[Deathpenalty] death penalty news---worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

May 11



AUSTRALIA:

Abolishing the death penalty was less popular than Australians care to remember



After the Friday and Saturday funerals for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, 
it's timely to remember that principled opposition to capital punishment is 
only a relatively recent affair in Australia. By no means is it firmly embedded 
as an aspect of the 'Down Under Enlightenment'.

In January we had a Morgan poll that showed that 52% of respondents answered 
"yes" to the question: "In your opinion if an Australian is convicted of drug 
trafficking in another country and sentenced to death should the penalty be 
carried out?"

We have forgotten that abolishing executions required a struggle

A 2009 poll with a similar question delivered almost the same result: 51% said 
"yes".

In this year's SMS poll of 2,123 people, a larger majority, 62%, said that the 
government should not do more to stop the executions of Chan and Sukumaran.

It came as a shock, especially as the Indonesian authorities picked up the 
findings and declared that they were acting in accord with the wishes of most 
Australians.

These responses depend significantly on the nature of the questions asked - 1 
line "yes" or "no" polls with an unnuanced question are not regarded as a 
statistically reliable measure of public opinion.

For instance, Australians have been asked in successive polls between 1986 and 
2006, "would you be in favour of capital punishment for cases of murder?"

According to David Indermaur of the crime research centre at the University of 
WA, the "yes" answer peaked in 1993 and since then progressively declined. That 
downward trend was also found in other English speaking contraries, even in the 
US - although the level of support there is still high.

In Australia, support for the death penalty for murder fell below 50% for the 
1st time in 2003. However, different questions provoke quite different 
responses. Research in the US found that if sentences, such as life 
imprisonment, were posed as an alternative to capital punishment, support for 
the death penalty dropped by 1/2.

You might get closer to measuring an informed response if a question along the 
lines suggested by Indermaur is posed:

Consider yourself to be a judge in a case involving murder. You must decide 
whether the death penalty should be applied to the accused knowing that it is 
not necessary to achieve any deterrent effect, and that the alternative 
sentence of life in prison without parole is available. What is your decision?

Sydney's Daily Telegraph thought it was on a winner shortly after the January 
Morgan poll when it ran a front page headline in relation to Chan and 
Sukumaran, which aimed at the heart of the paper's demographic: "No Sympathy - 
Their drug operation would have destroyed thousands of lives - now they'll pay 
with theirs."

However, by the time of the execution of the 2 Australians by Indonesian firing 
squad, there was no tabloid gloating that they paid the right price.

In fact, The Australian's media editor Sharri Markson tweeted that the Herald 
Sun and the Tele brought "the tragic news to readers in 6 and 7am editions 
today".

Much the same thing happened in 2005, when Australian Nguyen Tuong Van was 
hanged in Singapore. He had been caught at Changi airport with 396 grams of 
heroin, on his way to Australia. According to Indermaur, his execution "sparked 
a new urgency to the debate about the morality of the death penalty".

The Howard government was criticised for not having taken the case to the 
International Court of Justice, but as with Indonesia there was concern in 
Canberra that the official protests should not affect the economic 
relationship. Trade trumps human rights.

Nguyen's execution took place 38 years after the hanging at Pentridge Gaol in 
Victoria of Ronald Ryan, who had shot and killed a prison warder while 
escaping. He was the last person in Australia to be judicially murdered.

This was an extraordinary affair and reflected the divisions in Australian 
politics and society. The government's decision not to commute the sentence of 
death on Ryan was popular generally, particularly among rural communities and 
workers. It was the "elites" who were united in opposition.

The Victorian media was overwhelmingly against the execution, as were church 
leaders, the legal profession and academics. 3,000 people gathered in a vigil 
outside the gaol on the day of Ryan's hanging. Most of the political class 
mutely supported Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, who was championing Ryan's 
execution.

Bolte saw the protests as a challenge to his authority. "The more the press 
campaigned, the more the issue was raised as to whom was running the show," he 
said. Was it to be the newspapers, the "parsons ... the bullfrogs at the 
university ... the wharfies", or the government?

