[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 3


BAHAMAS:

Justices Criticise Lawyers For Constant Requests For Delays In Appeal Cases


A Lawyer's request for additional time to prepare her client's appeal against 
conviction and the death sentence for a paid execution, drew the ire of Court 
of Appeal judges yesterday.

While granting a 7th - and final - adjournment in the case of Anthony Clarke Sr 
the judges voiced their general displeasure with the constant requests by 
lawyers for delays at the expense of the appellants. "The public is complaining 
about the delays. This court is here every day, ready and willing to hear the 
appeals," Justice Anita Allen said.

Romona Farquharson-Seymour, who now represents Clarke, a death row inmate, had 
told the appellate court that she had only received the trial transcripts 2 
weeks prior to the proceedings.

She asked for an additional 2 weeks to complete her canvassing of the documents 
given that she was also in a trial and was preparing for another substantive, 
but unrelated murder appeal hearing before the court on October 15.

"You took them on and you need to do whatever you need to do. That is the life 
of counsel, of an advocate" Justice Allen said, adding that someone with her 
experience in criminal cases should not need more time.

"On your scale of priorities, this case should rank higher," added Justice 
Abdulai Conteh, who noted that "if I were in your shoes, this would be my 
priority regardless of the outcome."

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour accepted the court's criticisms and "humbly would ask 
for an adjournment."

Justice Allen noted that there had been 6 adjournments already "and this would 
be the seventh." When Mrs Farquharson-Seymour sought to put up a defence, 
Justice Allen interjected: "I'm not saying they've been related to you, but 
this matter has been before this court since last year."

"It will be the last adjournment," the lawyer said, apologising again. Her 
request was granted and the matter was put off to November 12.

Clarke intends to contest his conviction and ultimate punishment concerning the 
September 16, 2011, murder of Aleus Tilus. During Clarke's trial, the 
prosecution produced a confession statement in which Clarke purportedly owned 
up to the murder.

He allegedly told police that he was paid "a lot of money" by a man, who was 
not named, to kill Tilus because of an ongoing dispute before the Labour Board, 
concerning Tilus's employer.

The convict's attorney, Shaka Serville, submitted that the statement was 
obtained through force and brutality against his client.

The jury returned an unanimous guilty verdict and the prosecutor, Ambrose 
Armbrister, indicated the Crown's intention to seek the death penalty.

On October 10, 2013, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs, having taken into account 
submissions from the prosecution and defence attorneys and the probation and 
psychiatric reports, agreed to the Crown's request to sentence Clarke to death 
for Tilus's murder.

Clarke had applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension late last year, 
having missed his 21-day deadline to appeal his murder conviction and death 
sentence.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour is his 3rd lawyer since his sentencing.

(source: Tribune242)






IRAN:

Iran Drops Death Sentence Against Pastors, Christians


Iran has apparently dropped death-sentence carrying charges against 2 
evangelical pastors and another believer, though the 3 men remain detained for 
their Christian activities, BosNewsLife learned Thursday, October 2.

Pastor Matthias Haghnejad, Pastor Behnam Irani and Deacon Silas Rabbani from 
the Church of Iran house church movement were instead tried for other alleged 
offences at the 1st Branch of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Karaj city last 
week, trial observers said.

Additionally Christians Moluk Ruhani, Zainab Akbari and Hamidreza Borhani, who 
were among 6 believers detained in Isfahan early September, have been released, 
said advocacy group Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).

However Mohammed Taslimi and Parsa Dadkhah remain incarcerated while the 
whereabouts of Moluk Ruhani???s sister, Sepideh Morshedi, remained unknown 
Thursday, October 2, Christians said.

Pastor Haghnejad, Pastor Irani and Deacon Rabbani, who are being held 
separately in Ghezal Hesar Prison, had recently been charged with 
'Mofsed-e-filarz', or 'spreading corruption on earth', which carries a death 
sentence.

The 2 pastors had also been charged with Moharebeh, or 'warring against Allah', 
which experts say can also carry the death penalty. Behnam Irani, who is 
serving already a long prison term, had received 15 other charges, CSW told 
BosNewsLife.

