May 4
JAMAICA:
An eye for an eye?
The majority of nations that execute citizens do so based upon the premise that
death is the most powerful deterrent, deserved retribution, and that no mercy
should be shown to the merciless. It is against this background that advocates
of capital punishment argue that murder is the most callous of all crimes and
only the strongest punishment available will serve as a deterrent.
They further assert that if murderers are put to death, potential murderers
will contemplate their predisposition to engage in violence and criminality
based on the trepidation of likewise losing their life. Therefore, with our
nation's growing reputation as one of the most barbarous places on the planet,
it is understandable that Jamaicans at home and in the diaspora will always
muse about the resumption of hanging and the effect it may have on the
heartless among us.
So last week when the Hon Robert Montague, minister of national security,
signalled his intention to explore the possibility of reopening the gallows for
business, it was music to the ears of many. However, both the minister and the
public must be made aware that it is not the severity of the punishment that
deters crime; it is the certainty of being apprehended. Yes, the fear of being
caught is an immensely more powerful deterrent than the punishment itself. It
is therefore imperative that the police and the criminal justice system in
general buttress the perception that criminals will be caught quickly and by
any means necessary.
The most important aim of punishment is considered to be deterrence and this is
based on the theoretical premise that less crime within the society makes it a
better place to live for all its citizens. Interestingly, after many decades of
empirical research across the world, the validity of the death penalty as a
deterrent cannot be unequivocally substantiated.
The 1st of the studies that examined the deterrent effect of the death penalty
was Thorsten Sellin's (1959) pioneering research which concluded that the death
penalty had no distinguishable effect on America's homicide rates. Sellin's
research reviewed data on the murder in each state and found that the states
without the death penalty had lower homicide rates. In fact, for many years an
abundance of research proved that the occurrence of homicides is generally
higher in states and countries with the death penalty. To further review the
validity of Sellin's findings one needs to look at the state of Texas, the
mecca of executions in America.
Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report (2013)
showed that Texas had the highest number of executions since 1976 when the
death penalty was reinstituted in the USA, and as of July 24, 2014, the Death
Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that Texas performed 515 executions
during the period. This was 404 more executions than Oklahoma, which has the
second highest execution rate.
Yet, Texas recorded a higher homicide rate than 27 other states in the year
2012. Texas's murder rate was higher than 12 of the 18 states which do not have
the death penalty. Additionally, the FBI (2013) data show that the state with
the highest overall murder rate in 2012 was Louisiana, which has the death
penalty. Even some unrepentant proponents of the death penalty conceded that in
87 % of states, capital punishment had no effect on the homicide rate or
actually caused murders to increase. The vast majority of criminologists
worldwide consistently cull the credibility of the death penalty's deterrent
effect and found that it was no more significant a preventive sanction than
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Most Jamaican citizens will argue that we should not, under any circumstances,
use taxpayers' money to 'feed' the murderous monsters. However, a little known
fact is that it costs the taxpayers significantly more from conviction to
execution within a 15-year period than to feed a prisoner for 30 years. The
reality is that adjudicating death penalty cases takes more time and resources
compared to murder cases where the death penalty sentence is not pursued as an
option. These cases are more costly because there are procedural safeguards in
place to ensure the sentence is just and free from error.
One measure of death-penalty costs was reflected in the time spent on costly
appeals. Then, when all is said and done, much of the bill for the various
appeals is paid by taxpayers. What we need is comprehensive reform of the
criminal justice system and not archaic rhetoric, because it is clear that
beyond its retributive value, resuming the death penalty will not be beneficial
to Jamaica and will in no way, shape or form quench our bloodthirstiness.
(source: Column, Richie Lindo, Jamaica Observer)
CHIINA:
New Legal Guidelines Set Clearer Criteria for Punishments in Graft Cases----The
rules issued by the country's top court and prosecutor's office have expanded
the definition of bribery and pushed up the requirements for the death penalty
A new set of legal guidelines for judges and prosecutors handling graft trials
have revised the minimum threshold for cases that qualify for criminal
prosecution and clarified where capital punishment can be used, a move legal
experts say will reduce confusion in courts.
The document released by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's
Procuratorate, the prosecutor's office, on April 18 said that defendants found
guilty of embezzling funds or accepting bribes worth more than 3 million yuan,
or about US$ 460,000, will receive the death penalty. Previously, officials
convicted of taking bribes worth 100,000 yuan or more could be sentenced to
death.
The guidelines apply to graft trials involving government workers, including
bureaucrats and employees of state-owned enterprises.
The benchmark for a case that qualifies for criminal prosecution has also been
raised. A criminal case can be brought if bribe is 30,000 yuan or more, up from
5,000 yuan, the document shows.
The guidelines supplement revisions made to the Criminal Law in November, and
replace sentencing criteria set out in 1997, which have long been criticized
for being out of date.