Sir Frank Packer, proprietor of Sydney's Daily Telegraph and The Bulletin, was 
in Bolte's corner and editorialised in support of Ryan's execution. An issue of 
The Bulletin was pulped because it carried an anti-hanging cartoon by Les 
Tanner.

Bolte must have kept Machiavelli's advice firmly in mind: "A prince therefore, 
must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his 
subjects united and faithful."

The political response to Australians being executed is markedly different 
today that was the case in 1967 and is even stronger now than it was in 2005 
when Nguyen Tuong Van was hanged in Singapore.

Overwhelmingly politicians expressed their opposition to the execution of Chan 
and Sukumaran. That's not to say they reflect an overwhelmingly popular view.

Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce told the ABC's Lateline that many 
Australians support capital punishment and there needs to be a "discussion" 
about it.

An earlier study by Jonathan Kelley and John Braithwaite at the research school 
of social sciences at the ANU found that "elites" led the charge on the 
abolition of the death penalty. Most states abolished capital publishment 
between 1955 and 1973, and the Commonwealth in 1976. WA clung on until the 
mid-1980s.

Judges used to say that the public's respect for the judiciary fell away after 
the death penalty was removed from the statute books.

Abolition did not come from popular public opinion, in fact it was in spite of 
what most of the public thought. The undercurrents remain strong, particularly 
for terrorist attacks on home soil. If politicians make an exception, and 
impose capital punishment for terrorist offences, they'll probably be cheered 
on with blood-curdling noises from the "non-elites".

American writer Norman Mailer said the only way to get rid of capital 
punishment in his country was to put executions on television, so everyone 
could see what goes on. Only then would the public rise up in protest.

(source: The Guardian)








INDONESIA:

State killings: 'Death is theirs, honor is ours'



Man, death and honor are interrelated in certain ways. Those whose lives end 
are solemnly buried, commemorated and remembered. To honor the dead, we are 
preoccupied with their memorable past and live with a common memory.

For them we pray they will rest in peace: RIP, requiescat in pace. Everything 
will have to be done for their sake and we accept this.

For God, as they say, made destiny.

Years ago a Dutch anthropologist, based on his ethnographic descriptions of 
historic and complex funeral rituals, argued that what happens is precisely the 
opposite.

It's all about those left by the dead since the ritual actually reflects who 
among the living are to deserve the honor in the first place. Rhetorically, 
it's a tribute for the dead; actually, it's a message of classifying honor from 
among and between the living.

That's what happened when society's 1st-class members - the state dignitaries 
and the aristocracy - were involved in funerals. All this has, to this day, 
basically structured events upon the death of any citizen.

However, when it comes to deaths caused by the state's actions - be they legal, 
extra-legal or summary executions and massacres - that system of symbolic honor 
and messages is intentionally, abruptly and radically disrupted.

State killing is now re-packaged as a political issue and justified despite 
God's destiny, with which the believers themselves abruptly intervene.

Here is the case par excellence about honor among those left by the dead, but 
that has to be claimed, which the modern state usually did forcefully and 
almost absolutely.

Indeed, in the case of the 8 drug-dealing convicts executed on April 29, no one 
would expect the state to honor the dead - no matter what crimes they were 
formally indicted with.

Quite the contrary: the South Sumatra governor banned the burial of 1 convict, 
Zainal Abidin, in his hometown of Palembang and there is no clarity on the 
state of the mental health of the schizophrenic Brazilian convict Rodrigo 
Gularte during the court proceedings.

Not surprisingly, hopes of a change of heart by state dignitaries, given the 
good behavior of some convicts, were ignored.

Instead, and quite consistently, the state dignitaries, supported by the 
greater public, took the honor for themselves as they justified the killings 
with the absolute claim of guarding state sovereignty "to save the future of 
the nation".

Any opposition to that claim would touch the nerves and the sensitivity of the 
state and the general public - even more so when it's loudly pronounced by 
foreign states. It's not just because of high nationalistic fervor. The state, 
i.e. the weakened President, badly needs the claim to reassert credibility to 
enforce the law; yet he might welcome critics as he can use them to strengthen 
his position to show he is not a puppet.

