March 2
GLOBAL:
Global war on drugs could harm efforts to abolish death sentences - study; Iran
reforms drive 90% fall in death penalty worldwide, but report warns hardline
approach to minor cases violates human rights
Global efforts to abolish the death penalty are in danger of being undermined
by anti-drug governments that use capital punishment to enforce a
zero-tolerance approach, experts have warned.
The caution comes even though the number of people sentenced to death for drug
offences around the world has actually fallen by nearly 90% over the past four
years, according to a study by Harm Reduction International, with 91 known
deaths last year compared with 755 in 2015.
Giada Girelli, HRI’s human rights analyst and the report’s author, welcomed the
decrease in deaths but warned people are still being killed for minor drug
offences.
“The fall in executions is undeniably positive, but far too many people are
still sentenced to death row, where they suffer serious human rights
violations, for low-level drug offences,” said Girelli. “There is simply no
evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, and this inhumane
practice must be abolished immediately.”
With populist anti-drug rhetoric resurgent around the world, the study raises
fears that global progress on abolishing the death penalty could be reversed.
Bangladesh has instituted a brutal anti-narcotics crackdown, with the prime
minister, Sheikh Hasina, ordering police to deal with the drugs trade using
tactics similar to those they would employ to counter violent extremism. In Sri
Lanka, where the death penalty has not been used since 1976, President
Maithripala Sirisena – who has praised the brutal campaign against drugs in the
Philippines as an “example to the world” – recently announced that convicted
drug dealers will be hanged.
Donald Trump has talked up the prospect of capital punishment for drug
traffickers in the US, while the Singaporean government, having previously
pursued a zero-tolerance policy that earned the US president’s approval, is
discussing whether to abolish the death penalty following an international
outcry over disproportionate punishments. All executions carried out in the
island state last year were for non-violent drug offences.
Although drug offences can still be punished by death in at least 35 countries
and territories, only four states carried out such sentences last year. At
least 59 people were killed in Saudi Arabia, while a minimum of 23 died in Iran
and nine in Singapore.
Death sentences were also imposed in China, but the country’s figures are
shrouded in secrecy, said Girelli, who warned the actual number of deaths in
2018 was probably far higher than the 91 noted in the study.
The sharp global reduction in death sentences was largely driven by landmark
reforms in Iran, where the threshold for capital punishment owing to drugs
possession was raised amid a growing sense that mandatory sentences fail to
deter drug use and trafficking. “The truth is, the execution of drug smugglers
has had no deterrent effect,” said Mohammad Baqer Olfat, the deputy head of
Iran’s judiciary. The number of people put to death in Iran following criminal
justice proceedings went from 725 a year in 2010, to 221 in 2017.
Globally, at least 7,000 people – many illiterate and from impoverished
backgrounds – are on death row after being forced to act as “drug mules”,
according to the study. “In short, it appears that the death penalty for drug
offences is primarily reserved for the most marginalised in society,” wrote
Girelli.
Experts say the death penalty fails to impact the drug trade, inflicting misery
on poverty-stricken families while failing to ensnare key players because they
can afford expensive legal defences.
“Those sentenced to death for drug offences are often people at the lowest
level of the trade, a number of whom may have entered it out of coercion or
simply having no economic choice,” Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman, dean of
medicine at the University of Malaya, said. “In these scenarios, the legal
system will only exploit their indigence, as stories of no access to legal aid
and sham trials are all too common.”
(source: The Guardian)
************************
Death penalty examined at Belgium forum
At the World Congress against the Death Penalty in Brussels, the use of capital
punishment is considered a political and human rights issue.
Education campaigns, art exhibits and petition signing have all been part of
the World Congress against the Death Penalty in Brussels.
More than 20,000 prisoners are on "death row", but 114 countries have abolished
capital punishment and 32 others have introduced a moratorium.
Just this week, Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi defended his country's
use of execution by saying that his country had a "different culture", but
abolitionist campaigners see it as a political and human rights debate, and one
that is slowly shifting.
(source: aljazeera.com)
********************
Abolition now! Hundreds march to demand end to death penalty
They chanted in languages the world understands: “Abolition now! Abolition
now!”
And with that, hundreds of people from across the globe marched through the
streets of central Brussels Friday evening carrying placards and helium
balloons calling for an end to capital punishment.
