Nov. 27
IRAN:
Iranian Court Sentences Another Juvenile Offender to Death
Iran Human Rights has obtained information about an 18-year-old juvenile
offender detained in Sanandaj Prison who was recently sentenced to death by an
Iranian court. His case file was reportedly sent to Iran's Supreme Court for
review.
According to close sources, Ayoub Shahbazi, who was born on August 30, 1998,
was arrested by Iranian authorities in 2014 and charged with murder at the age
of 16.
"When Ayoub was a young child, he lost his father. Due to financial poverty,
Ayoub was unable to attend school and therefore is illiterate. From a young
age, he was working with his mother cleaning people's homes. 4 years ago,
because he had no one to guide him, Ayoub became a drug addict. He ended up
killing 1 of his own family members for money," a confirmed source tells Iran
Human Rights.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Iran is a
signatory to, the Iranian authorities have an obligation to not issue the death
penalty sentence for offenses committed under the age of 18. According to
Article 91 of Iran's revised Islamic Penal Code, it is up to the presiding
judge's discretion to deem the juvenile mature enough to understand the nature
of the offense: "In the cases of offenses punishable by hadd or qisas, if
mature people under eighteen years do not realize the nature of the crime
committed or its prohibition, or of there is uncertainty about their full
mental development, according to their age, they shall be sentenced to the
punishments prescribed in this chapter." The Islamic Penal Code puts the age of
criminal responsibility for males at 15 and 9 for females.
Ayoub Shahbazi is the latest juvenile offender to receive a death sentence by
an Iranian court. In August 2016, Iran Human Rights published a report
identifying seven juvenile offenders on death row.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
PHILIPPINES:
Lawmakers urged to reject revival of death penalty----Amnesty International
says bringing back the death penalty would be a 'major setback' for human
rights and would also be a violation of the Philippines' obligations under
international law
Global human rights group Amnesty International urged lawmakers in the country
to reject the revival of the death penalty, one of the priority bills of
President Rodrigo Duterte.
"The re-introduction of the death penalty would not only represent a major
setback for the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but
also violate the Philippines' obligations under international law," said
Amnesty International in a statement on Friday, November 25.
"The Philippines, which fully abolished the death penalty for the second time
in 2006, is party to an international treaty that categorically prohibits
executions and commits the country to the abolition of this punishment. These
obligations cannot be withdrawn at any time."
In his 1st month in office, Duterte had asked lawmakers to revive the death
penalty, especially for drug traffickers. The war on drugs has been one of the
key campaigns of the government since Duterte took office last June 30.
For the President, the death penalty is a way to exact payment from a
perpetrator of a heinous crime.
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez earlier led several lawmakers in filing measures
seeking to restore capital punishment for heinous crimes. The Speaker wants the
House of Representatives to pass the consolidated version of the bills on 3rd
and final reading by December.
Last month, the House justice committee also recommended the reimposition of
the death penalty for drug-related cases.
The House independent minority bloc has accused the justice committee of
"railroading" the passage of the death penalty bills.
At the Senate, Senator Manny Pacquiao has also echoed Duterte's desire to bring
back the death penalty. Pacquiao even went as far as saying that God supports
the death penalty to "punish" and "discipline wrongdoers."
Amnesty International and other human rights groups have long said, however,
that there is no evidence to prove that the imposition of capital punishment
deters crime.
"There is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
Statistics from countries that have abolished the death penalty show that the
absence of the death penalty has not resulted in an increase in the crimes
previously subject to capital punishment, while evidence shows that punitive
policies have little influence on the prevalence of drug use," Amnesty
International reiterated on Friday.
The Philippine government, the group also pointed out, has been issuing appeals
on behalf of Filipinos on death row in other countries.
"[Reviving the death penalty would] undermine the country's strong track record
of advocating for the commutation of the death sentences imposed on Filipino
nationals abroad, such as overseas workers," said Amnesty International.
One of the most recent high-profile cases involving a Filipino on death row is
that of Mary Jane Veloso, who is behind bars in Indonesia for alleged drug
trafficking. Veloso had been given a last-minute reprieve in April 2015,
following a plea from former president Benigno Aquino III and the surrender of
her supposed recruiter Maria Cristina Sergio.
If the Philippines revives the death penalty, it would be going against the
global trend, said Amnesty International.
"As of today, 141 countries - more than 2/3 of the world's countries - have
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice," the group said.
"The number of countries that carry out executions has also been declining,
with only 11 countries known to have carried out executions every year in the
past 5 years. In 2015, 169 (88%) of the 193 UN Member States were
execution-free."
The 1987 Philippine Constitution abolished the death penalty but allowed
Congress to provide for it for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. It
was imposed in 1993, but was again abolished in 2006.
