May 8
SINGAPORE:
Singapore to enforce death penalty for nuclear terrorism acts
A person who commits a fatal act of terrorism using radioactive material or
nuclear explosive devices will face the mandatory death penalty under new laws
passed in Parliament on Monday (May 8).
The legislation paves the way for Singapore's ratification of the United
Nations' (UN) International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (ICSANT).
Second Minister for Home Affairs Desmond Lee said that while the likelihood of
a nuclear terrorist attack in Southeast Asia was remote, the rise of terror
group Islamic State means Singapore cannot discount such a scenario and must
treat the threat seriously.
"Especially when many countries, including those in our region, use nuclear
energy, or are actively exploring the use of nuclear energy," he added. "In
February this year, Malaysian authorities arrested 8 people connected to the
theft of Iridium-192, a radioactive material which can be used to make dirty
bombs."
It will now be a criminal offence to intentionally and unlawfully use any
radioactive material or nuclear explosive device, or use or damage a nuclear
facility leading to the release of radioactive material, to achieve the effects
of terrorism.
The penalties will be pegged at the same level as a murder offence in the Penal
Code and therefore, in the event of death caused, lead to the gallows, said Mr
Lee, adding that in any other case, life imprisonment will be the punishment.
The new laws also provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction - meaning any
person outside Singapore who commits an act which constitutes a nuclear
terrorism offence if carried out in Singapore, is deemed to have committed the
act here, said Mr Lee.
"If taken into custody, the person would be charged, tried and punished
accordingly in Singapore. This provision allows us to prosecute the offender in
Singapore, if it is not possible or desirable to extradite him," he explained.
"It ensures that perpetrators do not escape punishment, regardless of which
country they are from, and where they committed the offences."
But Singapore must also facilitate extradition requests by the 109 other
countries who are parties to the Convention, and provide mutual legal
assistance with its domestic framework.
"WE TAKE THE POSSIBILITY SERIOUSLY"
Mr Lee later told the House that Singapore has, over the years, been preparing
and developing to deal with the risks of nuclear terrorism.
"Agencies such as NEA (National Environment Agency) and SCDF (Singapore Civil
Defence Force) have developed the necessary operational capabilities to deal
with illicit use of nuclear and radioactive material in Singapore," he said.
"MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) and NEA have also been working together to
tighten security measures at premises storing high-risk radioactive material."
To begin with, Singapore has a strict regulatory regime put in place by NEA to
make it hard for radioactive material to end up in the wrong hands, said Mr
Lee.
"On import, valid permits are required for all cargo entering our port
checkpoints - if necessary they will be subject to X-ray screening and
radioactivity checks," he added.
"Thus far, we've not detected any breaches involving radioactive material in
Singapore."
An inter-agency committee continually assesses the threat of nuclear terrorism
in Singapore, and in the event of an attack, there will be processes to deal
with possible scenarios.
"Should such an incident occur, MHA will coordinate a whole-of-Government
response," Mr Lee outlined. "SCDF will render assistance to casualties and
contain the radioactive material, assisted by our armed forces where necessary.
NEA will provide technical advice to help mitigate harm. The police will
investigate the act, find the perpetrators and take them to task."
He added: "Beyond efforts from agencies, Singaporeans will need to be prepared
for an attack." Authorities may have to evacuate people from affected areas,
and members of public may also need to be trained on how to reduce inhalation
of harmful substances.
"There are no immediate threats, but we take the possibility seriously," said
Mr Lee. "It is timely we put in place the necessary legal framework now and
join the international community to combat terrorism in all its forms -
including nuclear terrorism."
(source: channelnewsasia.com)
PHILIPPINES:
Countries urge PH not to revive death penalty; In Geneva, UN member-states
remind a Philippine delegation that reviving the death penalty is against
international laws which the country had signed
United Nations member-states on Monday, May 8, urged the Philippine government
to abandon its plan to restore death penalty.
They reminded the Philippine delegation to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
being held by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, Switzerland, that
the reimposition of the death penalty is against international laws.
Among those who declared their opposition to the plan are (this is list is
being updated):
Australia
Austria
Bulgaria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
France
Georgia
Haiti
Holy See
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Liechtenstein
Moldova
Mozambique
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
The member states said the Philippines ratified in 2007 the Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which aims to abolish the death penalty.
The Philippines also abolished death penalty through Republic Act 9346 in 2006
under the administration of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It became
a state-party to the ICCPR the following year.
But a bill seeking to revive it was one of the priority measures of President
Rodrigo Duterte, who has repeatedly said that criminals, especially those
linked to illegal drugs, should be punished with death.
Amid opposition from human rights organizations and the Church, the House of
Representatives approved on 3rd and final reading House Bill 4727 on March 7.
