[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

July 7



NIGERIA:

When Will NIgeria Abolish the Death Penalty?


Ugo Aliogo writes that there is a clarion call on Nigeria by Amnesty 
International to abolish the death penalty.

Solomon Prosper was 25 years old, he was arrested for an alleged case of murder 
of his cousin, a crime he knew nothing about. He was tried in the court and 
sentenced to death. While in prison, he was subjected to gruesome torture and 
was also forced to sign several documents that he killed his cousin. Prosper 
was constantly traumatised as he thought of his imminent death; he was to die 
by hanging for a crime he was either the prime suspect or accomplice. His heart 
was drained of joy and happiness.

Prosper was in agony, a man with full of life and energy was now hunted by 
perpetual fear. He knew that the long cherished dream of becoming a 
professionally certified engineer and lifting his mother from poverty was 
gradually coming to an unfortunate end. He was put behind bars for 9 years. On 
May, 2014, the final day of his trial, an eye witness brought before the court 
a factual evidence of the case. Consequent upon the evidence brought the court, 
the death sentence was quashed and he was freed.

In 2005, Moses Akatugba, a 16 years old young man was arrested for arm robbery, 
an offence he knew nothing about. Recounting his experience to Amnesty 
International, Akatugba stated that the police officers beat him repeatedly 
with machetes and batons, tied him up from the ceiling for several hours, and 
then used pliers to pull out his toenails and fingernails.

He was then forced to sign 2 pre-written confessions. After eight years of 
being remanded in prison, on November 12, 2013, he was sentenced to death by 
hanging. On May 28, 2015, the day before his departure from office, the then 
Delta State Governor, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan, granted total pardon to Moses. He 
also commuted the death sentence of three people to prison terms.

Death penalty has been an issue for debate for several years amongst countries 
and concerned human rights organisations. While some countries have advanced 
that it should be abolished, others are of the view that it should be retained. 
The abolitionist countries argue that while the condemned prisoner is in jail, 
he goes through emotional torture on a daily basis as he awaits his death.

They also argue that taking an individual's life for a crime committed does not 
augur well on the grounds of morality. Therefore, the state should respect the 
sanity of life which is its statutory responsibility to the citizenry and 
provide enough security to curb the crime rate especially the most serious 
crimes. For the retentionists, their argument is that death penalty will help 
to reduce the crime rates, thereby restoring decency and order in the society. 
They also contend that death penalty is a stiffer measure of dealing with 
dangerous crimes and it will serve as a deterrent to others intending to commit 
similar offences.

Amnesty International Global Report

The 2015 Amnesty International (AI) global report stated that the total number 
of countries that were abolitionists for all crimes reached 102 as Congo, Fiji, 
Madagascar and Suriname repealed the death penalty during the year. The report 
further stated that the use of death penalty in 2015 revealed 2 divergent 
developments. First, 4 countries abolished the death penalty, reinforcing the 
long-term trend towards global abolition. While on the other hand, the 
executions recorded by AI during the year increased by more than 50 % compared 
to 2014 and constituted the highest total that AI has reported since 1989, 
excluding China.

In 1977, when AI started campaigning against the abolition of death penalty 
only 16 countries were interested but today, 102 have abolished death penalty 
for all crimes. This number is the majority of countries in the world, and this 
implies that there is a positive trend, as more countries are moving away from 
the use of the death penalty. In 2015, 1,634 people were executed in 25 
countries that is 54 % more than in 2014.

The report further stated that Nigeria did not carry out executions in 2015, 
adding that the last executions took in place in 2013. The AI report referred 
to information in the Nigeria Prison Service (NPS) which noted that 171 people 
were sentenced to death in 2015. This was a drop on the 659 death sentences 
recorded in 2014. The NPS report added that 26 pardons were granted, 41 death 
row prisoners were exonerated and 1,677 people were on death row, including 5 
foreign nationals. During the year of 121 death sentences were commuted.

The Advocate and Adviser of AI on Death Penalty, Oluwatosin Popoola, explained 
that death penalty has not been completely abolished, under international law, 
adding that the law allows death penalty only for the most serious crimes; the 
international covenant for civil and political rights provides that countries 
that have not yet abolished, "should only use the death penalty for the most 
serious crimes, under international human rights standards, most serious crimes 
are crimes that involve intentional killings."

