[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
November 4 MALAYSIA: Malaysia should abolish the death penalty entirely without delay The recent announcement by the Malaysian government to abolish the death penalty has received divisive responses – on one hand, it was hailed by human rights advocates but on the other, it seems to be opposed by the general Malaysian public. Even though there are many voices in urging the government to review this move and to listen to views of the majority of the people, the government shouldabolish the death penalty in its totality and it should be abolished now. This is because the death penalty goes against the most basic and fundamental right – the right to life. And in fact, we were already late in this as there are 106 countries which have abolished the death penalty. Death penalty and deterrence Many have argued that by doing away with death penalty, we will see the rise in crimes, especially heinous crimes like murder. However, studies after studies have shown that death penalty does not deter crimes more effectively than prison sentence. In fact, they reveal otherwise. According to Amnesty International, Canada since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, its murder rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966. A study conducted in 2008 in the United States which was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology further found that 88 per cent of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe that death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. Back to Malaysia, we have had death penalty for drug offences since 1975 and in 1983, we even made it mandatory for drug trafficking. The question is, was it effective? For us to say that by abolishing the death penalty would result in the increase of serious crimes would therefore be too simplistic and would in fact blind us from other more relevant factors and causes of such crimes. Justice for victims and families Others have argued that justice will only be served if those criminals especially murderers were being put to death for taking the lives of others. For those advocating for the abolition of death penalty would often be asked the question “What if it was your loved one being killed or raped?”. In all honesty, the very first answer or reaction that came to mind for most people, if not all, would probably be for the murderers or rapists to be killed! In fact, the late Karpal Singh who was a leading opponent of death penalty has once suggested for child rapists to be sentenced to death. The topic of death penalty is indeed a difficult one as it cannot be debated without involving emotions. Only those victims and their families would be able to understand the pain and sufferings. However, if we were to look at this again rationally, we will realise thatwhat we are actually talking about is not justice but mere vengeance. Wanting to seek for vengeance can be understood but cannot and should not be accepted and be made into a policy of a civilised society. If we are going to live in a society of “an eye for an eye” by imposing death on murderers who took the lives of our loved ones away, are we then going to rape the rapists, assault those who have assaulted us and so forth? And if for any reason, a murderer managed to escape the law, are we then going to condone extrajudicial killing just so “justice” is served? Wrongful convictions We have to accept that no one and no system in world is perfect and not infallible. If a study in 2014 is right, then at least 4.1 per cent of all people who receive the death penalty in the United States are innocent. Even if one were to argue that the United States’ justice system is different than Malaysia’s and our justice system is better, then let us not forget Malaysia’s classic case of S. Karthigesu, who was probably the lucky amongst the unlucky ones. Therefore, even if we are going on with the assumption that our rate of wrongful convictions is merely 1 per cent, it will still mean that there would probably be at least 12 out of the 1267 inmates currently on the death row are innocent. And that is only on the assumption that the rate is 1 per cent and it does not include those who have been executed. The death penalty has to be abolished in its entirety because by doing away with mandatory death penalty alone but retaining discretionary death penalty would not totally eliminate the possibility of innocent people being sent to the gallows as it would at its best reduce the number. The thought of having even one innocent person who could be wrongly executed should make us feel sick. If not, then we might be no different than those murderers whom we condemned as we are allowing innocent persons to be killed. Remember, that one person is also someone’s parent, child, sibling, spouse, relative or friend. And that one person could be our loved ones. When we talk about “justice” for the victims and their
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TENN.
November 4 TENNESSEE: Jurors to begin deliberations Sunday in Wilbourn death penalty case Defendant changes mind, doesn't testify during trial for killing MPD officer Shelby County Prosecutor Reginald Henderson stood in the middle of the courtroom and pulled the trigger on an unloaded 9mm gun. He then pulled the trigger 10 more times. The gun was used as a prop to demonstrate for the jury the 11 times authorities say Tremaine Wilbourn, the man accused of killing Memphis police officer Sean Bolton, fired the same type of gun at the officer on the night of Aug. 1, 2015, in a neighborhood in Parkway Village. Authorities said Wilbourn shot Bolton after the officer approached an illegally parked Mercedes-Benz in the 4800 block of Summerlane in the area of Cottonwood and South Perkins. The driver of the car fled after Bolton shined a spotlight in the car. Wilbourn, who was a passenger, was being detained by Bolton when the two scuffled and Wilbourn is accused of shooting the officer eight times including once in the face. Bolton later died at Regional One Health after one of the bullets pierced an artery in his thigh. “There was a shot. Then there were 10 more shots. I submit to you that premediation is not an issue. This is first-degree murder,” Henderson said. Prosecutors urged jurors to convict Wilbourn, 32, of first-degree murder in the officer’s death during closing arguments Saturday in the capital murder trial. “There is no question who did it or where he did it, ” prosecutor Alanda Dwyer told jurors. “We don’t know what was in Tremaine Wilbourn’s mind, but we know what he did. If you shoot someone all over their body what is your intent? Your intent is to kill them, and that is exactly what Tremaine Wilbourn intended and he did everything in his power to get away with it.” Defense attorney Lauren Pasley did not dispute that Wilbourn shot Bolton, but she disputed that he intentionally meant to kill the officer. “If he intended to kill him why would he ask all of those witnesses to get their cameras out and record it,” Pasley said. She said he panicked that night because he was a convicted felon with a loaded gun that night. “We admit to shooting Officer Bolton. He carjacked someone. The list gets longer. He is an ex-felon. "True, that is true, but that does not make Tremaine a cold-blooded killer either.” Wilbourn, who earlier in the trial said he intended to testify, told the court Saturday morning that he “wishes to remain silent” and changed his mind about taking the stand in his defense acknowledging that he understood that he could be asked about possible gang ties. He is charged with first-degree murder, carjacking, employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous offense and a felon in possession of a handgun. Judge Lee Coffee told the jurors there are 15 possible verdicts to reach in the case. He dismissed jurors at 4:27 p.m. Saturday, saying he did not want them to think they had to rush to reach a verdict on the charges. They will begin their deliberations at 9 a.m. Sunday, Nov. 4, 2018. The trial started at 10:30 a.m. Saturday, Nov. 3, 2018, giving the 15 jurors time to visit the crime scene before court got underway for the day. During the proceedings, defense attorney Juni Ganguli presented a motion for prejudgment acquittal to the court. After reading a litany of case law and other factors in the case, the judge denied the motion, telling the attorneys with the jury out of the courtroom that the slaying of Bolton was a “particularly cruel offense.” He added that the fatal shooting was premeditated by Wilbourn because the defendant made the decision not to return to prison that night as he was a convicted felon in possession of a handgun when he encountered the officer. Wilbourn, who was convicted of federal bank robbery in 2005 and served 10 years, had been released from prison in 2014 and was on federal probation when the shooting occurred. “Officer Bolton was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Coffee said. “Officer Bolton was acting 100 percent in the scope of what he was charged to do that night. This is a particularly cruel offense where a officer was shot multiple times and his face was ripped off by a bullet.” Wilbourn turned himself in two days after shooting and killing the officer, but Coffee said Saturday they never found the 9mm gun. "Three years later it is nowhere to be found," Coffee said. (source: dailymemphian.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
