Nov. 29
PHILIPPINES:
House panel approves revival of death penalty----Capital punishment recommended
for illegal drugs, murder, rape, arson, kidnapping
The House of Representatives' justice committee will soon start deliberating on
a bill to reinstate the death penalty, after a sub-panel approved the proposal
on Tuesday.
During a hearing by the judicial reforms subcommittee, 6 congressmen voted to
submit a substitute bill re-imposing capital punishment for heinous crimes,
such as illegal drugs, murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping.
Another 5 voted for a version of the proposal that would have limited the death
penalty to illegal drug-related crimes.
After the hearing, the measure will be forwarded to the mother committee. Once
approved, it will be brought to the plenary for debates.
The reimposition of capital punishment is 1 of the House's priority measures
(the other being the proposal to revert the minimum age of criminal
responsibility to 9) which Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said would be passed
before the Christmas break of Congress.
The imposition of death penalty was prohibited in 2006 after then President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9346 into law. The penalty for
offenses previously punishable by death was downgraded to reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment.
Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman, who was one of the lawmakers who passed
the bill that abolished death penalty, reiterated on Tuesday that the House has
been "railroading" its revival.
"In other words, the message of the House leadership is: 'have a deadly
Christmas,'" Lagman said in a briefing.
(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)
SOUTH AFRICA:
The case for and against return of the death penalty
South Africa's high crime rates have resulted in increasing calls for the
re-instatement of the death penalty as a deterrent.
Despite various polls indicating a significant portion of the country being in
favour of its re-instatement, it remains a divisive and contentious issue that
would require an amendment to the Constitution which protects citizens' right
to life.
The death penalty was abolished more than 20 years ago with the advent of a
post-apartheid society.
"If we are going to bring back the death penalty, we would have to amend the
Bill of Rights which is almost never a good idea." - Pierre de Vos,
Constitutional Law expert
De Vos made it clear that any changes to the Bill of Rights requires a 2/3
majority vote in Parliament and says that will never happen.
702/Cape Talk's Eusebius McKaiser (standing-in for Redi Tlhabi) engaged
constitutional law expert, Pierre de Vos, and director of Christian View
Network, Philip Rosenthal, to present both sides of the argument regarding the
issue.
De Vos said that the pro-death penalty deterrence argument conflicts with the
heart of democratic South Africa's founding principles in upholding equality
and justice.
"People talk about the death penalty as if it's going to stop crime or be a
deterrent, while all the evidence suggests is that it is not a deterrent." -
Pierre de Vos, Constitutional Law expert
The SA Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) recently said the following in
stating a case against the re-instatement of the death penalty:
"human beings who are not infallible ought not to choose a form of punishment
which is irreparable".
However, Rosenthal emphasised that part of the process of justice is taking a
life for a life in the form of capital punishment.
(source: 702.co.za)
TURKEY:
MHP leader urges death penalty bill amid EU tensions----Opposition leader
Devlet Bahceli calls on ruling AK Party to send parliament bill to reinstate
capital punishment
Turkey's Nationalist Movement Party's leader (MHP) Devlet Bahceli gives a
speech during his party's group meeting at the The Grand National Assembly of
The opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) on Tuesday urged the ruling
Justice and Development (AK) Party to submit a bill to reinstate capital
punishment amid tensions with the European Union, which does not allow the
death penalty among member states.
"The AK Party should submit a bill on capital punishment to the Turkish
parliament as soon as possible now that the European Parliament does not want
it and uses it as an excuse to end relations [with Turkey]," Devlet Bahceli
told MHP parliamentary deputies, referring to last week's non-binding EP vote
calling for a freeze on Turkey???s EU accession talks.
Turkey is an EU membership candidate, and it abolished the death penalty in
2004.
Since the July 15 defeated coup, which martyred 248 people and wounded nearly
2,000 others, many officials have called for the death penalty to be reinstated
for the putschists.
Days after the coup, on July 19, Bahceli voiced support for bringing back the
death penalty, and on Nov. 1, he said his party would support the AK Party
government if it chooses to go forward.
The European Union has warned Ankara that reinstating capital punishment would
automatically end Turkey's membership process.
