[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- worldwide

[Joerg Sommer]

death penalty news

July 8, 2004


JAMAICA:

Jamaica Death Penalty Abolished in Court Ruling

Britain’s Privy Council has ruled that Jamaica’s mandatory death penalty 
for murder convictions was unconstitutional.

But the Privy Council, which serves as the highest appeal court for many 
former British colonies, found today that automatic death sentences for 
convicted murderers did not violate the constitutions of Barbados and Trinidad.

The Council reversed its 2003 ruling that Trinidad’s mandatory death 
penalty for murder convictions was unconstitutional.

But the Privy Council said it would substitute a sentence of life 
imprisonment for anyone under the death sentence in Trinidad, arguing it 
would be unfair to deprive them of the benefit of last year’s ruling.

The Privy Council was considering appeals against death sentences by four 
convicted murderers: Lambert Watson in Jamaica, Lennox Ricardo Boyce and 
Jeffrey Joseph in Barbados, and Charles Matthew in Trinidad.

The Privy Council sat as a panel of nine judges, including eight English 
law lords and one Caribbean judge, Edward Zacca.

They ruled that Jamaica’s automatic death sentence for convicted murderers 
was inconsistent with section 17(1) of that country’s constitution, which 
provides that “no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or 
degrading punishment or other treatment”.

The judges found that “basic humanity requires that the appellant should be 
given an opportunity to show why the sentence of death should not be passed 
on him”.

The ruling left it open to judges in Jamaica to impose the death sentence 
or a lesser penalty, depending on the relevant circumstances.

The judges ordered that Watson’s death sentence be set aside and that his 
case be sent back to the Supreme Court of Jamaica to decide what sentence 
should be pronounced. Watson was convicted five years ago of the 1997 
murder of his daughter Georgina Watson and her mother Eugenie Samuels.

The Privy Council ruled by a majority of 5-4 that the mandatory death 
sentence for convicted murderers did not breach the constitutions of 
Barbados or Trinidad.

It found that the constitutions protected individuals from “inhuman or 
degrading punishment” or “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”.

But it also found that both documents had provisions protecting laws 
already existing at the time the constitutions were written – such as those 
instituting the automatic death penalty for murderers – from being 
invalidated by the constitutions.

(source: Scotsman)


==============

PHILIPPINES:

Supreme Court orders C.A. to review death penalty cases

The Court of Appeals (C.A.) was given another responsibility as the Supreme 
Court ruled that the imposition of death penalty, reclusion perpetua or 
life imprisonment should be reviewed first by the appellate court before 
they render any judgment.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Vitug, the Court said it 
would be wise and compelling to have such cases reviewed first by the C.A. 
before it is elevated to them “to ensure utmost circumspection” in the 
imposition of the penalty.

“Where life and liberty is at stake, all possible avenues to determine 
innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the 
facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the C.A. on, 
particularly the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error 
of judgment,” it said in its 27-page decision.

If the C.A. affirms the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life 
imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding 
penalty as the circumstances warrant it, but “refrain from entering 
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court 
for final decision.”

The ruling was made in connection with the case of Efren Mateo, who was 
charged with 10 counts of rape of his stepdaughter.

Mateo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac and was sentenced 
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.

Vitug said the deliberations of this case had been marked with an absence 
of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of Mateo. The 
dilemma was that the Court had to first determine the factual matters of 
the case when it should be the lower court, particularly the C.A., that 
should be reviewing factual issues as mandated by the Constitution.

It ordered that Mateo’s case and all the pertinent records involving this 
case be forwarded to the C.A. for appropriate action.

Before Mateo’s case, the High Court assumed the direct appellate review of 
all criminal cases in which death, reclusion perpetua, or life 
imprisonment, was the penalty imposed as provided by Article 47 of the 
Revised Penal Code or the Death Penalty Law.

The Court also disclosed that since the reimposition of the death penalty 
law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed capital 
punishment to 1,493 and out of these number, 907 had been reviewed by the 
justices.

“In the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers, find their way for 
automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230 cases 
comprising 25.36 percent of the total number,” it said.

(source: ABS CBN News)


=======================

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO:

Death Penalty a Must

86 killers get reprieve

Eight months after the Privy Council found that this country's death 
penalty was not a mandatory sentence, the Council reversed itself 
yesterday, saying that it was up to Parliament to make such a change.

The judgment, on the appeal of convicted murder Charles Matthew, means that 
anyone found guilty of murder after yesterday will automatically be 
sentenced to hang. However, the 86 prisoners currently awaiting execution 
have been granted a reprieve.

Since they had been given the hope of being re-sentenced following the 
first judgment-on the appeal of convicted murderer Balkisoon Roodal-it 
would be a "cruel punishment" to now affirm the death sentences, so their 
sentences were all commuted to life imprisonment, the Council ruled.

The judgment was greeted with pleasure by Attorney General John Jeremie who 
said in a statement to the media that "the (Privy Council found that it) 
has no licence to read its own moral values into the Trinidad and Tobago 
Constitution".