A total of 217 lawmakers voted in favor of the measure while 54 voted against
it and 1 abstained.
It will be a different story in the Senate, however. Senate Minority Leader
Franklin Drilon said at least 13 senators are set to reject a similar bill.
"It's dead and the chances of resurrecting it before we even bring it to a vote
are very slim, if not zero, at least in this [17th] Congress," Drilon said last
month.
(source: rappler.com)
INDIA:
Is mob fury driving Indian judiciary?
India rejoices as the Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty for the
rapists in the Nirbhaya case. The feedback about the verdict has ranged from
"It serves them right" ,"It will put the fear of God into rapists" and "I will
sleep better knowing that these individuals are dead". The merits of the
argument that in a country of 1.2 billion, taking the lives of 4 bad men leaves
the rest of us safer can be debated. But there is a larger question about our
tryst with the Death Penalty and the utility, if any, that it has served.
I am not for a second, trying to argue that the crime was not reprehensible. On
the other hand, even the Apex Court, I fear, did not fully comprehend the
depravity in mindset and the heinous nature of the crime in as much as the
convicts were held to be expressing lust through the perspective of violence.
On the contrary, rape is far worse and more complex than just lust gone wrong.
The clinical definition of rape, as defined by Nicholas Growth is that it is a
pseudo-sexual act that serves nonsexual needs. Power, anger, control, sadism,
violence, misogyny and a whole range of darker human emotions and beliefs, and
not lust, ultimately lead to an act as depraved as rape.
These dynamics were obvious in the Nirbhaya case. The altercation between the
victims (Nirbhaya and her friend) and the perpetrator, which culminated into
rape and murder, began with the question as to why a girl was with an unmarried
male companion late in the night. This question the convicts posed reveals the
mindset that a lady is fair game for society's judgment and, therefore,
vulnerable to disciplining through whatever means men deem fit. Throwing the
victim out of the bus unclothed - the need to inflict humiliation. The injuries
on the victim, demonstrating extreme anger and perhaps even sadism. There was
no lust in this crime- there were only misogyny, anger and the need to assert
male control over a woman who the convicts unreasonably perceived as bereft of
virtue and character.
The convicts are, therefore, a shining example of all that is evil about
mankind.
While they ought to be punished and kept quarantined from society, it still
does not answer the debate around the death penalty. No doubt, the law has an
incredibly difficult challenge in trying to formulate a perfect policy around
the death penalty. On one hand, as John Douglas, the acclaimed FBI profiler has
argued, some people are simply beyond the reach of reformative systems that
mankind has designed.
On the other hand, the anti-death penalty proponents argue, with force, that
the state does not and should not have the power to take human life. Being able
to address both schools of thought with objective reasoning and outcome is too
tall a task for any system committed to the rule of law. Coming to India
though, we broke the deadlock between the contradictory schools of thoughts
around death penalty and concluded that it would be applied only in the "rarest
of the rare cases". But do all rarest of rare cases fitting this criterion
attract the death penalty?
Take for example the case of rape and murder of the Late Priyadarshini Mattoo.
Not only did the medical and forensic evidence show proof of rape, but the
victim had sustained 19 injuries. In what suggested the violent mindset and the
extreme anger of the convict, Santosh Kumar Singh had struck her repeatedly
with a helmet causing, among other things, the cracking of the rib cage. In the
infamous Soumya rape and murder case (the victim was raped and thrown out of a
moving train), the very same Apex Court once again commuted death penalty to
life in prison by holding that the link between the cause of death and the
convict's actions remain unproven.
In Santosh Kumar Singh's case, 2 contrary outcomes - acquittal by the trial
court and conviction by the high court proved to be the convict's saving grace.
How can the judiciary hold that he can be subjected to death when two
proceedings led to 2 different outcomes thus demonstrating uncertainty over his
actions?
In Soumya's murder case, true to the culture of restraint against the death
penalty, keen attention to detail and analysis of the cause of death and of the
evidence as to the actions of the convict led to the commuting of death
sentence to life imprisonment.
If the convicts in the Priyadarshini Mattoo and Soumya murder case, with their
lack of empathy and driven by a compulsive need to commit violence, could
continue to live - why should Yakub Memon and Afzal Guru, whose crimes were
driven by political ideologies be treated any different?
Yet, the Apex court with such a fine history of always taking the higher path
when faced with unclear evidence even if the crime was heinous adopted
different approaches in the case of Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon. After all, if
the convicts in the Priyadarshini Mattoo and Soumya murder case, with their
lack of empathy and driven by a compulsive need to commit violence, could
continue to live - why should Yakub Memon and Afzal Guru, whose crimes were
driven by political ideologies be treated any different? But one received the
death penalty for providing the financial backbone to the terror attack and the
other received the death penalty to "satisfy public conscience", a clear
departure from the Apex Court???s earlier approach to cases involving similar
dynamics. Therefore, we must accept that the death penalty for the Nirbhaya
rapists, though anticipated and inevitable, is the product of a jurisprudence
that is inconsistent, lacks integrity and is frequently a polished version of
mob fury. So why do we continue to apply it?