The march culminated the 7th World Congress Against the Death Penalty held in
the Belgian capital and came 12 hours after Billie Wayne Coble, a 70-year-old
Texas man became the United States’ 3rd citizen to be put to death since the
start of the year.
25 others were executed last year.
Coble had been on death row for 29 years after he was convicted for the 1989
slayings of his ex-wife’s parents and her brother.
Before the march, participants supported a declaration for several measures to
intensify the lobby against the death penalty.
The United States came in for special mention and would again feature as
Henriette Geiger of the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation of
the European Commission made her remarks.
"It is unacceptable that more than 2,400 people remain on death row in the
United States and that the true extent of the use of the death penalty in
China, the world’s top executioner, is unknown as this data is classified as a
state secret," she said.
Geiger said the European Union remains the international actor to fight the
death penalty worldwide, pumping more than 15 million Euros into abolition
efforts in places like the United States, China, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and
Kenya.
2 days earlier, the vice president of the European Parliament, Pavel Telicka,
told The Gleaner that Europe could step up the pressure on Jamaica to abolish
the death penalty.
There has been no execution in Jamaica and other Caribbean countries for up to
30 years in some instances but the law remain on their books.
In a 1993 ruling in the Pratt & Morgan case, the United Kingdom-based Privy
Council ruled that it was inhumane to have a convict on death row for more than
5 years.
This essentially makes executions impossible in the Caribbean since it would
take more than 5 years before all the appeals by a convict may be exhausted.
Meanwhile, Geiger said the EU’s anti-death-penalty efforts were reaping success
as last October, Washington became the 20th American state to abolish capital
punishment.
"The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights, it does not deter
crime or improve public safety and it should be ended once and for all,” she
said.
Geiger also cited the Washington Supreme Court ruling abolishing the death
penalty saying it was imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.
(source: Jamaica Gleaner)
IRAN:
Lawyer of Juvenile Offender on Death Row Says Client Mohammad Kalhori Should be
Pardoned
Despite being diagnosed with mental and emotional disorders, Mohammad Kalhori
is facing imminent execution in Iran for a crime he allegedly committed at the
age of 15, his attorney Hossein Aghakhani told the Center for Human Rights in
Iran (CHRI) on February 28, 2019.
With the sentence already issued and confirmed, Kalhori’s lawyer has asked the
victim’s family to pardon him on the grounds that he was just a minor without
mental maturity at the time of the crime, as allowed by the presiding court in
the city of Boroujerd, Lorestan Province.
“Unfortunately, my client’s execution order has gone through the full judicial
process and he could be hanged at any moment,” Aghakhani told CHRI. “The
enforcement office has told his family that time is limited and if they don’t
get a pardon from the victim’s family, he could be hanged soon.”
“[The victim Mohsen] Khashkhashi’s family has so far refused to grant a pardon
but on the other hand, there is evidence and medical documents to show that the
judiciary should have reviewed the death sentence because of my client’s mental
and emotional disorders,” he added.
On February 21, the UN called on Iran to “halt the execution of this child
offender and immediately annul the death sentence against him, in line with its
international obligations.”
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is illegal to execute someone for
crimes committed under the age of 18. Iran is party to both treaties but
remains one among a handful of countries still putting juveniles to death.
According to Article 91 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, “If mature people under
18-years-old do not realize the nature of the crime committed or its
prohibition, or if there is uncertainty about their full mental development,
according to their age” they can be spared the death penalty.
In September 2016, Branch 2 of the Criminal Court in Lorestan sentenced
Kalhori, who was born in March 1998, to death for murdering his teacher in
November 2014. In April 2016, the medical examiner of Lorestan Province
determined Kalhori was not mentally mature when the crime was committed.
“My client was 15 when the murder happened,” Kalhori’s attorney, Hassan
Aghakhani, told CHRI on February 22, 2018.
“According to the medical examiner’s opinion, his action was not based on
reason or logic and he was lacking mental development,” he added. “His adviser
in the juvenile reform center also says that he didn’t have the mental ability
to understand his action.”
The attorney added: “Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code should be applied to
him but unfortunately, the court has not paid attention to this matter.”
Interference with the Judicial Process
Aghaghani told CHRI that his attempts to reverse the death sentence had been
unsuccessful because a deputy education minister and an influential member of
Iran’s Parliament had asked the court to “look after” the victim’s family.