CHARGES DROPPED

Iranian Christians said that the Moharebeh and Mofsed-e-filarz charges "appear 
to have been dropped" and that all 3 were tried for "action against national 
security" and "creating a network to overthrow the System".

It was unclear whether international pressure prompted authorities to drop more 
serious charges. The men now await a verdict from Judge Asel Al-Hosseyn, who 
tried their cases, Christians said.

CSW's Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas told BosNewsLife he has mixed feelings 
about the outcome. "While we applaud the dropping of the capital charges 
levelled against Pastors Haghnejad and Irani, and Deacon Rabbani, it is 
completely unacceptable that they have faced trial once again on unwarranted 
charges and that their unjust prison terms may be extended even further."

Additionally, "It is difficult to conceive of how imprisoned men from a 
severely repressed community could pose a danger to such a powerful system," 
Thomas said.

The dropping of the capital charges against the three Christians comes a week 
after a 37 year-old Muslim man, Mohsen Amir-Aslani, was reportedly executed for 
'Mofsed-e-filarz' and 'heresy' after describing the biblical story of Jonah as 
an allegory.

JUDGE APPEAL

Head of the Judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, disregarded a Supreme Court decision to 
release him after the trial judge appealed for the death penalty to be carried 
out.

"While a high-ranking judge has claimed Mr Amir-Aslani was executed for rape, 
the authorities have yet to produce substantive evidence to support this 
allegation," CSW commented in a statement.

"We also express our deepest condolences to the family of Mr Amir-Aslani, whose 
execution is emblematic of the arbitrary nature of the Iranian judicial system 
and the flagrant disregard of the nation's highest judicial authority for the 
rule of law and justice," added Thomas. The official said the plight of 
detainees makes it difficult to normalize relations with Iran. "Some in the 
West are calling for renewed relations with Iran in the face of the threat 
posed in Iraq and Syria by [Islamic State] ISIL [militants]. However, it is 
worth noting that Mr Amir-Aslani was 1 of 6 people executed on the same day 
that the [the] British Prime Minister met with [Iranian] President Rouhani at 
the United Nations,"Thomas said.

"It is highly debatable whether a country that severely represses its own 
religious and ethnic minorities and conducts an average of 2 executions a day 
can contribute meaningfully towards resolving a conflict that is itself fuelled 
by religious sectarianism and an intolerance of indigenous minority 
communities."

(source: BosNewsLife.com)






EGYPT:

Egypt Judge in Mass Death Sentence Cases Removed


The Egyptian judge who oversaw mass death sentence cases against Islamist 
supporters of the country's ousted president, drawing strong international 
criticism, has been removed from his criminal court, officials and the judge 
himself told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The removal of Judge Said Youssef, taken by a top appeals court, signals a 
possible shift in Egypt after an extensive crackdown on backers of toppled 
President Mohammed Morsi and an attempt by judges to begin to repair the damage 
done by judge's heavy handed rulings.

Youssef, who led the 2 high-profile death penalty cases in southern city of 
Minya, told the AP he was notified Sunday that he was removed from the 
"criminal judiciary" to the "civilian judiciary." His final day in criminal 
court was Tuesday.

"I was notified while I was looking into cases," Youssef said. He added that 
his court, known as the "terrorism court" and assigned to look into cases 
linked to violence and acts of terror, had been "dismantled." He declined to 
discuss why he was removed.

Other officials, including a top judicial official, corroborated Youssef's 
account.

Youssef's court, which started hearing cases in March, is the only "terrorism" 
court that will be dismantled, court officials said, speaking on condition of 
anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to journalists.

The move looks like a demotion for Youssef. According to Egypt's el-Shorouk 
daily newspaper, removal from the court is an exceptional measure which only 
takes place in 2 cases: either the judge has been associated to an act that is 
damaging to his reputation or that he was investigated by a special committee 
which ruled that he was no longer capable of overseeing criminal court cases.

Normally, a judge who has spent 15 years in criminal judiciary remains in his 
post until retirement, the paper said.

