of 20,000 martyrs in 1,000 pages was carried out in
2 stages and took nearly 100,000 hours. The photographs of 4,358 martyrs appear
in this book.
Of the martyrs listed, 681 died under torture, 608 were assassinated or were
victims of other terrorist plots by the clerical regime. Another 1,736 persons
were martyred during operations and clashes. A number of martyrs were beheaded,
burned, mutilated, buried alive or thrown from heights. Over 16,000 were
executed.
The level of education and occupation of 12,975 of the martyrs have been
registered in this list. The list includes 230 persons with a PhD or Master of
Science degree, 734 with a Bachelors of Science degree, 4,010 high school and
college graduates, 3,510 university students and 2,310 high school students.
Of 13,344 martyrs in the list whose ages were verified, 789 were under the age
of 18 at the time of their execution, including adolescents between 11- 13
years old. There are also 16 other children in this list.
The 1st volume of the 'book of martyrs' also contains the names of 200
physicians and medical professionals, 784 elementary and high school teachers,
381 civil servants, 410 army officers, NCOs and conscript soldiers, 497
businessmen, 145 technicians and 860 laborers and farmers. There are 93 artists
and 145 athletes, including the former captain of Iran's national soccer team,
included in the list. 70 of the martyrs were PMOI candidates in the first
Majlis (Parliament) elections after the 1979 revolution, and 176 were political
prisoners under the Shah's regime.
There are 62 women listed who were pregnant at the time of their execution.
Also included are 410 families who have lost at least three of their relatives
in the wave of executions.
At the end of this list, there is information on 83 men and women who died or
suffered a stroke after hearing news of the execution of their children or
loved ones.
(source for both: NCR-Iran)
INDIA:
CBSE invites students to debate death penalty
The Central Board of Secondary Education has invited the 16,000 schools
affiliated to it to join a debate on abolishing capital punishment weeks after
Yakub Memon's hanging re-ignited the issue.
The country's largest school board, which is collaborating with the ministry of
social justice and empowerment to commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of
B.R. Ambedkar, in a circular issued to the schools on Thursday asked them to
conduct mock parliamentary debates.
One of the subjects chosen for debate is whether "capital punishment is unjust
and degrading".
Uniform civil code, free speech and the impact of consumerism are among the 10
topics identified by the board for discussion. The schools can hold the debates
at any time during the year.
The former principal of Delhi's Sanskriti School, Gowri Ishwaran, welcomed the
move. "Capital punishment is an international issue. Uniform civil code is a
touchy issue. But the children of higher secondary classes need to discuss to
understand the issues in detail," she said.
Students of Classes XI and XII will participate.
(source: abplive.in)
*******************
Is deathpenalty a deterrent?
The criticism that, on merits, justice has not been done to Yakub Memon is
absurd. But the question one needs to ponder over is whether the execution of a
particular death sentence awarded to a terrorist would be counterproductive The
city of Mumbai was the target of unprecedented terrorist attacks on March 12,
1993. 12 bomb explosions, in a span of about 2 hours, shook the city and left
257 people dead and 713 seriously injured. After investigations, a prolonged
legal process and the judgment after nearly 20 years, Yakub Memon was named a
prime accused and awarded the death sentence. He was executed on July 30, 2015.
Our judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular must be applauded for the
manner in which the trials and appeals were conducted in the case. Fair trial
and due process
On March 21, 2013, a bench comprising Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan
disposed of the death sentence cases and the criminal appeals of the accused
after one of the longest hearings which resulted in a massive judgment of 2,995
paragraphs and 1,004 pages of the Law Reports. The judgment not only examined
the guilt of over 100 accused who were convicted, but also individually
discussed the sentences. A Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
(TADA) court had awarded the death sentence to 10 other persons but the Supreme
Court confirmed the death sentence of Yakub alone; it was commuted to life
imprisonment for the rest. On July 30, 2013, the same bench rejected the review
petitions after denying oral hearings.
Later, the Supreme Court decided in Mohammed Arif's case ((2014) 9 SCC 737)
that limited oral argument be permitted in review applications in death
sentence cases. Consequently, on April 9, 2015, a Supreme Court bench
comprising Justices Anil R. Dave, J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph heard oral
arguments in a review petition filed by Yakub after going through the judgment
under review as well as the judgment of the trial court. The review was
dismissed.