“We lodged an appeal and made 2 requests [in June and October 2017] for a
judicial review by Branch 33 of the Supreme Court presided by Judge Mohammad
Niazi,” Aghaghani said. “But [Judge Niazi] believes in retribution. When it was
time to consider the appeal, unfortunately there was a letter from a deputy
education minister and 2 letters from Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who is the member of
Parliament from Boroujerd [city] and chairman of the Parliamentary Committee
for National Security and Foreign Policy, requesting that the judge to look
after the victim, not the murderer.”
Aghakhani continued: “When it was determined that my client did not have
sufficient mental development, we did not expect the political and security
officials to get involved. This kid could have been saved if the law followed a
normal course, without the court being influenced by the political climate, but
unfortunately, they interfered in this case.”
Kalhori killed his physics teacher, Mohammad Khashkhashi, with a pocket knife
after allegedly being physically attacked for alleged disobedience on November
22, 2014, at the Hafezi High School in Boroujerd, Lorestan Province.
“At the preliminary stage [March 2016], Branch 1 of the Criminal Court in
Lorestan Province sentenced my client to three years in prison and ordered him
to pay blood money to the victim’s parents,” Aghakhani told CHRI.
“But the victim’s family appealed the decision [in September 2016] and Branch
31 of the Supreme Court struck down the ruling and ordered a new trial, which
resulted in a death sentence against my client without regard to Article 91 of
the Islamic Penal Code,” he added.
According to Islamic law, Diyah, known as “blood money” in English, is paid as
financial compensation to the victim or heirs of a victim in cases of murder,
bodily harm, or property damage.
Kalhori has been held at a juvenile rehabilitation center in Lorestan Province
since November 2014.
In a UN report on the human rights situations in Iran covering the period of
January 2018 to October 2018, Special Rapporteur Javaid Rehman called on Iran’s
Parliament to “urgently amend legislation” to prohibit the execution of people
who committed crimes while under the age of 18 and amend the legislation to
commute all existing sentences for child offenders on death row.”
(source: Iran Human Rights)
********************
Iran Rejects UN Special Rapporteur’s ‘Baseless’ Allegation
The Iranian Judiciary’s High Council for Human Rights rejected recent
allegations leveled against the country by the United Nation’s special
rapporteur as “baseless”, saying the person is misusing his position to
propaganda against the Islamic Republic.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the High Council for Human Rights said
Javaid Rehman’s numerous interviews with various media outlets including the
BBC, which is well known for its hostile reports against Iran, are “a blatant
violation” of the UN framework, within which he has been chosen as special
rapporteur.
“Undoubtedly, his propaganda activities, which are accompanied by the misuse of
a UN official title, and his baseless allegations against Iran, seriously cast
doubt on his competence as a rapporteur,” the statement read.
In his latest report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council on February 27,
Rehman raised allegations over purported human rights violations in Iran,
paying particular attention to the way the death penalty is carried out in the
Islamic Republic.
In a meeting in Geneva in March 2018, the United Nations Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) passed a resolution against Iran and extended the special rapporteur’s
mandate for another year.
According to Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi, Iran believes
that the extension of the mandate of the special rapporteur for another year is
“unjustifiable and unnecessary”.
Tehran insists that the appointment of a UN special rapporteur on Iran’s human
rights situation is a selective, politically-motivated and unacceptable move.
(source: tasnimnews.com)
CANADA:
Life imprisonment more cost effective than death penalty
Dear editor,
Dan McNee wrote an excellent article on (the capital punishment) issue covering
all the major points on the reasons for having the death penalty in Canada
again. However, when he mentioned briefly about the high cost of housing a
prisoner for life, he was inviting a comparison of the total costs involved in
defending a death-penalty situation.
I looked back at some evidence I had seen years ago about the total costs of
having a capital punishment society. Because we haven't had the death penalty
in Canada for several decades,a true comparison is difficult. According to
federal data on this subject, the annual cost of housing a prisoner in a
Canadian federal prison is now pushing close to $120,000. Over perhaps an
average lifespan in jail of 40 years, that's several million dollars.
But what would be the legal costs of getting each death penalty case to its
inevitable conclusion? Since virtually all death penalty cases involve tax
dollars being used to pay for the accused's defence team, we have to consider
not only the trial of the accused but also the multitude of appeals. And
taxpayers would be paying for the Crown prosecutors as well as the defence
lawyers every step of the way. There are more appeals in the whole process of a
death-penalty case than there are in a life-in-prison situation. We're looking
at taking a life, so every opportunity to present every possible avenue of
appeal must be allowed.