There seems to be little space, unfortunately, for sensible arguments timely 
put forward by experts at home and abroad that pointed to the state's own 
Constitution (which acknowledges "the right to live"), to the state's policy 
inconsistencies (on drug-related policy and in relation to death penalties for 
Indonesians abroad) and to the fallacy of the use of the statistical method 
(which absurdly concludes "40 to 50 deaths a day", as the President quoted, 
because of drug abuse).

Thus, however much we cherish the rule of law, the question arises as to how 
the state could claim the honor of respecting and strengthening state 
sovereignty over law when much of its apparatuses are corrupt.

Worse still, it has been a public secret that the illegal drug trade, thanks to 
corrupt public servants, continues from inside the prisons.

Moreover, in the case of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, when the 
foreign press just days before the executions reported that the judges had 
attempted to extort bribes from the accused, President Jokowi responded by 
asking, "Why didn't they say it earlier?" Did the President implicitly 
acknowledge those mistakes? If so, why didn't he try to postpone the executions 
and review the cases - as what happened with Veloso? If it's true that there 
were serious deficiencies that are ultimately fatal, why didn't the state issue 
a mea culpa instead of proudly defending its honor and sovereignty?

None of the above, needless to say, is to deny that drug abuse could 
potentially be the nation's 1st enemy. Nonetheless, to have capital punishment 
at all and to apply it in deficient way is a serious matter that needs to be 
addressed.

If the death penalty and the way it is implemented may put the state in an 
awkward position, even more so, potentially, do the past state killings.

The announcement that President Jokowi's administration plans to resolve seven 
cases of human rights violations should be welcomed. However, 1 case of state 
killing - that of the rights activist Munir - is missing from the list without 
explanation.

Of the 7 cases of state killings and atrocities, the 1965 human catastrophe is 
the most serious.

Here, too, the state had throughout Soeharto's period claimed the credit and 
honor, however bloodily achieved, for having "saved the nation". Its political 
and mental legacy has since remained strong among the establishment - although 
not without serious queries.

State-sponsored massacres thus convey a similar message to the state's legal 
killings and historic funeral rituals. They all celebrate their credo: death is 
theirs, life is ours, and so is honor.

To many it's time to rethink state discourse and practices.

(source: Opinion; Aboeprijadi Santoso, Amsterdam----The writer is a 
journalist----The Jakarta Post)








PAPUA NEW GUINEA:

PNG says death penalty 'under review' after Indonesia fallout



Prime Minister Peter O'Neill said the death penalty is "under review" in Papua 
New Guinea after recent global outcry over the execution of foreign drug 
convicts in neighbouring Indonesia.

The Pacific island nation revived capital punishment 2 years ago to reduce 
rampant crime, prompted in part by the burning alive of a 20-year-old woman by 
a crowd for sorcery.

While the law allows for execution by lethal injection, hanging and firing 
squad, no death row convicts have been killed since then due to a lack of 
infrastructure.

"As I have indicated publicly, that (death penalty) is under review," O'Neill 
told reporters in comments published by the Post-Courier on Monday, after being 
asked whether PNG would think again following the Indonesian fallout.

"Our agencies of government are reviewing all aspects of the death penalty in 
our country and we will debate this issue on the floor of parliament when 
parliament resumes."

O'Neill's comments came on the eve of a 2-day visit by Indonesian President 
Joko Widodo, under whose brief leadership 14 drug convicts have been executed, 
12 of them foreigners.

Jakarta put to death 2 Australians, a Brazilian, and 4 Nigerians on a prison 
island, along with 1 Indonesian, last month despite worldwide calls for them to 
be spared and heartrending pleas from their families.

Widodo was unmoved, arguing that Indonesia is facing an emergency due to rising 
narcotics use.

(source: english.astroawani.com)








SAUDI ARABIA:

Sheikh Nimr's Brother Warns Riyadh against Cleric's Execution



If the Saudi regime goes ahead with its decision to execute prominent Shiite 
cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, it would have terrible consequences for the 
oil-rich kingdom,the cleric's brother said.

"Any offensive move" against Sheikh Nimr would lead to short and long-term 
consequences for the Arab country, Mohamed al-Nimr said on Sunday.