He noted that though AI opposes the death penalty in all cases, regardless of 
the characteristics of the offender, the nature of the offence, or the method 
used by the state to carry out the execution, stressing that they believe the 
death penalty violates the right to life as contained in the United Nations 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Poopola said: "We have been involved in various actions on the abolishing of 
death penalty, for instance, we took a leading role in urging United Nations 
General Assembly, to pass its force resolution on the moratorium on execution 
in 2007 and since that time, there have been several resolutions passed by the 
UN General Assembly urging states that still use the death penalty to establish 
moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. Nigeria 
continues to use the death penalty, it is a retentionist country.

"In Nigeria, the death penalty is mandatory for several crimes, including armed 
robbery, and murder which means that the judges do not have the discretion on 
those cases whether to impose the death penalty or not. We have always been 
calling on the Nigeria government to establish a moratorium on executions, the 
last executions took place in 2013. However, nothing stops execution from 
resuming tomorrow because there is no official moratorium in place and we have 
also been urging Nigeria to use the death penalty for the most serious crimes 
under international law.

"We have also urged Nigeria government in recent times, not to extend the scope 
of the death, but in the last few months, a number of states have been 
extending the scope of the death penalty to cover kidnapping. Our argument has 
always been that kidnapping does not meet the threshold of most serious crimes 
under international law and standards because it does not involve intentional 
killing. The law needs to be reformed to provide for the abolition of death 
penalty. It requires leadership on the part of the government to move for 
current laws that proposes the amendment of the death penalty, so that it is 
not only restricted but abolished for all crimes in Nigeria.

"Going forward, Amnesty International will continue to campaign for the 
abolition of the death penalty in Nigeria. In West Africa, five countries have 
abolished death penalty for all crimes, in sub-Saharan Africa, 18 countries 
have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, the latest being Madagascar 
and the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2015. Therefore the trend has been 
positive in sub- Sahara Africa, the region remains a beacon of hope, Nigeria 
should take leadership position by joining the ranks of other Africa countries 
that have abolished the death penalty for all crimes."

Death Penalty and the Nigeria Legal system

A lawyer and lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Dr. Simeon 
Igbinedion, stressed that the Nigeria legal system permits death penalty for a 
few serious offences such as treason, murder and drug trafficking, noting that 
these are few cases that the law allocates death penalty as a capital 
punishment, "the sovereignty of countries will determine what they will do as 
independent nations."

He further stated that in the United States of America, some states that are 
abolitionists, while others are retentionists, adding that executions are 
carried out through lethal injection, which in their understanding is a 
civilised way of eliminating the individual in a gentle manner.

Igbinedion noted that: "There are insinuations from the international community 
that the legal systems of most countries should be properly reformed. They 
(International Community) view crime as environmentally oriented, which implies 
that when people commit crime, it is not because they want to commit the crime 
rather it is due to environmental influence, therefore they should be 
rehabilitated back to the society instead of been punished. When we consider it 
from the point of view of the developing countries, you will notice that there 
is a variation in terms of behavioural patterns between the developed and 
developing countries.

"For instance in Japan, when someone commits an offence, he or she will 
naturally owe up to committing such a crime, not because of any compulsion, but 
because of the conscience in him. He will realise that he is guilty so that the 
process can just be short-circuited. But in developing countries such as 
Nigeria, people will not owe up to the crime that they have committed. This 
takes the court through a lot of long processes, and several adjournments. When 
it comes to committing crimes in this part of the world, people have the 
tendency to commit greater crimes which show the extent of wickedness and evil 
intentions in them."

On his part, the National President Committee for the Defence of Human Right 
(CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu, stated that there are no constitutional provisions 
for death penalty instead, there are statutory provisions which are other 
legislations that are independent of the constitution and which introduce 
capital punishment as a form of punitive sentences on convicted persons, "this 
can be found both in the criminal and penal code, which has now been harmonised 
under the administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Criminal code operates 
in the South, while the penal code operates in the North. Both bodies of 
legislations have now been harmonised."