Under the new rules, embezzling funds or receiving bribes worth 10,000 yuan to
1.5 million yuan is defined as a "relatively serious offence" and carries a
prison sentence of 3 to 10 years. Those suspected of taking 1.5 million yuan to
3 million yuan in bribes are labeled "serious offenders" and will face a
minimum jail term of 10 years and this can go up to life imprisonment.
If defendants are convicted of "especially serious" offences with an "extremely
vile impact," such as stealing funds earmarked for disaster relief efforts,
they may face the death penalty, the document show.
This is the 1st time in 2 decades that the sentencing criteria for graft cases
have been revised. Several legal experts said the guidelines were more lenient
than what they expected.
Most graft cases involve amounts between 100,000 yuan and several million yuan,
said Sun Guoxiang, a law professor at Nanjing University, in the eastern city
of Nanjing, and under the new rules, most defendants may get less than 10 years
in prison, much shorter than some of the previous jail terms meted out.
Widening the Net
The guidelines, however, have broadened the definition of what qualifies as
graft, said Sun, and includes a clearer definition of violations, closing a few
legal loopholes.
For example, accepting expensive gifts from a subordinate will be regarded as
bribery under the new benchmark, even if no specific request was made by the
giver at the time of presenting the gift. Earlier, such practices fell outside
the definition of graft because it was difficult to establish a link between
accepting gifts and officials' decisions and professional conduct, Sun said.
The definition of a bribe was expanded to include writing off an individual's
or company's debt, having a house renovated for free, paid trips, club
memberships and other benefits.
"(The guidelines) eliminate confusion," said Zhang Qingsong, a lawyer at
Beijing Shangquan Law Office.
Previous rules emphasized on heavy penalties, but the revision stresses
broadening the definition of corruption and setting clearer criteria for
punishments, said Huang Jingping, a law professor at Renmin University in
Beijing.
"The function of the Criminal Law is to define timely and definitive
punishments for all forms of corrupt practices," said Huang.
An immediate death penalty sentence has rarely been imposed on senior officials
convicted of corruption in recent years. Officials charged with committing
grave violations were given a suspended death sentence that came into effect
after 2 years. These sentences could be commuted to life imprisonment or
reduced even further.
In 2013, former railroad minister Liu Zhijun was given a suspended death
sentence for taking 60 million yuan in bribes. The sentence was commuted to
life imprisonment in 2015.
In June 2015, Zhou Yongkang, the former domestic security tsar, was jailed for
life after being convicted of accepting 130 million yuan worth of bribes along
with his family and leaking state secrets.
Criminal charges have been brought against 22 ministerial-level officials
accused of corruption since the Communist Party's anti-graft campaign started
in late 2012, Caixin calculated based on media reports. They were convicted for
taking bribes totaling over 500 million yuan. 3 were sentenced to life in
prison.
"If lighter punishments don't lead to a rise in corruption cases, it will show
that the new rules have deterred unlawful behavior," said Zhang.
Zhu Yongming, a lawyer appearing in criminal cases, said the country needs
"comprehensive institutional arrangements, such as a system for officials to
disclose their assets to the public and an effective supervision mechanism."
Corrupt officials can be punished by organs other than the courts. The Central
Commission for Discipline Inspection, the party's anti-graft agency, first
carries out an investigation into suspect officials and detains them in some
cases. Officials who are found guilty of "violating party discipline," a
euphemism for graft, can be demoted, or removed from their position and
expelled from the party. The anti-graft agency only hands over cases that
qualify for criminal prosecution to the state prosecutor's office.
"How do you effectively connect the party's disciplinary organs and law
enforcement units is an issue that needs to be addressed," said Sun. "The main
problem is how administrative and party penalties are used to punish officials
whose offences do not qualify for criminal prosecution," said Sun.
(source: Caixin Online)
PAKISTAN----execution
Death penalty : A convict executed, another gets a lifeline
A murder convict was hanged at the district jail on Tuesday morning. The
execution of another convict was put off on Tuesday after his family reached a
settlement with the petitioners.
Jail authorities said Asghar Ali, a resident of Khushab, had murdered his
brother, his brother's wife, and their 4 children over property in Noshera,
Khushab, in 2007. They said a trial court had sentenced him to death. Later,
Sargodha Sessions Judge Abdul Nasir had issued black warrants for Ali. The jail
authorities handed over the body to Ali's family.
Separately, the execution of a murder convict was put off after the petitioner
settled with the defendant. A Prisons spokesperson said a trial court had
sentenced Haq Nawaz, son of Bakhsh, to death for murdering his mother-in-law
Ejaz Bibi in a Kotwali City police precinct, Jhang, in March 2001.