He emphasized that the Saudi authorities are fully aware of the repercussions 
of the likely execution of his brother, who has been in detention for nearly 3 
years on political charges.

The remarks came after unnamed European diplomatic sources said Saudi Arabia 
intends to carry out the death sentence of Sheikh Nimr on May 14.

Human rights activists have urged the Al Saud regime to immediately revoke 
Sheikh Nimr's death sentence and release him.

Back in early March, a Saudi Arabian appeal court approved the death penalty of 
the prominent cleric.

Sheikh Nimr was detained in July 2012 following demonstrations that erupted in 
the country's Qatif region. He is accused of delivering anti-regime speeches 
and defending political prisoners.

His arrest sparked widespread protests in the Arab country.

In October 2014, Sheikh Nimr's family reported that a Saudi judge has found him 
guilty of "sedition" and sentenced him to death.

(source: Tasnim news agency)



IRAN----executions

5 Prisoners Hanged in Iran



5 prisoners were hanged in 2 different prisons in Iran Saturday morning May 9.

According to the official website of the Iranian Judiciary in Gilan Province 
(Northern Iran) a 27 year old man identified as "A. F." was hanged in the 
prison of Rasht (capital of the province) Saturday morning, The prisoner was 
convicted of murder, said the report. edam-isca

4 other prisoners were hanged in the Urmia prison (northwestern Iran) on 
Saturday May 9. According to unofficial reports these prisoners were convicted 
of murder. The prisoners are identified as Adel Bakhshalizadeh, Bahman 
Esmaeili, Ghader Hamidi and Ali Tajdari. These executions have not been 
announced by the official Iranian sources.

(source: Iran Human Rights)

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

Call For Iran To End Death Penalty



2 human rights experts have condemned the sharp increase in executions across 
Iran in recent weeks, urging the Government in Tehran to heed the 
Organization's appeal for an immediate halt on the use of the death penalty.

"When the Iranian government refuses to even acknowledge the full extent of 
executions which have occurred, it shows a callous disregard for both human 
dignity and international human rights law," said Ahmed Shaheed, the Special 
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.

According to a UN human rights report released last year, the new Islamic Penal 
Code that entered into force in 2013 now omits references to apostasy, 
witchcraft and heresy, but continues to allow for juvenile executions and 
retains the death penalty for activities that do not constitute most serious 
crimes in line with the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of 
those facing the death penalty such as adultery, repeated alcohol use, and drug 
possession and trafficking.

Iran has witnessed a surge in executions over the past 2 years.

At least 852 individuals were executed between July 2013 and June 2014 - the 
last reporting period for which data is available - representing an "alarming" 
increase in the number of executions in relation to the already-high rates of 
previous years, according to UN estimates.

In addition, more than 340 persons, including at least 6 political prisoners 
and 7 women, were reportedly executed since January 2015.

"We are alarmed by the recent surge in the number of executions, which has 
occurred despite serious questions about fair trial standards," added Christof 
Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.

"Many of the prisoners executed during this period were charged with 
drug-related offences, which do not involve intentional killing and hence do 
not meet the threshold of the 'most serious crimes'."

Both experts drew particular attention to continued reports of public 
executions, noting that 15 such executions were known to have already occurred 
in 2015. Public executions, they said, had "a dehumanising effect on both the 
victim and those who witness the execution" and ultimately reinforced the 
"already cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of the death penalty."

Mr Shaheed and Mr Heyns urged the Iranian Government to establish an immediate 
moratorium on the death penalty throughout Iran with a view to abolishing the 
practice altogether.

(source: Newsroom America)








INDIA:

Death penalty justified in crimes against women which shock, repulse community: 
SC



Noting that crime against women are on the rise and courts are too soft on the 
perpetrators, the Supreme Court held that in heinous crimes which both shock 
and repulse society, the extreme punishment of death is justified.

An unforgiving Supreme Court declared this while confirming the death penalty 
of 2 men who gang-raped and brutally murdered a 22-year-old BPO employee on 
November 1, 2007 night after she was picked by her company cab to the office.

