Jan. 24
INDIA:
Prez mercy means little to death row convicts' kin
President Pranab Mukherjee's decision to commute the death sentence of 4
persons convicted for killing 34 upper caste people at Bara village in Gaya
district in 1992 means little for the family members of the convicted men.
Setting aside the state government and Centre's recommendation, the President
had commuted the death sentence of the 4 persons - Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal
Mochi, Bir Kuer Paswan and Dharmendra Singh alias Dharu Singh - on Sunday.
While the quartet languish in Bhagalpur central jail, their family members are
not enthused by the President's decision, the reason being that they will spend
their remaining lives in jail. "Life in jail is no life," says Chandrami, wife
of Krishna Mochi.
1 of the 4 children of Krishna, who is a local band master, was born when the
Bara case accused was in jail. Krishna's other children, including a daughter,
are now married and have their own families. The four marriages took place in
Krishna's absence. Notwithstanding the conviction by the TADA court and its
approval by the Supreme Court, the family continues to regard Krishna as
innocent.
Krishna's son Ajay, a daily wager, said being poor he can hardly afford to
visit Bhagalpur jail to see his father. "If he is transferred to Gaya, we can
visit him once in a while," Ajay added.
Since Nanhe Mochi's family migrated to some other distant village soon after
the massacre, they could not be contacted. Dharmendra's family members refused
to talk.
Legal circles are not surprised by the turn of events and the commutation of
death penalty into life imprisonment. According to Sartaj Ali Khan and Ashok
Kumar, 2 of the defence lawyers in the Bara massacre case, the inordinate delay
in disposal of the mercy petition favoured the accused. BJP functionary and
former chairman of Bihar Legislative Council Tarakant Jha presented the main
argument on behalf of the accused in the TADA court presided by Jawahar Prasad,
the then district and sessions judge.
"Holding condemned men on death row for long goes in his favour," said Khan,
now the public prosecutor of Gaya. The mercy petition was filed in 2003 and its
disposal took 14 years.
34 male adults belonging to the Bhumihar caste were butchered on the outskirts
of Bara village on February 12, 1992 under the then Tekari (now Alipur) police
station. The TADA court's judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court.
(source: The Times of India)
SINGAPORE/MALAYSIA:
NGOs appeal to Singapore to spare Malaysian on death row
Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have appealed to the Singapore
government on Tuesday to spare a Malaysian man who is on death row there for
drug trafficking.
Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM), Lawyers for Liberty and Suaram met a
representative of the High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, where they conveyed
their concerns over supposedly unfair trial aspects in the case of 30-year-old
S. Prabagaran.
"We have sent appeal letters to Singapore's President and Prime Minister and
hope the 2 leaders will hear our calls for Prabagaran to be spared the death
penalty," said AIM executive director D. Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu.
She added that the NGOs are reiterating calls for Singapore to review its death
penalty laws once again to abolish the death penalty in its entirety.
Prabagaran is currently awaiting the result of a clemency petition to the
Singapore President.
The clemency request was sent in February last year, with its result due
anytime soon, according to lawyers.
However, Singapore has not granted a clemency request for the past 13 years.
Prabagaran's 54-year-old mother V. Eswary also applied to the Malaysian High
Court to compel the Government here to take his case to the International Court
of Justice (ICJ).
Eswary sent a memorandum to the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore to refer
the case to the ICJ on Dec 21 last year, but there has been no response.
Prabagaran was arrested at the Woodlands checkpoint in April 2012 for
possession of 22.24g of heroin, which were found in a black bundle in the
centre arm-rest console of the car he was driving.
He had said that he borrowed the car from a friend to enter Singapore that day
because he was afraid that his motorcycle would be repossessed.
(source: thestar.com.my)
PHILIPPINES:
'Solons prevented from interpellating on death bill debate'
Members of the House of Representatives are being prevented from interpellating
in the debate on the death penalty bill in the plenary in a bid to railroad the
passage of the reimposition of capital punishment, opposition lawmakers said.
In a press conference on Tuesday at the House of Representatives, Akbayan Rep.
Tom Villarin said he had heard of "misinformation" that lawmakers would not be
allowed to interpellate in the debate on the death penalty bill on the floor if
they were members of the committees on rules and of justice.