Bahceli also said that far from wanting to join the EU or the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, Turkey has a different goal.
"Neither the European Union nor the Shanghai Cooperation; we say the 'Turkish
Union' until the end," he told the MHP parliamentary group meeting.
Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Friday that Turkey wants to improve
relations with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, adding that Turkey's
relations with it are neither a threat nor a challenge to the European Union.
(source: aa.com.tr)
IRAN----executions
2 Prisoners Executed on Murder Charges
A prisoner was reportedly hanged in Khomeyn Prison (Markazi province, central
Iran) on Wednesday November 23, and another prisoner was reportedly hanged in
Lakan, Rasht's central prison (Gilan province, northern Iran) on Saturday
November 26. Both of the prisoners were executed on murder charges.
According to close sources, the prisoner in Rasht is Shabaan Ranjbar, who was
detained in prison for 20 years before his execution. The human rights news
agency, HRANA has identified the prisoner in Khomeyn Prison as Gholamhossein
Beigi, who was detained in prison for 18 years before his execution.
Iranian official sources, including the media and Judiciary, have been silent
about these 2 executions.
(sources: Iran Human Rights)
************************
Take Action! - Risk Of Execution For Youth Arrested In His Teens (Iran: UA
72/16)
Urgent Action
November 28, 2016
Himan Uraminejad has been warned by prison officials that he is at risk of
execution as Iran???s Head of Judiciary has approved the implementation of his
death sentence. He has been on death row since 2012 for a crime committed when
he was 17 years old.
Amnesty International has learnt on 21 November that Himan Uraminejad, aged 22,
was informed by prison officials on 6 October that the Head of Judiciary had
approved the implementation of his death sentence and his family should
intensify their efforts to seek a pardon from the family of the deceased
because his execution could be carried out at any moment. He was sentenced to
death in August 2012 after a criminal court in Kurdistan Province convicted him
of murder over the fatal stabbing of a boy during a group fight. He was 17
years old at the time of the crime. In September 2014, the Supreme Court
quashed his death sentence and granted him a retrial, based on new juvenile
sentencing provisions in Iran's 2013 Islamic Penal Code. In June 2015, however,
he was sentenced to death again. The criminal court presiding over his retrial
referred to an official medical opinion that found "no evidence of a disorder
at the time of the crime that would remove criminal liability". The court also
referred to Himan Uraminejad's statements that he had no "mental illness or
history of hospitalization" and understood killing someone was "religiously
forbidden" (haram). The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence in November
2015 and rejected a subsequent request for retrial.
Himan Uraminejad was sentenced after a grossly unfair trial that relied on
evidence obtained through torture. He was arrested on 22 April 2012 when he was
17 years old. He was subsequently transferred to an undisclosed detention
centre where he was held for 20 days, without access to his family and lawyer.
He has said that during this period, he was tortured, including by repeated
beatings that left scars and bruises all over his face and body, and suspension
from the ceiling by a rope tied to his feet. He has said that police also raped
him with an object shaped like an egg, threatened to cut off his testicles and
walked over his body with boots. Himan Uraminejad's trial was held before an
adult court, without special juvenile justice protections. The court ordered no
investigation into his allegations of torture.
TAKE ACTION
Write a letter, send an email, call, fax or tweet:
- Urging the Iranian authorities to halt any plans to execute Himan Uraminejad,
and commute his death sentence without delay;
- Urging them to ensure that his conviction is quashed and that he is granted a
fair retrial in accordance with the principles of juvenile justice, in
particular ensuring that no statements obtained through torture and other
ill-treatment are admitted as evidence;
- Urging them to ensure his allegations of torture are investigated and those
responsible are brought to justice;
- Immediately establish an official moratorium on executions with a view to
abolishing the death penalty.
Contact below official by 6 January, 2017:
Office of the Supreme Leader
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations
622 Third Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Fax: (212) 867-7086 // Phone: (212) 687-2020
Email: i...@un.int
Ayatollah Sayed 'Ali Khamenei
Salutation: Your Excellency
(source: Amnesty International USA)
INDIA:
Capital Punishment in India: Life, Death, and Rebirth?