The cab driver Purushottam Borate and his friend Pradeep Kokate drove her to a 
nearby jungle despite her protests, raped her and smashed her head, killing her 
instantly and then drove back to town after a hiatus of 2 hours to pick up the 
next employee to work.

The court said the duo exploited their "position of trust" to commit an 
"extreme act of depravity" and then acted in a "calculated and remorseless" 
manner after the commission of the offence.

"This depravity would attract no lesser sentence than the death penalty," a 
-judge bench led by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu held in a verdict on Friday.

Noting that the crime falls within the "rarest of rare", the court held that 
the collective conscience of the community is so shocked by this crime that 
imposing a lesser sentence, even life imprisonment, would fail justice.

The court noted how in recent years, the rising crime rate, particularly 
violent crimes against women has made the criminal sentencing by the courts a 
subject of concern.

"The sentencing policy adopted by the Courts, in such cases, ought to have a 
stricter yardstick so as to act as a deterrent. There are a shockingly large 
number of cases where the sentence of punishment awarded to the accused is not 
in proportion to the gravity and magnitude of the offence thereby encouraging 
the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the 
system's credibility," the Chief Justice observed.

Citing a precedent, Chief Justice Dattu held that "the extreme punishment of 
death would be justified and necessary in cases where the collective conscience 
of society is so shocked that it will expect the holders of judicial power to 
inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion".

(source: The Hindu)



PAKISTAN:

Mincing no words: Envoy says EU not in favour of Pakistan executions



It has been almost 1 1/2 years since Pakistani products were given duty-free 
access to European markets under the Generalised System of Preference, known as 
"GSP Plus' status. In return for the concession, Pakistan promised to implement 
27 international conventions related to human rights, good governance and 
labour and environmental standards.

The status was approved for 10 years but after every 2 years the 28-nation 
European bloc will assess whether Pakistan is fulfilling the conditions 
required to get duty-free access to European markets. The 1st assessment is a 
few months away but restoration of the death penalty and establishment of 
military courts may hamper Pakistan's efforts to continue enjoying this 
concession.

EU Ambassador in Islamabad Stefano Gatto cautioned on Sunday that lifting of 
the 6-year moratorium on capital punishment as well as establishment of 
military courts could be taken as negative steps, although both these issues 
may not be directly linked with the GSP-plus status.

"It is difficult to argue that the restoration of the death penalty or more 
executions is a step in the right direction in the EU," Gatto said in an 
exclusive interview with The Express Tribune. He was asked whether these issues 
could affect Pakistan's GSP-plus status.

"If you are a bit cynical and you look from outside, you would say that we gave 
GSP plus to Pakistan to improve human rights standards and what they did now 
they have military courts and they have the death penalty back," Gatto added.

Pakistan lifted the moratorium on the death penalty soon after the December 
massacre at the military-run school in Peshawar that killed over 140 people, 
mostly children.

In a series of new measures under the National Action Plan, parliament also 
approved a new legislation giving powers to the military to set up special 
courts to try hardcore terrorists.

But Ambassador Gatto said the EU had doubts over the military courts. "We want 
to see strengthening of civilian courts in the civilian system rather than 
giving the role to military courts as there are less chances of transparency," 
he emphasized. Asked about the EU assessment so far about Pakistan meeting the 
conditions for GSP plus status, the envoy said it was too early to draw any 
conclusion.

He said the EU was not expecting Pakistan to implement the 27 conventions 
overnight. "It can never be the case in Pakistan or elsewhere."

"We don't look at numbers, but we look at trends. We look at some positive 
steps because the idea behind is we favour you a market access to our markets 
as a stimulus to improve the human rights situation."

(source: Express Tribune)






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

Pakistan Newspaper Ad Says Relatives of Terrorists Can be Punished with Death 
Sentence



A controversial advertisement appeared in national Urdu newspapers in Pakistan 
last week, threatening relatives of 'missing terrorists' with punishment that 
could include death penalty if they failed to report their disappearance to 
authorities.

The advertisement published on Friday was in the form of a public notice, 
though no government department or agency was mentioned, according to Dawn.