Said was condemned when he sentenced to death more than 1,200 people in 2 mass 
trials. The number of death sentences, initially the most in recent memory 
anywhere in the world, was later reduced to more than 200. Most of the 
defendants were charged with murder, attempted murder, joining an outlawed 
group aiming at toppling the regime and stealing government weapons in 
connection with the attack last August in the town of Matay and el-Adawa, south 
of Cairo. Police officers were killed in the attacks.

The cases are rooted in the violent attacks on police stations and killing of 
police officers in August 2013 in revenge for security forces raiding 2 
Islamists' sit-ins in Cairo that left hundreds dead and sparked days of unrest. 
Protesters were demanding the reinstatement of Morsi, who hails from the Muslim 
Brotherhood group.

The military led the ouster of Morsi in July after mass demonstrations against 
him and his supporters staged near-daily demonstrations demanding his 
reinstatement. Some 22,000 people have been arrested since Morsi's ouster, 
including most of the Brotherhood's top leaders as well as large numbers of 
others swept up by police during pro-Morsi protests.

Gamal Abdel-Maguid, a lawyer who represented a number of defendants, nicknamed 
the judge "Said the butcher."

"The case caused an international earthquake and it was expected that judges 
would get rid of him after all damage he caused," Abdel-Maguid said.

In the 2 court cases, Youssef issued his stunning verdicts in their second 
hearings and in the absence of lawyers who responded by boycotting the next 
sessions. Youssef's verdicts were justified as "deterrent" to prevent similar 
riots which left churches and police stations torched and threatened lives of 
many.

Many of those who received death sentence were tried in absentia, meaning 
they'll be given automatic retrials once captured. Abdel-Maguid said a large 
number of defendants recently surrendered to have a retrial. Others have 2 
chances to appeal the verdict.

Youssef's sentences in the two cases shocked the world. U.N. Secretary-General 
Ban Ki-moon warned that the verdicts were likely to "undermine prospects for 
long-term stability." Amnesty International said it feared Egypt's courts were 
"becoming just another part of the authorities' repressive machinery, issuing 
sentences of death and life imprisonment on an industrial scale." Youssef 
himself said that he received death threats and authorities assigned security 
guards to escort him.

The U.S. State Department also said at the time his ruling "defies logic" that 
so many people could get a fair trial in just 2 hearings. That renewed calls 
for the U.S. to suspend some of the $1.5 billion in military and economic aid 
it gives Egypt each year.

Some hope Youssef's court being dismantled means defendants in Egypt may begin 
to again face "normal" judges, as opposed to special courts that mete out 
swift, harsh rulings.

"At the end of the day, the judges themselves believed this was not a 
reasonable verdict and then they decided to move this judge to a soft-core 
field." prominent rights lawyer Negad el-Borai said.

(source: Associated Press)



SOMALIA:

Al-Shabaab Executes 4 Men Accused of Spying, Stones Woman to Death


Al-Shabaab militants in Barawe on Monday (September 29th) publicly executed 4 
Somali men accused of spying for the Somali government, Somalia's RBC Radio 
reported.

The 4 men - Hassan Haji Awow, 27, Mahdi Hassan Isse, 26, Iidle Mohamed Hassan, 
18, and Ahmed Mohamed Adan, 42 - were executed by firing squad at an open field 
in Barawe Monday evening.

"These men have admitted that they were spies working for the intelligence unit 
of the apostate government," an unnamed al-Shabaab judge said through a 
loudspeaker.

The men were arrested 1 month ago, but were not given the chance to speak or 
defend themselves against their alleged crimes, sources told RBC Radio.

The execution comes days after the militants stoned to death a Somali woman in 
Barawe for secretly marrying 4 men, AFP reported.

Witnesses said the woman, 33-year-old Safiyo Ahmed Jumale, was buried up to her 
neck on Friday and pelted with rocks and stones by hooded men in front of a 
large crowd.

"The woman married 4 husbands and confessed to the crime," al-Shabaab judge 
Sheik Mohamud Abu Abdullah told the gathering. "I questioned her several times 
while she was in prison and she told me she was mentally fit. All the 4 
husbands were questioned and they have confirmed that they had married her."