"Those are the laws in which criminal justice are codified to attracting 
violence for extreme criminal activities such as murder, outright murder, 
treason, and other criminal activities, while what you see cannot find in the 
constitution anything pertaining to capital punishment, but it can be found in 
other laws.

"However, if you want to draw an extraneous reference to the constitution, then 
you talk about the sessions of the constitution that prohibits torture, which 
is a fundamental right and no person shall be subjected to any form of torture 
or in human treatment," he noted.

Abolishing Death Penalty in Nigeria

Igbinedion called on the government not to abolish the death penalty law in 
Nigeria now, stressing that this would give a particular group of people the 
impetus to commit certain crimes in order to dare the law and the state, 
therefore abolishing it would not favour the state.

He added: "I would advocate for the use of state policing as a measure to 
provide security in order to curb crimes which in turn would reduce cases of 
death penalty, though there are several ill feelings to it. Some see it as 
undermining the power of the federal government. In state policing, the people 
are more at home with the local environment.

"There should be re-orientation of people because the way people relate with 
their environment matters a lot, if there is a re-orientation people will be 
more humane and kind to their neighbours and this would reduce crime."

Ugwummadu, remarked that CDHR has been on the forefront of campaigns in the 
country to abolish death penalty, adding that it has been a long fight with a 
highly polarised argument, "there are those who argue that you need to also 
watch the incidents of such crimes in the society in order to deal with such 
type of crime before you take a position.

"But the argument is that whether it is in developed or developing countries, 
the issues are simple, first you cannot commit the same offence or if you 
remain at the same level with a person who you are alleging to have taken life. 
If a man commits murder as it were to what extent will the state justify that 
the only thing it can think of by way of reprisal is that particular offence 
the individual committed would be the response of the state. Secondly, you 
cannot create a life, therefore you cannot be justified to take it despite how 
gravity of the offence because until you are a victim you may not understand 
how bad the situation is.

"Grievous as they are, the argument is that the state must deal with the social 
economic conditions that lead to those manners of atrocities in the first 
place. More importantly, it is to consider the statistics out there which 
clearly shows that capital punishment do not reduce the incidence of the 
commission of that particular crime, so if the argument is that it serves as 
the stiffest deterrent that claim is completely eroded by what empirical 
statistics are showing, even in the US where capital punishment is been 
practiced, it is hardly ever shown by empirical evidence that the incidence of 
crime has reduced in those particular states.

"In country where it is being practiced such as Nigeria, you can hardly see any 
of the governors appending their signatures to death penalty. I think in this 
present dispensation, it is only the Edo State Governor, Adams Oshimole that 
did it, so what then is the purpose of it. As long you keep the convict on the 
death role, (some of them are there for a long period of time) each day of 
their life they will be thinking of their death.

"This is extreme maximum torture inflicted on a human being. The constitution 
clearly abhors that, the fact that he is a convict does not mean his rights 
have been taken away from him, what it means is that he is guilty of the 
offence he has committed. Therefore if you must kill him by hanging, or decide 
to shot him, you are denying the individual of his rights."

(source: This Day)






LIBYA:

Gaddafi's son Saif, Libya's former heir apparent, released - lawyer


The son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam, has reportedly 
been released from prison, more than 4 years after he was caught trying to flee 
the country by a rebel militia, despite being sentenced to death last year.

"He is well and safe and in Libya," his lawyer Karim Khan told France 24, 
revealing that his client had been set free back on April 12, though the news 
had not been made public until now.

Khan suggested that Gaddafi did not face any future charges, and was let go "in 
accordance with Libyan law."

Gaddafi had been held by an autonomous militia in the inland city of Zintan, 
following his capture in November 2011, on the way to Niger in the wake of his 
father's summary execution.

In 2015 a court in Tripoli, under control of Libya Dawn, a rival faction to the 
one holding him, sentenced him to death for ordering troops to fire at civilian 
targets, recruiting militia units, and inciting rape and murder during the 
Libyan civil war.

The trial was widely condemned by international organizations for slapdash 
judicial standards, and using confessions obtained under torture. Gaddafi was 
never handed over by the Zintan militia.