In 1992, The Dallas Morning News reported that “the average cost of a Texas
death penalty case is $2.3 million vs. $750,000 for life in prison.” In 2014,
the cost of the death penalty case had risen to $3.8 million as reported by one
defence lawyer, so by now, it's likely over $4 million. And then if the
governor decides at the last minute to commute the inmate's death sentence to
life in prison with no chance of parole, the state has paid for all of those
appeals and will then house that inmate for life — a total cost to the
taxpayers of probably over $8 million!
Sometimes prison justice works in favour of the taxpayer and that inmate may
not make it to old age.
John McVicar
Listowel
******************************
Making the case for life imprisonment vs. death penalty
Dear editor,
I wanted to talk about the recent opinion piece, “The case for capital
punishment.”
My question to you is: Can we decide if a person (using that term loosely) is
beyond rehabilitation at the time they are convicted? I’m reminded of the movie
The Life of David Gale, which explores this issue from the side of those
working to abolish the death penalty. Yes, the crimes are unimaginable and the
person may seem socially and mentally gone, but should we decide if they have
“incurable urges”?
To me, there is a question of if they would “resort to their previous
behaviour.” There is sometimes even a question of whether you have the right
person, though that doesn't appear to be the case with Bruce McArthur. I would
leave the answer to those questions to the members of the parole board after
rehabilitation has been attempted. I do agree that 25 years will probably be
the rest of Bruce McArthur’s life. I also acknowledge that there is a case for
the death penalty.
From the outside looking at a story like that of McArthur, we would often
prefer a story that ends with the death of someone who had taken lives. I would
argue that McArthur’s death would be of little consolation for those who have
lost a beloved family member or friend. I think you would get different answers
to that question from different family and friends.
Dan McNee raises another good point about society footing the bill to lock up
these killers for the rest of their natural lives. My response would be that
this is actually cheaper than keeping someone waiting for, and then having
society pay for, an execution. The Dallas Morning News presented a study that
found an average death penalty case was nearly 3 times more expensive than
imprisoning someone in maximum security for life.
That does not bring up the question of cruel punishment. Cruel may be exactly
how to describe their crimes, but the death penalty is a way for these
criminals to get out of jail without serving their time. Exactly as McNee
mentioned, I think the best punishment would be “locked in a small room with
only their twisted thoughts.”
I can’t imagine losing someone you love in such a horrible way. My retribution
would be passing some of that pain onto their killer. Hell may or may not be
the final destination for these criminals. Either way, I wouldn’t want to let
them escape the torment of their crime or the thought that they may spend the
rest of their life in prison. Torment may be more of a deterrent to this type
of behaviour than death.
Dave Johnson
Listowel
(source for both: Letters to the Editor, southwesternontario.ca)
INDONESIA:
South Sumatra court delivers death penalty to 9 drug dealers
The Palembang District Court in South Sumatra sentenced 9 people to death on
Thursday after finding them guilty of transporting 80 kilograms of crystal
methamphetamine.
According to the hearings of the trial, the convicts, all of whom originally
come from Surabaya, East Java, were caught transporting drugs from Palembang to
Java between March and April of 2018. They transported them using a truck that
was loaded with cassava as a cover.
The police first arrested 3 who had left 3.5 kilograms of the crystal meth at a
Palembang airport, which led to the arrest of 5 others at a hotel in Surabaya,
where they were found with 5.8 kilograms of meth and 4,950 ecstasy pills.
The leader of the group, Letto, is 25 while most of the other members are in
their 20s.
“What the defendants have done is they have damaged the youth and the
government is currently waging a war on drugs,” said jugde Efrata Tarigan.
They were all sentenced to death despite prosecutors' earlier demand of a life
sentence.
South Sumatra Police narcotics unit deputy director Adj. Sr. Comr. Amazona
Pelamonia said the sentence should serve as a warning to other drug dealers
operating in Palembang.
“They are a syndicate from Surabaya that was caught after a lengthy
investigation,” Amazona said on Friday. “The death penalty will create a
deterrent effect and serves as a warning to other [drug traffickers].”
Amazona added that South Sumatra had potential routes for drug syndicates
because of its developed land transportation infrastructure and the
availability of interprovincial flights.
Arif Rahman, a lawyer of the defendants, said he would appeal the verdict,
saying that the convicts were “victims” of a drug syndicate.