"The Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty, on 20 November 2007," noted Amnesty International.
(source: rappler.com)
SINGAPORE:
Families of executed prisoners ! ---- Local and International groups express
solidarity for the families of executed prisoners in Singapore
"We, the undersigned organisations, condemn the shameful execution of a
Nigerian national, Chijioke Stephen Obioha, and a Malaysian national, Devendran
a/l Supramaniam in Singapore on 18 November 2016, which runs counter to global
trends towards abolition of capital punishment", expresses the grave concern by
a collective of the civic society organisations in a press communique.
The press release further reads as follows;
Around the same time, at the 50th and 51st meeting of the UN General Assembly's
Third Committee's 71st session proceedings, the Singapore representative
introduced amendments, undermining the spirit of the draft resolution calling
for a moratorium on the death penalty, supported by states such as Syria, Egypt
and Bangladesh.
We remain appalled that Singapore continues to execute people in contravention
of international law and standards. The 2 men were sentenced to mandatory death
penalty, after being convicted of drug trafficking, which does not meet the
threshold of the "most serious crimes". In July 2011, during its 1st Universal
Periodic Review (UPR), Singapore accepted a recommendation that called on the
government to make available statistics and other factual information on the
use of the death penalty (A/HRC/18/11, para. 95.15). The lack of transparency
in relation to the scheduled executions therefore remains deeply concerning and
prevents informed and meaningful debates in the country on the retention of
this punishment.
We would like to express our regret and share in the disappointment of the
families of the executed men. We oppose the use of capital punishment in all
circumstances, as a violation of human rights which can never be justified
under the flawed assumption that it has a unique deterrent effect.
Signatories:
Singapore
Function 8
Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME)
Project X
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
Think Centre
We Believe in Second Chances
Malaysia
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture (MADPET)
Indonesia
Human Rights Working Group (HRWG)
International Groups and Networks
Amnesty International (AI)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in ASEAN (CADPA)
Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM)
Franciscans International (FI)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP)
(source: slguardian.org)
NIGERIA:
Ganduje's death warrants
Appalled by the refusal of governors to sign death warrants to facilitate the
execution of condemned criminals, Governor Abdullahi Ganduje of Kano State has
called for the amendment of the law to strip governors of that responsibility
and to vest it in the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). The governor is right to
observe that his colleagues were no longer eager to sign death warrants. The
governors have not indicated why, but many analysts hazard a guess. According
to Gov Ganduje himself, he seems to think that the value African cultures place
on life makes it difficult for any political leader to sign execution
documents. He says nothing of the other factors that have made the death
penalty incongruous in many democracies.
The Kano governor's suggestion is, however, anomalous. If governors lack the
courage to sign death warrants, why does he think judges, especially of the
apex court, will find it easy to do so? Are they less human or from a different
culture? Perhaps, the governor assumes that sentencing an accused to death is
an easy, detached task. What Gov Ganduje does not realise is that while the law
makes it obligatory for judges to dispense justice in strict accordance with
extant provisions, and seldom permits discretion in the case of capital
offences, signing a death warrant is entirely left to the discretion of the
governors. There is nothing obligatory on governors to sign death warrants, not
even if prisons and death rows were filled to the brim with condemned men.
Furthermore, an accused, especially one facing the death penalty, often fights
his case to the apex court, hoping that its impartiality and independence could
avail him relief. It would be incongruous to expect that the CJN, who heads
that apex court, should also sign the death warrant after sentencing. It is
morally indefensible to combine the 2 responsibilities. But should that law be
enacted, the apex court could also find excuses to delay their signatures or
even refuse to impose the death penalty under some legal constructs and
corollaries.
The reason death warrants are not being signed, it seems, is that the death
penalty is being phased out in many democracies. There is enough scientific
proof to show that it does not deter crime any more than life sentence does.
For the many decades Nigeria implemented the death penalty for armed robbery,
there was no statistical proof that it lowered the crime. None whatsoever.
Contrary to Gov Ganduje's suggestion, it is actually time to abrogate the death
penalty, not transfer the responsibility. Capital punishment, despite the anger
of victims and their families and their craving for catharsis, serves no
purpose. More, abrogating it helps to assuage a conscience that would have been
troubled in cases where justice was eventually shown to have been miscarried,
as indeed has happened not only here but in many parts of the world.
(source: thenationonlineng.net)
SOUTH AFRICA:
Debate about the death penalty is firmly back on the table
The SAIRR report questioning whether abolishing the death penalty was the right
move for crime-riddled SA has reopened the debate, writes William
Saunderson-Meyer.