A curative petition was then filed and on July 21, 2015, a Supreme Court bench
comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, and Justices T.S. Thakur and Anil R. Dave
rejected the petition, holding that there was no ground made out.
Another writ petition was filed by Yakub (Writ Petition, (Crl.) No.129 of
2015). There was a difference of opinion between two judges on the question of
whether the curative petition had been decided in accordance with the law and
as per the requirement of Supreme Court Rules. Following this, the Chief
Justice of India immediately constituted a bench of Justices Dipak Misra,
Prafulla C. Pant and Amitava Roy which dismissed the writ petition on July 29,
2015 and held that there was no flaw in the decision on the curative petition
and that the issue of death warrant was in order. Another writ petition (W.P.
(Crl.) No.135 of 2015) was filed and heard on the night of July 29/the morning
of July 30, 2015 by the same bench, which dismissed it and observed that a
further stay of the execution of the death warrant would be nothing but a
travesty of justice.
Yakub's conviction and death sentence was examined by eight judges in the
Supreme Court from time to time before his execution on the morning of July 30,
2015. Not only was due process fully ensured but also undue lengthening of due
process was accommodated by the highest court, by granting a midnight hearing.
Justice according to the law has not only been done but was seen to be done.
The criticism that, on merits, justice has not been done to Yakub Memon is
absurd.
Every Indian should be proud of the manner in which this case has been dealt
with by the judiciary.
Is the death penalty justified?
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there are several offences which may attract
a death penalty or life imprisonment. These include murder - Section 302;
waging war (including attempt and abetment) - Section 121, and mutiny - Section
132. Under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(TADA) (now repealed but in force in 1993) and under the Prevention of
Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) (now repealed), the death sentence could be awarded
for terrorist acts.
Bomb explosions and the loss of lives as a result of terrorist attacks are
completely different in nature, objective and motivation from a common murder.
In this case, the objective is not to target someone in particular but to
destabilise society and to encourage the disintegration of the sovereignty and
security of a nation. Such terrorist attacks are often state-sponsored - and
are an act of undeclared war.
For many years India has faced, and still faces, the most severe threats on
account of terrorism. India was regarded as a "sponge" until the world took
notice of the evolving nature and threat posed by terrorism after the terror
attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Awarding someone the death penalty for acts of terrorism is qualitatively
different from awarding someone the death penalty for having committed other
crimes.
A criticism levelled by some against the death sentence having been awarded to
Yakub reiterates the familiar argument that the death penalty as such should be
abolished as it is a violation of human rights and is an inhuman and cruel form
of punishment.
In the seminal case of Bachan Singh, the majority judgment upheld the
constitutional validity of death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the
IPC.
In his vigorous dissent, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, while declaring
unconstitutional and void Section 302 (IPC) read with Section 354 (3) (Cr.P.C)
as being violative of Articles 14 and 21, made the following observation: "I
may make it clear that the question to which I am addressing myself is only in
regard to the proportionality of death sentence to the offence of murder and
nothing that I say here may be taken as an expression of opinion on the
question whether a sentence of death can be said to be proportionate to the
offence of treason or any other offence involving the security of the State" -
((1982) 3 SCC 24 at 76).
These words, from the strongest votary against the death penalty, are
revealing. Justice Bhagwati clearly indicated that his observations do not
apply to punishment of death in relation to terrorist acts or to treason -
implicitly endorsing the death penalty for terrorist acts.
While abolition of the death penalty for crimes other than terrorist acts or
treason may be justified, its retention in the case of punishment for having
carried out terrorist acts or treason seems equally justifiable.
How effective?
The death penalty may be well deserved and a judge has to make a decision
according to the law. The power to commute the death sentence ought to be
exercised by the Executive selectively.
After Yakub's execution in Nagpur, his body was flown to Mumbai the same day.
Large crowds thronged his residence, the mosque at Mahim and at his burial at
Marine Lines.
There is increasing support for the view that the death penalty for terrorists
may not only be ineffective but also be counterproductive. Why? Terrorists,
when awarded the death penalty, become martyrs influencing many other misguided
youngsters to espouse a similar cause. Many religious fanatics believe in
reward in the "after life" and endless pleasures in heaven. Not awarding them
the death penalty would mean depriving them of the "anticipated rewards in
heaven". Again, imprisonment and incarceration of a terrorist may result in
yields - obtaining information relating to other terrorist organisations.