On November 21, 2012, Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and the only
surviving gunman involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, was executed after Indian
President Pranab Mukherjee denied his mercy plea. The decision marked the end
of an informal 8-year moratorium on capital punishment in the country. In the 3
years since Kasab's execution, 2 more convicts, Mohammad Afzal Guru and Yakub
Abdul Razak Memon, were also hanged for their involvement in terrorist attacks
in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, even though these are the only executions the
Indian state has carried out since 2004, roughly 5,000 convicts have been
sentenced to death over the same period and are currently on death row. One
might ask, why this disparity between the number of convicts and actual
executions? The answer is likely to be that international and domestic
pressures have made the government more hesitant to implement capital
punishment. Nevertheless, a new trend worth noting within this pattern of
disproportionality seems to be emerging, wherein the Indian state is only
executing those explicitly involved in acts of terror.
Capital punishment was first incorporated into India's legal system during
British colonial rule when, in 1860, the Governor-General of India Council
instituted the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC's approach to capital
punishment has remained more or less unchanged since and still recognizes the
death penalty for various crimes including criminal conspiracy, waging war
against the government, and murder. Furthermore, amendments were made to
Section 376 of the IPC in 2013 to extend the application of the death penalty
to rape "if the act causes the victim's death or leaves her in a permanent
vegetative state," a reaction to the brutal 2012 rape and death of a young
woman in New Delhi, which made international headlines and ignited mass
protests against sexual violence in the country.
However, even though India's Penal Code has seen relatively few changes, the
discourse and practice surrounding the death penalty has slowly but steadily
changed since the country's independence in 1947, with these changes in
attitude gradually being reflected in the law. For instance, while capital
punishment was historically considered the standard punishment for murder -
with courts having to explicitly justify a decision to pursue a life sentence
in jail instead - the tide has steadily turned. Beginning in 1973, courts had
to give concrete reasons as to why they were imposing the death penalty rather
than other means of punishment. In 1980, the constitutional validity of the
death penalty was questioned in the state of Punjab during the Bachan Singh vs.
The State of Punjab case. The Constitutional Bench rejected the challenge but
mentioned that the death penalty was henceforth only to be applied to the
"rarest of rare" cases. The change in the dominant national narrative regarding
the death penalty was reflected in the practical application of the death
penalty in the next few decades. Whereas the number of executions averaged
three per year between 1985-1995, executions were almost completely halted from
1995 to 2012. The hanging of one person convicted of raping and murdering a
minor in 2004 was the sole execution in over 15 years. Even though India
continued to sentence many people to the death penalty throughout this period
(roughly 5,000 between 2004 and 2013 alone), the country demonstrated little
resolve in actually implementing these sentences. Instead, through long delays
in the sending of mercy pleas to the President and by allowing lengthy appeals
processes, India upheld its unofficial moratorium.
2012 seemed to mark a reversal in the Indian government's gradual progression
toward the eradication of the death penalty. The President swiftly rejected the
mercy pleas of Ajmal Kasab, Yakub Memon, and Mohammad Afzal Guru, so all 3 men
were executed for terrorism-related charges. While Kasab had been convicted of
80 charges, the 3 that qualified the use of death penalty were condoned under
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, the Explosive Substance Act
of 1908, and the Arms Act of 1959 even though the Arms Act had been repealed.
The UNGA explicitly recognized Kasab as being involved in acts of terrorism.
Similarly, Afzal Guru was convicted under The Prevention of Terrorists
Activities Act of 2002 and the Explosive Substances Act of 1908, the former of
which explicitly recognized him as being involved in acts of terrorism.
Finally, Memon was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act
of 1987, The Arms Act of 1959 and the Explosive Act of 1908, the first of which
also explicitly acknowledged him as a terrorist.
While the government tries to appease the domestic masses by extending the
application of the death penalty to crimes such as brutal rape, it also seems
concerned with increasing international and domestic pressures regarding the
perceived brutality and inhumanity of capital punishment.
