[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 23



SAUDI ARABIA:

OFW's mom pleads to stop son's beheading


The mother of a Filipino overseas worker facing the death penalty in Saudi 
Arabia is pleading for clemency.

“Mahal na mahal kita anak. Ang tagal na nating hindi nagkita. Mahal na mahal ko 
ang anak kong iyon,” said Letty Lanuza, mother of Dondon Celestino Lanuza, a 
Pinoy draftsman convicted in 2002 for murdering an Arab national in Damman.

“Minsan nagbibiruan kami 'anak, ako naman dyan ikaw naman dito sa labas', may 
time na ganun,” she said.

The Lanuza family migrated to the US the same year when Dondon was incarcerated 
in Dammam’s central jail in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Mrs. Lanuza recalled that it it was Dondon’s doggedness to go back to Saudi 
Arabia for the second time as he was determined to help his family until 
atrocity happened.

“Balitang-balita sa Pilipinas noon, na pagka nagpunta ka ng Saudi parang better 
life, makatulong ka sa pamilya sa mo, kapatid mo, sa mga magulang mo. Nasa 
Philippines pa kami noon,” she said.

The Arabian family of Dondon’s victim agreed to settle by “blood money” for a 
sum of 3 million Saudi Riyals or equivalent to US800,000--quite a huge amount 
for a struggling family here in Las Vegas.

However, this is the necessary amount to save Dondon’s life from death. 
Restitution by “blood money” is a common occurrence in the Middle East. In most 
cases, the prisoner is let off for murder in exchange for blood money.

She added that the Philippine government has not expressed any interest to 
assist in Dondon's case.

She has been literally begging government officials for help, but no aid has 
been extended.

So far, the Lanuza family has raised over P200,000 in donations from kababayans 
all over, still a long way to raise the blood money of US 800,000.

(source: ABS-CBNNews)






SOMALIA:

Somalia: Soldiers receive death sentence


2 government soldiers were executed in Mogadishu, Somalia in accusation of 
killing a civilian and a soldier, officials confirmed on Monday – as Somalia 
president Sharif Sheik Ahmed declared a state of emergency in parts of the 
capital abandoned by Al-Shabaab terror groups.

This came as pressure from the international community on keeping the 
government soldiers accountable for their abuses.

The 2 soldiers had been blindfolded and tied up to poles in the square of 
police academy where they were shot to death.

The military court judge told reporters at Mogadishu that any soldier who kills 
a person or loots property will be executed.

The government, which now in control of much of the capital following the 
withdrawal of the Islamist rebels, is expecting a humanitarian force to protect 
the food aid.

(source: Sunatimes)






INDONESIA:

Death sentence affirmed for roti canai seller


The Court of Appeal here yesterday affirmed the death sentence of a roti canai 
seller found guilty of killing an Imam eight years ago. The panel of three 
judges including Datuk Linton Albert, Datuk Clement Allan Skinner and Datuk 
Wira Low Hop Bing unanimously dismissed Ibrahim Mohamad’s appeal and affirmed 
the High Court decision after hearing submissions from both parties.

On Sept 26, 2005, a Miri High Court judge found Ibrahim guilty of killing Imam 
Ikhsan Mustapha at Masjid Al-Taqwa in Jalan Merpati, Miri at about 8.30pm on 
June 19, 2003.

Ibrahim was tried under Section 302 of the Penal Code which provides for a 
mandatory death sentence on conviction.

“We are of the view that the learned judge at the High Court was not wrong when 
he found the accused guilty of the murder charge,” Low, who led the panel, said 
in passing judgement.

He said the judge was also correct in rejecting the accused’s insanity plea 
under Section 84 of the Penal Code, and had correctly imposed the death 
sentence.

“We therefore dismiss his appeal against his conviction and affirm the death 
sentence.”

Earlier, Ibrahim’s assigned counsel Yap Yau Sia submitted to court that the 
appellant was of unsound mind and delusional when committing the offence, which 
comes under Section 84 of the Penal Code. He should therefore undergo 
psychiatric examination in a mental hospital.