"I consider the law in relation to the application of the death penalty to 
be finally and conclusively determined by (yesterday's) decision," he 
continued.

But Douglas Mendes SC, who was part of the team that represented Matthew, 
said the ruling was "a bit perplexing" and that it was "not something that 
anybody should be happy about".

"This decision retards the development of constitutional rights in this 
country. The result is that we are stuck with archaic laws," he told the 
media yesterday during an interview at his Duke Street, Port of Spain, office.

There was also strong dissent from within the ranks of the Council itself 
as four of the unprecedented nine judges who heard the appeal voiced their 
disagreement in a minority judgment.

"We consider the decision of the majority to be unsound in law and 
productive of grave injustice to a small but important class of people in 
Trinidad and Tobago. It is in our opinion clear that the interpretation... 
which commends itself to the majority does not ensure the protection of 
fundamental human rights and freedoms, degrades the dignity of the human 
person and does not respect the rule of law," the minority judgment stated.

"Times have changed. Human rights values set higher standards today. The 
common endeavour, to rid the world of man's inhumanity is no longer 
acceptable. To condemn every person convicted of murder to death regardless 
of the circumstances is a form of inhumane punishment," it continued.

Matthew, 61, of Arima, was sentenced to death in 1999 for killing his 
former lover, Louise Gittens, out of jealousy.

His appeal was heard together with three other appeals from Jamaica and 
Barbados. All the appeals had challenged the mandatory nature of the 
penalty in each country, and a tri-nation team had been assembled to argue 
the appeals in March this year.

One Caribbean judge, Justice Edward Zacca of Jamaica, presided over the 
appeals alongside the other eight English Law Lords.

The Council also ruled that the mandatory death sentence in Barbados was to 
remain, but said the penalty was unconstitutional in Jamaica.

In Roodal's appeal, the Council had first established that the death 
penalty was inconsistent with the Constitution, which guarantees citizens 
the right to life and protection from inhumane punishment.

The Council then decided that the language of a "savings" clause, which had 
stated that the penalty was not to be held to be unconstitutional, was not 
strong enough to protect the penalty from being altered. The mandatory 
sentence was then quashed, and the Council had ordered that the penalty was 
to be imposed on the discretion of trial judges after hearing mitigating 
circumstances from a convicted murderer.

In Matthew's appeal, the Council found that the clause did, in fact, 
protect the penalty from being affected.

"As the Constitution itself makes express provision for the exercise of the 
power of commutation by the President and preserves the mandatory death 
penalty, their Lordships do not think that there is some other principle by 
which these laws can be invalidated.

"It follows that the decision as to whether to abolish the mandatory death 
penalty must be, as the constitution intended it to be, a matter for the 
Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago," the majority decision stated.

Mendes said that if the State was concerned about the freedom of its 
citizens and the preservation of their rights "then next week we should 
expect a Bill to rectify these laws (which are inconsistent with the 
Constitution)," he said.

(source: Trinidad & Tobago Express)

------------------------------------

Former AG, IRO mum on death penalty

FORMER UNC attorney general Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the Inter-Religious 
Organisation (IRO) declined comment on yesterday’s Privy Council ruling to 
keep the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago. Persad-Bissessar said she 
had not seen the Privy Council’s judgment and needed to study it thoroughly 
before she could comment. IRO president, Rev Cyril Paul, also said he could 
not talk about the ruling until he conferred with other IRO heads before he 
could do so. However, former IRO president, Independent Senator Bro Noble 
Khan, said he believed the death penalty could serve as a strong deterrent 
to crime. He expressed concern, however, about how effective the death 
penalty might be in light of current problems in TT’s judicial process. 
Attempts to reach Persad-Bissessar’s immediate pre- decessor, Ramesh 
Lawrence Maharaj, for comment were unsuccessful.

(source: Newsday)


====================

ZIMBABWE:

Why death penalty should be abolished?

IN the average public mind, the death penalty is viewed as the most 
appropriate penalty for a person convicted of murder. Many people think 
that justice is only done when the offender is killed.

A closer look at the death penalty however dismisses this assumption. But 
does the average person understand that the death penalty carried out in 
the name of a nation’s entire population involves everyone?

The death penalty is not only a constitutional matter but also a moral and 
social one. Citizens should therefore be aware of what the penalty is, how 
it is used, how it affects them and how it violates fundamental human rights.

An execution, like physical forms of torture, involves a deliberate assault 
on a prisoner. Thus it is a violation of human rights enshrined in the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the past decades many thousands of prisoners have been executed in 
scores of countries around the world. Men, women and even children have 
been hanged, electrocuted, gassed, poisoned, beheaded or shoot to death in 
fulfilment of judicial orders. Many of the executed were convicted of 
brutal crimes. Others died for non-violent offences including "economic 
corruption" and adultery. Many met their deaths for purely political 
reasons or after blatantly unfair trials.