The 44-year-old Gaddafi is still wanted by the International Criminal Court in 
The Hague for a host of crimes against humanity, and war crimes associated with 
his father's regime.

But Khan said that a repeat trial would constitute double jeopardy.

"It is prohibited to try an individual twice for the same offense," he 
insisted.

The urbane, London School of Economics-educated Gaddafi was often considered 
the 2nd-in-command in Tripoli in the latter part of his father's rule, and was 
touted to become his successor, before the war broke out.

(source: rt.com)






GREAT BRITAIN:

The Death Row Phenomenon: Facing Torture Or Inhuman Treatment


Today is the anniversary of a landmark human rights case. 27 years ago, the 
European Court of Human Rights said that extraditing someone to a country where 
they would face a real risk of being exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment violates human rights.

What happened?

Jens Soering (a German national, 18) and his girlfriend Elizabeth Haysom (a 
Canadian, 20) were students at the University of Virginia in the 1980s. They 
fled the United States after Haysom's parents were found dead, each with 
multiple stab and slash wounds to the neck, throat and body.

Soering and Haysom were eventually arrested in London. Soering admitted killing 
Haysom's parents after an argument about his relationship with their daughter. 
He claimed that his actions were at least partially a result of suffering from 
a mental abnormality. This was supported by psychiatric evidence.

The United States requested that the UK extradite the couple to face trial in 
Virginia. Haysom was extradited and pleaded guilty as an accessory to murder. 
She was sentenced to 90 years' imprisonment. There was a risk, however, that if 
Soering were extradited to the US, he would be sentenced to death. In America, 
people sentenced to die are often held for many years 'on death row' (that is, 
in a prison block for people given the death penalty).

Why did it matter that the death penalty was an option?

The death penalty has been abolished in Britain but was a possible sentence for 
murder in Virginia. Executions were carried out by electrocution, through the 
use of an 'electric chair'. English courts cannot (except in certain 
exceptional circumstances) judge the acts of foreigners abroad, so Soering 
could not be tried for murder in the UK, but could, under the UK-US Extradition 
Treaty, be extradited to the US where the death penalty was an option.

The UK Government sought an assurance, in accordance with the terms of the 
Extradition Treaty, that Soering would not be put to death or that the US 
Government would recommend to the appropriate authorities not to impose or 
carry out the death sentence. The UK did receive a form of undertaking that 
representations would be made to the US judge, but this undertaking did not 
come from the Governor of Virginia. The UK court said that this 'assurance' 
left "something to be desired".

Soering said that, if he were extradited to the US and placed on death row, he 
would likely suffer from extreme physical violence or sexual abuse. He argued 
that, if he were extradited, this suffering on death row would violate his 
right to be free from torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.

What did the European Court of Human Rights say?

Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is 
protected under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are 
no exceptions - not for criminals, nor even in times of war - to the 
prohibition on torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This 
reflects "one of the fundamental values of democratic societies".

Extraditing someone to a country which still uses the death penalty does not, 
in itself, constitute a breach of human rights. But the Court said that there 
were certain conditions on death row in Virginia which meant that Soering was 
likely to suffer inhumane treatment as a result of the 'death row phenomenon'.

The Court noted the very long period of time likely to be spent on death row, 
under extreme conditions, with the mounting anguish of awaiting execution. It 
also took into account Soering's age at the time of the crime (18 years old) 
and his mental state. The Court concluded that Soering's extradition to the US 
would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold of 
protection under Article 3.

What became of Soering?

Eventually, the state of Virginia agreed not to pursue the death penalty and 
Soering was extradited there. His trial attracted national and international 
media attention. In the end, Soering was convicted of murder and sentenced to 2 
consecutive life terms. Soering has recently started fighting (so far without 
success) to be repatriated to Germany. A documentary about Soering and Haysom's 
story - called The Promise - is due to be released in Autumn 2016.

Meanwhile, the case has had a very significant effect. The principle that a 
person cannot be removed to a country where they face a real risk of torture or 
inhuman and degrading treatment has featured in many cases since. It is a 
controversial idea, but it has probably saved many lives too.