Black warrants had been issued for Haq Nawaz's execution to be carried out on
May 3 at Jhang District Jail. It was put off after the petitioner said they had
settled with the defendant
(source: The Express Tribune)
****************
No Justice for Juveniles
On 10th June 2015, Aftab Bahadur was executed after spending 22 years on death
row in Lahore's Kot Lakhpat Jail. Bahadur, a Christian man, entered the
formidable walls of his death row cell at the age of 15 and left only when he
walked to the gallows at the age of 39. He was working as an assistant to a
plumber when he was arrested and tortured by the police into giving a
confession for murdering a woman and her 2 sons. Aftab relayed that the police
had asked him for a bribe of PKR 50,000 in exchange for his freedom which he
was unable to afford. Thereafter he was convicted and sentenced to death under
a law that provided for expedited trials for 'terrorists'. The only eye-witness
to the crime recanted his statement claiming that he had been tortured by the
police into implicating Aftab for the murder and that he had never even been
present at the time the crime took place. Writing from his cell a few days
before his execution he stated," For many years - since I was just 15 years old
- I have been stranded between life and death. It has been a complete limbo,
total uncertainty about the future."
As we approach the 1 year anniversary of Aftab Bahadur's execution, the
Government of Pakistan has executed over 387 prisoners since the lifting of the
moratorium on the death penalty in December 2014. At least 5 of those executed
- including Aftab Bahadur - were juveniles at the time of committing their
alleged offences. In a study conducted by the Justice Project Pakistan titled
"Juveniles on Death Row" it was discovered that at least 10% of Pakistan's 8000
death row prisoners were juvenile offenders. This puts the number of juveniles
facing execution at a startling figure of 800. Executions of persons who were
juveniles at the time of committing the alleged crimes is strictly prohibited
under international law through the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), that Pakistan became a party to in 2010.
Domestically, the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), a law enacted to
provide protections for juvenile offenders in 2000, also bars executions for
juvenile and provides for separate courts, jails and trials for juveniles. A
2001 Presidential Commutation Order extended the benefit of the law to juvenile
offender convicted prior to the enactment of the law on the condition of an
inquiry into their juvenility.
Despite these protections in place, how is it that juveniles continue to be
executed? Pakistan has one of the lowest birth registrations rates in world.
Only 27 % of births in the country are registered with figures going much lower
in rural areas. Upon arrest these children are left with no proof of age to
prove their juvenility. Exacerbating the problem, police in Pakistan often
record a person's age at the time of their arrest based upon a visual
assessment of their physical appearance without any verification. Often times,
police record the age of juvenile offenders as above 18 in order to avoid
application of protective safeguards provided under the JJSO. During the course
of the trial and appeals, Courts inevitably rely upon the arbitrary assessment
provided by the police, despite, production of government-issued documents,
including NADRA ID cards by the accused party. Ansar Iqbal was executed on 29th
September 2015 despite the existence of a NADRA issued ID card that showed him
to be 15 at the time of committing the offence. The Trial Court chose to rely
upon the police assessment of his age of "22/23" years - a decision that was
upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Courts' failure to rely
upon NADRA issued ID cards impairs the integrity of the very national
registration system that has been the subject of monumental reform projects and
foreign funding in recent years.
A purview of case-law on the determination of juvenility in court proceedings
shows that there is virtually no consistent pattern that Courts in Pakistan
follow. The courts are free to rely upon birth certificates or school leaving
records over medical assessments in one case or medical assessment over any
documentary evidence in another. At the end of the day the Court's decision
comes down to the discretion of the individual judge presiding and often times
such discretion is inclined towards deeming the accused to be an adult. Not
only is such arbitrary practice harmful to the integrity of the criminal
justice system, it also violates the fundamental principle of benefit of doubt
being granted to the person claiming juvenility.
Additionally, juvenile offenders often fail to raise the plea of juvenility at
the stage of investigation and trial as a result of inadequate legal
representation - which is usually the case. When such plea is raised at the
stage of the appeal there are instances of superior courts failing to consider
the supporting evidence by deeming it as not being raised at the 'correct
time'. Such a lack of consistent practice and jurisprudence, leads to severe
human rights violations in the investigation and prosecution of juvenile
defendants and eventually to executions that are in blatant violation of
domestic and international law.
In the state reports submitted under the United Nations International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC) the government of Pakistan has unequivocally stated that no
juvenile offenders have been executed in Pakistan. However, what these reports
fail to mention is that the criminal justice is severely lacking in reliable
mechanisms to identify juveniles and thereby bring them within the protections
that are due to them under law. There is a dire need to develop consistent
age-determination protocols in order to ensure that determination of juvenility
by the police and by the courts is conducted in a manner that is fair, just and
transparent. The National Commission on Human Rights, established under the
National Commission on Human Rights Act, 2012, is the body with the requisite
powers to formulate and implement such protocols. It is essential that the
Government of Pakistan provides the necessary cooperation and assistance to the
NCHR to undertake such an essential endeavour.