"There (is) information that if you are members of the committee on justice,
you're not allowed to interpellate, and if you're a member of the rules
committee, you have no right to interpellate, in the plenary debates," Villarin
said.
Villarin said he was alarmed by the move to prevent lawmakers from speaking out
against death penalty, calling it an attempt to "stifle" the opposition.
"This kind of misinformation, isa sa mga panakot dun sa mga members (is a way
to scare the members) of Congress not to speak up against the death penalty ...
This move to silence members of the House not to speak up in any way is
alarming," Villarin said.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said this move reeks of being an "undeclared or de
facto martial law" in Congress.
Lagman said the Philippines is a signatory to the United Nations Convention
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988
that prescribes life imprisonment, not death penalty, for any crimes.
"In that convention, the treaty prescribes only imprisonment, and not death, on
crimes related to drugs. We cannot violate our treaty commitments," Lagman
said.
Lagman reiterated his call on the House leadership led by Speaker Pantaleon
Alvarez to allow a conscience vote instead of a party vote on the death
penalty.
A party vote would have railroaded the bill especially in the lower house
dominated by a supermajority of allies of President Rodrigo Duterte, who
campaigned on the promise of restoring capital punishment.
Lagman called on Alvarez to allow members "to exercise a conscience vote to
have a free and liberated position."
The legislation restoring the death penalty is seen to be a priority
legislation in the House of Representatives.
The bill seeks to impose the death penalty on more than 20 heinous offenses,
such as rape with homicide, kidnapping for ransom and arson with death.
The bill is expected to undergo sponsorship plenary debates under 2nd reading
next week, according to Majority Leader Rudy Fari???as. It hurdled the
committee level last December.
Alvarez, Duterte's staunch ally in Congress, was among those who filed the bill
seeking to reimpose the death penalty after former President and now Pampanga
Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo abolished capital punishment in 2006 for its
failure to deter crime.
Alvarez filed the bill pursuant to President Duterte's campaign promise to
return capital punishment for heinous crime.
Alvarez's bill sought to reimpose the death penalty for heinous crimes listed
under Republic Act 7659, including murder, plunder, rape, kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, sale, use and possession of illegal drugs,
carnapping with homicide, among others.
In the bill he co-authored, Alvarez said there is a need to reimpose the death
penalty because "the national crime rate has grown to such alarming proportions
requiring an all-out offensive against all forms of felonious acts."
"Philippine society is left with no option but to deal with certain grievous
offenders in a manner commensurate to the gravity, perversity, atrociousness
and repugnance of their crimes," according to the bill.
Duterte won the elections on a campaign promise to restore the death penalty by
hanging, even remarking that the convict's head should be severed by hanging.
Alvarez said Congress would look into the cheapest way to carry out the death
penalty, either by firing squad, lethal injection or by hanging.
(source: newsinfo.inquirer.net)
*******************
Lawmakers restrained from voting 'No' to death penalty bill
New members of the House of Representatives are being cautioned on voting
against and asking questions on the proposed death penalty bill, a lawmaker
said on Tuesday.
According to Rep. Tom Villarin of Akbayan party-list, House leaders have been
calling the attention of the lawmakers who did not vote for the bills favored
by the super majority bloc namely the proposed 2-tier tax scheme for cigarettes
and the renewal of the franchise of Smart Communications.
The proposed death penalty law covers heinous crimes and including drug-related
offenses and deems the possession of 10 grams of illegal drugs as drug
trafficking that is punishable by death.
"The feedback I have been getting [among the new lawmakers]is that when you are
a member of the House Committee on Justice or a member of the House Committee
on Rules, you have no right to interpellate during plenary debates. This is
tantamount to scaring the members of Congress not to speak up against death
penalty. Why does it have to be this way?" Villarin, who is against the death
penalty, said.
The super majority bloc in the House, led by President Rodrigo Duterte's
PDP-Laban, is in coalition with the Nacionalista Party, Nationalist People's
Coalition, National Union Party, Liberal Party and Lakas-CMD.
The Speaker of the House is Pantaleon Alvarez of Davao del Norte, while the
House Majority Leader is Rodolfo Farinas of Ilocos Norte.