"The woman was brought with her eyes covered and she was buried up to her neck 
before she was stoned to death by hooded men," said Ali Yare, a resident who 
witnessed the execution.

(source: All Africa News)






NIGERIA:

Judgment, Sentencing and Appeals in Criminal Matters in Nigeria


It is a well know procedure that every judgment of a court must of legal 
necessity be in writing except as otherwise provided by law for Magistrates 
courts in the Southern part of Nigeria. It must be stated that court judgment 
in criminal and civil matters is not the same as God's divine judgment 
entrenched in the holy bible. Judgment in legal sense is the final decision of 
the court upon a criminal charge, rights and obligation of the parties. A 
judgment can be in favour of the accused person or the complainant. It is in 
favour of the accused person if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond 
reasonable doubt thereby providing the opportunity for the defense counsel to 
plead a no case submission. It is in favour of the complainant if the 
prosecution is able to establish that the accused actually committed the 
offence through verifiable evidence and exhibits pointing to show directly that 
an offence has been committed.

Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) provides that: "The judge or 
Magistrate shall record his judgment in writing and every such judgment shall 
contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the 
reasons for the decision and shall be dated and signed by the Judge or 
Magistrate and the time of pronouncing it; provided that in the case of a 
Magistrate, in lieu of writing such Judgment , it shall be sufficient 
compliance under this section if the magistrate (a) records briefly in the book 
his decision thereon and where necessary his reasons for such decision and 
delivers an oral Judgment; or (b) records such information in a prescribed 
form." Once a judgment is delivered, the deed is done (functus officio).

In Nwakalamba vs. Commissioner of Police (1958), a judgment delivered by the 
then Federal Supreme Court upheld the principle of functus officio. In that 
particular case, an oral judgment delivered by a lower court was later reduced 
to writing. The Federal Supreme Court refused to take congnizance of the 
written judgment because at the time it was reduced to writing the court that 
delivered it had become functus officio, having delivered an oral judgment 
earlier.

>From the above provision, it is clear that judgment must contain the points for 
determination and reason for the decision. The points for determination include 
the guilt or innocence of the accused person, fact and proof of the elements of 
offence, ingredients of offence as well as sections where the offence 
contravened are contained and specified as decided in Yesufu vs. Inspector 
General of Police (1960). And where the court is in doubt as to whether the 
point for determination should be decided in favour of the prosecution or the 
defense, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the defense as decided in 
Onafowokan vs. The State (1987) by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Testimony of witnesses and co-accused persons are heavily relied upon by the 
courts during criminal trials. It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to 
gather enough evidence and do thorough investigation, organize his prosecution 
witnesses and tidy up the charges against the accused person before 
commencement of trial. In delivering judgment, the court must give cogent and 
compelling reasons as to why the evidence of one party is to be preferred to 
that of another. In Willie John vs. The State (1967), the accused persons were 
charged and convicted on two counts of burglary and housebreaking. In his 
judgment, the trial judge stated that the evidence against the accused persons 
was overwhelming and found the accused persons guilty. The accused persons 
appealed against the conviction on the ground inter alia that the judgment of 
the court did not contain the points for determination and reasons for the 
decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the counsel's contention that the 
Judgment delivered by the court did not comply with the requirements of the law 
because neither the evidence of the prosecution nor that of the defense was 
reviewed. No reasons were given for the court's decision, therefore the appeal 
succeeded.

As a general rule, no person can be pronounced guilty for an offence with which 
he was not expressly charged. However, where an accused person is charged with 
a grave offence and there is not enough evidence to convict him but there is 
sufficient overwhelming evidence to convict him for a lesser offence, even 
though the accused was not specifically charged with the lesser offence, he may 
be convicted of the lesser offence as provided in section 36 (6) (a) of the 
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)and as decided 
by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Nwachukwu vs. The State (1986). Furthermore, 
an accused person who is charged with an offence may be convicted for 
conspiracy to commit that offence although he was not found guilty of the 
substantive offence as decided in Balogun vs. Attorney-General of Ogun State.