While the government tries to appease the domestic masses by extending the
application of the death penalty to crimes such as brutal rape, it also seems
concerned with increasing international and domestic pressures regarding the
perceived brutality and inhumanity of capital punishment. In the past, former
judges have spoken strongly against the death penalty alongside domestic human
rights groups such as the PUCL and international human rights organizations
such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which have released
reports regarding death penalty practices in India in an attempt to expose
flaws and to participate in the naming and shaming of the practice within the
country. There is steadily increasing pressure through recommendations made at
the Universal Periodic Review, and more importantly, by India's own Law
Commission for the abolishment of the death penalty in India. The latest Law
Commission Report released in August 2015 called on India's government to
abolish the death penalty with regards to all offenses, except acts of
terrorism and waging war against the state, viewing terrorism as different from
other crimes and accordingly viewing the death penalty as an exception in this
case to act as an effective deterrent for 'maintaining the security of citizens
and the integrity of the nation.'
Keeping in mind the domestic and international support for India to abolish the
death penalty, what can we make of its application to the crime of brutal rape?
First and foremost, we can question the efficacy of the amendment made to
Section 376 of the IPC to include brutal rape in the list of crimes punishable
by the death penalty. It seems unlikely that the amendment will serve as an
adequate deterrent for a crime on the rise as the practical execution of the
death penalty always experiences significant delays due to the inefficacy of
the court and appeal system. Additionally, those for whom the law had been
amended in the first place - those convicted in the Nirbhaya rape case - have
still not been executed. In fact, the Supreme Court has delayed its hearing on
the convicts??? mercy pleas multiple times, and, 4 years later, the masses are
still waiting on their calls for justice to be heard. Accordingly, even with
theoretical strides taken in the fight against rape culture in India, its
practical efficacy still seems questionable.
Given these limitations on the practical application of the death penalty to
the case of brutal rape, India may have to reevaluate how to deal with this
crime more generally. Primarily, it may have to find an alternative but equally
stringent deterrent for this offense due to the lack of efficiency in
practically executing the death penalty in such cases. Furthermore, with
continued international and domestic pressure to abolish the death penalty in
India, it has become more important than ever to find an alternative deterrent
to terrorism within the legal system as well. While the death penalty for
terrorism has been a valid, dominant narrative nationally thus far in India's
attempt to counterbalance aggressive terrorist threats from its estranged
neighbor Pakistan, India's growing status as a rising power in the
international playing field beckons it to rethink a strategy that adheres to
the dominantly accepted norms of human rights. As India continues to increase
its global presence, it will eventually have to let go of its older,
ineffective practices to appease the international community and the domestic
population by demonstrating its commitment to upholding human rights.
(source: Brown Political Review)
*************
Delhi HC has no jurisdiction to stay execution: C'garh govt
The Chhattisgarh government today said that the Delhi High Court has no
jurisdiction to hear and grant a stay on the execution of a man held guilty for
murder of 5 persons, including 2 children, in 2004.
The submission was made before a bench of justices G S Sistani and Vinod Goel,
which has reserved its decision on the application of the Chhattisgarh
government challenging the maintainability of a petition filed by the convict.
The state government's counsel Atul Jha said that the Delhi High Court had "no
jurisdiction" to stay execution of convict Sonu Sardar as the offence had taken
place in Chhattisgarh.
The Delhi High Court had on March 2, 2015 stayed the execution of Sardar,
convicted for the murder of 5 persons. Sardar, in his plea, has contended that
his death warrant was scheduled to be signed on March 4, 2015.
After the execution was stayed, the state government had approached the Supreme
Court challenging the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. The
apex court had asked the high court to decide the state's application in 4
weeks.
The apex court, however, had stayed proceedings before the high court with
regard to the hearing on Sardar's plea seeking quashing of the President of
India and the Chhattisgarh government's decision, by which his mercy petition
was turned down.
During the arguments today, the state government said that "all proceedings
till date including the present one relates to a criminal offence which took
place in Chhattisgarh. The CrPC governs the territorial jurisdiction. All
materials in the case are based in Chhattisgarh. Even petitioner is in Central
Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh".
Sardar, along with his brother and accomplices, had killed 5 persons of a
family, including a woman and two children, during a dacoity bid in
Chhattisgarh's Cher village on November 26, 2004. The trial court had slapped
death penalty on him and the Chhattisgarh High Court had upheld it.