"This is a move to silence the members of the House; an attempt to stifle
opposition. We should allow free discussion on the measure. It's tough for the
[new super majority]lawmakers [to vote against the death penalty]because the
House leaders will summon you. There's the amendment to the Sin Tax law
[providing for 2-tier tax scheme for cigarettes], and the bill on the Smart
franchise. There were lawmakers with the majority who voted against, and the
House leaders called their attention," Villarin pointed out.
Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay renewed his call on the House leadership to allow
aconscience vote, instead of a party vote, on the death penalty bill.
"We call on the leadership not to insist on a party or pressure vote. A
conscience vote is necessary for this important and retrogressive measure.
Members of the House should be allowed to fully exercise their conscience and
conviction in this. Many members of the super majority will go against the
party decision and will vote against the reimposition of death penalty," Lagman
said.
He added that, there is no overriding reason involving heinous crimes that
would justify the restoration of the death penalty as provided for by the 1987
Constitution, which the Duterte administration also wants revised.
"The burden of proving otherwise is on those proposing the death penalty. But
so far, they have failed to make a justification since crime incidents have
been reduced," Lagman said.
Lagman added that the Philippines is a signatory to the 1988 United Nations
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, which only provides imprisonment as punishment for drug-related
crimes.
"That commitment cannot be violated by a mere legislative action on the part of
the House or the Senate, even an action accrued by the President," Lagman said.
(source: The Manila Times)
THAILAND:
Death penalty for graft a dangerous road to go down
The latest proposal by the National Reform Steering Assembly for the imposition
of the death penalty on public figures convicted of graft causing damage
exceeding 1 billion baht opens up a number of moral dilemmas.
I have gone on record to state publicly that grand corruption (the abuse of
high-level power that benefits the few at the expense of the many) should be
considered a crime against humanity, and be defined as such under Article 7 of
the Rome statute per the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Given my public stance, any infringement amounting to serious levels of
corruption should draw congratulatory applause from yours truly, but could I
ever reconcile support for the death penalty for an offence of corruption?
The death penalty is rightly controversial. I myself am against it subject to
very limited exceptions. However, I do not propose to debate the death penalty
per se here. Rather, I raise some questions about its application as a
punishment for corruption in Thailand today.
My personal and professional stance on grand corruption goes back several
years. I have written several articles and a paper on the subject. Earlier this
year I was part of a team that presented on the topic at the C5 Fraud and Asset
Recovery Conference in Miami.
The initial hurdle I have to navigate is that relating to "value": how can
somebody guilty of graft amounting to one billion baht (US$28 million) be
sentenced to death, and someone else guilty of an existing crime of a lesser
value only get 5 years imprisonment?
Making judgements based entirely on value is a dangerous road to go down. As I
write this, UK law enforcement agencies and their courts are utilising a
sentencing system that considers "victim impact" and not simply "value".
The UK perspective takes into account differing scenarios measured in terms of
the adverse human consequences of fraud. The theft of 1 million pounds (44
million baht) from a multinational company may have less detrimental effect on
the corporate victim than the loss of 100 pounds stolen from an old-age
pensioner. How should you quantify the wrongdoing in such cases?
The Thai proposal recognises that corruption has to be dealt with firmly, but
it is the ultimate sentence and how it is to be determined that needs to be
considered and debated.
For comparative purposes, if a public official committing the crime of
corruption in Thailand receives US$20 million from a public works contractor
for them to win a public tender competition, how would another criminal be
perceived who received a bribe of $5m from a contractor that resulted in a
hospital having to close down its services?
The impact is inherently different. One potentially affects a corporate
competitor seeking to outbid the dishonest contractor, and the other affects
the ordinary members of the public who suffer as a consequence of losing their
hospital. But this said, my reading of the proposal would see both receiving
prison sentences of 5 years or less.
The issue isn't as simple as whether or not you are pro- or anti-death penalty.
The controversy raised is one whereby a corrupt official knows that if he or
she acquires less than 1 billion baht, they can serve five years in jail and
live out the rest of their life upon release (potentially with assets hidden
elsewhere). Some would say that the possibility of obtaining US$28 million (or
just short of that figure) is worth the risk, but woe betide anybody who gets
his sums wrong and acquires slightly more than this potentially fatal cutoff
figure.