Deterrence is the 1st argument for the death penalty. However, people fail to
understand that for deterrence to occur, the death penalty must be imposed
consistently across all cases of rape. Yet, in a country with a conviction rate
of around 26 per cent for rape cases, forget the probability of the death
penalty, the probability of being held guilty leans in favour of rapists.
Further, with a police force and a criminal justice system that is perceived as
overworked, underpaid and lacking professionalism, specialisation and respect
for deadlines, deterrence continues to be a distant dream.
On the other hand, keeping convicts alive can potentially reduce the cost for
the state in terms of fighting the lengthy legal proceedings that arise in the
wake of a death penalty. It can enable law enforcement and researchers to break
down the psyche of the sex offender, identify patterns and motives in sex
crimes and develop investigation and prosecution tools necessary to quickly and
effectively achieve justice, just like the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI
did. Don???t the utilities of keeping these criminals alive outweigh the
utility of giving them the death penalty?
Undoubtedly, the debate around the death penalty has no easy answers. But
pending a clear resolution to the inconsistent approaches towards the death
penalty, reason and logic dictate that we suspend it until we have a clear idea
as to when and why we award death to an individual for a crime.
When the dust settles and the public emotions die their quick and natural
death- we as a society have a question to answer. How much safer and how better
off are we with the Nirbhaya convicts being put to death? The answer to this
question, I am afraid, is disappointing.
(source: Commentary; Ashok G.V. practises law in Bengaluru. He advises and
legally represents women and children affected by domestic and sexual
violence----WION news)
BELGIUM/TURKEY:
Belgium will not tolerate a Turkish referendum on the Death Penalty on its
territory
Belgium does not intend to allow Turks in Belgium to take part in a possible
Turkish referendum on reinstating the Death Penalty.
"I won't tolerate it", Prime Minister Charles Michel said when asked by the
RTBF on Saturday. "I think it's unacceptable".
Mr Michel said Belgium will look into the "judicial possibilities" available to
stop the referendum happening on Belgian soil.
The Flemish parties of the Federal majority, the N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld,
already said they didn't want Turks in Belgium to take part in the referendum.
The Turkish President recently announced his intention to hold a referendum on
reinstating the Death Penalty in Turkey.
(source: brusselstimes.com)
BANGLADESH:
Decision on Oishee Rahman appeal coming soon
The appeals court will soon decide the fate of teenager Oishee Rahman who was
sentenced to death by a trial court for murdering her parents -- police
inspector Mahfuzur Rahman and his wife Swapna Rahman.
At the end of a hearing on the death reference and the suspect's appeal on
Sunday, Justice Jahangir Hossain and Justice Md Jahangir Hossain of the High
Court issued an order, reserving their verdict until a future date.
Deputy Attorney General Jahirul Huq Jahir, alongside Associate Attorney General
Atiqul Huq Selim represented the state at the hearing. Sujit Chatterjee Bappi
represented Oishee.
"The issue has been discussed over 13 working days," Jahirul Huq Jahir told
bdnews24.com. "The decision can come any day now."
On Aug 16, 2013, Inspector Mahfuzur Rahman and his wife Swapna Rahman were
found murdered in their apartment in Dhaka in 2013.
The blood-stained bodies were found in a locked bathroom in their apartment.
Police said Oishee mixed sleeping pills in the coffee to render her parents
unconscious.
Later, she stabbed her mother and then her father to death.
After the killings, the teenage girl left the apartment with her younger
brother.
The slain police officer's brother started a murder case the next day. Oishee
surrendered to police the same day.
In March 2014, police pressed charges against Oishee, her 2 friends and the
underage house help.
In November 2015, a Dhaka speedy trial tribunal awarded the death penalty to
Oishee.
Her friend Mizanur Rahman was given a 2-year jail term for aiding and abetting.
The 3rd defendant Asaduzzaman Jony, another friend of Oishee, was acquitted of
the charges of abetment.
The house help is being tried at a juvenile court.
In November 2015, the trial court's order of Oishee's death sentence was
forwarded as the death reference to the High Court for it approval.
On Dec 6 of the same year, Oishee filed a petition challenging the trial
court's verdict.
The court started hearing the matters on Mar 12 this year.
On Apr 10, the High Court judges heard a statement in the judge's chamber to
assess the condition of her mental health.
(source: bdnews24.com)
_______________________________________________
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