(source: rightsinfo.org)






AUSTRALIA:

Australia must help fight the death penalty in Asia----Australia needs a 
consistent and pragmatic national strategy that outlines its policy approaches 
to consistently addressing the death penalty challenge, writes John Coyne from 
the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.


Last week, 73-year-old Vietnam-born Australian Nguyen Thi Huong was sentenced 
for trying to smuggle 2.8 kilograms of heroin to Sydney.

Despite the fact that more countries than ever are abolishing the death 
penalty, the number of people being executed each year globally continues to 
grow. For 2 Australians, Nguyen and Pham Trung Dung, this isn't a statistic, 
it's the reality of their lives, or rather death: both are likely to be 
executed in Vietnam by way of lethal injection.

Having seen 2 executions via firing squad, one can only hope that Vietnam???s 
newly developed lethal injection method provides a much more humane death than 
that experienced at the hand of the firing squad - and far less terrifying 
during the last fleeting moments of Pham and Nguyen's lives.

In July 2014, Pham was sentenced to death by a Ho Chi Minh City court for 
attempting to smuggle four kilograms of heroin to Australia.

Let's be frank, both Pham and Nguyen would have known that their efforts to 
smuggle heroin to Australia involved committing crimes in both Australia and 
Vietnam. They had to have known that their actions in Vietnam could, and most 
likely would, attract the death penalty if they were caught.

Arguably, a combination of greed and arrogance can often undermine logic in 
decision-making - whether you're young or old.

But the conscious nature of Pham and Nguyen's decisions shouldn't impact on 
Australia's support for its citizens, nor its campaign against the death 
penalty.

While Australia stands against capital punishment, our recent potted history of 
political responses - before and after an execution - at best reveals 
inconsistency, and at worst xenophobia.

When it came to the 2008 execution of the 3 Bali Bombers - Imam Samudra, 38, 
Amrozi, 47, and Mukhlas, 48 - Australia sat silently. According to Kevin Rudd 
at the time, "in the case of foreign terrorists we are not in the business of 
intervening on any of their behalfs".

After the executions the Rudd government announced a campaign against the death 
penalty, but Australia's tacit support for the Bali Bombers' executions 
displayed our political hypocrisy for all to see.

When it came to the Bali 9 ringleaders, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the 
story was a little different. Various diplomatic and personal efforts were made 
to prevent the April 2015 execution - to no avail.

In the aftermath of these executions few appeared willing to consider that our 
selective protests to the death penalty could be interpreted as xenophobic 
attacks on Indonesian sovereignty. Arguably, we left Indonesian leaders with no 
means to prevent the executions and save face.

We shouldn't be too quick to criticise any Indonesian for adopting this 
perspective. The sentencing of Vietnamese-born Australians Pham and Nguyen to 
death in Vietnam hasn't attracted much media coverage or public interest. And 
unfortunately that supports accusations that our objections to the death 
penalty are selective.

Many of Australia's Asian neighbors apply the death penalty broadly - for 
drugs, terrorism, murder, rape, child exploitation, foreign bribery and 
corruption - so this problem is not going to go away.

Australia needs a consistent and pragmatic national strategy that outlines its 
policy approaches to consistently addressing the death penalty challenge.

Firstly, this document needs to make a clear statement on Australia's long-term 
commitment to the abolition of the death penalty, while also recognising the 
sovereignty of nation states.

The strategy also needs to provide a clear policy stance on diplomatic 
responses to cases where Australian's have been sentenced to death. Our 
diplomats need a clear engagement framework on the death penalty to ensure 
consistency of effort.

Finally, the strategy needs to outline how Australia's law enforcement agencies 
will continue to collaborate with international partners who apply the death 
penalty. Australia's success in combating serious and organised crime in Asia 
can be directly attributed to international police engagement: information 
sharing, capacity development and joint investigations.

While we wait for such a strategy, Australia's consular service staff in 
missions such as Ho Chi Minh City will continue to visit and assist our 
citizens facing the death penalty - as they should. In cells in countries such 
as Vietnam, Australian citizens are likely reflecting why their lives seem to 
have less value than those of the Bali 9.