The Supreme Court in February 2012 had concurred with the findings of 2 courts
below and affirmed the punishment. His mercy petiton was also dismissed by both
the state government and the President of India. In February 2015, the apex
court had also rejected his review plea.
Later, the convict in March 2015 has moved the Delhi High Court against the
President and the Chhattisgarh government's decision.
Sardar, in his petition, has sought that his death penalty be commuted to life
imprisonment on account of delay in deciding his mercy plea as well as for
allegedly keeping him in "solitary confinement illegally".
(source: Press Trust of India)
ANTIGUA:
Former death row inmates to serve more time
Convicted murderer and ex-death row inmate Atley Alexander was sentenced to
life in prison with the possibility of early release after 45 years.
At the same time, 2 other former death row prisoners - Fitzroy Jarvis and
Steadroy McDougal - were sentenced to life in prison but could be released
after 35 years.
The 3 men have been in prison since the late 1990s and the court said the time
served will be counted as part of the sentences imposed.
The trio had been convicted for separate killings and were sentenced to death,
but a stay of execution had been ordered after the Privy Council deemed the
sentences unconstitutional. According to the London based court, the death
penalty should not be mandatory for murder since each case must be judged based
on its own circumstances.
In each case, Justice Darshan Ramdhani said if the men fail to meet the
requirement for early release after serving the minimum time, they are to
undergo a review every 2 years thereafter to assess their progress of
rehabilitation.
He said they should receive counselling and in Alexander's case, he advised "an
aggressive" programme should be put in place for his rehabilitation and
counselling.
Alexander was described as having antisocial personality disorder and his risk
for recidivism (re-offending) is, according to a psychiatric report, considered
high.
The court heard that he has been in solitary confinement by request to avoid
interaction with other inmates and "to avoid problems".
In 1997, Alexander murdered his ex-partner Jacqueline Simon, who was 9 months
pregnant, and 2 of her daughters - Amber James, 13, and 10-year-old Sophia
Jones by burning them alive in their home.
Another of Simon's daughters who was in the house managed to escape without
serious injury after she was awakened by the smell of fuel and smoke.
The judge described the killing as "savage" and noted that the convict had a
long list of convictions between1980 and 1996 to include rape, wounding with
intent, wounding, being armed with an offensive weapon, and assault.
The court noted that he was "already a hardened criminal" at the time of the
offence and he boasted about the many women he has had, including 17 who bore
him a total of 20 children.
(source: antiguaobserver.com)
NIGERIA:
Lagos Assembly approves death penalty for kidnappers
The Lagos State House of Assembly on Monday approved death sentence for
kidnappers, whose victims died in their custody.
The approval followed the adoption of a report presented by Mrs Adefunmilayo
Tejuosho, the Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Petitions, Human
Rights and Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission (LASIEC).
Tejuosho had presented the report of a Stakeholders meeting on a bill entitled;
"A Bill for a Law to Provide for the Prohibition of the Act of Kidnapping and
for Other Connected Purposes".
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the bill was sponsored by the
Speaker of the House, Mr Mudashiru Obasa.
The bill prescribed life sentence to kidnappers, whose victims did not die in
their custody.
The bill states that any person, who kidnaps, abducts, detains, captures or
takes another person by any means or tricks with intent to demand ransom or do
anything against his/her will, commits an offence, and liable on conviction to
death sentence.
The bill, which criminalised attempt to kidnap, stipulated also life
imprisonment for anyone who make attempt to kidnap another person.
Also, the bill is against false representation to release a kidnapped or
abducted person. This attracts 7 years imprisonment.
The lawmakers also approved 25 years imprisonment to whoever threatens to
kidnap another person through phone call, e-mail, text message or any other
means of communication.
The bill provides that any person, who knowingly or wilfully allows or permits
his premises, building or a place or belonging to which he has control of, to
be used for the purposes of keeping a person kidnapped is guilty of an offence
under the law and liable to 14 years imprisonment without an option of fine.
NAN reports that the lawmakers amended some sections of the bill during the
debate on the committee report before adoption.
The bill, aimed at ensuring zero tolerance for kidnapping, however, awaits
third reading before it will be sent to Gov. Akinwunmi Ambode for assent.
(source: thenationonlineng.net)
_______________________________________________
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