It must be stated that before a court can convict an accused person for an 
offence for which he was not expressly charged under Section 179 of the 
Criminal Procedure Act, the following conditions must be satisfied; (a) the 
graver offence must contain words to include both offences; (b) the evidence 
led and facts found must support the conviction for the lesser offence and (c) 
it is not necessary to charge the accused with the lesser offence as decided by 
the Supreme Court in Nwachukwu vs. State.

An accused person may plead for reduction of sentence under the principle of 
allocutus. It is a plea of mitigation of sentence or punishment by an accused 
person after he or she has been convicted of an offence in a court of competent 
jurisdiction. However, the omission of the Court Registrar or the Judge to ask 
the accused to make an allocutus shall have no effect on the validity of the 
proceedings. Allocutus under section 247 of the CPA does not operate to absolve 
the accused of all punishment; the sentence may be reduced but not cancelled in 
its entirety.

Where the law provides for a minimum or mandatory penalty like death penalty, 
allocutus has no effect. Thus, in Inspector General of Police vs. Tegbe (1957) 
where an accused person was deprived of an opportunity for allocutus because 
the judgment given by the trial magistrate was read by another magistrate under 
section 251 CPA where the sentence was manifestly light for the offence, it was 
held that although the practice adopted was undesirable, the sentence would not 
be reduced. In a trial at the Magistrate court in the Northern part of Nigeria, 
the Magistrate may at this stage of sentence refer the convicted person to a 
magistrate court of a higher grade or to the High Court for sentence. This 
occurs if the court is of the opinion that the accused person ought to receive 
a different or more severe punishment than that which the magistrate is 
empowered to impose as stated under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
(CPC).

Clearly put, a sentence is the pronouncement by the court upon the accused 
person after his conviction in a criminal prosecution by imposing punishment 
stipulated by law. The sentence of the court must be the sentence prescribed 
for the offence by law which created it. When the court makes a pronouncement 
of sentence, it may direct that it should run concurrently or consecutively. 
Where the court is silent, the sentence shall be deemed to run consecutively. 
It must be stated that death penalty is mandatory sentence for capital offences 
and the judge has no discretion in the matter after an accused has been found 
guilty of a capital offence. The court must make the pronouncement this manner: 
"The sentence of this court upon you is that you be hanged by the neck until 
you are dead and may the Lord have mercy on your soul" as stipulated under 
Section 367 (2) of the CPA and Section 273 of CPC.

The President of Nigeria and State Governors can exercise prerogative of mercy 
on an accused sentenced to death. The judge as soon as practicable must 
transmit the judgment to the Attorney General or Minister of Justice or State 
Commissioner of Justice to advise the President or Governor on the exercise of 
prerogative of mercy. The judgment is attached with a certified copy of the 
record of proceedings and a copy of the certificate of death as stipulated 
under Section 370 (1) of the CPA. Death sentence cannot be passed on an 
offender whose age at the time of committing the offence has not reached the 
age of 17 years.

As a general rule, only a person that is aggrieved by the decision of a court 
may appeal against such decision. In criminal cases only the prosecutor or the 
accused person has the right of appeal under Section 243 (9) of the 
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and as decided in 
Nafiu Rabiu vs. The State. Flowing from the above, Persons outside these 2 
categories of persons has no locus standi to bring an appeal under any 
circumstances. However, any person who will be affected by the decision of the 
court can be made a party to an appeal as decided in the case of Pan African 
Bank Ltd. Vs The State and also in Akiinbiyi vs. Adelabu.

Appeal shall emanate from Magistrate Court to High Court, from High Court to 
Court of Appeal and from Court of Appeal to Supreme Court of Nigeria, as the 
case may be. The decision of the Supreme Court is final in all cases including 
criminal matters. The notice of appeal stating the grounds of appeal is usually 
prepared by the counsel to the party that is approaching the appellate court 
for a redress. Each Court has its rules and procedure to be followed when 
approaching a superior court for appeal. The service of a legal practitioner is 
required for this process.