(source: Dr John Coyne is Head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's 
Border Security Program. Prior to joining ASPI John was head of the Australian 
Federal Police's Strategic Intelligence Services----crikey.com.au)


PHILIPPINES:

Death Penalty for treason: Law proposed


Death Penalty through lethal injection is being proposed for those who will 
commit treason. A Filipino who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to 
her enemies shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, and shall pay a 
fine of up to P100,000, Senator Panfilo Lacson proposes in a bill.

"Hence, to reinstate public order and the rule of law, there is an impending 
need to revisit and re-impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes which 
as ratiocinated by R.A. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, 'is appropriately 
necessary due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not 
only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also 
affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and 
prosperity while at the same time has undermined the people's faith in the 
Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in the 
country,'" Lacson said.

In Lacson's proposed law, Qualified piracy, Qualified Bribery, Parricide, 
Murder, Infanticide, Rape (with some circumstances), Kidnapping and serious 
illegal detention (with some circumstances), Robbery with violence against or 
intimidation of persons, Destructive Arson, Plunder, Terrorism, Drug-related 
cases, Carnapping, Trafficking in persons, Illegal recruitmen (with some 
circumstances) are also punishable by death penalty.

Lacson assured he will listen to arguments for and against the death penalty 
bill during public hearings in the Senate.

If enacted, the death sentence shall be carried out not later than one year 
after the judgment has become final and executory, but is without prejudice to 
the exercise by the President of the executive clemency powers at all times.

(source: update.ph)

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

Death penalty bill gets House priority


Incoming Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez has said that the proposal to restore death 
penalty in the country will be a priority of the 17th Congress.

Alvarez has filed his House Bill No. 1 which seeks to re-impose death penalty 
on "heinous crimes", such as human trafficking, illegal recruitment, plunder, 
treason, parricide, infanticide, rape, qualified piracy and bribery, kidnapping 
and illegal detention, robbery with violence against or intimidation of 
persons, car theft, destructive arson, terrorism and drug-related cases.

"There is evidently a need to reinvigorate the war against criminality by 
reviving a proven deterrent coupled by its consistent, persistent and 
determined implementation, and this need is as compelling and critical as any," 
Alvarez said in his HB No. 1.

"The imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes and the mode of its 
implementation, both subjects of repealed laws, are crucial components of an 
effective dispensation of both reformative and retributive justice," the bill 
stated.

Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Law was abolished in 1986 during the 
term of Former President Corazon Aquino. It was restored by former President 
Fidel V. Ramos in 1993, and was suspended again in 2006 by then president and 
Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

President Rodrigo Duterte has said he would want the capital punishment by 
hanging reimposed. Duterte also vowed to carry out at least 50 executions a 
month to serve as a strong deterrent against criminality.

Alvarez lamented that the rise of criminality in the country has reached at an 
"alarming proportion??? and so the government must do an "all-out offensive 
against all forms of felonious acts."

Alvarez's bill was co-authored by Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro which proposes 
death penalty by lethal injection.

"Our criminal justice system has been emasculated in no small measure by the 
non-deterrent nature of impossible penalties on the most depraved violations of 
human life, honor and dignity," Alvarez pointed out.

"The basic tenets of equity and justice demand that our penal system be one not 
only of reformation but corresponding retribution," Castro, for his part, said.

Earlier, Muntinlupa Rep. Rufino Biazon filed a similar measure even as he 
expressed concern over the illegal drugs problem as well as the rising 
criminality in the country.

"Our own experience has shown that incarceration does not deter one who is 
convicted of drug trafficking from committing the same crime. There have been 
instances where the convicted trafficker continues to deal in the illegal drug 
trade even behind bars," he added.

Biazon stressed that it is provided in the 1987 Constitution on death penalty 
"under certain circumstances and based on the current wisdom of the times."

"This is to put back into the consciousness of those involved in the illegal 
drugs trade that the ultimate punishment of death awaits them should they 
continue with their nefarious acts," Biazon said.

(source: The Standard)



BARBADOS:

Better leave death penalty hanging


THE VERDICTS ARE IN and 2 men were recently sentenced to death by hanging. 
Carlton Junior Hall and Jamar Dewayne Bynoe were both found guilty of murder in 
separate cases. In either case, the jury rejected their defence. The judges 
pronounced the capital sentence.