Nobody knows the exact number of innocent victims of execution. Cruel, 
arbitrary and irrevocable, the death penalty is imposed disproportionately 
on the poor and powerless. It is high time the death penalty is abolished 
worldwide. Everywhere experience shows that executions brutalise those 
involved in the process. Nowhere has it been shown that the death penalty 
has any power to reduce crime or political violence. In many different 
countries it is used disproportionately against the poor or against racial 
or ethnic minorities. It is often used as a tool of political repression.

The death penalty is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human 
being by the state. Indeed, it makes the state the killer. The state can 
exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving 
him /her of life. At the heart of the case of the abolition, therefore is 
the question of whether the state has the right to do so.

When the nations of the world came together five decades ago and formed the 
United Nations, few reminders were needed of what could happen when the 
state believed that there was no limit to what it could do to a human 
being. The staggering extent of the state brutality and terror during the 
Second World War and the consequences for people throughout the world were 
still unfolding in December 1948, when the United Nations adopted the 
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR).

The UDHR is a pledge among nations to promote the fundamental rights as the 
foundation of freedom, justice and peace. The rights it proclaims are 
inherent in every human being. They are not privileges that may be granted 
or withdrawn by governments for good or bad behaviour respectively. 
Fundamental human rights limit what the state may or may not do to a man, 
woman or child. The death penalty is an inseparable component of human 
rights violation.

The UDHR recognises each person’s right to life and categorically states 
further: "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment".

Admittedly, self-defence may be held to justify in some cases the taking of 
life by state officials, for example when a country is locked in warfare 
(international or civil), or when law enforcement officials must act to 
save their own lives or those of others. Even in those situations, the use 
of lethal force is surrounded by internationally accepted legal safeguards 
to inhibit abuse.

The death penalty however is not an act of self-defence against an 
immediate threat to life. It is a premeditated killing of a prisoner who 
could be dealt with by equally less harsh means. The cruelty of the death 
penalty is evident like torture and execution constitutes an extreme 
physical and mental assault on a person already rendered helpless by 
government authorities.

If hanging a woman by the arms until she experiences excruciating pain is 
rightly condemned as torture, how does one describe hanging her by the neck 
until she is dead? If administering 100 volts of electricity to the most 
sensitive parts of a man’s body invokes disgust, what is the appropriate 
reaction to the administering of 2 000 volts to his body in order to kill him?

It is undisputed that the physical pain caused by the action of killing a 
human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering 
caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state — whether the 
death sentence is carried out six minutes after trial or six weeks after 
mass trial.

The methods of execution, like physical forms of torture, involve a 
deliberate assault on a prisoner. There are seven principal methods of 
execution — hanging, shooting, electrocution, lethal injection, gassing, 
beheading and stoning.

To just highlight one method, execution by stoning is usually carried out 
after the prisoner has been buried to the neck or otherwise restrained. 
Death may be caused by damage to the brain, asphyxiation or a combination 
of injuries. This type of execution is rampant in Islamic states and is the 
highest manifestation of barbarism.

By way of background the death penalty which is upheld by Zimbabwe has a 
long and sad history. Our most celebrated hero and heroine Sekuru Kaguvi 
and Ambuya Nehanda, respectively, of the first Chimurenga were the first 
casualties in 1890 and despite the foregoing, which reminds us of the 
bitter past, Zimbabwe still upholds capital punishment; Section 12 of the 
Zimbabwean constitution stipulates that "it shall be lawful for a person to 
be killed following a death sentence imposed on him/her by Court".

Zimbabwe’s retention of the death penalty is a sad reflection which casts a 
dark shadow on its human rights record.

The death penalty should be abolished for a host of reasons. It is 
undesirable because it robs society — with proper rehabilitation the 
convicted person might become a useful resource and a tool in the 
development of society.

It is inhuman and is fraught with retribution which serves no useful 
purpose. An execution cannot restore life or lessen the loss to the 
victim’s families.

Again the death penalty is morally abominable because it has made men 
assume the role of the ultimate decider of life and death, which is the 
preserve of God alone. From the Bible we are reminded that God had harsh 
words for Cain for killing his brother Abel Genesis 4 vs. 9-15

While acknowledging the general feeling of society is that punishment 
should be given relative to the crime. capital punishment is wrong because 
two wrongs don’t make a right. Murdering the murderer is another form of 
murder.

Apart from the foregoing, the death penalty is irrevocable and can be 
inflicted on an innocent person. Despite the most stringent judicial 
standards, human error cannot be ruled out, resulting in innocent people 
being executed.

Considerable research in the US has provided no evidence that the death 
penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. These 
findings are consistent with what is known of the relationship between 
crime rates and the presence or absence of the death penalty in other 
countries. In some US states the homicide rate has actually increased after 
the resumption of execution and despite public execution in countries like 
China and Islamic states, crime leading to the death penalty has not declined.

It is undisputed that the death penalty has been used in some instances to 
suppress political dissent and to consolidate power, especially after coups 
and counter-coups. Members of the opposition, political groups have been 
eliminated as a matter of offenders.

John Dzvinamurungu is the vice-chairman of Amnesty International Zimbabwe

(source: Financial Gazette, Zimbabwe)