It has been a year since the world lost Aftab Bahadur, and over 23 since he
lost his freedom at the age of 15 - an innocent victim of a defunct juvenile
justice system. How many more children will meet the same fate?
(source: The Nation)
BELARUS:
see:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/get-involved/take-action-now/belarus-commute-gennadii-yakovitskii-s-death-sentence-ua-1816
(source Amnesty International)
BANGLADESH:
Man to die for killing wife in Tangail
A Tangail court yesterday sentenced a man to death for killing his wife for
dowry in Madhupur upazila of the district in 2012.
The death penalty awardee is Mohammad Nasir Uddin, son of Meser Ali of Kaitkait
village in the upazila.
According to the prosecution, Nasir married Noorjahan Begum, daughter of Ziaul
Haque of Poddarbari village in the upazila in March 2012. After the marriage,
he demanded Tk 20,000 as dowry from his father-in-law.
On the night of September 2, 2012, Nasir picked up a quarrel with Noorjahan
over the issue. At one stage, he strangled her.
On the following day, victim's father Ziaul Haque filed a murder case with
Madhupur Police Station, accusing Nasir.
Police arrested Nasir and produced him before the court where he gave a
confessional statement under Section 164.
After examining case record, Judge Mohammad Shorfuddin Ahmed of Women and
Children Repression Prevention Tribunal in Tangail handed down the verdict.
(source: The Daily Star)
***************
Nilphamari court sentences man to death for counterfeit currency
A man in Nilphamari has been given the death penalty in a case involving
counterfeit currency notes.
47-year-old Badshah Dhali was arrested on Jul 7, 2014 at a house at Syedpur
town while making fake currencies.
The case details say counterfeit currency notes as well as equipment to make
those were found with Dhali.
Police booked him under the 1974 Special Powers Act.
The court of Nilphamari's District and Sessions Judge delivered the verdict on
Wednesday in the presence of the convict.
Additional Public Prosecutor Azizul Islam Pramanik said the case was filed
under the Act's Sections 25 (a) and (b) of, which keeps the provision of death
sentence as the maximum penalty.
(source: bdnews24.com)
NIGERIA:
Kaduna govt seeks death penalty for 256 shiites
The Kaduna State Government on Tuesday arraigned another batch of 91 members of
the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) before a Kaduna High Court, seeking death
sentence for the accused.
The government had on April 21 arraigned 50 members of the sect on similar
charges.
They were among the 266 sect members arrested during the Shiite/Army clash
between Dec. 12 and Dec 14, 2015 in Zaria.
256 of the arrested persons are facing charges including death sentence, while
10 others are facing other charges in different courts in the state.
They were arraigned on a 5-count charge for criminal conspiracy, culpable
homicide, unlawful assembly, disturbance of public peace and wrongful restrain.
Mr Dari Bayero, who led the prosecution, told Justice Hajara Gwadah that the
accused persons were being charged "pursuant to Sections 97, 102, 106, 221 and
256 of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State.
"My Lord the charge before you is for mention. We humbly apply that the names
of the accused persons be called out for identification. My Lord the 1st, 13th,
34th, 39th, 57th , 66th and 70th accused persons are not in court and are
absent.
"They were released on bail and are aware of this date particularly the accused
person No. 57 who we have proof of service on.
"My Lord the 1st accused person was released on bail to one Ibrahim Haruna who
is Resident at Zaria. My Lord we hereby apply for a bench warrant against the
57th accused person.
"My Lord same is also applied against all the accused persons that are absent.
I also apply for a short date for further arraignment."
On his part, Mr Festus Okoye, who led the defence team, said the prosecution
had not served any of the accused persons with the charge since the case was
filed on March 22, 2016.
"My Lord our 1st application is that the prosecution should serve the charges
on all the accused persons.
"My Lord, the application for bench warrant against the accused persons that
are not before the court is not proper. My Lord the 1st accused and his surety
were not served with a copy of this charge and hearing notice and thus, are not
aware that the matter comes up today.
"The 13th accused person was released because he was critically ill. There is
also no evidence that he was served with the charge or hearing notice. The 39th
and 70th accused persons were released on bail because they are minors and were
not served against today. I don't have information on the 57th accused person."
The defence counsel requested the court to order the prosecution to serve the
accused persons that were not in court and their sureties.
After listening to the submissions, the Judge issued a bench warrant against
the 57th accused person.
"Bench warrant against 57th accused person is hereby granted. Accused persons
are to be served personally.
"Case adjourned to June 1, 2016 for arraignment," Gwadah declared.
(source: The News)
_______________________________________________
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