“Maybe the judges had other considerations that pushed them to sentence all of
my clients to death,” Arif said.
(source: The Jakarta Post)
MALAYSIA:
Lawyer calls for review of laws that don’t deliver justice----Give judges
discretionary powers in death penalty cases, says Abdul Rashid Ismail.
There is a need to review laws with only one single punishment and which do not
provide equal justice to everyone, a lawyer said yesterday.
Some laws, said Abdul Rashid Ismail, had mandatory death sentences and as such
did not take cognisance of the differences in situations and did not allow the
power of discretion to judges.
Rashid, the past president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam), said
the criminal justice system was such that when a person was convicted of a
crime which carried the death sentence, he would get the mandatory death
sentence.
However, he noted that not everyone’s criminal offence was of the same level of
severity.
“But because our laws have the mandatory death sentence, judges do not have
discretionary powers. Maybe for one offender, it is their 1st time. Therefore,
is the death penalty suitable?
“We need to review the laws because there is no justice in terms of the
punishment for offences,” he said at an “Abolish the Death Penalty” forum and
art exhibition at Wisma WIM here last night.
The forum was opened by Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh.
Also present were Suaram documentation and monitoring officer Dobby Chew,
Amnesty International Malaysia executive director Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu
and Taiwanese prison warden and artist Ewam Lin.
Rashid said there was a need to give judges discretionary powers to consider
mitigating factors to either reduce or increase sentences.
“Judges need the discretion to determine the level of severity of the offences
committed. Surely those who are 1st-time offenders will not be given the death
sentence immediately?” he asked.
To a question as to what happens to those who commit crimes, such as murder, in
the absence of the death penalty, Rashid said the abolition of the death
penalty did not mean “we let people go”.
“There is still the life sentence. When a person has to spend 30 to 40 years in
prison, their suffering is far greater. We are doing them a favour. Individuals
in prison, they do not have much to do, hence they will have a lot of time to
reflect,” he said.
Rashid also spoke on the imperfections of the criminal justice system, where
the poor facing the death penalty would often get the short end of the stick.
He explained that when an accused could not afford a lawyer, one was assigned
by the court.
“Because the lawyers are appointed by the court, the quality and the standards
vary.
“These lawyers get paid RM6,000. And mind you, there is a lot of work that goes
with death penalty cases, and when they are paid that amount, not everyone will
actually put their heart and soul into the case,” he said.
Rashid said some became lawyers to earn a living while others were truly
passionate about their profession.
“With the pool of lawyers, the quality varies. In facing the death penalty, the
poor get unequal representation.
“With the system that we have, if the lawyer is unable to give 100% to the
client, who suffers? Is it justice? It is like a lottery,” he said.
Rashid urged Malaysians, as people with compassion, to think about the less
fortunate, and not just themselves.
“Imagine those who cannot afford legal representation. If you have the death
penalty, the poor will always be the greater losers. Even those who are not so
poor – the middle class – they would not have the means either.
“Not everyone can actually take out RM50,000 to pay (for legal fees). There are
people (who have gone to the extent of) selling their properties.
“Think about this particular problem. If someone is not given proper
representation, they may not succeed. The law is against you,” he said.
Another issue, Rashid said, was how people tended to judge others based on how
they spoke.
“Say, there is someone with mental health issues. They do not know how to
speak. And we judge, like judges, based on how they speak.
“For example, you have a very good witness who lies, but speaks well, and then
you say ‘oh what a great piece of evidence’.
“But an honest person who cannot speak well, who did not get a proper
education, you don’t understand them and you say they are not telling the
truth,” he said.
Rashid said the government’s decision to abolish the death penalty sent a
message that “justice is not only for the rich but also the poor”.
The Cabinet decided in October last year to abolish the mandatory death penalty
for all offences. All death sentences have since been stayed until the
abolition of the death penalty comes into effect.
De facto law minister VK Liew reportedly said the Cabinet would make a final
decision at one of its weekly meetings next month on whether to table in
Parliament a proposal to abolish the death penalty.
In Malaysia, 32 offences under eight acts carry the mandatory death sentence,
including murder, drug trafficking, kidnapping, treason and waging war against
the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
(source: freemalaysiatoday.com)
INDIA:
The 5 convicts were awarded death penalty by the Delhi High Court in March
2014----2012 Delhi gangrape convicts may file curative petition challenging
capital punishment
The 4 convicts in the 2012 Delhi gangrape case may file a curative petition,
challenging their capital punishment.