Judgment, sentence and appeal in criminal matters are technical legally and at 
the same time procedural. Certain rules must be applied as can be seen from the 
above court discussions. A party challenging the judgment and sentence passed 
by the lower court has the constitutional right to approach a higher or 
superior court for appeal. Appeal is only necessary where the appellant and his 
counsel are convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice or that the legal 
principle of fair hearing was not adhered to during trial. Appeal is also 
necessary where judgment is delivered without the Judge reviewing the evidence 
of the prosecution and defense and also for failing to give legal reasons for 
the court's decision. A valid judgment must of a necessity include the guilt or 
innocence of the accused person, fact and proof of the elements of offence, 
ingredients of offence as well as sections of relevant enactments and case laws 
where the offence contravened is contained and specified as decided in Yesufu 
vs. IGP (1960).

(source: opinion; Fred Latimore Oghenesivbe, a member of the Nigerian Institute 
of International Affairs (NIIA) is of the Nigerian Law School----The Daily 
Independent)






BOTSWANA:

Edwin Samotse faces possible execution in secrecy


On August 13 2014 Mr. Edwin Samotse a Botswana national was unlawfully deported 
from South Africa to Botswana where he runs the risk of being sentenced to 
death and executed. While South Africa's conduct has been declared unlawful 
FIDH - a member of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty - LHR and 
DITSHWANELO call upon the authorities of Botswana to guarantee his right to a 
fair trial and to refrain from imposing the death penalty against him.

'Despite our enquiry to the authorities of Botswana about whether or not they 
gave an assurance to the South African Government that Samotse will not face 
the death penalty we still have not received a response. In a context where 
secrecy has surrounded the way the death penalty is carried out in Botswana we 
are concerned for the safety and well-being of Mr. Samotse' declared Alice 
Mogwe DITSHWANELO Director and FIDH Deputy Secretary General.

On August 13 2014 South African Immigration officials deported Mr. Edwin 
Samotse to Botswana where he is charged with murder. If convicted by the 
Botswana High Court Mr. Samotse could be sentenced to death and executed. His 
deportation was carried out while on 2 occasions (Mohammed 2001 and Tsebe 2012) 
South Africa's Constitutional Court has confirmed the right of a person charged 
with capital offences not to be extradited to a country where he/she could face 
the death penalty and subsequent execution without an assurance against such 
being imposed or executed. On September 23 2014 the High Court sitting at 
Pretoria confirmed those decisions by declaring Samotse's deportation unlawful 
and unconstitutional.

For Jacob Van Garderen National Director of LHR which joined the Samotse case 
before the High Court 'the decision of the High Court is consistent with the 
internationally recognised practice not to extradite someone to a country where 
he or she could face the death penalty and be executed. Our courts have already 
set similar precedents and we expect this decision will constitute the basis 
for a well defined procedure of non-removal that would be strictly observed by 
the relevant South African authorities'.

In its decision the High Court noted the undertaking given by the Minister of 
International Affairs and Cooperation to continue seeking written assurances 
from the authorities of Botswana that the death penalty will not be imposed 
against Edwin Samotse and if imposed that it will not be executed. The Court 
further called upon South African Minister of Home Affairs to enact 'Standing 
Operation Procedures' stating that it is unlawful to deport or surrender a 
foreign national facing the risk of being subjected to the death penalty if 
deported or surrendered without the requisite assurance being obtained. The 
Court has required the Minister to report back on progress made in this regard 
as well as the outcome of the Department's investigation into the unlawful 
deportation. Our organisations welcome this decision and call upon South 
African authorities to ensure that a comprehensive 'Standing Operation 
Procedure' is put in place without further delay that it is widely disseminated 
to all the relevant services and properly implemented.

As the World Day Against Death Penalty approaches (October 10 2014) our 
organisations which oppose the death penalty for all crimes and under all 
circumstances reiterate their call upon the authorities of Botswana to envisage 
the adoption of a moratorium on the death penalty as a 1st step towards 
abolition.

(source: MENAFN Press)






SINGAPORE:

Death penalty as life-saving deterrent: fact or rhetoric?


The following was a letter the Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty - a 
coalition made up of Second Chances, the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign 
and Think Centre - submitted to the Straits Times Forum. The letter was not 
chosen for publication.