The notice read: "In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and 
other laws related to terrorism, public at large are informed that if any 
member or members of their family including those non-relatives looked after by 
them are individually or being a member of an organisation involved, or there 
are apprehensions of their involvement, in any act of terrorism and are missing 
from their residences for that purpose, they should report it to the nearby 
police station or office of assistant political agent along with picture of the 
missing person or persons."

"In case of failure if any terrorist was arrested in connection with an act of 
terrorism, including suicide bombing, or is killed then legal action will be 
taken against his parents, brothers or the relative who had looked after him 
under provisions of the above mentioned laws in which that terrorist was found 
involved or killed including death penalty, life imprisonment and confiscation 
of movable and immovable properties."

The ad created a stir, especially among lawyers, who said that there are no 
provisions in Pakistan's law that can give death sentence to relatives of a 
terrorist.

Noor Alam Khan, advocate of the Supreme Court, told Dawn that the advertisement 
could incite family members to spy on their relatives, which goes against 
Islam.

Other lawyers pointed out that Pakistani laws allow only for punishment of up 
to six months in jail for intentionally withholding information of an offence 
committed.

The Pakistan government and army are cracking down heavily on terrorism in the 
country, especially after the Peshawar school massacre last December.

While the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the dominant terror groups in the country, 
the Islamic State is also reportedly gaining ground in the beleaguered nation.

Last month, Isis claimed responsibility for an attack on American medical 
worker Debra Lobo in Karachi.

(source: International Business Times)








HUNGARY:

Hungary can restore death penalty only if it leaves EU: Barroso



Hungary could bring in the death penalty but only if it leaves the EU, former 
European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has said in response to calls 
by Hungarian premier Viktor Orban for debate on its restoration.

"If a member state wants to bring it in, then it can do, but in this case it 
must leave the EU," Barroso, who headed the EU executive arm from 2004 to 2014, 
said in an interview broadcast Sunday by Hungarian television channel ATV.

"Restoring the death penalty is simply not possible in an EU member. The debate 
was closed a long time ago, all member states are clear about this," said 
Barroso, who belongs to the same centre-right European People's Party (EPP) as 
the Hungarian prime minister.

Orban has repeatedly clashed with Brussels over a number of policies that 
critics say endanger core EU values, and his remarks on the death penalty have 
earned him yet more criticism.

Last month, speaking after the brutal murder of a shop assistant during a 
robbery, Orban said the death penalty "should be kept on the agenda".

During a radio interview Friday he said EU member states should be able to 
decide on the issue on the national level.

"If we can protect (citizens) without bringing in the death penalty then so be 
it. But if that doesn`t work, then it should be brought back," Orban said.

Barroso's successor Jean-Claude Juncker said Orban could expect a "fight" if he 
wants to reintroduce the death penalty.

Hungary abolished capital punishment after the end of communism in 1990, 
fulfilling a key condition for membership of the European Union, which it 
joined in 2004, and whose treaties ban its use.

(source: Zee news)

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



Varga opposes death penalty



Hungary's Minister of National Economy Mihaly Varga is against the death 
penalty, the minister told Hungarian online daily origo.hu in an interview 
today.

In response to a query on whether Varga would be happy if death penalty was 
reintroduced in Hungary, the minister said that it "would be strange" to "be 
happy about the death of someone". "Life is a 1 time precious gift, which 
cannot be taken from someone, nor from ourselves. Therefore, I cannot agree 
with neither the death penalty, nor euthanasia," the minister said. Varga added 
that should a voting take place on the matter in the Hungarian Parliament, he 
would vote against it.

At the end of April, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban said, in reference 
to the murder that took place in a tobacco shop, that a life sentence is not 
deterrent enough, as such, the death penalty needs to be kept on the agenda. As 
the notion of the death penalty collides with EU regulations, the prime 
minister's comment triggered a Europe-wide backlash.

Following the PM's comments, Martin Schulz, the President of the European 
Parliament, initiated a phone conversation with Orban. No information has since 
been made public on whether the conversation between the 2 took place or not.

Hungary's Christian democrats KDNP, which is the coalition party of ruling 
Fidesz, rejected the introduction the death penalty as it is not in line with 
Christian principles, vice-president Bence Retvari said earlier.

(source: Budapest Business Journal)