However, Ibrahim himself insisted that that he was not insane, and the murder 
he committed was due to phenomena or signs from Allah.

He told the court his counsel was not trying to defend him but was attacking 
him instead.

On July 28 last year, when the appeal was first mentioned in the Appeal’s 
Court, Ibrahim had also challenged his previous assigned lawyer and requested 
he be dropped from representing him.

(source: Borneo Post)






CHINA:

Death penalty may appeal, but law has higher call


Li Changkui, a migrant worker from Yunnan Province, did not escape the death 
penalty during his retrial on Monday at the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's 
Court. 2 previous sentences had seen him condemned to the death penalty, and 
the same with reprieve. On May 16, 2009, Li strangled his ex-girlfriend to 
death and killed her 3-year-old brother.

Like other high-profile murder cases, Li's trial has aroused public attention 
nationwide. The brutal killing won no forgiveness from the public. Since the 
second trial, there has been mounting public clamor for the death sentence to 
be given.

As public participation in judicial affairs deepens, more trials are exposed to 
the media and public, which are now able to exert subtle influence over the 
judges. Although the judiciary must be open to the public, the spirit of law 
should not be swayed by outside opinion.

Now there seems to be a wide gap between the public's demand for justice and 
judicial professionalism.

Under China's Criminal Law, intentional murder is punishable by death, life 
imprisonment or not less than 10 years without parole.

Li's 2nd sentence of a death penalty with reprieve was totally within the 
bounds of the law. But the public obviously cannot accept a double murder not 
being met with the severest penalty.

People want justice. Judges have more considerations in mind. Yunnan, where 
drug smuggling is rampant, is facing special pressure to reduce the use of 
capital punishment. Drug smuggling has a broader and worse impact on society 
than individual killings.

But murdering the innocent is more likely to psychologically agitate the 
public.

Public opinion brought excessive attention on the trial, primarily due to an 
embarrassing lack of public trust in the judicial system.

The Chinese judiciary is trying to progress toward more independence and 
professionalism. Now, it must continue down this road while avoiding the 
intervention of public opinion. This will not be easy.

A certain detachment from the public is necessary for the rule of law. Judges 
should be respected. In Li's case, capital punishment or death penalty with 
reprieve were both options, but public pressure narrowed these to a single 
decision.

Li's destiny is now sealed. From the perspective of the public, the original 
sentence is maintained. But for the judiciary system, can we say it was the 
right decision?

(source: Opinion, People's Daily)

*************************

Killer’s case and death penalty dilemmas in China


By raping and murdering a 19-year-old woman before killing her 3-year-old 
brother, Li Changkui incurred the wrath of the victims’ relatives, a Yunnan 
Province village stunned by the horror, and eventually a local court.

The Zhaotong Prefecture Intermediate Court last year convicted Li, 28, of 
intentional homicide and rape for the May 16, 2009, incidents before condemning 
him to death.

Yet Li was allowed to appeal the decision and present his case to the 
province’s most prominent judges. As a result, the Yunnan Provincial High Court 
in March overruled the lower court and commuted Li’s sentence with a 2-year 
reprieve — thus incurring even more wrath from relatives and neighbors of the 
dead.

Li’s successful appeal has also intensified a nationwide debate over the proper 
use of the death penalty in criminal cases.

The high court ruled that the original sentence was too strict, even though the 
judges agreed Li was guilty and that the legal proceedings had been properly 
handled.

Li had surrendered to police, confessed to the crimes and cooperated with 
authorities, the high court noted. He also showed remorse and took steps to 
financially compensate the victims’ family.

In objecting to the second decision, the family argued that Li had waited until 
four days after the slayings to turn himself in, and that his relatives had 
offered only about 20,000 yuan as compensation to relatives of the murder 
victims.

The victims’ relatives and more than 200 of their village neighbors filed a 
complaint to the high court requesting a retrial and demanding a tougher 
sentence for Li — immediately. Incredibly to many, they got what they wanted.

Public debate

Yunnan media outlets closely followed the Li case, and the public has generally 
reacted with outrage. Many say Li’s crimes were worse than those committed by 
Yao Jiaxin, a Xi’an Conservatory of Music student convicted of running down a 
pedestrian in 2010 with a sedan, and then stabbing the wounded woman to death. 
Yao was sentenced to death.