"Bring back the death penalty!" It's a rare cry - "Get rid of Zuma!" is the
other - that seemingly resonates with the same intensity among blacks as it
does among whites, in township shebeens as it does in country club pubs.
Unfortunately, the issue of a nation's right to execute, in a humane manner and
after a fair trial, those convicted of the most heinous murders, has in South
Africa for more than 2 decades been a subterranean and essentially pointless
conversation.
A 1995 Constitutional Court judgment formally abolished the death penalty, 5
years after it had been suspended during the negotiations to shape a
democratic, constitutional state.
The decision, written by chief justice Arthur Chaskalson, a jurist of towering
intellect, accorded precisely with the similarly lefty inclinations of the
media gatekeepers whose clammy hands sometimes stifle public discourse in this
country. It was also a decision which, at that moment, fortuitously chimed
emotionally with the fact that hangings had been often been used as a political
tool against the black majority.
Abolition was, too, part of a seemingly irreversible historical tide. At recent
count, more than a 100 countries have legislated an end to capital punishment,
while a further 140 have stopped implementing it.
Things change, however. Tides are never irreversible, nor do rational bulwarks
hold sway indefinitely, as evidenced by the growing traction of populism in the
US, Europe and South Africa.
It is also worth remembering that a number of nations with which the ANC
identifies ideologically, such as Cuba, the Palestinian Authority and Iran,
have capital punishment. Of our new best friends, the Brics nations, India and
China execute with enthusiasm, Brazil in exceptional circumstances and in
Russia the option remains codified but unused for the moment.
And the anti-death penalty movement in Africa, despite AU support, has never
been as strong as elsewhere in the world. Of 54 AU states 38 retain the death
penalty, albeit many don't use it. Commitment to abolition is conceivably a
momentary aberration.
Our immediate neighbours Lesotho, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Botswana all have the
death penalty and at least 2 of them - Botswana and Zimbabwe - apply it
vigorously.
That all these nations have exponentially lower rates of violent crime than we
do, especially crimes accompanied by the gratuitous barbarism that
distinguishes SA, should surely interest our social scientists. But even in
academia the heavy hand of PC-engineered intellectual unanimity chokes
curiosity and investigation.
In SA, too, abolitionist emotionalism has eased. We have a democratically
elected government which abides by what we are assured is one of the best bits
of legal parchment in the world. Sanctioned state execution could never again
on these shores be used as a government tool.
It is against this backdrop that the Institute of Race Relations this week
released a report questioning whether abolition was the right decision in the
light of almost half a million murders since 1994.
The institute, while coyly not naming who commissioned its investigation, says:
"We were asked to look into the death penalty as a way to deter the most cruel
crimes... characterised by gratuitous violence."
This is a sober and, as one would expect from SA's premier think-tank,
even-handed analysis. There are lacunae in the report. One of them is its ready
acceptance of the abolitionist proposition that SA???s murder rate has been
dropping steadily since 1994. The statistics are not as clear as they are made
out to be. The assertion ignores the fact that political assassination was at
its apogee during the closing years of the liberation struggle. Any regression
analysis should interrogate statistics as far back as is possible, as well as
try to separate criminal and political killings.
The institute tested 5 objections to the death penalty: that it is "cruel and
unusual"; that it is retributory beyond the pale; that it is arbitrary; that it
is not a deterrent; and that there is possibility of irreversible error. It was
able to overcome the first 4 but "the most compelling argument" was the
possibility of error in an ailing, incompetent SA criminal justice system.
The institute concludes that while a case could be made to reopen a death
penalty debate - it would have to overcome that 5th objection.
So the genie is out, let the debate begin. But the pro-capital punishment
lobby, a likely majority of South Africans, should reflect on the fact that
changing a constitution in knee-jerk response to populist opinion is a slippery
slope.
Think today's populist credos. Think nationalisation and seizure of land
without compensation. Think of relinquishing the protection of minorities, of
the media's freedom to investigate government abuses and the right to mock the
rich and powerful.
(source: Opinion, William Saunderson-Meyer, The Independent)
TURKEY:
Erdogan to reinstate death penalty following last month's failed coup
At an inauguration ceremony for a new center today, Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan stated that he is amenable to reinstituting the death penalty
"If the people of Turkey want and the country's parliament decides to reinstate
the death penalty, I am ready to approve this decision," he said.
Erdogan made the statement in Istanbul, at the inauguration of a center named
after former prime minister Necmettin Erbakan, a Turkish politician, engineer
and academic.
Though Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2001, its reinstitution has been
discussed following the failed coup attempt of July 15, 2016.
Earlier, Omer Celik, the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs, had said that
reinstating the death penalty hadn't been up for consideration by parliament.
(source: Tornos 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