We refer to the Law Minister's comments as reported in the article 'Death 
penalty needed in anti-drug fight: Shanmugam' on 27 September.

In his speech at the United Nations, Mr Shanmugam asserted that the death 
penalty is an effective deterrent to drug trafficking in Singapore. He also 
said that the debate over capital punishment should shift to facts.

Facts are important in this debate, but there has been a lack of publicly 
available criminological studies in Singapore to support Mr Shanmugam's point. 
Furthermore, a 2009 study comparing homicide rates in Singapore and Hong Kong 
strongly suggested that the death penalty is no more effective than alternative 
forms of punishments.

The mere fact that Singapore has both the death penalty and low capital crime 
rates does not necessarily mean that there is a direct link between the 2. In 
fact, other criminological studies have shown that socioeconomic factors and 
the likelihood of getting caught have more influence over crime than the 
severity of punishment.

This lack of concrete evidence on the death penalty's deterrent value has also 
been pointed out by MPs and NMPs such as Mrs Lina Chiam, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr 
Laurence Lien and Ms Faizah Jamal when Parliament debated the amendments to the 
mandatory death penalty in 2012.

In the interest of a fact-based debate on the death penalty in Singapore, we 
would invite the government to share any studies upon which conclusions on the 
effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent have been drawn. We also call 
for more rigorous, independent studies to be conducted on this issue.

Singapore should not resort to the death penalty without concrete proof of its 
necessity, especially if alternative forms of punishment can have the same 
effect. The inevitability of human error within the system also makes the 
chances of wrongful executions far too high a cost for us to use capital 
punishment as an instrument of justice.

(source: Onlinecitizen.com)






THAILAND:

Thai police charge Myanmar men with murder, rape of Brit tourists


Thai police Friday charged two Myanmar men with murder and rape after the 
killing of 2 British tourists on a southern island last month, in a case that 
has severely dented the kingdom's image as a holiday haven.

The charges come after police said the undocumented migrant workers had 
confessed to murdering David Miller, 24, and Hannah Witheridge, 23, whose 
battered bodies were found on Koh Tao on September 15.

The men have been charged with the murder of both Britons - a charge which 
carries the death penalty - and the rape of Witheridge, with police saying that 
their DNA matched samples taken from her body.

"The 2 Myanmar nationals are charged with murder (of both tourists), gang rape 
(of Witheridge) and stealing,'' Prachum Ruangthong, police chief of 
neighbouring Koh Phangan island, told AFP.

The breakthrough follows intense scrutiny of Thai authorities, which had been 
accused - in criticism led by the British media - of bungling the investigation 
in the days after the crime.

Earlier Friday police said the men - identified only as Win, 21, and Saw, 23, 
from Rakhine state in Myanmar - had admitted to killing the Britons and raping 
Witheridge.

"2 Myanmar suspects have confessed to killing the pair," Thai national police 
chief Somyot Poompanmoung told AFP. "DNA test results (from the 2 men) 
confirmed that the same DNA was found in the body of the (female) victim.:

The accused were among 3 nationals from Myanmar - formerly known as Burma - 
held since Thursday on suspicion of involvement in the crime.

The 3rd Myanmar man is believed to be a witness and is currently under police 
protection on Koh Tao, provincial police chief Kiattipong Khaosamang told AFP.

Earlier Friday investigators took the arrested men to the island to re-enact 
the crime scene, a common practice in Thai murder cases. Hundreds of onlookers 
watched as the handcuffed pair - wearing bullet-proof vests and white helmets - 
walked along the beach where the Britons were found dead, surrounded by scores 
of police officers.

"Both men raped the female victim," Kiattipong said earlier, adding the 
tourists were killed with a wooden stick and a garden hoe, which was found 
bloodied at the scene.

Thai authorities dismissed concerns that they had arrested scapegoats when 
questioned by reporters.

"Please be reassured that police have worked to their best ability so it's not 
possible that they have arrested scapegoats," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit 
Wongsuwon said Friday.

(source: Agence France-Presse)