The convicts' counsel informed the Delhi's Patiala House Court of the likely
development on Saturday.
Tihar jail authorities also communicated the same to the court, reported news
agency ANI. The authorities will file a status report in the case on the next
date of scheduled hearing, April 6.
23-year-old paramedic, Nirbhaya, was gang-raped by 5 men and a juvenile in a
moving bus in Delhi on December 16, 2012. She passed away 13 days later. The
incident sparked a massive outrage across the nation.
The 5 convicts were awarded death penalty by the Delhi High Court in March
2014.
On July 9, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of
India Dipak Misra and comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R.
Bhanumathi, upheld the death sentence awarded to 4 of the accused in May 2017
after 3 of them, Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, and Pawan Gupta filed a petition
in the court to review the judgment.
Akshay Singh, the 4th convict, did not file a review petition against his death
sentence.
The leader and the 5th member of the gang, Ram Singh, allegedly committed
suicide in jail nearly 3 months after the crime, while the juvenile was
convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board and was let off in December 2015 after
serving 3 years in a reformation home.
A curative petition is the final judicial resort which can be pleaded for a
review in any judgment or decision passed by the Supreme Court.
(source: zeenews.com)
KENYA:
Kenya’s Poachers To Face Execution For Killing Treasured Species----After
months of debate, the African nation appears poised to ignore concerns from the
United Nations.
Kenya’s tourism and wildlife minister, Najib Balala, announced a bold move last
year, one with the intention of curbing the country’s serious poaching problem.
Activists worldwide had a mixed response to Balala’s plan to execute poachers —
most wildlife lovers praised the idea, but several human rights groups spoke
out against the death penalty.
News 360, an online paper from South Africa, reported that none of the
controversies appears to have changed Balala’s mind. In fact, it’s believed
that Kenyan lawmakers are now in the process of fast-tracking the proposed
death penalty law, one which dramatically increases the already steep stakes
for convicted poachers. Until this law is enacted, poachers will continue to
face a fine of $200,000, or life behind bars.
Advocacy group Save the Rhino collects data about Kenyan animal poaching. In a
2-year span from 2016 to 2017, the advocacy group claims that at least 23
rhinos and 156 elephants lost their lives to poachers in just 1 country. In
total, Save the Rhino claims that there were 2,082 rhino poaching incidents in
Africa during the same 2 years. The immediate effect of Balala’s threat
apparently made a difference in 2018, though, when the continent-wide poaching
number dropped to 769.
The situation in the Congo Basin is even more desperate. According to National
Geographic, almost 30,000 elephants die annually due to poaching. It’s unknown
if the Democratic Republic of the Congo has any plans to adopt Kenya’s death
penalty strategy.
The Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation pointed out that only 4 % of Kenyan wildlife
poaching cases were prosecuted before the country switched to a large fine and
life in prison. It seems probable that other hard-hit areas — like the Congo —
will be watching to see if making the move from a life sentence to execution
makes another dramatic difference in the number of overall poaching incidents.
The United Nations (U.N.) takes a hard line against deploying the death penalty
for any crime. In 2017, the U.N. proposed a global moratorium to abolish legal
execution altogether. U.N. News indicated that the organization’s official
stance is that “the death penalty has no place in the 21st century.”
The Conversation looked closely at this thorny legal issue in May of 2018. They
quoted Balala as saying that life in prison “has not been a deterrence enough
to curb poaching.” However, the death penalty has also been shown not to have a
big impact on crime. Kenya had even previously commuted all death penalty
sentences to life behind bars.
Borgen Magazine made this topic even more complicated back in 2017. The
magazine’s report on poaching indicated that 80 % of poachers live in poverty,
and kill endangered animals for money and for food. Additionally, 96 % of the
poachers in question said they’d be happy to quit if they could make a
sufficient income elsewhere. This highly suggests that many of the people
killing these animals are working for crime lords who rake in most of the
profits.
There’s one major question that Kenya’s proposed law may soon answer: will the
main benefactors of illegal poaching be deterred by the death of their workers,
or will they simply hire new poachers? Many protesters against Kenya’s death
penalty plan believe that fixing the area’s economic woes would protect
endangered animals much more efficiently than threatening poor locals with
execution.
(source: inquisitr.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