Click to Play Coastal Residents Prepare for Hurricane IreneHurricane Irene is 
tearing through the Caribbean. Residents in coastal states are now gearing up 
for the possibility of an even more powerful storm. Video courtesy of Fox News. 
Image courtesy of Getty Images.

A deputy chief justice for the Yunnan high court, Tian Chengyou, said judges 
had decided Li should receive a lighter sentence partly due to the fact that 
the killer and victims were neighbors with a history of relationships.

Tian also noted that the highest court in China, the People’s Supreme Court, in 
recent years has been encouraging courts to issue fewer death sentences and use 
the death penalty more cautiously. Particularly worthy of note, the Supreme 
Court said, are cases in which serious crimes are connected to marital, family 
and neighbor disputes.

“Society needs to be a little more rational” about sentences, Tian said. “A 
public carnival must not be allowed to decide a death sentence. The old 
life-for-life concept needs to change.

“Reducing use of the death penalty is now the general trend.”

Yet Tian’s public remarks in July not only failed to quell criticism of the Li 
ruling, but stirred more debates until, eventually, the high court agreed to a 
retrial.

Reversing verdicts

Some legal experts have attacked the latest retrial decision, saying there was 
no evidence that the high court had erred during the appeal proceedings. The 
retrial order, they argue, stems from administrative interference in the 
judicial system in an attempt to accommodate public opinion.

Even when a court errs, Peking University Law School Professor He Weifang told 
Caixin, an illegal means cannot be used to correct the mistake. And under 
Chinese law, an appeal known as the second instance is considered the final 
judgment, which means its decision should never be reconsidered in a retrial.

In China, He said, a retrial decision such as in Li’s case probably points to 
intervention by one or more key government officials who feel pressured by 
public opinion.

And it’s difficult for authorities in sensitive criminal cases to avoid the 
impact of public opinion, especially since China’s judiciary lacks true 
authority and independence, said University of Hong Kong Assistant Law 
Professor Zheng Ge.

Some critics worry Li’s retrial will set a precedent and lead to more case 
re-evaluations and reversed verdicts in the future.

Indeed, shortly after the retrial was announced, the public learned of several 
other cases in which death sentences were overturned in Yunnan, prompting new 
calls for retrials.

Li’s lawyer Zhang Qingsong, of the Beijing Shangquan Law Firm, said the 
decision to launch a retrial for Li violates the law.

The criminal code says a retrial is possible for only a few reasons, such as if 
fact errors were presented at the original trial, evidence used in a conviction 
or sentencing was unreliable, evidence is contradictory, improper legal 
provisions were applied, or the judges accepted bribes, showed favoritism or 
otherwise behaved capriciously or arbitrarily.

In short, Zhang said, an original judgment can be overturned with a retrial 
only if it is “really wrong.” None of these criteria were met at Li’s trials in 
the intermediate or high courts. Thus, he said, there is no legal basis for a 
retrial.

Taking the case from another perspective, some scholars say a reversed verdict 
for a death penalty case can stir public ire, especially if citizens and the 
media are allowed to be active observers of court procedures.

One criminal law expert, who declined to be named, said courts in China should 
operate in accord with the internationally accepted legal principle of “non bis 
in idem” — which means an appeals court cannot impose a tougher penalty.

“Regardless of whether an original judgment was right or wrong, a court cannot 
go back on its conviction and kill the suspect,” the expert said. “Doing that, 
in terms of a specific case, may be fair. But the damage to the overall rule of 
law environment would be very scary.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice Wang Shengjun last year said a court’s capital 
punishment decision should hinge on public perceptions. Since civil rights have 
yet to take root completely in China, any perception that a murderer is being 
coddled can spark public outrage. This may happen even if lawyers and 
intellectuals have neither reached consensus on a case nor influenced public 
opinion.

While the debate continues, the court in Yunnan has started retrial proceedings 
for Li. Relatives of the murder victims, villagers and the rest of the nation 
will be watching.

(source: Caixin Online)