There were instant shouts of praise, particularly from relatives in Bynoe's 
case which had attracted national attention given that there were 6 victims in 
the Campus Trendz tragedy.

Some people suggest that the decision would bring closure for relatives of the 
victims. Yet, for those who seek retribution or vengeance, they may be 
disappointed. The judges' last sombre words did not bring the story to an end.

To the dismay of some, it is very unlikely either Hall or Bynoe will ever swing 
from the gallows. Capital punishment is more theory in Barbados than practice. 
It is not just about the decisions of the Privy Council and its landmark case 
of Pratt & Morgan, but a series of other circumstances.

There are hemispheric and international conventions that have virtually 
outlawed the death penalty, seeing it as cruel and repugnant. Barbados 
subscribes to most of those conventions and cannot breach them. But, even 
beyond these conventions, implementing the death penalty will always be a 
lengthy and unsure actuality. The appeals process can also be costly to the 
state.

Relatives of victims and proponents of the death penalty will argue that this 
form of justice is neither cruel nor unusual. They can easily pinpoint the 
savage circumstances inflicted on the deceased and can also argue that this 
form of punishment had been used over many years, even if with clear biases, 
especially against the poor.

The debate over capital punishment is an emotional and longstanding one, and 
there is unlikely to be any immediate end, especially following any upsurge in 
serious violent crimes. That is why we need to face reality based on the 
internationally available statistics which highlight that capital punishment is 
not any greater a deterrent to crime than any other forms of punishment. Life 
without parole may indeed be more excruciating.

We cannot ignore that only 25 nations worldwide carried out executions last 
year, with Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia accounting for almost 90 per cent of 
known executions. China does not give figures.

The global shift on the death penalty is significant. When the United Nations 
was established in 1945, only 8 countries had abolished the death penalty for 
all crimes; in 1996, the figure stood at 39. Today, that number has risen to 
102, with more planning to follow suit.

Regrettably, the debate about the death penalty often comes down to either 
those seeking reprisal or soft-hearted liberals. So while there may be good 
reasons to retain the death penalty, there are equally compelling ones to 
abolish it.

(source: Editorial, Nation News)






MALAWI:

Malawi clergy, politician & lawyer call for death penalty to albino killers


Malawian pastor, politician and law practitioner have join hands with the 
Mulanje South law maker Bon Kalindo to pressurize government to introduce death 
penalty to albino killers and abductors claiming that it is the only solution 
to curb the malpractice.Recently, Kalindo staged a half naked protest in 
Lilongwe against the abductions and killings of people with albinism while 
asking Malawian leaders to apply death penalty to the perpetrators.

According to Pastor Watson Shaba, politician Ken Msonda and one of the renowned 
legal practitioner Ambukire Salimu, the development will send strong message to 
the perpetrators.

"Even in the Holy book of the Bible especially in Romans chapter 13, advise 
Christians to respect the laws. Therefore I don't see any problem if the death 
penalty applied to the albino abductors and killers," said Shaba.

In his remarks, Msonda who is also People's Party Publicity Secretary said "As 
a politician as well as a born again person I become annoyed with the lawyers 
or human rights defenders who always defend criminals."

"Why should someone defend criminals in the name of human rights? What kind of 
rights do murderers have apart from them losing their life too," argued Msonda.

According to Msonda and Shaba "anyone take somebody's life should also die and 
that this should apply to any perpetrator."

However, Salimu said this should be based upon the clear evidence to avoid 
exoneration.

"I would love if one of our leaders signed the execution of albino killers and 
abduction. I believe he or she will be remembered because this will send strong 
message to the doers," said Salimu.

He said the main challenge the Malawi Police Service had is the forensic lab 
for examining the bones if they are indeed of albinos.

Salimu disclosed that "I am involved in Makhumula inquest but we are struggling 
to take the sample to Pretoria because of financial problems."

Despite 18 albinos losing their lives due to the development, government has 
been mum on the issue of executing perpetrators.

(source: maravipost.com)