Here, it is worth citing Jessica E. Stern, an expert on counterterrorism and a
lecturer at Harvard University, who also served on the National Security
Council (1994-95) in the United States. In an article published in The New York
Times on February 28, 2001, titled "Execute terrorists at our own risk", she
had said this:
"As a nation, we have decided that terrorism that results in loss of life
should face the possibility of the death penalty. But is this wise?
" .... One can argue about the effectiveness of the death penalty generally.
But when it comes to terrorism, national security concerns should be paramount.
The execution of terrorists, especially minor operatives, has effects that go
beyond retribution or justice. The executions play right into the hands of our
adversaries. We turn criminals into martyrs, invite retaliatory strikes and
enhance the public relations and fund-raising strategies of our enemies ...
" ... For instance, the United Kingdom in 1973 debated whether to repeal the
death penalty in Northern Ireland. By a margin of nearly three to one, the
House of Commons decided that executing terrorists, whose goal is often to
martyr themselves, only increased violence and put soldiers and police at
greater risk. In a highly charged political situation, it was argued, the
threat of death does not deter terrorism. On the contrary, executing
terrorists, the House of Commons decided, has the opposite effect: It increases
the incidence of terrorism."
Alan Dershowitz, the American lawyer and a life-long opponent of capital
punishment, wrote in The Guardian on April 24, 2013 about the death penalty. In
an article titled "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not face the death penalty, even
for a capital crime", and which was about the surviving Boston marathon bomber,
he wrote:
" ...There is an argument, however, that could have an impact even on
proponents of the death penalty.
"Seeking the death penalty against Tsarnaev, and imposing it if he were to be
convicted, would turn him into a martyr. His face would appear on recruiting
posters for suicide bombers. The countdown toward his execution might well
incite other acts of terrorism. Those seeking paradise through martyrdom would
see him as a role model."
The question one needs to ponder over is whether the execution of a particular
death sentence awarded to a terrorist would be counterproductive.
(source: Opinion; Anil Divan is a senior advocate----The Hindu)
******************
Death penalty for kidnap: SC upholds validity of Sec 364A----The Supreme Court
says provision required as terrorist activities acquiring menacing dimensions.
The Supreme Court upheld on Friday the constitutional validity of Section 364A
in the Indian Penal Code, which entails death sentence for kidnapping for
ransom.
Section 364A was brought into the statute book in 1993-94 following an
amendment in the criminal law of the country. The provision states that whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person and hurts or kills that person with a demand for
ransom shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine.
A 3-judge bench led by Justice T S Thakur underlined the circumstances that
prompted the legislature to amend the law. "The gradual growth of the
challenges posed by kidnapping and abductions for ransom, not only by ordinary
criminals for monetary gain or as an organised activity for economic gains, but
by terrorist organisations is what necessitated the incorporation of Section
364A of the IPC and a stringent punishment for those indulging in such
activities," noted the bench, also comprising Justices R K Agrawal and Adarsh G
Goel.
It held that given the background in which the law was enacted and the concern
shown by Parliament for the safety and security of the citizens and the unity,
sovereignty and integrity of the country, "the punishment prescribed for
kidnapping for ransom cannot be dubbed as so outrageously disproportionate to
the nature of the offence as to call for the same being declared
unconstitutional".
It added: "Section 364A came on the statute book initially not only because
kidnapping and abduction for ransom were becoming rampant and the Law
Commission had recommended that a separate provision making the same punishable
be incorporated but also because activities of terrorist organisations had
acquired menacing dimensions that called for an effective legal framework to
prevent such ransom situations and punish those responsible for the same."
The bench was deciding the legal question referred to it by a two-judge bench
in 2013. Vikram Singh, who was sentenced to death under Sections 364A and 302
(murder), had challenged the validity of awarding capital punishment under
Section 364A.
According to his counsel, Section 364A was attracted only where an offence was
committed against the government, any foreign state or international
inter-governmental organisation and not to situations in which a victim was
kidnapped for ransom demand from a private individual.
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar opposed this contention, arguing Section 364A
was not confined only to cases involving acts of terrorism but was attracted
even in cases where the crime is committed for securing ransom.
(source: Indian Express)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