Although I welcome Thailand's determination to stamp out corruption, I would
question the simplistic mathematics of deciding who is going to live and who is
going to die on the basis of a line drawn in the sand. It is effectively
providing the criminal with a goal line to reach and attain, but not cross.
Finally, the legislation should not be used retrospectively. One could never
condone such action.
Hopefully, this will not be the case and the Thai stance is a genuine attempt
at preventing future graft.
(source: Opinion: Martin Kenney is Managing Partner of Martin Kenney & Co
(www.martinkenney.com), Solicitors, a specialist investigative and asset
recovery practice based in the BVI and focused on multi-jurisdictional fraud
and grand corruption cases----Bangkok Post)
ST KITTS & NEVIS:
In Support Of Capital Punishment
One Ewin James, writing an opinion piece in this The Observer newspaper of 13th
instant argues pro capital punishment as a fit, fair and just penalty for those
who visit murder on others of their fellowmen.
I support the proposition.
The unpalatable fact of the matter is that St. Kitts and Nevis , a classic
small-island state with a population hovering around 50,000 souls, and
occupying a physical landmass of some 104 sq. miles, averages 25 or so murders
per year, and as such, 'boasts' a per capita murder rate of approximately 50
per 100,000 persons.
When this statistic is juxtaposed with the figure for Singapore being 0.5, 20
for Nigeria, for the USA 6, for Jamaica 38, 26 for St Vincent and the
Grenadines, and 30 for Antigua, it becomes frighteningly clear that we have a
serious problem with murder in our beloved Federation.
If one couples the foregoing with the reality that very few murderers are
caught and convicted, and that even fewer are sentenced to death, it is fair to
conclude that the celestially high level of unwarranted killings will persist,
giving rise to a sickening societal acceptance of such internecine behaviour as
'normal', even to be expected, as one's sensitivity to and sense of umbrage at
these murders become numb and inured over time.
Yet I am convinced that a suffocating anger and a tide of discontent at these
killings run the gamut of social strata, some of it bred by despair arising
from a sense of individual helplessness underpinned by a real or perceived
inability to 'do something about it'.
But, more importantly, and more germane to this debate, is the defiant refusal
of the powers that be to activate the capital punishment apparatus that our
laws provide as a definitive means of addressing the vexing issue.
The voice of the people is (still) the voice of God, and despite its being
evident that the significant majority of the population not only supports but
desires the imposition of the death penalty on those found guilty of murder,
those in position to facilitate its application stubbornly and steadfastly
refuse to bend or bow to this voice.
I submit that our society cannot afford to continue to go easy on those bent on
killing their fellowmen, residents and visitors alike.
I propose that we hang the culprits as a matter of course.
Let those who claim to be champions of 'human rights' damn o their hearts'
content. For there is ample evidence that an emphasis on 'human rights' has
contributed directly to an abundance of human wrongs.
A 'life sentence' for those found guilty, - where such is (rarely!) imposed, -,
almost always translates into the culprit being housed, fed, entertained and
protected by the State, using, of course, funds, monies, personnel, and other
resources extracted from and provided by peaceful, law-abiding citizens and
residents, including, so very unfairly !, those members and relatives of the
family of the victim(s) him/herself (themselves).
The never-ending discussion as to whether capital punishment deters murders is,
to me, pellucidly immaterial to this debate. I do not for one moment promote
the imposition of the death penalty on murderers premised on a notion that it
serves as deterrent.
Indeed, capital punishment may or may not deter, but clearly, irrefutably, one
thing is certain : hanging the murderer ABSOLUTELY DETERS HIM/HER FROM KILLING
AGAIN !
Otto Von Bismarck contends that murderers must stew in their own grease.
The Bible commends that whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man must his blood
be shed.
Capital punishment, then, as James contends, is retributive justice, pure and
total.
I am convinced that because the penalty that murderers exact and suffer for
their irreversible crimes is neither swift, severe, nor sure, the rate of
homicides continues apace.
I suggest we return to the gallows as means of declaring boldly that we are
deadly serious about stemming the tide of murders that already threatens to
wreak irreparable damage to our economic and cultural infrastructure, and to
violently upset our social equilibrium.
Hang them high !!
(source: Editorial, Michael Blake; The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer)
_______________________________________________
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
